View Full Version : US soldier refuses deployment to Iraq on grounds that the war is illegal
I got a lot of respect for this guy. Lots of people know the War on Iraq is illegal, this guy has the honor enough to stand up for that truth. Kudos to him. I think it's especially hypocritical and immoral that they are charging him with "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman" considering that refusing to participate in an illegal war is exactly how a gentleman would & should conduct himself.
First Lieutenant Ehren Watada still refuses Iraq deployment orders, calling the war illegal. A six-year prison term could result. Preliminary hearings are set for Thursday.
By the Hot Zone Team, Tue Jan 2, 6:38 PM ET
First Lt. Ehren Watada, a 28-year-old Hawaii native, is the first commissioned officer in the U.S. to publicly refuse deployment to Iraq. He announced last June his decision not to deploy on the grounds the war is illegal.
Lt. Watada was based at Fort Lewis, Washington, with the Army's 3rd (Stryker) Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. He has remained on base, thus avoiding charges of desertion.
He does, however, face one count of "missing troop movement" and four counts of "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman." If convicted, he faces up to six years in prison.
Watada's court martial is on February 5. A pre-trial hearing is set for January 4, with an added scope of controversy: the Army has ordered two freelance journalists, Sarah Olson and Dahr Jamail, to testify against Lt. Watada at the hearing. Both journalists are fighting the subpoenas.
Kevin Sites recently spoke with Lt. Watada about the reasoning behind his decision, the controversy the decision has caused and how he is dealing with the repercussions.
Lt. Watada spoke on the phone from his family's home in Hawaii. A transcript of the interview follows.
KEVIN SITES: Now, you joined the Army right after the US was invading Iraq and now you're refusing to go. Some critics might look at this as somewhat disingenuous. You've taken an oath, received training but now you won't fight. Can you explain your rationale behind this?
EHREN WATADA: Sure. I think that in March of 2003 when I joined up, I, like many Americans, believed the administration when they said the threat from Iraq was imminent — that there were weapons of mass destruction all throughout Iraq; that there were stockpiles of it; and because of Saddam Hussein's ties to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorist acts, the threat was imminent and we needed to invade that country immediately in order to neutralize that threat.
Since then I think I, as many, many Americans are realizing, that those justifications were intentionally falsified in order to fit a policy established long before 9/11 of just toppling the Saddam Hussein regime and setting up an American presence in Iraq.
SITES: Tell me how those views evolved. How did you come to that conclusion?
WATADA: I think the facts are out there, they're not difficult to find, they just take a little bit of willingness and interest on behalf of anyone who is willing to seek out the truth and find the facts. All of it is in the mainstream media. But it is quickly buried and it is quickly hidden by other events that come and go. And all it takes is a little bit of logical reasoning. The Iraq Survey Group came out and said there were no weapons of mass destruction after 1991 and during 2003. The 9/11 Commission came out and said there were no ties with Iraq to 9/11 or al-Qaeda. The president himself came out and said that nobody in his administration ever suggested that there was a link.
And yet those ties to al-Qaeda and the weapons of mass destruction were strongly suggested. They said there was no doubt there were weapons of mass destruction all throughout 2002, 2003 and even 2004. So, they came out and they say this, and yet they say it was bad intelligence, not manipulated intelligence, that was the problem. And then you have veteran members of the CIA that come out and say, "No. It was manipulated intelligence. We told them there was no WMD. We told them there were no ties to al-Qaeda. And they said that that's not what they wanted to hear."
SITES: Do you think that you could have determined some of this information prior to joining the military — if a lot of it, as you say, was out there? There were questions going into the war whether WMD existed or not, and you seemingly accepted the administration's explanation for that. Why did you do that at that point?
WATADA: Certainly yeah, there was other information out there that I could have sought out. But I put my trust in our leaders in government.
SITES: Was there a turning point for you when you actually decided that this was definitely an illegal war?
WATADA: Certainly. I think that when we take an oath we, as soldiers and officers, swear to protect the constitution — with our lives as necessary — and those constitutional values and laws that make us free and make us a democracy. And when we have one branch of government that intentionally deceives another branch of government in order to authorize war, and intentionally deceives the people in order to gain that public support, that is a grave breach of our constitutional values, our laws, our checks and balances, and separation of power.
SITES: But Lieutenant, was there one specific incident that happened in Iraq or that the administration had said or done at a certain period that [made you say] "I have to examine this more closely"?
WATADA: No, I think that certainly as the war went on, and it was not going well, doubts came up in my mind, but at that point I still was willing to go. At one point I even volunteered to go to Iraq with any unit that was short of junior officers.
SITES: At what point was that?
WATADA: This was in September of 2005. But as soon as I found out, and as I began to read and research more and more that the administration had intentionally deceived the public and Congress over the reasons for going to Iraq, that's when I told myself "there's something wrong here."
"I saw the pain and agony etched upon the faces of all these families of lost soldiers. And I told myself that this needs to stop."
— Lt. Ehren Watada
SITES: Was there any kind of personal conviction as well, I mean in terms of exposure to returning soldiers or Marines — the kinds of wounds they suffered, the kinds of stories that they were bringing back with them — did that have any kind of influence or create any factors for you in coming to this decision?
WATADA: Sure, I felt, well, in a general sense I felt that when we put our trust in the government, when we put our lives in their hands, that is a huge responsibility. And we also say that "when we put our lives in your hands, we ask that you not abuse that trust; that you not take us to war over flimsy or false reasons; that you take us to war when it is absolutely necessary." Because we have so much to lose, you know — the soldiers, our lives, our limbs, our minds and our families — that the government and the people owe that to us.
SITES: Was there a fear that played into that? Did you see returning soldiers with lost limbs? Was there a concern for you that you might lose your life going to Iraq?
WATADA: No, that had nothing to do with the issue. The issue here is that we have thousands of soldiers returning. And what is their sacrifice for? For terrorism or establishing democracy or whatever the other reasons are. And I saw the pain and agony etched upon the faces of all these families of lost soldiers. And I told myself that this needs to stop. We cannot have people in power that are irresponsible and corrupt and that keep on going that way because they're not held accountable to the people.
SITES: You know on that note, Lieutenant, let me read you something from a speech that you gave in August to the Veterans for Peace. You had said at one point, "Many have said this about the World Trade Towers: never again. I agree, never again will we allow those who threaten our way of life to reign free. Be they terrorists or elected officials. The time to fight back is now, the time to stand up and be counted is today." Who were you speaking about when you said that?
WATADA: I was speaking about everybody. The American people. That we all have that duty, that obligation, that responsibility to do something when we see our government perpetrating a crime upon the world, or even upon us. And I think that the American people have lost that, that sense of duty. There is no self-interest in this war for the vast majority of the American people. And because of that the American soldiers have suffered.
There really is a detachment from this war, and many of the American people, because there is no draft, or for whatever reason, because taxes haven't been raised, they don't have anything personally to lose or gain with this war, and so they take little interest.
SITES: Do you think President Bush and his advisers are guilty of criminal conduct in the prosecution of this war?
WATADA: That's not something for me to determine. I think it's for the newly-elected congress to determine during the investigations that they should hold over this war, and pre-war intelligence.
SITES: But in some ways you have determined that. You're saying this is an illegal war, and an illegal act usually takes prosecution by someone with criminal intent. Is that correct?
WATADA: Right, and they have taken me to court with that, but they have refused — or it will be very unlikely that the prosecution in the military court will allow me to bring in evidence and witnesses to testify on my behalf that the war is illegal. So therefore it becomes the responsibility of Congress, since the military is refusing to do that. It becomes the responsibility of Congress to hold our elected leaders accountable.
SITES: Now this is the same Congress though that in a lot of ways voted for this war initially. Do you think that they're going to turn around and in some ways say that they were wrong? And hold hearings to determine exactly that, that they made a mistake as well? It seems like a long shot.
WATADA: Right, well I think some in Congress are willing to do that, and some aren't. And that's the struggle, and that's the fight that's going to occur over the next year.
SITES: Let me ask you why you decided to go to the press with this. In this particular case you're the first officer — there may have been other officers that have refused these orders, but you're the first one to really do this publicly. Why did you do that?
WATADA: Because I wanted to explain to the American people why I was taking the stand I was taking — that it wasn't for selfish reasons, it wasn't for cowardly reasons.
You know, I think the most important reason here is to raise awareness among the American people that hey — there's a war going on, and American soldiers are dying every day. Hundreds of Iraqis are dying every day. You need to take interest, and ask yourself where you stand, and what you're willing to do, to end this war, if you do believe that it's wrong — that it's illegal, and immoral. And I think I have accomplished that. Many, many people come up to me and say, "because of you, I have taken an active interest in what's going on over in Iraq."
And also, you know, [I want to] give a little hope and inspiration back to a lot of people. For a long time I was really without hope, thinking that there was nothing I could do about something that I saw, that was so wrong, and so tragic. And I think a lot of people who have been trying to end this war felt the same way — that there was just nothing that they could do. And I think by taking my stand publicly, and stating my beliefs and standing on those beliefs, a lot of people have taken encouragement from that.
SITES: You've said that you had a responsibility to your own conscience in this particular situation. Did you also have a responsibility to your unit as well? I just want to read you a quote from Veterans of Foreign Wars communications director Jerry Newbury. He said "[Lt. Watada] has an obligation to fulfill, and it's not up to the individual officer to decide when he's going to deploy or not deploy. Some other officer will have to go in his place. He needs to think about that." Can you react to that quote?
WATADA: You know, what I'm doing is for the soldiers. I'm trying to end something that is criminal, something that should not have been started in the first place and something that is making America less safe — and that is the Iraq war. By just going there and being willing to participate, and doing my job, or whatever I'm told to do — which actually exacerbates the situation and makes it worse — I would not be serving the best interest of this country, nor the soldiers that I'm serving with. What I'm trying to do is end something, as I said, that's illegal, and immoral, so that all the soldiers can come home and this tragedy can come to an end.
It seems like people and critics make this distinction between an order to deploy and any other order, as if the order to deploy is just something that's beyond any other order. Orders have to be determined on whether they're legal or not. And if the order to deploy to a war that is unlawful, if that is given, then that order itself is unlawful.
SITES: How did your peers and your fellow officers react to your decision?
WATADA: I know that there have been some people within the military who won't agree with my stance, and there have been a lot of members of the Army of all ranks who have agreed with what I've done. And I see it almost every other day, where someone in uniform, or a dependent, approaches me in person, or through correspondence, and thanks me for what I have done, and either supports or respects my stand.
SITES: You've remained on base, and that's been a situation that can't be too comfortable for you. Can you fill us in on what that's been like there?
WATADA: I think that for the most part, people that I interact with closely — I have been moved, I'm no longer in the 3rd Striker Brigade, I'm over in 1st Corps — treat me professionally, politely, but keep their distance. I don't think anybody wants to get involved with the position that I've taken, either way. People approach me in private and give me their support.
SITES: Tell me about the repercussions you face in this court martial.
WATADA: Well I think with the charges that have been applied to me and referred over to a general court martial, I'm facing six years maximum confinement, dishonorable discharge from the army, and loss of all pay and allowances.
STES: Are you ready to deal with all those consequences with this decision?
WATADA: Sure, and I think that's the decision that I made almost a year ago, in January, when I submitted my original letter of resignation. I knew that possibly some of the things that I stated in that letter, including my own beliefs, that there were repercussions from that. Yet I felt it was a sacrifice, and it was a necessary sacrifice, to make. And I feel the same today.
I think that there are many supporters out there who feel that I should not be made an example of, that I'm speaking out for what a lot of Americans are increasingly becoming aware of: that the war is illegal and immoral and it must be stopped. And that the military should not make an example or punish me severely for that.
SITES: Do you think that you made a mistake in joining the military? Your mother and father support you in this decision, and your father during the Vietnam War refused to go to Vietnam as well, but instead joined the Peace Corps. He went to his draft board and said, "let me join the Peace Corps and serve in Peru," which is what he did. Do you think in hindsight that that might have been a better decision for you as well?
WATADA: You know I think that John Murtha came out a few months ago in an interview and he was asked if, with all his experience, in Korea, and Vietnam, volunteering for those wars -- he was asked if he would join the military today. And he said absolutely not. And I think that with the knowledge that I have now, I agree. I would not join the military because I would be forced into a position where I would be ordered to do something that is wrong. It is illegal and immoral. And I would be put into a situation as a soldier to be abused and misused by those in power.
STIES: In your speech in front of the Veterans for Peace you said "the oath we take as soldiers swears allegiance not to one man but to a document of principles and laws designed to protect the people." Can you expand upon that a little bit — what did you mean when you said that?
WATADA: The constitution was established, and our laws are established, to protect human rights, to protect equal rights and constitutional civil liberties. And I think we have people in power who say that those laws, or those principles, do not apply to them — that they are above the law and can do whatever it takes to manipulate or create laws that enable them to do whatever they please. And that is a danger in our country, and I think the war in Iraq is just one symptom of this agenda. And I think as soldiers, as American people, we need to recognize this, and we need to put a stop to it before it's too late
As much as I think the war in Iraq is farce and agree with the guys opinion. Once you VOLENTEER for the army - then you DONT have an opinion you follow orders full stop. Its not his problem if he thinks its right or wrong - he needs to do what he told and not think.
As far as court marshall - they shouldve just DD the guy and saved the bad press. This guy is hurting his fellow soliders on the ground.. he needs to shut up.
The ones giving the orders and making the decisions are the ones who need to worry about illegal wars - not the soldiers they just need to do their duty - they are blameless.
If you volenteer for the army expect to have to go and kill people - sorry thats what armys do - best not to think about it.
As much as I think the war in Iraq is farce and agree with the guys opinion. Once you VOLENTEER for the army - then you DONT have an opinion you follow orders full stop. Its not his problem if he thinks its right or wrong - he needs to do what he told and not think.
I found that the point you make here is very correctly rendered invalid by a poster who made a comment on the page where I saw the article.
By volunteering to participate in a war you did not believe in, you shirked your duty to your country and the ideals of of the Consitution by empowering the government's actions. You basically surrendered your conscience and morals to the government. Mr. Watada joined the military to perform what he felt was his duty and obligation and upon discovering that the Executive Branch had lied to Congress and the American people (which included him) decided that he could no longer support this war. A war that he considered to be illegal. This determination of illegality occurred AFTER he had been enticed by fraudulent statements of the Executive Branch. No one in this country can be held to any contract entered into by reason of fraud. That is our law, and that is what Mr. Watada is saying occurred in this case. You cannot say that he is a traitor or a deserter. He is doing what he believes fulfills his oath to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America" and he has not deserted from the Army. Mr. Watada is an American of the highest caliber, one who is willing to sacrifice in the name of America and what it means. I, for one, wish that I could say the same about our current Administration and the past Congress.
PanzerJaeger
01-04-2007, 09:21
Soldiers do not get to pick and choose which wars they fight.
At best this man is simply a coward, at worst a traitor.
Both deserve to rot in prison.
Soldiers do not get to pick and choose which wars they fight.
At best this man is simply a coward, at worst a traitor.
Both deserve to rot in prison.
I agree
EDIT:
Once you VOLENTEER for the army - then you DONT have an opinion you follow orders full stop. Its not his problem if he thinks its right or wrong - he needs to do what he told and not think.
Soldiers do not get to pick and choose which wars they fight.
Exactly.
I'll only go so far as to say he's wrong.
His reasoning is extremely poor- it suggests to me that he's working at some other agenda than what he states.
SITES: Do you think President Bush and his advisers are guilty of criminal conduct in the prosecution of this war?
WATADA: That's not something for me to determine. Yet he declares multiple times that it's an "illegal war"- I thought that isn't for him to decide?
If he's willing to risk prison time to make a point, good for him. But he is going to go to prison and rightfully so- he's clearly in the wrong.
Perhaps he should think about why armies have court martials. To stop this sort of thing.
It was after all his choice to join the army, the fact that he doesn't like the war they are currently fighting has nothing to do with it.
Productivity
01-04-2007, 09:38
As much as I think the war in Iraq is farce and agree with the guys opinion. Once you VOLENTEER for the army - then you DONT have an opinion you follow orders full stop. Its not his problem if he thinks its right or wrong - he needs to do what he told and not think.
That's not exactly true. If what you are being ordered to do is illegal or utterly wrong you can refuse to carry it out. It's a long proven precedent that being ordered to do something doesn't absolve you of guilt for doing it, the flipside of that is that you have to refuse what you beleive is ilegal.
While it is an interesting case, the point is that he did join under deception.
I have no doubt that he'd be quite willing to go to Afghanistan, should he be ordered, but he was ordered to Iraq.
Still, I'm not sure I quite agree with his actions, but I certainly see the reasoning in them, and the danger he is to the whole operation. If he is absolved of guilt by the tribunal, there will be a very, very dangerous precedent, and there'll be soldiers and officers just lining up to leave.
If what you are being ordered to do is illegal or utterly wrong you can refuse to carry it out. It's a long proven precedent that being ordered to do something doesn't absolve you of guilt for doing it, the flipside of that is that you have to refuse what you beleive is illegal.
Took the words out of my mouth, though, to be pedantic, a soldier may only refuse to commit an illegal order, not one that he considers morally wrong, but yes.
The key question is still whether the orders for transfer are illegal or not. The invasion certainly is, but I'm not so sure about the orders. If he had said this when assigned to the troops meant to participate in the initial invasion, it would be a no-brainer, but as it is ... well, the decision could go either way.
Productivity
01-04-2007, 10:01
a soldier may only refuse to commit an illegal order, not one that he considers morally wrong, but yes.
Under law yes, in practice no. If hypothetically I, an Iraqi soldier knowingly executed (innocent) Kurdish civilians, despite it being legal under Iraq's laws at the time, would I be hanging today along with Saddam? I think the answer is yes. People have a bad habit of making retro-active laws, often on grounds of morality - see Saddam Hussein. I've yet to see anyone actually show that he did anything *illegal* under Iraqi law at the time, yet he's dead now.
The key question is still whether the orders for transfer are illegal or not. The invasion certainly is, but I'm not so sure about the orders. If he had said this when assigned to the troops meant to participate in the initial invasion, it would be a no-brainer, but as it is ... well, the decision could go either way.
I really didn't have any interest in going down this worn path again, but... the invasion certainly was not illegal- that much is clear. It was ordered by our elected (and re-elected) chief executive, approved by our legislature and is today continually funded (thereby implicitly approved) by our legislature. Go read the AUMF- the Congress was quite capable of spelling out it's own reasons to authorize force, it wasn't "because Bush said so, and we trust him completely".
The only grounds some try to claim illegality on is the international/UN scene, but: 1)That dismisses Watada's bogus Constitutional argument (which doesn't hold up anyway) and 2)It hasn't been determined to be illegal under the UN to begin with.
It was illegal in that it wasn't preceeded by a formal declaration of war, which is kinda necessary.
Secondly, well, the UN Security Council is required to declare any invasion illegal, and we all know how good the Security Council is at reaching decisions.:juggle2:
Volunteer or not, he is right in his convictions. The war is illegal. When someone joins the military in any country, they may do so for a variety of reasons. The one thing they expect though, is to fight in the defence of their country, in the defence of allies, or against those that pose a threat to their country or allies. The Iraq war does not fit into any of those categories. Iraq never posed a threat to the US or any of it's allies. The WMD claim was entirely false and used a pretext. In view of this you cannot blame, military personnel for feeling deceived and even betrayed. The Bush Administration, with a helping hand from Tony Blair, created this mess, and have been sending men to their deaths ever since. For what? The Situation in Iraq is now far worse, and far more have now died as a result of the US led invasion than died as a result of Sadam Hussein's Ba'athist regime. The whole thing appears hypocritical and false. Also to imply that military personnel are some kind of mindless drones that should simply carry out orders without question does them a disservice. Both governments have admitted they've made "mistakes", but are now adopting the "well now we're in and can't pull out till the 'job' is done" line, while just hoping that public forgets all of the pre war WMD spin, lies and the bollox they've made of the whole operation and Iraq itself.
Legality is a ridiculous argument for a war. Legality of a war is decided by the more powerful. Currently that means this war is legal nav.
As for this man he should be shot for desertion. He volunteered for the military, fully aware of what that meant. He has sworn to uphold the constitution, and the senate has approved military action. He's deserted his comrades and slandered the name of his commander in chief. Give him the choice of Iraq or Death, I think then he'll recall his previous commitments.
Legality is a ridiculous argument for a war. Legality of a war is decided by the more powerful. Currently that means this war is legal ...
Legality is also decided by the bystanders. These are no longer the days when you could march to war whenever you felt like doing it, and expect everyone to be unable to say anything.
The war may be legal as far as the internal laws are concerned (though dubiosuly legal, it is legal nontheless), but consider that the internal legal system is no longer the only one that matters.
Thus, when a large number of other countries (big, important countries) denounced the war as illegal (from an international perspective), it became illegal, not from the point of view of the state, but from the point of view of the world.
... slandered the name of his commander in chief.
There actually is a way for the guy to be slandered? More than he is already? Huh, you learn something new every day. :inquisitive:
Give him the choice of Iraq or Death, I think then he'll recall his previous commitments.
Maybe he would, but then again, maybe he would not. You make an assumption, and a wrong one at that. If he chooses Death, as you put it, there are two victories in it for him. One, he becomes a martyr, in the unlikely event that it is carried through, and we all know what a martyr can do.
Second, well, offering him the death penalty would be a bluff of the highest order. To sentence him for that would immediately cause a reaction among the wider population, one that would neither be favourable to the miltary and politicians nor one that could easily be fixed. Such a decision would be suicide, as the public outcry would be quite large.
As it stands, I do believe the officer in question has already won, in a way.
Banquo's Ghost
01-04-2007, 12:40
Legality is a ridiculous argument for a war. Legality of a war is decided by the more powerful. Currently that means this war is legal nav.
As for this man he should be shot for desertion. He volunteered for the military, fully aware of what that meant. He has sworn to uphold the constitution, and the senate has approved military action. He's deserted his comrades and slandered the name of his commander in chief. Give him the choice of Iraq or Death, I think then he'll recall his previous commitments.
That has to be a joke post. What kind of country do you think you live in? :shocked2:
I disagree with his actions and arguments, but soldiers are not automatons. They are encouraged to make moral and political judgments - otherwise one gets the mindless brutality seen in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. A thinking soldier is a good soldier.
He has made his decision in the knowledge of the possible sanctions. He has been properly charged and has a chance to make his case. He will get appropriately sentenced if found guilty.
And he has not been charged with desertion.
By the way, very few volunteer for military service fully aware of what it meant. Only actual experience brings awareness, and then rarely complete.
Adrian II
01-04-2007, 13:23
If you volenteer for the army expect to have to go and kill people - sorry thats what armys do - best not to think about it.Best not to think about what? The killing, the dead, the reasons for it all? If you believe that most humans are able to stop thinking about such issues when they are directly involved in them, you need to wake up.
And singing up to defend your country and constitution does not equal issuing a blanc cheque to the powers that be. Sure, there are youngsters who join modern western armies mainly in order to 'go and kill people' and who love nothing better than to shut their eyes to the reasons and consequences. Those are usually not the best soldiers, and you don't want them in charge in any situation precisely because they can't think for themselves. They are the low end of the military food chain and they better stay there, unless we want to replicate some of the major tragedies of the 20th century.
That's not exactly true. If what you are being ordered to do is illegal or utterly wrong you can refuse to carry it out. It's a long proven precedent that being ordered to do something doesn't absolve you of guilt for doing it, the flipside of that is that you have to refuse what you beleive is ilegal.
That argument has been applied to specific actions, never to deployments. Was this soldier asked to serve in a concentration camp? No. Was this soldier asked to shoot down a civilian? No. Was he ordered to behead kittens? Nope. Did his C.O. tell him to rape someone? Nuh-uh. He was merely deployed, which is a pretty low standard for an illegal order.
Arguing that the entire war is a war crime is a stretch for a soldier, and frankly, above his pay grade. The whole issue of illegal orders is tricky, but I think it's safe to assume that serving soldiers are not allowed to make sweeping decisions of state and national interest. If he had been issued a specific illegal order, that would be a different thing. But on the face of it, there's nothing illegal about ordering a soldier to deploy in an ongoing conflict.
[edit]
Here's a good beginner's article (http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm) on the distinction between legal and illegal orders. From the Manual for Court-Martials:
"An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime."
rory_20_uk
01-04-2007, 15:41
In the Leader of the Democracies, the Land Of The Free, a person who refuses to serve in what is seen as an illegal war might get severely reprimanded...
I respect him for his convictions, especially if he would go do other fronts that are equally dangerous.
I agree that if he were let off as the war is illegal, this sets a precedent. But IMO that is a good thing. The army is there to serve the government, and hence the people. When the government fails to serve the people, the army should at the very least refuse orders. One could argue it is their duty to act against those ordering illegal actions.
~:smoking:
Somebody Else
01-04-2007, 15:44
It seems to me that this man is being cowardly, and is making use of widespread dissatisfaction of the war to try and weasel out of being deployed. Is it a coincidence, d'you think, that his willingness to go has deteriorated as the danger to allied troops out there has been increasing?
As a lieutenant, his duty should be to the men under his command, that he will have trained and trained with. What service is he doing them, by forcing them to fight under the command of a new and unfamiliar officer?
If he thought the invasion was illegal, he should never have joined up. If he thinks that being there at the invitation, and in support of the current government is illegal, then he should never have been allowed into the army in the first place.
I've spoken to some people who've served out there, in command of platoons of men. They have no doubt whatsoever that what they are doing is morally right. Their men have no doubt whatsoever that what they are doing is morally right. Is anyone who hasn't been there even remotely qualified to make such a judgement as this Watada is?
If I were an officer, I for one would believe it my duty, regardless of the cause of a war, to go off and lead men and fight in it. It would be my duty to ensure that the men under my command conducted themselves as I would. In as decent and humane a way as possible - it would horrify me to think that the only people willing to go and fight were the sociopathic killers so many seem to think soldiers to be.
Sir Moody
01-04-2007, 15:58
To be honest im highly against out war in Iraq and even i think this soldier is full of hot air - firstly while I hate it the war wasnt illegal - It WAS justified with lies and false propaganda but it wasnt illegal in anyway.
Secondly while a soldier can refuse an illegal order the transfer order isnt such an order. Illegal orders are defined as an order that forces a Solider to perform a criminal action. Being transferred to Iraq plainly isnt forcing him to commit a crime hence it isnt an illegal order.
hes plainly a Political activist getting his 10 minutes of fame
Pannonian
01-04-2007, 16:15
It seems to me that this man is being cowardly, and is making use of widespread dissatisfaction of the war to try and weasel out of being deployed. Is it a coincidence, d'you think, that his willingness to go has deteriorated as the danger to allied troops out there has been increasing?
Why not send him to Afghanistan, which is generally recognised to be far more dangerous than Iraq? Surely he has no problem with the legality of that, while the danger he will face will counter accusations of cowardice.
Somebody Else
01-04-2007, 16:19
Why not send him to Afghanistan, which is generally recognised to be far more dangerous than Iraq? Surely he has no problem with the legality of that, while the danger he will face will counter accusations of cowardice.
The US army is hardly going to change the deployment of a battalion to suit one of the lieutenants within it. If he wished to prove that he isn't a coward, then I'm sure he could request a transfer, rather than skulking in a base in the US.
Pannonian
01-04-2007, 16:41
The US army is hardly going to change the deployment of a battalion to suit one of the lieutenants within it. If he wished to prove that he isn't a coward, then I'm sure he could request a transfer, rather than skulking in a base in the US.
Attach him to the Brits the next time we want to repeat the outpost strategy. 60 days of isolation, no reinforcements, no resupply, under heavy fire 24/7. I don't think we're quite lunatic enough to want to repeat that feat, but if you can cobble together a company of conscientious objectors I'm sure we'll be happy enough to oblige (chuck in the accused from Haditha and other incidents if you're short). Perhaps if they're lucky they'll emulate the British soldiers who survived, rather than the French soldiers who were gutted by their captors.
Didn't Napoleon used to march rebellious regiments into the open, to be whittled down by the enemy until he felt they had been sufficiently punished? Now there's a charming anachronism - penal battalions.
It was illegal in that it wasn't preceeded by a formal declaration of war, which is kinda necessary.
Secondly, well, the UN Security Council is required to declare any invasion illegal, and we all know how good the Security Council is at reaching decisions.:juggle2:
Care to guess how many wars the United States has fought in the last 60 years without a formal declartion of war.
Give you a small hint - all of them since 1946.
Calling the war illegal is incorrect for this officer since frankly Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq. The courts martial will go badly for him if this is his arguement. Hopefully his lawyer has a better defense then the one protrayed in the article.
Hosakawa Tito
01-04-2007, 16:47
All military personnel sign an enlistment contract,click> Form DD 4 (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:DMnPw7rt2foJ:sumweb.syr.edu/armyrotc/exceldocppt), that spells out one's obligations to the US branch of service. You will notice that there is no "having to agree with or like it clause". Determining the legality of the conflict in question is way beyond a Lieutenant's pay grade. The correct way to respond is to follow his orders and file his greivance. His admirers and supporters will be able to mail their correspondence to him at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas (military prison) after his military courts martial has concluded, because that is where he will end up.
Somebody Else
01-04-2007, 17:09
I remember a similar incident with a British officer, medical - not sure if he was army or RAF. Nor can I remember quite what happened to him. I'm sure google does though.
*edit*
Ah yes. RAF medical officer. Jailed, fined and chucked out of the service. Malcolm Kendall-Smith.
Seamus Fermanagh
01-04-2007, 18:06
Redleg and Hosa' are on track here.
If this Eltee's attorney tries to argue that deploying him to Iraq does not constitute a "lawful order" because he personally (as opposed to the expressed will of Congress) views the war as illegal and wrong, he's going to get his clock cleaned.
Future letters to Ft. Leavenworth indeed.
Rameusb5
01-04-2007, 18:25
In the local sense, this guy has no leg to stand on. Whether or not he believes the war is illegal or not, he is required to obey orders. He should not have been so trusting of the government, and should look at this as a life lesson. To many people in our culture feel the need to avoid problems that they themselves created rather than just sucking it up and learning from the experience. This guy needs to deal with it and then write his congressman.
In the grand scheme of things, I have a very strong belief that the citizens of a democracy (or republic) are in the end responsible for the actions of their government. It is their DUTY to defy their leaders when they get out of line. I am reminded of pre-war German during the 30's where nearly every German citizen watched and did NOTHING while Jews (their fellow citizens) were discriminated against. Even at the risk of death, it is the duty of the citizen of any country to attempt to stop immoral and corrupt behavior in their culture.
The American public in 2002 and 2003 were too lazy or too stupid not to realize that they were being misled. Throughout the entire buildup to the war, I kept asking the question "what are we going to do after we defeat them?" Nobody else seemed to be asking that question, and if they did, there was no specific answer other than "We're going to turn Iraq into a Democracy" as if you could wave a magic wand and make it happen. I also heard NO evidence that WMDs existed that was more than a passing anecdote that maybe, perhaps, they had at some point talked to some guy about it.
The Americans deserve this war and deserve to be the laughing stock of the world community because they UTTERLY failed to do their civic duty and think for themselves. They heard good ol' boy Bush Jr tell them how things were going to be so great after we went in there and kick some ass just like in the the good ol' days and everyone just bought it. What I find even more disappointing is that other countries have gotten involved. I'd feel a lot better about the whole situation if the entire world had basically said "no" when we attempted to bully them into joining our coalition.
But, IMHO, soldiers do not have the same rights or responsibilities as civilians and are supposed to do what they are told. This is one of the reasons that I never joined the US military. I had a desire to defend my country, but since that's not the SOLE activity of the current US military, I probably would have found myself doing something I would have found decidedly unpatriotic. Like invading a small middle eastern country under false pretenses...
As for this man he should be shot for desertion. He volunteered for the military, fully aware of what that meant. He has sworn to uphold the constitution, and the senate has approved military action. He's deserted his comrades and slandered the name of his commander in chief. Give him the choice of Iraq or Death, I think then he'll recall his previous commitments.
Impossible, he never left the base. And most civilize nations these days only level the death penalty for desertion after war is declared. Which is hasn't.
Del Arroyo
01-04-2007, 18:38
*$%^&#!@ Lieutenant college-boy *&%*-bag
This will most likely go the route of the soldier who attempted to refuse to wear the Blue Beret when his unit was tasked for deployment to Bosnia
http://www.jefflindsay.com/MichaelNew.shtml
A condense timeline from Michael New's website.
http://www.mikenew.com/thecase.html
Seamus Fermanagh
01-04-2007, 18:48
Impossible, he never left the base. And most civilize nations these days only level the death penalty for desertion after war is declared. Which is hasn't.
Correct. The charges brought forward are the appropriate ones. The USA has not executed someone for desertion/cowardice in the face of the enemy since the 2nd World War.
However, the UCMJ does not require that war be declared to level such a punishment (though in practice that has been the standard).
Note: according to a number of constitutional scholars, Congress' "blank check" authorization effectively did declare war, or more accurately allowed the President to declare and wage war as needed to combat extra-national terrorism with the permission of Congress.
I have no doubt that many in Congress regret that vote, and that most Constitutionalists in the USA would view it as Congress' "woosying out" on doning their appointed job. I do not like Carte Blanche powers -- especially without a sunset clause, in the hands of the executive.
Goofball
01-04-2007, 18:58
Soldiers do not get to pick and choose which wars they fight.
At best this man is simply a coward, at worst a traitor.
Both deserve to rot in prison.
That's a little harsh, I think.
I'm assuming that American officers make the same oaths (roughly) as Canadian ones do, a key point of which is that they will carry out lawful orders of superior officers.
I won't debate whether the war is illegal or not. The only question is, if this officer truly believes that it is illegal, and therefor that his orders to deploy to Iraq and take part in combat operations are also unlawful, then he has a legal (because of his oath) obligation to refuse those orders.
So call him names all you want, but on the face of it he seems like an honorable individual to me. He hasn't run away. He's made a difficult decision and chosen to take his case to court and accept the consequences, one way or the other.
BTW, good to see you back, PJ. Happy New Year. :balloon2:
Somebody Else
01-04-2007, 19:13
Apologies for quoting the grauniad (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1753241,00.html)... this is what happened over this side of the pond.
An RAF doctor was today jailed for eight months after being found guilty of failing to comply with lawful orders when he refused to serve in Iraq.
Flight Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith - who likened the invasion of Iraq to a Nazi war crime - was convicted on five charges, including refusing to serve in Basra, by a court martial panel of five RAF officers. He will also be dismissed from the service.
Kendall-Smith, a former university philosophy tutor who has dual British and New Zealand citizenship and is based at RAF Kinloss in Morayshire, Scotland, had argued that the ongoing presence of US-led forces in Iraq was illegal.
He told the military hearing in Aldershot, Hampshire, he had refused to serve in Basra last July because he did not want to be complicit with an "act of aggression" contrary to international law.
Judge Advocate Jack Bayliss told Kendall-Smith that the court martial panel believed he had acted on moral grounds. However, he accused him of an "amazing arrogance" and said the sentence was intended to make an example of him.
"Obedience of orders is at the heart of any disciplined force," he said. "Refusal to obey orders means that the force is not a disciplined force but a disorganised rabble.
"Those who wear the Queen's uniform cannot pick and choose which orders they will obey. Those who seek to do so must face the serious consequences."
Following the sentencing, Kendall-Smith's solicitor, Justin Hugheston-Roberts, said his client was "shocked" and "distressed" by the judgment and would appeal against the conviction and sentencing.
"He has asked me to say that he feels now, more than ever, that his actions were justified and he would not, if placed in the same circumstances, seek to do anything differently," Mr Hugheston-Roberts said.
"He said this still has a long way to travel and he will now concentrate his efforts on that task."
In court, Judge Bayliss ordered that Kendall-Smith serve half of his sentence in custody and the remainder on licence.
He also told him to pay £20,000 from his personal savings of £140,000 towards his defence costs, which were covered by legal aid.
Kendall-Smith was taken from the court to Colchester military prison, where he will undergo a medical examination and a period of demilitarisation that will see him stripped of his rank and ordered to hand over his uniform and kit.
He will then be transferred to a civilian prison, where he will serve the remainder of his sentence.
Condemning the sentence, Kate Hudson, the chairwoman of CND, said: "All military personnel are required to comply with international law and to be familiar with it regarding warfare and the conduct of war.
"We all know they cannot hide behind the excuse that they are on the receiving end of orders from on high. We have full sympathy for him, and he has our full support. We consider it to be a commendable and moral act."
Kendall-Smith formed his belief that the war was unlawful after serving tours of duty in Kuwait and Qatar at the time of the invasion.
"I have evidence that the Americans were on a par with Nazi Germany with [their] actions in the Persian Gulf," he told the court. "I have documents in my possession which support my assertions.
"This is on the basis that ongoing acts of aggression in Iraq and systematically applied war crimes provide a moral equivalent between the US and Nazi Germany."
He said he had refused to take part in training and equipment fitting prior to the deployment because he believed these were "preparatory acts which were equally criminal as the act itself".
During the hearing, David Perry, prosecuting, said the case against Kendall-Smith was that the orders were lawful and he had a duty to obey them as a commissioned officer.
He added that the question of the invasion of Iraq was irrelevant because it had occurred prior to the charges, which date back to last year.
At the time of the charges, he said, the presence of US-led forces in Iraq was legal because they were there at the request of the country's democratically-elected government.
The charges faced by Kendall-Smith were that, on June 1 2005, he failed to comply with a lawful order to attend RAF Kinloss for pistol and rifle training, failed to attend a helmet fitting on June 6 2005, and failed to attend a training course between June 12 and June 24 2005.
He was also charged with failing to comply with an order to attend a deployment briefing at RAF Lyneham on June 30 2005 and failing to comply with an order to replace a squadron leader for Operation Telic in Basra on July 12 2005.
Kendall-Smith denied that he had refused the order because he did not want to be posted overseas.
That's a little harsh, I think.
I'm assuming that American officers make the same oaths (roughly) as Canadian ones do, a key point of which is that they will carry out lawful orders of superior officers.
I won't debate whether the war is illegal or not. The only question is, if this officer truly believes that it is illegal, and therefor that his orders to deploy to Iraq and take part in combat operations are also unlawful, then he has a legal (because of his oath) obligation to refuse those orders.I felt Lemur (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1374326&postcount=19) covered that angle pretty well. Being ordered to deploy is not an illegal order. And as to whether it's an illegal or immoral war- that's not his call to make when it comes to his role as a soldier.
He's going to jail- and rightly so. And after he gets out, he'll have his dishonorable discharge to follow him around wherever he goes.
Sasaki Kojiro
01-04-2007, 19:28
I'm assuming that American officers make the same oaths (roughly) as Canadian ones do, a key point of which is that they will carry out lawful orders of superior officers.
I won't debate whether the war is illegal or not. The only question is, if this officer truly believes that it is illegal, and therefor that his orders to deploy to Iraq and take part in combat operations are also unlawful, then he has a legal (because of his oath) obligation to refuse those orders.
So call him names all you want, but on the face of it he seems like an honorable individual to me. He hasn't run away. He's made a difficult decision and chosen to take his case to court and accept the consequences, one way or the other.
Exactly.
Goofball
01-04-2007, 19:40
I felt Lemur (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1374326&postcount=19) covered that angle pretty well. Being ordered to deploy is not an illegal order. And as to whether it's an illegal or immoral war- that's not his call to make when it comes to his role as a soldier.
That is still arguing whether or not the order is illegal or not, which is a decision for the courts.
What should drive an individual officer when making his decision is only his or her belief that the order is either legal or illegal. If he or she believes the order to be illegal, then he or she has a legal obligation to refuse it.
The courts may well decide after the fact that the officer's judgement was wrong, and that he or she should be punished, but that should not influence the officer's decision.
He's going to jail- and rightly so. And after he gets out, he'll have his dishonorable discharge to follow him around wherever he goes.
And I can't say that I disagree with that result in this case. But if he truly believes what he is saying, then I also believe that the officer in this case had no choice but to do what he has done.
From New's Appeal - the applicable part of the determination of Lawful orders
Presumption of Orders Lawfulness
An order is presumed to be lawful. W. Winthrop, Military Law and Precedents 297 (2d ed. 1920 Reprint) [hereinafter Winthrop]. A soldier disobeys an order "on his own personal responsibility and at his own risk." See Winthrop, at 576; MCM, Part IV, para. 14c(2)(a)(i). Appellant contested the orders legality both at trial and on appeal. Appellant bears the heavy burden of showing that the orders were illegal. United States v. Smith, 21 U.S.C.M.A. 231,45 C.M.R. 5, 8(1972).
As this court observed and reemphasized in United States v Rockwood, 48 M.J. 501 (Army Ct. Crim. App. 1998):
An individual soldier is not free to ignore the lawful orders or duties assigned by his immediate superiors.
For there would be an end of all discipline if the seamen and marines on board a ship of war [or soldiers deployed in the field], on a distant service, were permitted to act upon their own opinion of their rights [or their opinion of the Presidents and United Nations intent], and to throw off the authority of the commander whenever they supposed it to be unlawfully exercised.
Rockwood, 48 M.J. at 506 (quoting Dinsman v. Wilkes, 53 U.S. (12 How.) 390, 403, 13 L.Ed. 1036 (Dec. Term, 1851)) (emphasis added) (footnote omitted).
Unless the order requires an obviously illegal act, or is obviously beyond the issuers authority, the servicemember will obey the order:
Where the order is apparently regular and lawful on its face, he is not to go behind it to satisfy himself that his superior has proceeded with authority, but is to obey it according to its terms, the only exceptions recognized to the rule of obedience being cases of orders so manifestly beyond the legal power or discretion of the commander as to admit of no rational doubt of their unlawfulness.
Rockwood, 48 M.J. at 506 (quoting United States v. Calley, 22 U.S.C.M.A. 528, 543, 48 C.M.R. 19, 28 (1973) (quoting Winthrop, at 296-297)). "The success of any combat, peacekeeping, or humanitarian mission, as well as the personal safety of fellow servicemembers, would be endangered if individual soldiers were permitted to act upon their own interpretation" of constitutional, presidential, congressional or military authority, and orders issued pursuant to such authority. Rockwood, 48 M.J. at 506-507.
Moreover, as stated in McCall v. McDowell, 1 Abb. 212 (Cir. Ct. D. California 1867):
The first duty of a soldier is obedience, and without this there can be neither discipline nor efficiency in an army. If every subordinate officer and soldier were at liberty to question the legality of the orders of the commander, and obey them or not as they may consider them valid or invalid, the camp would be turned into a debating school, where the precious moment for action would be wasted in wordy conflicts between the advocates of conflicting opinions.
2) Political Questions and Nonjusticiability
The military judge correctly determined that the question of the lawfulness of the FYROM UNPREDEP mission was a nonjusticiable political question. This court will respect both the Presidents powers as well as the powers of the nations elected representatives in Congress. Ange v. Bush, 752 F. Supp. 509 (D.D.C. 1990). See also Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962); Huet-Vaughn, 43 M.J. at 115; Rockwood, 48 M.J. at 507.
http://www.mikenew.com/courtopinion.html
Seamus Fermanagh
01-04-2007, 20:51
I have not referred to him as a coward nor as a traitor. I will not do so.
As did Muhammad Ali/Cassius Clay during the Vietnam era, he hasn't bolted and run and he is staying to face whatever punishment is meted out after judgement of court.
I think his case is dead in the water and only plays well in the media -- not in any court -- but it is his right to refuse the order, as long as he faces the consequences.
As did Muhammad Ali/Cassius Clay during the Vietnam era, he hasn't bolted and run and he is staying to face whatever punishment is meted out after judgement of court.One important distinction I'd draw is that Ali was drafted, whereas Watada volunteered.
I won't say he's a coward either. But I will say, again, that he's wrong in virtually every way on this issue.
PanzerJaeger
01-04-2007, 22:11
That's a little harsh, I think.
BTW, good to see you back, PJ. Happy New Year. :balloon2:
When have I ever been anything but harsh? :laugh4:
Good to see you're still posting too, are you still under deployment?
Goofball
01-04-2007, 22:47
When have I ever been anything but harsh? :laugh4:
Good to see you're still posting too, are you still under deployment?
No, they haven't deployed me anywhere operationally yet, and won't for quite some time, as I'm not fully trained yet. I did basic last summer (2006), then I have another 3 months to do this summer (section commander qualification), then another 3 months in 2008 (dismounted platoon commander qualification) before I'm finally qualified.
Things take a long time when you're only a weekend warrior...
:juggle2:
The good news is that I'll be totally qualified by 2010. Rumor has it our unit will be providing security for the Vancouver/Whistler Winter Olympics. I'm pretty pumped about that...
I wouldnt want to fight in Iraq either. And im by far not a coward. A nation should fight a war to protect itself, or to expand its interests (Kind of like what you do in Totalwar games). I can see no benefit that the war in Iraq has given to the united states, its a fool's war.
I felt Lemur (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1374326&postcount=19) covered that angle pretty well. Being ordered to deploy is not an illegal order. And as to whether it's an illegal or immoral war- that's not his call to make when it comes to his role as a soldier.
He's going to jail- and rightly so. And after he gets out, he'll have his dishonorable discharge to follow him around wherever he goes.
Being lured into signing-up for the military based on fraudulent lies by the government means he does not have to follow any order. Especially one to participate in an illegal war.
There is nothing "rightly so" about putting a man in jail for refusing to abide by a contract he entered into as a result of fraudulent lies from the government. As quoted (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1374163&postcount=3) in a post in page 1, the US law does not support punishing anyone for that either.
I think they should dishonorably discharge anyone participating in putting him on trial.
Of course he will be found "guilty" since it's not a real court he is going to and the "guilty" result is a fixed outcome (just like with Saddam). However, that does not mean it is the correct finding.
Marshal Murat
01-05-2007, 01:23
Like has been said before.
Soldiers don't pick and choose wars to fight.
Tennyson put it best in "Charge of the Light Brigade"
'Their's not to reason why, theirs but to do and die.' (Something like that)
He signed on with the idea that the Government was going to war to prevent WMDs.
Another quote:
'Two things you never rely on, luck and government'
If he thought that the U.S. was in trouble and signed up, good for him!
He's served his country by volunteering his life for the defense of the United States. He is now bound to follow their orders, if he has a problem with the Army then he shouldn't have joined!
He has been ordered to a war-zone, and as a soldier your bound to follow orders. If you have a problem with the orders then put in writing and submit it. Had he been ordered to-kill these civilians just because they are civilians, rape that girl, blow up that mosque; then those are illegal orders and should be dis-obeyed.
Can you say 'Oh no, can't fight those Iraqis cause they drink Coke! Gosh darn it, I'm a Pepsi man, and I wasn't told that the Iraqi's drink Coke, so I don't want to go there.'
'I can't go to Iraq because the land is desert. I can't stand desert, and when I signed up, I wasn't told I would have to encounter sand and desert conditions. This war is illegal because I'd be fighting in the desert."
Patriarch of Constantinople
01-05-2007, 01:34
I think the answer is simple here:
When you go into any army, you follow orders, you don't have the choice of going. This man should know that when you join an army, you have to accept the fact that you may have to go to war. No question. If you fail to realize this, you shouldn't be in the army.
Patriarch of Constantinople
01-05-2007, 01:36
Being lured into signing-up for the military based on fraudulent lies by the government
No, he chosed to, it's his decision. No one said "Hey behind this door is a sheet, ignore the writing and sign up for it, and you'll get spectacular prizes"
Del Arroyo
01-05-2007, 01:41
Being lured into signing-up for the military based on fraudulent lies by the government means he does not have to follow any order. Especially one to participate in an illegal war.
This is completely and utterly preposterous. If we could read a copy of his contract, I can guarantee you it would not contain anything even resembling an exemption from duty for political reasons.
He took an oath to uphold the US Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, period. And if he thinks that him going to Iraq will somehow violate the Constitution, he is simply wrong.
Again, it would be nice if someone could kindly define on exactly which grounds they confidently assume this war in Iraq to be "illegal". Because I have not been able to find any valid grounds so far. And public opinion is most surely irrelevant to any such definition.
..
inappropriate comment removed ~Ser Clegane
Patriarch of Constantinople
01-05-2007, 01:46
Again, it would be nice if someone could kindly define on exactly which grounds they confidently assume this war in Iraq to be "illegal". Because I have not been able to find any valid grounds so far. And public opinion is most surely irrelevant to any such definition.
I hear these "illegal" accusations from people who have,
A. Never served in an Army
B. Have some bias against an Army (like was kicked out)
C. Have some bias against the Armies government
or D. Have no idea how war works, or what a soldier is expected to do
Marshal Murat
01-05-2007, 01:53
Calm down man.
Personal opinion should rarely restrict a man from his duty to defend the Constitution.
If you were German, but had to fight the Germans to protect the world from Facist, Anti-Semitic rule, would you do it? It depend on your patriotism, nationalism, and a billion other factors. It however would boil down to whether you are going to fight for or against the U.S. If your not going to fight the Germans, then you should resign IMMEDIATELY.
Don't just sit there, and then when the call comes in you say "OOPS, sorry, no-can do man. I'm German! I can't kill my neighbors."
Overall :thumbsdown:
I'll admire his spirit, but thats more a political activist and like the courtmartial says 'conduct unbecoming of a gentleman and an officer.'
Patriarch of Constantinople
01-05-2007, 01:57
I'll admire his spirit
I simply can't.
"You're going to Iraq, you know what the possibility of going was"
"But I can't do it"
"Why not? You're a soldier, you can't simply say 'no'"
"The war is illegal"
"Really? Are we blowing up cars in buildings?"
"It's still illegal"
He took an oath to uphold the US Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, period. And if he thinks that him going to Iraq will somehow violate the Constitution, he is simply wrong.
Iraq was not the USA's enemies, Saddam even said he didn't want a war with the USA. Going to Iraq wouldn't be upholding anything other than fraudulent lies by the US government and possibly crusading for Oil.
I find it very interesting how many posters in this thread completely ignore the fact that he was lured to sign-up to the army based on fraud by the government. That gets sweeped under the rug as if it doesn't exists because it is an inconvenient fact.
Also the UN said that USA can't invade Iraq, but USA did anyhow. Another inconvenient fact that keeps getting swept under the rug.
Patriarch of Constantinople
01-05-2007, 02:12
Iraq was not the USA's enemies, Saddam even said he didn't want a war with the USA. Going to Iraq wouldn't be upholding anything other than fraudulent lies by the US government and possibly crusading for Oil.
I find it very interesting how many posters in this thread completely ignore the fact that he was lured to sign-up to the army based on fraud by the government. That gets sweeped under the rug as if it doesn't exists because it is an inconvenient fact.
Also the UN said that USA can't invade Iraq, but USA did anyhow. Another inconvenient fact that keeps getting swept under the rug.
Oh for God's sake. That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. "He was lured by lies of the government". That makes no damned sense. My uncle, in Iraq, signed up because he knew he had the probability of going to Iraq, he accepted it. This little sissy is just scared to go to war, and shouldn't have signed up in the first place. It's called freedom of choice, in America, which means no one is forcing you to do anything, or think like they do. That's Fasicm.
. It's called freedom of choice, in America, which means no one is forcing you to do anything, or think like they do. That's Fasicm.
Again, this is neglecting that he was induced to making a choice based on fraudulent information, therefore he cannot be reasonably "held" to a choice like that.
Patriarch of Constantinople
01-05-2007, 02:18
Again, this is neglecting that he was induced to making a choice based on fraudulent information, therefore he cannot be reasonably "held" to a choice like that.
Evidence? Is there any evidence a government worker came up to the guy and said "hey, join the army, just do it, you'll get candy"
I dunno chaps
I think the questions about the war and its motivations are irrelevant here.
If you have an army of soldiers deciding if they believe a war is just or right - then you dont have an army.
If you have questions regarding the way your government conducts itself then I would suggest you not join its armed forces, if you believe in defending your country but not in fighting foreign war then I would say dont join the army.
as far as being an officer and a gentlemen - that depends on how you behave once you get there - ie making good out a bad situation. This guy is neither IMO.
The most I can say for him was he was/is very nieve - but he should not have volunteered for the army
men drafted - its a different situation - I will understand a conscientious objection from a draftee - why the army doesnt like them because they make low moral troops.
When I learned about the Vietnam war - I knew I would never fight on behalf of the government of my nation - were our home soil to be invaded - then I would fight to protect those I care for.
If you join the crusade - well what do you expect
Im suprised that noone mentioned that in the article it said his father didnt go to vietnam either, but wimped out and joined the peace corps in peru (Of course, he couldve been just playing it safe)
Patriarch of Constantinople
01-05-2007, 03:02
Sure, the guy could've signed up for a different role, maybe peacecorps.
What the guy did was wrong. Reading this I can't help thinking of Pat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Tillman)Tillman (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/magazine/09/05/tillman0911/), who hated the war and went anyway.
Again, this is neglecting that he was induced to making a choice based on fraudulent information, therefore he cannot be reasonably "held" to a choice like that.
Navaros you need to look at what is required to become a commissioned officer in the United States Army. Then look at when the individual accepted his commission into the Army. From his own reported statement.
Sure. I think that in March of 2003 when I joined up, I, like many Americans, believed the administration when they said the threat from Iraq was imminent — that there were weapons of mass destruction all throughout Iraq; that there were stockpiles of it; and because of Saddam Hussein's ties to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorist acts, the threat was imminent and we needed to invade that country immediately in order to neutralize that threat.
Okay that was March 2003. He has had amble opporunity to resign his commission if he believed he was lied to by the government as part of his acceptance of a commission into the United States Army. However he chose to maintain his commission. Futhermore in his own words he did not actual research any of the relative information until he was tasked to deploy to Iraq. So in June 2005 he begins to inform himself and decides that it was an illegal war. A little late on that task to claim foul on his acceptance of a commission. So your going to have to stick with what his arguement is.
He will have to attempt a defense based upon an illegal war. This is where he will run into difficultity in the Courts Martial - the Courts Martial will only review his actions based upon the UCMJ which he will find himself in a bit trouble at the level of Courts Martial he will be initially facing. He is going to have to wait until after his conviction in the Courts Martial and the subsequent appeal process through the Military Court system into the Federal Court of Appeals after all Military appeals are through. The link to SPC New's Court Martial will provide a samble of how long that process will take.
And futhermore a certain Colonel did resign her commission in protest, before the Invasion was conducted. Which negates your particuler tack here.
Tennyson put it best in "Charge of the Light Brigade"
'Their's not to reason why, theirs but to do and die.' That is 19th Century. When people believe their government knew what it was doing. After Crimea, WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Bosnia, Croatia etc showed that sometimes to obey orders is not good enough as reasons to slaughter and massacre.
In Vietnam, a French general said something similar, if not as much talented tha Tennyson lines: "Legionnaires, you are here to die. I sent you where you will die"
Now, in this case, yes, he could have resigned… We had same kind of case in France during the 1st Gulf War. Helicopters’ pilot who refused to be deployed saying they didn’t join the army “for that”, meaning going to war. They wanted to get the training, the money but not to do the job…
Well, they were not shot dead, even if the war was legal, voted by the French Parliament. They just had to find another job, and are barred to any official job.
Haudegen
01-05-2007, 09:29
This may be related to the issue:
Link (http://www.wri-irg.org/news/2006/pfaff-en.htm)
It´s about a German officer who refused to work on the development of computer software which was meant to somehow support the coalition forces in Iraq.
Fisherking
01-05-2007, 10:35
To me it sounds like only one thing! There is a woman involved!
He is illogically trying to impress someone, knowing full well that he is going to get smashed. He is not going to make himself a political career by doing this so he must be thinking with something other than his brain.
So, the question is; who is she?
Productivity
01-05-2007, 12:05
That argument has been applied to specific actions, never to deployments.
True but I can't see why it couldn't be.
Was this soldier asked to serve in a concentration camp? No. Was this soldier asked to shoot down a civilian? No. Was he ordered to behead kittens? Nope. Did his C.O. tell him to rape someone? Nuh-uh. He was merely deployed, which is a pretty low standard for an illegal order.
I never said that I agree with him. I just refuted the comment that essentially went "once you are in the army, you lose any right to free thought".
---
I can see both sides to be honest here. To operate a volunteer army there must be some implicit understanding between both sides. On the one hand the volunteers say I will risk my life to follow your orders. On the other, there's a demand that those orders are reasonable orders, for a reasonable cause that will acheive something for the ideals which the soldier serves, to not throw away those lives. That the command structure will behave with dignity and measure, that it not be willfully obtuse in the face of realities. There are all things that are required in exchange for a volunteer risking their life.
If one side of this understanding/compact is starting to degrade, it's not surprising that the other side starts to degrade as well.
I tend to agree that it's not a soldiers role to make these calls and if it was it would be hopelessly chaotic to run an armed force, but I can see how a soldier could challenge that they are fighting for what they signed up for.
Marshal Murat
01-05-2007, 12:56
At the lowest end of the Army, you don't want soldiers questioning what the General is asking of them. Discussion amongst peers, and orders go down, not up.
A soldier is supposed to reason locally. How to get that house, how to cover his buddy across the street. How to get from Point A to Point B.
Theirs not to reason why, their but to do and die. Ironic how ancient ideas like flanking have gone through the years with very little change, so why can't Tennysons immortal words not be as applicable as flanking or concentrated fire?
If a soldier starts spouting strategic orders, with no idea about any other variables, then your either going to get very lucky, or very dead.
This lieutenant, as a citizen has a right to protest this war. Using his comission and marching orders for Iraq to protest this war as "Illegal" isn't the way to do it. It'll get media attention, but the end result will be his court-martial.
We aren't discussing the legality of the war, we are discussing whether he should be resolved because his beliefs out-weigh his need to fight as per his contract, or whether he should be court-martialed for such outrageous behavior.
I throw my vote in with the court-martial because the OP clearly favors the lieutenant, we probably won't change that, and unfortunately, what everyone agrees on isn't always right.
:2thumbsup:
Pannonian
01-05-2007, 13:14
Theirs not to reason why, their but to do and die. Ironic how ancient ideas like flanking have gone through the years with very little change, so why can't Tennysons immortal words not be as applicable as flanking or concentrated fire?
WW2 changed our ideas of what soldiers are supposed to be and do in relation to their states. Theoretically at least, soldiers are supposed to ponder individual orders and question their ethics. That said, I don't see anything unethical about bare deployment, though I still think he should have been given what he wanted and sent to Afghanistan. British and American soldiers who've served in both unanimously agree Iraq is R&R compared to Afghanistan, much like how Kafirchobee felt his transfer to Vietnam was pleasant and relaxing after the time he spent in Korea. So let him have his ethical protest, and let him take his chances against the notoriously bloodthirsty Pashtoun. Ask the Brits to give him one of their ludicrously dangerous missions, and if he survives, give him a medal as he'll have earned it, and if he doesn't, small loss.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.