EHREN WATADA: FREE AT LAST (http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/ehren-watada-free-at-last/)
Watada refused to deploy to Iraq on the grounds to do so would be following an illegal order. They tried to get him to file as a conscientious objector, but he is not and refused to do so. His issue is with the illegality of the war in Iraq, and with the justification of the war being based on false pretenses. He was not permitted to argue his position that the war was illegal and was prevented from doing so by the judge.
The court tied itself in knots trying to maintain the paradox that a soldier has a duty to disobey illegal orders while Watada could not argue that the order he disobeyed was not a lawful order.
Watada is a hero. He did the right thing and America is better off for it. Watada has a most excellent strategy for bringing the Iraq war to an end.
To stop an illegal and unjust war, the soldiers can choose to stop fighting it.
Advertisement
X3pilot
10-27-2009, 12:14 PM
OK, first of all, no he's NOT a hero because
You know what, on second thought, never mind, this will get nowhere.
jimmydean
10-27-2009, 01:18 PM
Or move to Canada. Seems to be a lot easier.
jonKranked
10-27-2009, 01:22 PM
He is not a G.I. Joe. Therefore, he is NOT a Real American Hero™.
Pork chop sandwiches!
igz-
10-27-2009, 01:37 PM
U - s - a !!!
U - s - a !!!!!
henrymiller
10-27-2009, 03:47 PM
I want all the benefits but none of the responsibility or risk. Who know joining the military would require going into harms way? Watada should be summarily shot.
ohio
10-27-2009, 04:20 PM
I want all the benefits but none of the responsibility or risk. Who know joining the military would require going into harms way? Watada should be summarily shot.
Did you read the article? What benefits? He joined post 9/11... clearly he WANTED to go into harm's way. No one joining right after 9/11 had any understanding other than that they would be deployed. He assumed he was going to aid a legitimate cause.
If he just didn't want to go, he could have filed conscientious objector. He specifically chose to get court martialed to challenge the legality of the war.
You may not agree with his politics, but get your story straight before you advocate executing someone.
sanjuro
10-27-2009, 04:45 PM
I am reading Krauker's bio of Pat Tillman.
He and many of his fellow Special Forces soldiers knew being in Iraq is BS. Nevertheless, he went there and then to Afghanistan.
I hate that not only was his life thrown away unnecessarily, the military covered up his friendly fire death then used it for PR purposes.
However, he did go because that was his commitment to the military.
Ultimately, I believe most soldiers serve in dangerous environments not because of a sense of patriotism but out of loyalty to their fellow soldiers.
What did this guy prove? Iraq sucks?
Silver
10-28-2009, 07:14 AM
What did this guy prove? Iraq sucks?
No, he proved the the United States sucks.
jimmydean
10-28-2009, 08:29 AM
Ultimately, I believe most soldiers serve in dangerous environments not because of a sense of patriotism but out of loyalty to their fellow soldiers.
That's why many of my friends are there today. While they may object to the reason, as an Officer you have men who you are ultimately responsible for. Not going yourself would protect yourself, but not the men who serve under you.
RenegadeRick
10-28-2009, 09:41 AM
That's why many of my friends are there today. While they may object to the reason, as an Officer you have men who you are ultimately responsible for. Not going yourself would protect yourself, but not the men who serve under you.
Couldn't they stand down too? Isn't it their duty to refuse an illegal order?
jimmydean
10-28-2009, 12:39 PM
Couldn't they stand down too? Isn't it their duty to refuse an illegal order?
Proof is the issue.
RenegadeRick
10-28-2009, 12:59 PM
Proof is the issue.
... and Watada was prevented from exploring that issue in court.
So if you can't dispute the legality of an order, then the order must be legal. I think I get it. It is the duty of a soldier to refuse an illegal order, but unless proven to be illegal in court all orders are legal by default. Simple.
So I guess this means that Watada was wrong. He refused a legal order. So explain to me why he didn't end up court martialed, or at least with a dishonorable discharge?
FlyinPolack
10-28-2009, 01:33 PM
When you sign on into Any military service in any branch, of any nation from the beginning of time, You have to follow orders. In most armys you even have to take an oath that you will do so. (I know that means almost nothing to most of you but..) No matter how your personal feelings may conflict with it, you must do whatever your superiors say.
How would the battle Normandy have turned out if the first wave of soldiers didn't stand firm?
As much as we all may disagree with the war in Iraq (as citizens) Our soldiers have to follow their orders.
RenegadeRick
10-28-2009, 02:14 PM
When you sign on into Any military service in any branch, of any nation from the beginning of time, You have to follow orders. In most armys you even have to take an oath that you will do so. (I know that means almost nothing to most of you but..) No matter how your personal feelings may conflict with it, you must do whatever your superiors say.
How would the battle Normandy have turned out if the first wave of soldiers didn't stand firm?
As much as we all may disagree with the war in Iraq (as citizens) Our soldiers have to follow their orders.
... but not illegal ones. If this was just due to personal feelings, then he would be violating his oath, and he would have been court-martialed or dishonorably discharged as a result. So again I ask, why did this not happen?
X3pilot
10-28-2009, 06:28 PM
OK, I'll try despite knowing this will get nowhere in this discussion. As a guy, like many on this board who have served, let me explain a couple of things, having followed orders for 25 years of my life.
An illegal order, by our definition, is one that you know will knowingly jeapordize life or limb for non-mission related issues, or clearly violates a set statute or law. For example, an officer can't order you to steal, rape, forge documents, lie to investigators, etc. If you perceive that you have been clearly ordered into a dangerous or life threatening, such as crawling under a burning truck to retrieve a superior's wallet, or a packet of material, you have the duty and right to question the clarity of said order, then inform that superior if you believe that order to be dangerous or illegal.
Bottom line, if you join the military, especially in time of war, then balk at going into harm's way, you have violated the terms of your contract, essentially, an employment contract and therefor forfeit any and all rights or claims associated with that contract and subject yourself to action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (military law/constitution so to speak) you sign a statement and repeat this in the oath you take (while swearing that you are doing so of your own free will and under no duress).
If you feel the war is wrong, you serve your enlistment, live up to your end of the agreement you swore to uphold, then get out and become an activist, advocate, etc.
Silver
10-28-2009, 06:39 PM
Bottom line, if you join the military, especially in time of war
And there was never a declaration of war, IIRC...
X3pilot
10-28-2009, 06:46 PM
And there was never a declaration of war, IIRC...
True, but seriously, who joined the military post 9/11, or anytime really without knowing that there was a really good chance they'd wind up where there is shooting going on?
Declaration of war or not, the bullets are real. And, the oath of enlistment and/or office do not specify any technicalities such as war declarations
Silver
10-28-2009, 06:54 PM
True, but seriously, who joined the military post 9/11, or anytime really without knowing that there was a really good chance they'd wind up where there is shooting going on?
You could just as well wonder who joined up knowing that Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 at all, was going to be invaded...
X3pilot
10-28-2009, 07:04 PM
You could just as well wonder who joined up knowing that Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 at all, was going to be invaded...
The point is, it doesn't matter where, when or at who the shooting takes place, the fact is that as soon as you finish this statement:
(a) Enlistment Oath.— Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:
“I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
you've committed yourself and you go where you're told and do what you're told. This is all spelled out before you raise that right hand.
Now, Silver, please, please don't try to run with the whole Constitution thing and what did the citizens of Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea, Somalia, etc, have to do with threatening the Constitution because that's a another argument for another topic. The point here is my personal intolerance for people that join the military, then balk when it's time to get down to trigger pulling.
Silver
10-28-2009, 07:08 PM
Don't blame me. I didn't see the precedent at the Nuremberg trials...
X3pilot
10-28-2009, 07:15 PM
<sigh>
OK, I'll try despite knowing this will get nowhere in this discussion.
Yeah, you're right. I understand your point.
Doesn't change my opinion about this particular article.
JohnE
10-28-2009, 08:10 PM
Sohas he been cashing his paychecks, using his medical care, shopping at the PX etc while he has been refusing an illegal order? Does he plan on using educational benefits? (Not that he will get them now...)
If I was a taxpayer, I would be pissed. If I were a member of his unit, and ayone was injured or killed on this deployment, I would be pissed.
As X3 said, he raised his right hand, fully knowledgeable of the fact that he may be sent into harms way, legally or not. And then when it appeared incnvenient to him to serve any longer, he refused to honor an oath that he took, which says alot about the character of the man. I dont want him standing next to me when the **** gets thick..
Silver
10-28-2009, 08:29 PM
So, laws are only for the little man to follow? Actually, in this case, the little guy got the same justice Dick Cheney did, didn't he?
dante
10-28-2009, 09:06 PM
Don't blame me. I didn't see the precedent at the Nuremberg trials...
Yup. This isn't about US law, this is about whether the Iraqi war is legal under international law. Just because your superior officer tells you to shoot someone, if you believe that that action may be illegal it's your obligation to refuse those orders. The Nuremberg trials (and subsequent international trials) have proven that you can't use the excuse that you're just following orders when being charged with war crimes.
X3pilot
10-29-2009, 03:12 AM
Yup. This isn't about US law, this is about whether the Iraqi war is legal under international law. Just because your superior officer tells you to shoot someone, if you believe that that action may be illegal it's your obligation to refuse those orders. The Nuremberg trials (and subsequent international trials) have proven that you can't use the excuse that you're just following orders when being charged with war crimes.
Even if those trials were viewed as unjust since it was mostly about victor's justice? The Axis surrender was unconditional, therby opening the door for those trails. Most surrenders are conditional, meaning that each nation's prisoners are returned to their own country and any violations of international conventions or treaties or alliances are left to each country to investigate and try if needed.
Face it, all wars incur what could be viewed after the fact as possibly unlawful actions. The US policy of "shoot anything that moves" in Germany, Vietnam and Korea by aircraft could be constituted as criminal, no?
Silver
10-29-2009, 06:48 AM
Even if those trials were viewed as unjust since it was mostly about victor's justice? The Axis surrender was unconditional, therby opening the door for those trails. Most surrenders are conditional, meaning that each nation's prisoners are returned to their own country and any violations of international conventions or treaties or alliances are left to each country to investigate and try if needed.
Face it, all wars incur what could be viewed after the fact as possibly unlawful actions. The US policy of "shoot anything that moves" in Germany, Vietnam and Korea by aircraft could be constituted as criminal, no?
So your argument is that this guy should have participated in an unjust war, because the US was wrong in trying Nazi war criminals because the US commits atrocities and war crimes on a semi-regular basis?
The technical merits of your argument aside (and I agree with your point, as I restated it above, feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood you) the optics of the Army arguing that participating in a war crime isn't illegal because the Army is in the business of war crimes are pretty bad.
valve bouncer
10-29-2009, 08:05 AM
Face it, all wars incur what could be viewed after the fact as possibly unlawful actions. The US policy of "shoot anything that moves" in Germany, Vietnam and Korea by aircraft could be constituted as criminal, no?
Curtis Le May said after the firebombing of Tokyo that if the US were to lose the war he would be almost certainly tried as a war criminal.
3D.
10-31-2009, 09:15 AM
To say that he was just dodging the act of being in harms way would be a bit of a blanket statement. The issue seems to be more that he didn’t want to fight an illegal war… actually a rather noble suggestion. The US's image as global bullies would be much less if we had more intelligence from the front line when it comes to evaluating what’s right or wrong, rather than just being able to follow orders well.
I think we were all a little dumbfounded when our redemption war suddenly switched from chasing Bin out of the caves of Afghanistan, to the “shock & awe” bombing of heavily populated downtown Baghdad, all because the administration cried hidden WMD’s. Which I might remind everyone, was a total scam and out right half truth.
The Nuremberg trials were a joke considering a lot of US corporations and Wall St. players were never tried or held accountable for dumping millions into Hitler’s cause.:thumb:
dante
10-31-2009, 11:14 AM
To say that he was just dodging the act of being in harms way would be a bit of a blanket statement. The issue seems to be more that he didn’t want to fight an illegal war… actually a rather noble suggestion. The US's image as global bullies would be much less if we had more intelligence from the front line when it comes to evaluating what’s right or wrong, rather than just being able to follow orders well.
I think we were all a little dumbfounded when our redemption war suddenly switched from chasing Bin out of the caves of Afghanistan, to the “shock & awe” bombing of heavily populated downtown Baghdad, all because the administration cried hidden WMD’s. Which I might remind everyone, was a total scam and out right falsehood.
The Nuremberg trials were a joke considering a lot of US corporations and Wall St. players were never tried or held accountable for dumping millions into Hitler’s cause.:thumb:
fixed.
Silver
10-31-2009, 11:38 AM
The Nuremberg trials were a joke considering a lot of US corporations and Wall St. players were never tried or held accountable for dumping millions into Hitler’s cause.:thumb:
C'mon...Prescott Bush was just one of the many Americans who approved of Hitler's plan to make sure that the Jewish people of Germany had work and were kept warm in the winter. And really, who can argue with that?
JohnE
10-31-2009, 02:51 PM
To say that he was just dodging the act of being in harms way would be a bit of a blanket statement. The issue seems to be more that he didn’t want to fight an illegal war… actually a rather noble suggestion. The US's image as global bullies would be much less if we had more intelligence from the front line when it comes to evaluating what’s right or wrong, rather than just being able to follow orders well.
I think we were all a little dumbfounded when our redemption war suddenly switched from chasing Bin out of the caves of Afghanistan, to the “shock & awe” bombing of heavily populated downtown Baghdad, all because the administration cried hidden WMD’s. Which I might remind everyone, was a total scam and out right LIE.
The Nuremberg trials were a joke considering a lot of US corporations and Wall St. players were never tried or held accountable for dumping millions into Hitler’s cause.:thumb:
