Nice article on Lt. Watada (lead story on AOL home page).

[Floogeldy]

Officer Faces Court-Martial for Refusing to Deploy to Iraq

SEATTLE (July 23) -- When First Lt. Ehren K. Watada of the Army shipped out for a tour of duty in South Korea two years ago, he was a promising young officer rated among the best by his superiors. Like many young men after Sept. 11, he had volunteered “out of a desire to protect our country,” he said, even paying $800 for a medical test to prove he qualified despite childhood asthma.

Now Lieutenant Watada, 28, is working behind a desk at Fort Lewis just south of Seattle, one of only a handful of Army officers who have refused to serve in Iraq, an Army spokesman said, and apparently the first facing the prospect of a court-martial for doing so.

“I was still willing to go until I started reading,” Lieutenant Watada said in an interview one recent evening.

A long and deliberate buildup led to Lieutenant Watada’s decision to refuse deployment to Iraq. He reached out to antiwar groups, and they, in turn, embraced his cause, raising money for his legal defense, selling posters and T-shirts, and circulating a petition on his behalf.

Critics say the lieutenant’s move is an orchestrated act of defiance that will cause chaos in the military if repeated by others. But Lieutenant Watada said he arrived at his decision after much soul-searching and research.

On Jan. 25, “with deep regret,” he delivered a passionate two-page letter to his brigade commander, Col. Stephen J. Townsend, asking to resign his commission. “Simply put, I am wholeheartedly opposed to the continued war in Iraq, the deception used to wage this war, and the lawlessness that has pervaded every aspect of our civilian leadership,” Lieutenant Watada wrote . . . . (more)

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/officer-faces-court-martial-for-refusing/20060723081609990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

[wtmusic]

1. “I was still willing to go until I started reading”

NCLB should take care of future generations of these thinkers/traitors

[knowbody0]

2. he's gonna need our support

to me he is a hero and leader

[cynatnite]

3. Not to me

He knew he could go to a foriegn land to fight when he signed up. He shouldn't have joined in the first place. Soldiers don't have the luxury of choosing which wars they will fight in.

*prepares to be flamed*

[patrice]

4. No flame here, but . . .

I'm curious. Doesn't the UCMJ say soldiers should refuse unlawful orders?

[cynatnite]

5. He's refusing for political reasons

This isn't his commander telling him to shoot an unarmed civilian or anything like that.

It's apples and oranges.

[patrice]

6. Where does he say that?

I see he uses the word "lawless" in the quote used in the OP.

[cynatnite]

9. You're missing what I'm saying....

If Watada wants to challenge the legality of the war, he can, but that's a very subjective thing in the eyes of many people. Many see the war as legal because of Iraq's defiance in the past. They look to that as why this war was necessary.

Watada isn't facing being ordered to commit a crime by a superior as he's portraying it. He's injecting his political views in a place that has no place for politics. The military.

We have a volunteer military and it has been that way for many years now. People who join the military can expect to be shipped off to places they don't like and ordered to fight. If they don't understand that, they have no business joining up in the first place.

Now, if the guy was drafted...then it'd be a different story.

[patrice]

12. Although laws require some degree of subjective interpretation,

appropriate to the situation in quesiton, whether something is legal or not is not a "subjective thing". If it were, there would be no such thing as "law".

There are un-avoidable political ramifications, side effects, to what Watada is doing, but it seems to me that his motive does have to do with the legality of Bush's War, especially in light of the fact that he started out in political agreement with the Bush administration.

[cynatnite]

13. It's the politics of the war that makes this more difficult

Were it not for the reasons going to war and how bush defied the international community including the UN this would be a lot easier to navigate.

The military is apolitical and that further complicates Watada's case. He's active duty in a volunteer military and I can't support his decision.

[patrice]

14. I agree that if you are a person for whom autonomy is necessary

when deciding whether or not to do anything, legally, morally, politically or otherwise, it would be best not to raise your hand and promise to obey (and by inference to trust others to decide what is legal, or moral, or political etc.) - UNLESS - you're the type of person who knows what the consequences of disobediance are and you have decided to accept those consequences in the course of breaking your promise to obey. Watada may be this type of person.

Being a boomer who remembers Viet Nam, I thought about these issues a great deal while I was in an Air Gaurd refueling group, and was quite glad when I was in over ten years and able to quit after the first Gulf War.

[cynatnite]

16. My Dad gave me a lecture when I joined...

He was drafted during Vietnam and lost a lot of buddies. He wanted to make sure I understood what I was volunteering for. I know I will never forget it.

I think this is more about understanding how the military works more than anything. It's not a matter of how autonomous a person is...it's about them understanding they may be called up to fight a war they may not like and that politicians, like bush, are the ones who will do the sending. If they can't accept that fact, then they shouldn't join. This was what my Dad was explaining to me.

There are veterans who I'm sure would disagree with my position on this as it relates to the legality of the war. In fact, I read an opinion piece today written by a veteran who supports Watada. It's a good read. Here it is if you're interested.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/06/27/to_refuse_to_serve.php

[Floogeldy]

15. Watada's exact point . . .

. . . is that the war is in violation of the Constitution. Article VI states that treaties are the supreme law of our land. The Nuremberg treaty and the UN Charter FORBID attacking a country unless that country has attacked you or an attack is imminent. This war is unconstitutional and, therefore, an order to fight a war in Iraq is an unlawful order.

[cynatnite]

18. Yes, some see it that way and other's don't...

Others see this as a legal war.

The problem is the politics mixed in. It's not black and white as much as many would like to proclaim it is.

A person can pull out all the UN resolutions and use those as grounds for the legality of the war or even the laughably insane attempts at linking 9/11 and Iraq.

I understand the point Watada is making and I do agree. The war is illegal.

Watada volunteered knowing that he could be called up to fight. The military doesn't allow for servicemembers to pick and choose the wars they want to be in no matter the legality. It just doesn't work like that.

[Floogeldy]

22. I don't give a fuck how some people see it.

I don't give a fuck about politics. The law is the law. The plain meaning of the words is clear. You are throwing out neocon red herrings. I'm not saying that you are a neocon, cynatnite.

But why are you raising these arguments? I am quite aware of the distorted and fake "reality" that comes along with "some people think this, and some people say that." It is bullshit.

It is NOT OKAY to disobey international law that was adopted at America's insistence. The Nuremberg Principles and the UN Charter came into existence because America DEMANDED THEM. They are easy to understand.

There has been no UN Resolution authorizing America's invasion of Iraq.

Case closed.

:smoke:

[cynatnite]

27. The fact of the matter is Watada is disobeying an order...

He's going to be court-martialed and will probably serve time. He's not the first soldier to refuse to go to Iraq and probably won't ge the last.

When it comes to arguing the legality of the war, the politics are going to be dragged in with it because bush made it so.

It's not a simple matter no matter how much you view it that way. The military sure as hell won't view it that way because they have to wade through the politics that were used in the runup to the war.

The fact of the matter is no soldier has a right to decide what wars they are going to fight. If they can't handle that fact, they shouldn't join up in the first place. I know some people who won't join the military just for that reason.

Politics are the cause of a hell of a lot of wars. Some of the ones we've had are a clear reminder of that.

The UCMJ will be the primary guide the military courts will use. Not the UN or anything else outside of that.

Not saying you or anyone else has to agree with it, but that's just the way it is in the military.

[Floogeldy]

17. Watada's justification is not political; it is legal.

:smoke:

[cynatnite]

19. No way for him to make his case without the politics

The runup to the war was completely political.

My gut says Watada will probably wind up serving some time for it.

[banana republican]

7. No he is Not refusing for "Political Reasons"

At the Nuremburg trials military personnel were convicted of war crimes for obeying unlawful orders.

Are you saying that this war is a "lawful" war???

[cynatnite]

10. I'm not saying that at all...

I'm saying soldiers get sent to places they don't like, go to war when they don't want to and that's what they should realize when they volunteer. If they can't deal with the fact then they shouldn't have joined in the first place.

[banana republican]

23. You haven't answered my question.

Do you believe that this war is a "just war"...

I am not interested in equivocations or mental evasions of the issues.

Is this war just or not??? Is this a legal war???

This is a Yes or NO question.

If this is an illegal war; under the Nuremberg principals you have an affirmative obligation to resist it. You have a moral obligation to protest; an obligation not to serve; an obligation to actively work to end the murder of civilians.

But of course if it is a legal war; WTF are you doing here; why are you not in Iraq???

[cynatnite]

28. I personally believe the war is illegal and immoral

but I know plenty of people here in E. TN who believe it is completely legal and right. They'll use UN resolutions to imaginary WMD plus the laughable way they link 9/11 to Iraq.

:evilgrin: I was in the army from '86-90'. I was also in the reserves for two years. My hubby is a Desert Storm veteran and was also sent to Panama. My brother-in-law was in Desert Storm too...right along with my uncle. I have two relatives who are currently serving overseas. One in Iraq and the other in Afghanistan.

I wore my uniform and would do so again without a second thought if asked. I doubt I will be since I'm a little past the age of signing back up again.

By your standards, every single servicemember from supply to infantry to medics and the rest who wind up in Iraq are participating in the murder of civilians. :eyes:

The problem here is the lack of understanding how the military works. Too many don't which is why they can't understand the reason why Watada is going to be court martialed.

[knowbody0]

8. would you have obeyed Hitler?

[cynatnite]

11. That's so funny

:rofl:

:rofl:

[knowbody0]

20. that's not an answer

seriously, if you know what the military is doing is morally wrong, what recourse?

[cynatnite]

21. Why should I take the question seriously?

The best recourse is to deal with those who set policy and send the military into war. The immorality and illegality of the war is at their feet.

There is no way to argue the legality of the war without bringing up the politics involved. The military is an apolitical organization. That's why this will never be as simple as many would like.

What should have been done, and what should be done every single time a president wants to send servicemembers to fight, is an official declaration of war. Unfortunately, the founding fathers didn't forsee someone like bush or they would have tied the president's hands better when it comes to using the military.

[banana republican]

24. What a Crock of S*t

the founding father had exactlly forseen this in the future of ths country.

why else would they have insisted on the seperation of powers. Why else would they have demanded that congress have oversight powers.

You state "There is no way to argue the legality of the war without bringing up the politics involved." Unfortunately for you that is not the question.

The question is whether or not the US abides buy the rule of law; or if it is the reincarnation of the Roman Empire which ruled by it's whim. From your posts I gather that you would rather have a Neo-convict approach to the republic than a democratic one.

[Floogeldy]

29. You are, of course, correct.

:)

[cynatnite]

30. If the founding fathers knew a bush-like character...

would someday be president or that the military would be used so carelessly as it has been for the last thirty years, they wouldn't have given the office so much power over the military. That's my personal belief.

The legality of the war cannot be argued without the politics. Politics were used to make the case for war. I saw the fear-mongering speeches bush used. Cheney used the same rhetoric. They also used dirty politics in an attempt to discredit Joe Wilson.

It's politics and the legality cannot be argued without the politics.

The military is apolitical and that will make Watada's case that much more difficult. That's why I don't think he'll win. It has nothing to do with whether I think he's right or wrong. I think he'll be convicted and have to serve time.

[Kickin_Donkey]

26. And I'm sure you'd be a "good German" ...

under Hitler. "Just obeying orders ..."

[cynatnite]

31. Oh, yeah...the old 'hitler' analogy...

:eyes:

I always find that rhetoric interesting.

[otherlander]

25. Somebody tell Colbert!

“I was still willing to go until I started reading,” Lieutenant Watada said in an interview one recent evening.

That is GOLD!

Seriously, though, glad this is finaly making the mainstream news. What took the story so long to get out there?