Army putting itself, the Iraq War and the Bush Administration on trial

[dajoki]

The Nation
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060717/brechersmith

article | posted July 7, 2006 (web only)

Watada, the War and the Law
Jeremy Brecher & Brendan Smith

On July 5 the US Army brought charges against First Lieut. Ehren Watada, an infantry officer stationed at Fort Lewis, Washington, who has refused to deploy to Iraq with his unit because he believes the war there is illegal. Watada faces up to eight years in jail and a dishonorable discharge. But in trying the 28-year-old officer, the Army is really putting itself, the Iraq War and the Bush Administration on trial.

At the June 7 press conference announcing his decision, Watada argued that the Administration's invasion and occupation of Iraq was "manifestly illegal" because it "violates our democratic system of checks and balances. It usurps international treaties and conventions that by virtue of the Constitution become American law." Watada also said, "As the order to take part in an illegal act is ultimately unlawful as well, I must as an officer of honor and integrity refuse that order."

His refusal to deploy was an act of courage. It was also the product of profound reflection on taking personal responsibility for halting the US government's careening course toward authoritarianism and criminality--and of the legal justification for such acts of responsibility.

Watada's most crucial legal claims were corroborated June 29 by the US Supreme Court, in what Duke University law professor Walter Dellinger calls "the most important decision on presidential power ever."

In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Court rebuked the Bush Administration not only for the Guantánamo tribunals but also for the entire view of executive power the Administration used to justify them. In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court ruled that the President cannot act contrary to "limitations that Congress has, in proper exercise of its own war powers, placed on his powers." That's just what Watada said about Bush's policy two weeks before: "It violates the Constitution and the War Powers Act that limits the President in his role as Commander in Chief from using the armed forces in any way he sees fit."


The ruling also supports Watada's claim that the Administration is breaking international law. It found the President's conduct illegal because it violated international treaties--specifically, the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. This has ramifications far beyond Guantánamo: It means the government must obey the provisions of the Geneva Conventions--such as the ban on cruel and degrading treatment and the obligation of an occupying power to protect civilians. And it solidifies the incorporation of other treaties--notably, the UN Charter, with its ban on military aggression--into US law. (For a more extended discussion of the implications of the Hamdan decision for the Watada case, see our essay, Hamdan and Watada, on WarCrimesWatch.com.)http://www.warcrimeswatch.org/news_details.cfm?artid=1788&cat=5

[Joanne98]

1. BRING IT ON!!!!!!!!!

The US goverment will be the one loses this fight. It's the US policies that the world is revolted by.

[Floogeldy]

2. Watada is correct.

The invasion of Iraq violated the UN and Nuremberg charters and, therefore, Article VI of the Constitution, which makes treaties the Supreme law of our land.

[Kagemusha]

5. Who decides what the charter means?

If anyone says it means the US war is illegal, the US can veto it. That's why it HAS a veto in the first place.

[Floogeldy]

6. Veto what?

Veto a UN resolution that says "The U.S. shall not invade Iraq?" That never happened.

The Nuremberg Principles and the UN Charter are the rules. For the rules to change, the treaties must be amended with the approval of the signatories.

The rules say what they say, which is that one country cannot invade another unless it has been invaded or invasion is imminent.

[Kagemusha]

7. It's a rule the US can stop anyone from enforcing against it.

There will be no UN sanctions against the US for launching aggressive war. Sure, what the US did was wrong, from a pure view of the UN charter - but what's anyone going to do about it? Presidents aren't charged with murder when some foreigner dies from a targeted killing because it's in the course of his official duty. Presidents don't get brought up on war charges because the US can veto at the UN, and rejects the force of the ICC under pain of physical invasion of The Hague if anyone tries different.

Again, I think it's wrong. But I'm so tempted to say, let the rules' public defenders enforce them. Because this is the real world we live in. In the real world, it's only a crime if you're caught, charged, and convicted.

[Floogeldy]

8. Everything you say may be true.

But that does not change the fact that the American invasion of Iraq is illegal.

[Kagemusha]

9. I actually agree with you on that

The Hamdan decision sorta took me by surprise because I felt like one of the few people on earth who'd actually bothered to read the relevant Geneva Conventions, enough to figure out that they were being routinely violated in dismal ways... (edit: as another example of illegality however unpunished it may go thanks to the US military defending America from the terror of war crimes tribunals)

[Sherman A1]

3. This case will be very interesting

to watch unfold. I have great hopes for Lt. Watada and his legal team, it might be that in this case one man with courage becomes the majority that we need to unscrew this mess. If the war is declared illegal, that brings with it all sorts of unpleasant ramifications for our Dear Leader.

[Disturbed]

4. The most important trial in America!

I have been waiting for this trial for many years.