US Military Seeks To Silence Officers Who Speak out about Illegal Wars [Archive]

Navaros

02-03-2007, 05:35

I made a thread about this hero not too long ago - he is the US soldier who refuses deployment to Iraq on grounds that it is an illegal war.

Now it is becoming clear that he was speaking the truth too much, and as a direct result the US Military is going to try to silence Officers who speak out about illegal wars. :furious3:

US Military Seeks To Silence Officers Who Speak out about Illegal Wars

Army officer court-martial tests free speech By Daisuke Wakabayashi
Fri Feb 2, 2:05 PM ET

SEATTLE (Reuters) - A U.S. Army officer, whose public refusal to go fight in Iraq made him a champion of the anti-war movement, faces a court-martial next week when a military panel could determine the limits of free-speech rights for officers.

First Lt. Ehren Watada faces up to four years in prison if convicted on a charge of missing movements and two charges of conduct unbecoming an officer when his court-martial starts on Monday at Fort Lewis, an Army base near Seattle.

Watada, a 28-year-old artillery officer, refused to deploy with his brigade to Iraq last summer and called the war illegal and immoral. He refused conscientious-objector status, saying he would fight in Afghanistan but not Iraq.

The court-martial gets under way at a time of waning public support for the war in Iraq in the face of President George W. Bush's proposal to send 21,500 more troops to war.

Supporters of Watada say he is the first Army officer to publicly refuse to fight in Iraq and refuse conscientious objector status.

"It's not that I am scared. It's that I strongly believe this war is illegal and immoral and participation in it would be contrary to my oath to this country," Watada said in an interview this week.

The two charges of conduct unbecoming an officer stem from public comments Watada made encouraging soldiers "to throw down their weapons" to resist an authoritarian government at home.

Earlier this month, a military judge rejected the defense's argument that Watada's statements were completely covered by the U.S. constitutional right to freedom of speech.

"If you do go out with public statements, you have to be prepared for what are the potential repercussions of that," said Paul Boyce, an Army spokesman.

MISBECOMING CONDUCT

A military panel will decide if his criticism of the war amounted to officer misconduct -- whether the comments pose a danger to the loyalty, discipline, mission and morale of the troops.

"This case will test the limits of what is free speech and what is speech that can be curtailed in the military," said Kathleen Duignan, executive director of the National Institute of Military Justice, a non-profit organization.

"Of course, when you join the military you give up some of your constitutional rights, such as the right to complete unfettered free speech," she said, referring to the military justice code that individuals must agree to before enlisting.

Demonstrators plan to rally for Watada, who has become a focus of anti-war protesters, outside the gates of Fort Lewis when his court-martial starts next week.

Watada, a native of Hawaii who served for a year in Korea, joined the Army in 2003 after the United States had already invaded Iraq. Upon returning to America, Watada began to question the reasons behind the U.S. involvement.

The officer said he decided to speak out against the war, because he feared that the administration was emboldened by the ability to use "lies and deception" to engage in war in Iraq and could repeat that course of action with Iran or Syria.

"When you have leaders that are unaccountable, who have already deceived people over something as serious as war and are willing to do it again, you have to ask yourself, 'where do you stand?"' said Watada.

Patriarch of Constantinople

02-03-2007, 06:20

Ok, as said before,

You are a soldier. You have no choice whether you go or don't go to Iraq. You have no say if a war is illegal or not. You can't refuse an order that isn't illegal (such as shooting civilians etc.).

ajaxfetish

02-03-2007, 06:32

I agree with the guys sentiments, but his position as an officer of the US military makes it tricky.

Ajax

Redleg

02-03-2007, 06:34

Del Arroyo

02-03-2007, 06:58

What makes this man better than any of the rest of us who have to go even though we think it's stupid?

Navaros

02-03-2007, 07:08

Patriarch of Constantinople

02-03-2007, 07:26

His order to participate in an illegal war obviously was illegal.

Ok, well, do you have any evidence to back up the whole "War is illegal" thing?

Really, don't bring up the oil thing, it's all BS. If America wanted oil that much, America would've left Iraq and invade Arabia.

Patriarch of Constantinople

02-03-2007, 07:26

Double post.

Patriarch of Constantinople

02-03-2007, 07:33

Ok, think of it like this.

Was World War 2 an illegal war?

Redleg

02-03-2007, 07:37

Ok, think of it like this.

Was World War 2 an illegal war?

Wrong type of war - WW2 was declared.

One must use Korea

or Desert Storm

or Panama

All have the same type of authorization - the use of force without a declartion of war from congress

CountArach

02-03-2007, 07:37

Ok, think of it like this.

Was World War 2 an illegal war?

Ummm... was Hitler justified to invade Poland?

Patriarch of Constantinople

02-03-2007, 07:38

Ummm... was Hitler justified to invade Poland?

Was Saddam justified to invade Kuwait?

CountArach

02-03-2007, 07:40

Was Saddam justified to invade Kuwait?

No... no he wasn't. Therefore Iraq's war was unjustified, however the UN response to it was justified because it was in defence of Kuwait...

Patriarch of Constantinople

02-03-2007, 07:42

No... no he wasn't. Therefore Iraq's war was unjustified, however the UN response to it was justified because it was in defence of Kuwait...

Yes. And the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was justified to remove Saddam from power.

Patriarch of Constantinople

02-03-2007, 07:50

I made a thread about this hero not too long ago

A hero decides to refuse to deploy to Iraq? More like cowardice or stupidity really. I think he did it for the publicity.

AntiochusIII

02-03-2007, 08:10

Yes. And the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was justified to remove Saddam from power.On what cause, precisely?

Look, I'm not one to go around beating dead ponies; but the comparisons in this thread thus far has been preposterous.

World War II: the Japanese declared war on the USA de facto by their attack on Pearl Harbor; Germany proceeded to officially declare war on the USA too very soon after. Iraq: a Presidential authorization of force without Congressional consent -- which will only be given after the fact -- similar to examples Redleg has given.

Was Saddam justified to invade Kuwait?Of course not. You can refer to the precedent set by the Nuremberg trials -- what the Allies thought was the most significant crime of the Nazi regime -- as a clue.

You are a soldier. You have no choice whether you go or don't go to Iraq. You have no say if a war is illegal or not. You can't refuse an order that isn't illegal (such as shooting civilians etc.).I agree with Redleg's sentiment that one's conscience is a perfectly valid reason to object -- "you are a soldier, you have no consciences. You go and kill" is, quite frankly, not a standard I'd like to force our military into -- but he will have to suffer the consequences of those choices on his own.

I'd be outraged at anything remotely close to prison-for-life or death penalty, however. The worst I think he should get is dishonorable discharge and fine; the worst he should get realistically would be a short prison term.

Admittedly, they could've just sent him to Afghanistan (which, from what I've heard, is far, far more dangerous than even Baghdad is) like he wanted and keep the whole thing from spiraling down like this. If he wanted to go to a place more dangerous than Iraq for his country then great for him. Hence, your claim of his "cowardice" is rather unfounded.

Xiahou

02-03-2007, 08:21

All have the same type of authorization - the use of force without a declartion of war from congress
I think the difference between declared war and the authorization to use force is pretty academic. It's different wording, but the intent is the same. The Constitution says that the Congress has the power to declare war, but it doesn't go into depth about what verbiage must be used.

Tribesman

02-03-2007, 09:39

What makes this man better than any of the rest of us who have to go even though we think it's stupid?
What do you call someone who thinks what they are going to do is stupid but does it anyway ?:inquisitive:

Was Saddam justified to invade Kuwait?
No , what he should have done is either renegotiated the deal or just simply refused to pay .

Fisherking

02-03-2007, 12:12

To me it looks like the Army is trying to be fair to the guy…

They could have charged him with much worse violations…but they have not charged him with things that could get him shot.

There is some other dimension to this that has not been reported on…what made him come to the decision it was illegal…

There is nothing illegal in the orders he received and he can't make or decide on policy.

What ever our views may be on the course or conduct of the conflict in Iraq doesn't make any difference in the outcome of this. There is no way that the panel can find him not guilty of disobedience of lawful orders and missing movement…and any number of other things that they didn't bother charging him with, and he should be thankful of that.

I don't think he is cowardly in his actions but neither is he a hero for standing up because he has no clear principle he is standing on, Just the statement that the war is illegal.

He has placed himself in the position of a moose on the railroad tracks…the moose is without fear and the train is not going to stop.

Antiwar people can call him a hero but it won't make anyone else think so, and most will call him a fool, & perhaps a coward just as a knee jerk reaction. The Supreme Court will more than likely not hear the case turning it back to the military…meantime the guy is convicted of a federal crime and looses his rights…

He is not going to be of any real political use though the far left will make some noise…
He is not helping left, right, or military and is hurting himself…it is just one of those little tragedies like the moose blocking the train.

As for anyone thinking it stupid to go but going anyway…well they are doing the only reasonable thing…doing their duty.

If someone thinks otherwise let themselves be put in that position before judging.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-03-2007, 13:06

As Redleg said, this was from the beggining the only outcome. If you are a soldier you follow orders, It's all well and good to say a soldier should not follow an illegal order but that requires every soldier to make a judgement about every order they recieve. You can't run an army like that. The fact is that if you refuse an illegal order you'll be court marshalled and cashiered. On the other hand, soldiers who carry out orders that are later deemed illegal are cout marshalled and cashiered.

When following orders a soldier should not have to use his concience, that is the responsibility of the one giving the order.

Redleg

02-03-2007, 13:18

.

World War II: the Japanese declared war on the USA de facto by their attack on Pearl Harbor; Germany proceeded to officially declare war on the USA too very soon after. Iraq: a Presidential authorization of force without Congressional consent -- which will only be given after the fact -- similar to examples Redleg has given.

Actually this statement is incorrect - Congress gave the President authorization for the Use of Force before the Invasion. Korea was also authorized by Congress before the main committment. The President has the authority by the Constitution to provide immediate aid to an ally in the event of their being attack, to help provide immediate assistance in their defense. This is also covered by the War Powers Act of 1973, where Congress placed that authority in writing.

Redleg

02-03-2007, 13:20

I think the difference between declared war and the authorization to use force is pretty academic. It's different wording, but the intent is the same. The Constitution says that the Congress has the power to declare war, but it doesn't go into depth about what verbiage must be used.

Actually there is some major differences between the two.

Fisherking

02-03-2007, 15:41

Actually there is some major differences between the two.

Care to Elaborate?

Also if some of you are looking for a way to get him off….well you can start here. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm

As to silencing Officers… One should know when the deck is stacked against you and when to keep your mouth shut.

Officers have a greater responsibility for their actions than Pvt. Joe Snuffy. Nobody listens to Snuffy but they are paid to listen to the LT…and if they don't there is going to be big trouble.

If your supervisor at work starts mouthing off about Corporate Headquarters skipping an important out of town meeting and saying the company is involved in illegal activates, especially taking it to the press, he had better have a lot of proof because the hammer is going to fall. He is going to face a lawsuit at the very least, and that is after they fire him.

This guy works for the government fulltime in a supervisory capacity and his contract says he can't do those things. Government doesn't like being told by underlings how to do things and they make the rules. If they brake their own rules you had better have a lot of support before bringing it to their attention.

But this guy mouthed off and missed movement…no hero, just dumb! Very, very dumb.

Is it just me or is it a bit hard to make a hero out of dumb.

Tribesman

02-03-2007, 17:59

As for anyone thinking it stupid to go but going anyway…well they are doing the only reasonable thing…doing their duty.

Bollox , it is not the only reasonable thing , in fact it is contrary to reason .
If something is wrong or stupid then there is no reason to do it , you are not duty bound to stupidity , the only reason to carry on regardless is cowardice in facing the consequences that following the proper action would entail .
Stopping and saying "no this is bollox" is not cowardice , "let me face the consequences for saying this is stupid" is admirable .
Saying "this is stupid but someone sold me this crap so I have to buy it regardless of how crap it is " is cowardice .

If someone thinks otherwise let themselves be put in that position before judging.

That doesn't really work does it .

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-03-2007, 18:14

What about the oaths he took Tribes? They should make him go, even if he doesn't believe.

Somebody Else

02-03-2007, 18:44

So, the UN sanctioned peacekeeping operation in Iraq is illegal?

Dubious as the legality of the invasion may have been, that was then. This is now. Now what we have is a country wracked by civil strife that needs all the help it can get, help which the US armed forces, along with everyone else's, are in a position of being able to give.

Is it illegal to rescue a drowning man when he was pushed into the sea illegally?

Watada is a coward, and a disgrace to the uniform he wears.

Military law is different to civilian law, soldiers are expected to adhere to both sets of regulations - it's what distinguishes them from being an armed gang.

Incidentally, a lot of comparisons seem to be made to Nazi soldiers convicted of war crimes. We all agree that the invasion of Poland was illegal. Just how many soldiers were convicted for that? It is the way that soldiers conducted themselves during the war that is cause for prosecution. Nations go to war, soldiers go to battle. There's a difference. A soldier sent off to war is in no way more responsible for that war than the civilian staying at home.

Fisherking

02-03-2007, 18:48

They don't have that choice Tribes! It is one thing to stand up when you are right and people may see and understand you are right. Or at least you have some proof you are right.

It is completely different to stand up spouting something stupid and get hammered for it.

It is not a matter of what you or he thinks is the proper thing to do…it is that his assertion is crap…he can't prove it especially in a military court.

If you think its so worthwhile go to the states, join the army and do the same thing! We will all applaud your convictions and maybe we will send you some postcards while you are in Kansas.

Tribesman

02-03-2007, 18:48

What about the oaths he took Tribes? They should make him go, even if he doesn't believe.
What about the oaths , do they cover stupidity that doesn't serve or protect the nation ?
Anyhow how often have you read on this or other forums from serving or ex servicemen going on about conscription and not wanting to serve with people who are only there because they have to be there .
If someone doesn't believe in the mission then why the hell would anyone there want to rely on him for that mission ?
Which raises a question concerning the post I quoted.....
What makes this man better than any of the rest of us who have to go even though we think it's stupid?

.......If someone thinks what they are doing is stupid or futile then how much effort are they even going to bother putting in while they are over there ?
It would appear that the only duty they serve during deployment is trying to get through their time alive or unwounded .
If the people have no faith in the mission they are being sent out to do then they ain't really going to be doing bugger all to achieve that overall mission .
They might have a bit of the old "for my mates" or "for the regiment" but on the whole that adds up to a very small pile of beans , very short of even a hill of beans .

Scurvy

02-03-2007, 19:06

Incidentally, a lot of comparisons seem to be made to Nazi soldiers convicted of war crimes. We all agree that the invasion of Poland was illegal. Just how many soldiers were convicted for that? It is the way that soldiers conducted themselves during the war that is cause for prosecution. Nations go to war, soldiers go to battle. There's a difference. A soldier sent off to war is in no way more responsible for that war than the civilian staying at home.

Very much agreed, if a soldier is told to do something by someone of senior rank, even something extremely terible, it is in no way their responsibility. :2thumbsup:

Tribesman

02-03-2007, 19:07

So, the UN sanctioned peacekeeping operation in Iraq is illegal?

What frigging UN sanctioned peacekeeping operation ??????
Do you mean 1483 , 1500 , 1511........what bloody peacekeeping operation ?
Don't talk crap ...blah blah blah obligations as occupying powers under international law blah blah blagh until such time as ....het bubba that time passed long ago , shrub called it a milestone if you can remember :dizzy2:

Now what we have is a country wracked by civil strife that needs all the help it can get, help which the US armed forces, along with everyone else's, are in a position of being able to give.

Planet earth calling somebody else ....come down for a visit sometime :stupido3:

Fisherking

02-03-2007, 19:16

What about the oaths , do they cover stupidity that doesn't serve or protect the nation ?
Anyhow how often have you read on this or other forums from serving or ex servicemen going on about conscription and not wanting to serve with people who are only there because they have to be there .
If someone doesn't believe in the mission then why the hell would anyone there want to rely on him for that mission ?
Which raises a question concerning the post I quoted.....
What makes this man better than any of the rest of us who have to go even though we think it's stupid?

.......If someone thinks what they are doing is stupid or futile then how much effort are they even going to bother putting in while they are over there ?
It would appear that the only duty they serve during deployment is trying to get through their time alive or unwounded .
If the people have no faith in the mission they are being sent out to do then they ain't really going to be doing bugger all to achieve that overall mission .
They might have a bit of the old "for my mates" or "for the regiment" but on the whole that adds up to a very small pile of beans , very short of even a hill of beans .

Tribesman!

Do you really think that soldiers fight for all that patriotic crap…it may be what got them there but it is not why they are fighting once they get there.

Yes those guys want to depend on the man next to them and you don't want anything happening to the guys around you…you know them and they cover you so you cover them….

It is closer than blood relations and in some ways closer than a marriage…at least while you are fighting for your life… At that point there isn't much else in the world but the here and now…Everyone else is the badguys and when those above tell you to do something it sounds really stupid, but you do it just the same…because you can and people are counting on you.

If someone is out of service and says its stupid that is fine and no proof need.

The things you are told seldom make sense because they come from outside your world, your little corner where you and your buddies are trying to stay alive and get home.

Far be it from me to say the military or the government never did anything stupid or dumb but that guy with the rifle isn't in a position to tell for sure if he is right or wrong.

If you haven't been there don't lecture those who have…go and find out for your self!

Navaros

02-03-2007, 19:17

Obviously USA's invasion of Iraq is more illegal than any of Saddam's invasions, especially since the UN first told the USA that they are not allowed to invade Iraq. Putting Saddam on "trial" (not that he got a real trial) was most definitely illegal according to Iraq's Constitution, as was murdering him. The War on Iraq is illegal on a disturbing number of fronts. I'm sure a lawyer could find much more additional illegalities of the War on Iraq than me as a layman can.

Anyhow we had already established that the War on Iraq is illegal in my previous thread on this board about the Watada hero, hence that should not be focused on so heavily in this thread.

This thread was more intended to discuss about how dastardly it is for the US Military to take the Nazi-esque position of silencing Officers who speak the truth about the illegality & immorality of it's actions.

Tribesman

02-03-2007, 19:30

If you haven't been there don't lecture those who have…go and find out for your self!
What ? sign my life away to the whims of some arse of a politician , no thanks , I may not be educated but I ain't that stupid .

As for the rest of your post , did you read the post you quoted ?
It would seem not :juggle2:

Somebody Else

02-03-2007, 19:38

Very much agreed, if a soldier is told to do something by someone of senior rank, even something extremely terible, it is in no way their responsibility. :2thumbsup:

No. Not what I am saying. If I were ordered to, for example, fire into a crowd of unarmed women and children, I'd not only refuse, but I'd also do my damndest to make sure the man who gave me the order was arrested a.s.a.p.

What frigging UN sanctioned peacekeeping operation ??????
Do you mean 1483 , 1500 , 1511........what bloody peacekeeping operation ?
Don't talk crap ...blah blah blah obligations as occupying powers under international law blah blah blagh until such time as ....het bubba that time passed long ago , shrub called it a milestone if you can remember :dizzy2:

Try 1637. And, I'm so terribly sorry - mandate, not sanction. But hopefully we're above such pettifogging?

Planet earth calling somebody else ....come down for a visit sometime :stupido3:

You deny that there's a problem in Iraq? I really hope not, but if so, I cordially invite you to remove your head from the sand.

Redleg

02-03-2007, 19:40

This thread was more intended to discuss about how dastardly it is for the US Military to take the Nazi-esque position of silencing Officers who speak the truth about the illegality & immorality of it's actions.

Your rethoric is incorrect on its very face. If you don't understand how the Military Justice system works you should just say so. Emotional appeal crap is just that emotional appeal crap. Go back and read the first post I responded with to your initial comment

The officer in question has to face the Courts Martial - that is the way it goes. He disobeyed orders from a superior officer - that means that this LT has to demonstrate to the Courts Martial that he was disobeying an unlawful order, which means he has to stand in front of the panel of officers that will makeup this Courts Martial which is exactly what the officer in question asked for when he was read his charges. Most of the charges could of been handled by an Article 15 proceeding and his subsequent discharge from the service. Edit: for Clarification the subsequent discharge would come from either the officer's resignation or the Article 32 hearing that would follow the Field Grade Article 15, that could be part of the convining officer's non-judicial decision.

In order to prove an order is illegal, one must often sacrifice themselves in the short term by going through the Courts Martial process so that upon review of the case, the defendant can attempt to get his matter addressed by the Supreme Court. So nazi-esque is not a valid description of the events that must occur. Nazi-esque the officer would of faced a Summary Courts Martial with the sentence immediately carried out. Edit: The Summary Courts Martial refers to the battlefield trail and execution of the individual. There is also a Summary Courts Martial that is in essecence a non-judicial action that is slightly higher then the Article 15, this Summary Court is often used for the foundation of an follow-up Article 32 hearing for a bad conduct discharge or more severe discharge from the service. (Thanks Kukri for reminding me I left critical information out.)

Its obvious to me that your arguement makes an emotional appeal not one of reason.

KukriKhan

02-03-2007, 19:42

This thread was more intended to discuss about how dastardly it is for the US Military to take the Nazi-esque position of silencing Officers who speak the truth about the illegality & immorality of it's actions.

With respect, Navaros, you over-state the case. 1LT Watada is not (so far) being silenced. There is no gag-order imposed, he is making speeches, writing op-eds, appearing on TV and radio programs, and has an active weblog. He's not in confinement, he has a desk job at Fort Lewis.

His court-martial trial will begin Monday, 5 Feb. The presiding judge may impose a gag-order at that time, but it isn't mandatory.

There are in fact many active duty soldiers who admire 1LT Watada's integrity and sincerity, if not his decision to run this Quixotic course. Army HQ turned down his resignation request. Then he (Watada) refused the offer of C-Objector status, and the assignment to an Iraq desk-job. He is intent on pushing his case into the public eye, and is succeeding.

There is no duct-tape holding his mouth (or typing fingers) closed.

edit: Oops, cross-posted with Redleg. Sorry, didn't mean to gang up

Fisherking

02-03-2007, 19:57

What ? sign my life away to the whims of some arse of a politician , no thanks , I may not be educated but I ain't that stupid .

Well said and I can respect that notion…so long as you are willing to say so.

As for the rest of your post , did you read the post you quoted ?
It would seem not :juggle2:
Of course not….I wanted to be just as half cocked as everyone else. :juggle2:

Tribesman

02-03-2007, 20:01

Try 1637. And, I'm so terribly sorry - mandate, not sanction. But hopefully we're above such pettifogging?

Nope that ties back to 1546.....so I ask again What frigging UN sanctioned peacekeeping operation ??????

You raised the subject , you chose the words . So what are you on about ?

You deny that there's a problem in Iraq?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: oh stop :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
here .......
I cordially invite you to remove your head from the sand.............
help which the US armed forces, along with everyone else's, are in a position of being able to give.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Perhaps planet earth should boost its signal , since you havn't been able to recieve the message that has been on the airwaves for the past 3 years . Damn that sand must really clog up your reception since the signal has been really loud and clear for at least the last 18 months+

Scurvy , I think perhaps you aimed too high there .
Aim lower , otherwise it goes over the head :2thumbsup:

Edit to add ...
Of course not….I wanted to be just as half cocked as everyone else. I was just wondering about the relation between what you wrote and the second half of what you quoted .

Hosakawa Tito

02-03-2007, 20:03

One must admit that the Nazi reference and emotionally charged rhetoric, deficient in actual fact, does sell more newspapers.

Somebody Else

02-03-2007, 20:20

From here (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sc8117.doc.htm)

Until we are able to provide security for ourselves, including the defence of Iraq’s land, sea and air space, we ask for the support of the Security Council and the international community in this endeavour. We seek a new resolution on the Multinational Force (MNF) mandate to contribute to maintaining security in Iraq, including through the tasks and arrangements set out in the letter from Secretary of State Colin Powell to the President of the United Nations Security Council.

Ice

02-03-2007, 20:33

I enjoy how 50% of these posts are constructive and the other 50% are just cheap jabs over and over again without any real substance. Good stuff.

On topic though: The man is a soldier. He doesn't have the luxury of deciding where he wants to serve. Once he commits himself to the army, he is responsible for being deployed wherever his superiors deem necessary, liking it or not liking it.

Tribesman

02-03-2007, 20:41

From here

Yep and ???????What frigging UN sanctioned peacekeeping operation ??????

What you mean is the process of recognition of de-facto occupation and the legal status those forces have to assume under international law (laws which were broken on many occasions by those forces) then the transfer of recognition of those forces as acting under the authority of the soveriegn Iraqi government instead of as occupational forces once the elections had taken place and a government was formed .

Somebody Else

02-03-2007, 20:50

Yep and ???????What frigging UN sanctioned peacekeeping operation ??????

What you mean is the process of recognition of de-facto occupation and the legal status those forces have to assume under international law (laws which were broken on many occasions by those forces) then the transfer of recognition of those forces as acting under the authority of the soveriegn Iraqi government instead of as occupational forces once the elections had taken place and a government was formed .

Thank you for saving me the effort of re-phrasing.

Del Arroyo

02-03-2007, 21:34

you are not duty bound to stupidity

Actually, you are. Fact is, there are greater and lesser rights and wrongs. It is definitely wrong to strip, wax, and buff non-wax tile floors. But it is a lesser wrong.

This Looey is not brave, but neither is he a coward. He simply has very poor moral judgement. And he is stupid. Better to carry out a stupidity or two in the service of the greater good, than to be personally stupid for the sheer sake of stupidity. Which is what this overgrown boy is doing.

@ Navaros: If he is being silenced, why are we hearing so much from him?

Seamus Fermanagh

02-03-2007, 23:36

@ Navaros:

1. Is it your assertion that participation in any military action on behalf of one's nation is a decision that is solely and explicitly the responsibility of that individual based on their own individual moral code?

Follow ons:

a) If yes, at what point and in what fashion do any of us owe allegiance/obediance to a larger collective (the polity)?

b) If not, then why does this one officer warrant substantively different treatment?

2. What is your basis for defining this war as "illegal?" Congress, that body authorized in our Constitution to declare war, gave over their power to do so to the executive in a blanket authorization connected to the war on terror. They further provided specific assent to operations in Iraq. Unless and until the former is challenged in the SCOTUS and struck down or the latter is withdrawn by Congress, I do not see your basis for terming this "illegal."

@ Tribesman:

So, according to your logic, if I find some aspect/policy of government to be prima facae stupid, it is my right to not fulfill that policy/ignore that order in place of/in addition to lobbying my representative and the executive to change that decision/policy. Am I summarizing accurately?

I find our current system of taxation and the horrible mis-spending of the funds thereby generated to be exceedingly stupid and contrary to the long-term best interests of the nation. I will therefore not pay my taxes and thereby support/enact such a stupidity.

Thanks! I feel so much better now.:rolleyes3:

KukriKhan

02-04-2007, 00:47

Seamus
@ Tribesman:

So, according to your logic, if I find some aspect/policy of government to be prima facae stupid, it is my right to not fulfill that policy/ignore that order in place of/in addition to lobbying my representative and the executive to change that decision/policy. Am I summarizing accurately?

Not putting words in Tribesman's mouth; The Lieutenant's assertion is that what you describe above is not only his right, but also his duty as an officer sworn to uphold the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. He hopes to bring the case to SCOTUS.

Tribesman

02-04-2007, 01:33

Am I summarizing accurately?

Nope , since you should add that in taking the stance you must be prepared to face the consequences or challenge them in court .
This officer is doing that .

Better to carry out a stupidity or two in the service of the greater good
But it isn't in the greater good is it , it is a complete ballsup from the word go , a complete needless ballsup based on a pile of bullshit , a complete ballsup that serves no usefull purpose and is damaging the very thing that it is supposed to protect and serve .
Even the most die hard gung ho flag waving patriots don't bother trying the "good news from Iraq" topics anymore . It is a frigging disaster .
If there were enough positive aspects of the endeavour you might have a point about the greater good , but there isn't .
It's just sheer stupidity .

Watchman

02-04-2007, 01:38

Are there even concepts more thoroughly subjective than "greater good", anyway...?

Seamus Fermanagh

02-04-2007, 04:22

Nope , since you should add that in taking the stance you must be prepared to face the consequences or challenge them in court .
This officer is doing that.

True. I have never referred to this officer as a coward -- as some have -- nor have I questioned his patriotism. That he is willing to face the consequences of his actions is one of the things that speak well for him.

Now, how about the other part of my query for you.

Does my negative assessment of the quality of a government policy garner me the privilege of ignoring that policy? How and by what measure?

Tribesman

02-04-2007, 12:57

Does my negative assessment of the quality of a government policy garner me the privilege of ignoring that policy? How and by what measure?
Same as above really .

For example taxes since you mentioned it .
If you simply ignore taxes you are going to get well and truly screwed over .
If you go to the tax man or the courts and can make a case as to why you shouldn't pay the taxes you can get away with it . If not then you can still refuse to pay as long as you are wiling to face the consequences .

Alternatetively you could say nothing and pay the taxes , wait for the election so you can vote for someone who tells you that they are not going to screw you over on taxes , then find out that they are still going to screw you over like the last lot did .
The second is the only real worthwhile option isn't it , and the second (though it is in a different field) is the option this officer has taken .

Banquo's Ghost

02-04-2007, 14:05

So, according to your logic, if I find some aspect/policy of government to be prima facae stupid, it is my right to not fulfill that policy/ignore that order in place of/in addition to lobbying my representative and the executive to change that decision/policy. Am I summarizing accurately?

I find our current system of taxation and the horrible mis-spending of the funds thereby generated to be exceedingly stupid and contrary to the long-term best interests of the nation. I will therefore not pay my taxes and thereby support/enact such a stupidity.

Thanks! I feel so much better now.:rolleyes3:

Actually Seamus, back in the 90s the British people took just such a view of the stupidity of the poll tax introduced by Margaret Thatcher. A lot of people refused to pay and though they still had to face their day in court, eventually the refusal forced the government to change its mind - and forced Mrs T out of office.

Nearest thing the Brits have had to a revolution since 1688. :beam:

Even currently, there are elderly pensioners that are refusing to pay the Council Tax (another local tax that unfairly hits them hard) and though they are put into court as the law states, and some are even jailed (as society needs protection from 90 year old tax terrorists) they are widely admired by the general public.

Forcing the government to jail people who protest an injustice has always been a good resistance tactic. The law is upheld, but shown to be an ass. Thus does democracy work.

Fisherking

02-04-2007, 14:22

Same as above really .

For example taxes since you mentioned it .
If you simply ignore taxes you are going to get well and truly screwed over .
If you go to the tax man or the courts and can make a case as to why you shouldn't pay the taxes you can get away with it . If not then you can still refuse to pay as long as you are wiling to face the consequences .

Alternatetively you could say nothing and pay the taxes , wait for the election so you can vote for someone who tells you that they are not going to screw you over on taxes , then find out that they are still going to screw you over like the last lot did .
The second is the only real worthwhile option isn't it , and the second (though it is in a different field) is the option this officer has taken .
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

:ballchain: :whip:

Good old U.S.A.

Its been tried many times…but going to court over it here just makes you stand out and they like to make an example of you…sense the code says it is voluntary…but mandatory…figure that one out….

Pannonian

02-04-2007, 14:35

Actually Seamus, back in the 90s the British people took just such a view of the stupidity of the poll tax introduced by Margaret Thatcher. A lot of people refused to pay and though they still had to face their day in court, eventually the refusal forced the government to change its mind - and forced Mrs T out of office.

Nearest thing the Brits have had to a revolution since 1688. :beam:

It also led to a drastic depopulation in the UK. According to the census, anyway.

:laugh4:

Mooks

02-04-2007, 22:16

It doesnt matter if a war is illegal or not. Wars are made by countries who are wishing to expand its interests in one way or another, or a country trying to defend itself. Being "justified" is just a excuse. Cassi Bellum I think its called.

And my opionin is that the officer is a coward. Can join the military and do training but pisses his pants once he actually has to do his job? Does artillery stay in the way back?

Watchman

02-04-2007, 22:29

Casus Bellum. It's actually startling how concerned even total bloody-handed dictators can be about it.

AntiochusIII

02-04-2007, 22:33

Redleg: thanks for correcting me back on page 1. I missed the Authorization of Force part. :2thumbsup:

Admittedly, I think Presidents abuse that option waaaaay too much. It's been like, the main way Americans go into war since Korea. It wasn't supposed to be.

Cassi BellumCasus Belli. Thank Europa Universalis for teaching me that. I have a knack of learning tidbits of cool stuff from video games. The USA's original Casus Belli was to stop a supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction project, of course...

And my opionin is that the officer is a coward. Can join the military and do training but pisses his pants once he actually has to do his job? Does artillery stay in the way back?Did you miss the part where the officer asked to go to Afghanistan, notoriously much more dangerous than Iraq? How the hell is that cowardice?

Banquo's Ghost

02-04-2007, 22:41

And my opionin is that the officer is a coward. Can join the military and do training but pisses his pants once he actually has to do his job? Does artillery stay in the way back?

Hey, let's not be mean about the artillery. :beadyeyes2:

And this officer may be misguided, but I don't think he can be accused of cowardice. As others have noted, he offered to go to Afghanistan (and did a tour of Iraq, if I read correctly) and anyone who stands up for his conscience whilst accepting the penalties that may come with that stand is a brave soul.

I think he's wrong, but I respect his stand and the way he has made it.

lancelot

02-05-2007, 00:06

Well, until the jury comes in on if the war is in fact illegal (I think it is but I digress) this is gonna be a huge mess.

Bottom line is- If a soldier considers an act immoral then he is most certainly expected to refuse to follow it and then face the consequences.

I wonder how impartiality will factor in here...I dont imagine a court finding him not guilty regardless of whether he is in fact not guilty...that would be tantamount to conceding that the war was illegal.

An interesting case...

Mooks

02-05-2007, 12:51

Or maybe.... He doesnt like the desert weather? I mean, iv never been to the desert, but I heard its not pretty. Iv always heard a small rumour that theres not much water around, anyone heard this?

Pannonian

02-05-2007, 13:12

Or maybe.... He doesnt like the desert weather? I mean, iv never been to the desert, but I heard its not pretty. Iv always heard a small rumour that theres not much water around, anyone heard this?
What's that got to do with anything? Could it be that you were plainly wrong with the cowardice accusation, but you don't want to admit you were wrong, so you're now casting around for other things to accuse him of?

Redleg

02-05-2007, 18:50

Well more is coming out, and some of it demonstrated that the officer's defense will not work. One being this statement.

Seitz unsuccessfully sought an opportunity to argue the legality of the war, saying it violated army regulations that specify wars are to be waged in accordance with the United Nations charter.

Actually the Army Regulations state something slightly different. This would be an interpation of an Army Regulation but not the one that sends the United States to War. And its most likely the wrong interpation of the regulation. But this looks like the arguement that might be used to go to the Supreme Court after this Courts Martial.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6351C84C-1006-48E2-A547-9FCD7ACC8652.htm

The Military Judges Ruling on the defense

http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/5605/

Frankly the arguement he is trying will not work in a Military Courts Martial because of the very nature of military law. Until the case makes it into the Federal Courts that review all military appeals the LT. will not be able to justify his actions using the "Nuernberg defense" will not be allowed. Because the Military is primarily under the obligation to obey the lawful orders of the commander in chief. The lawful order of the deployment comes from the Congressional authorization for the use of force against Iraq. So the young man has a long legal battle in front of him. It will take several appeals before it can even come close to getting reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Navaros

02-05-2007, 23:30

Of course his defense won't work, they are being silenced just like in the title of this thread, in a fixed "trial" with a predetermined outcome. The legal experts who can prove the War on Iraq is illegal are being barred from even speaking. But even if they did speak the outcome would be fixed anyhow.:furious3:

Of course, the reality remains that the War on Iraq is illegal and Watada is completely right, regardless of the fixed result of his farce trial.

Court-martial begins for war objector By MELANTHIA MITCHELL, Associated Press Writer

FORT LEWIS, Wash. - The judge in the case against the first U.S. officer court-martialed for refusing to ship out for Iraq barred several experts in international and constitutional law from testifying Monday about the legality of the war.

1st Lt. Ehren Watada, 28, of Honolulu is charged with missing movement for refusing to ship out with his unit, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. He is also faces charges of conduct unbecoming an officer for accusing the Army of war crimes and denouncing the administration for conducting an "illegal war" founded on "lies."

As his court-martial got under way, military judge Lt. Col. John Head refused to allow almost all defense witnesses to take the stand. Head previously ruled that Watada's attorney, Eric Seitz, could not debate the legality of the Iraq war in court.

If convicted, Watada could receive four years in prison and a dishonorable discharge. He has requested that his case be heard by a military panel of officers, the equivalent of a jury. It had not yet been selected by midday.

At one point, Seitz suggested Head could be committing judicial misconduct if he denied Seitz an opportunity to ask panel members biographical questions to determine any bias.

"If you are going to tie my hands and you are going to script these proceedings, then in my view we're all wasting our time," Seitz said.

The judge said Seitz would be allowed time to question panel members individually.

Although other officers have refused to deploy to Iraq, Watada is the first to be court-martialed. In 2005, Army Sgt. Kevin Benderman, an enlisted man, was sentenced to 15 months in prison and given a dishonorable discharge after refusing to go to Iraq.

Outside the base, a small group that included actor Sean Penn demonstrated in support of Watada. A few others demonstrated against him, including one man who carried a sign calling Watada a "weasel."

Watada, who joined the Army in March 2003, has called the Iraq war "a horrible breach of American law" and said he has a duty to refuse illegal orders.

Army prosecutors have argued that Watada's behavior was dangerous to the mission and morale of soldiers in Iraq.

"He betrayed his fellow soldiers who are now serving in Iraq," Capt. Dan Kuecker said at one hearing.

Redleg

02-06-2007, 00:01

Of course his defense won't work, they are being silenced just like in the title of this thread, in a fixed "trial" with a predetermined outcome. The legal experts who can prove the War on Iraq is illegal are being barred from even speaking. But even if they did speak the outcome would be fixed anyhow.:furious3:

Of course, the reality remains that the War on Iraq is illegal and Watada is completely right, regardless of the fixed result of his farce trial.

Emotional appeal does not work. Until he goes in front of the civil authorities that review and conduct appeals on Military Courts Martials, his defense is not valid just as the judge ruled. One can not refuse a valid military order because they disagree with the order, one must demonstrate that the order of one's immediate commander is unlawful.

His Battalion Commander's order is lawful, the deployment order given to him by his Brigade Commander meets the requirements of a lawful order as stated in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The legality or illegality of the war is an issue of wether Congress followed its established procedures in the authorization of the use of force against Iraq. Until that is establish the LT will have to suffer the consequences of his refusal to obey a lawful order. And until he goes in front of the Supreme Court - he has to follow the process that is stipulated in the Uniform Code of Militarty Justice.

In other more simple words - you are going to have to wait. Your objection to the court martial is based upon your lack of knowledge, your naivity, and your emotional appeal on the subject. Your arguement lacks the necessary facts. Just like the attempt the LT is using for his initial defense lacks the necessary substance. The attempt to get it admitted means that that will be the base for the appeal.

When one looks at the Military Code of Justice and the Regulations that the United States Military has for the waging of war - one will quickly discover that the LT doesn't have much of a leg to stand on in his refusing to obey the deployment order. The constitution is the authority that the LT has to answer to - the constitution is not superceded by any treaty that this country has entered into.

lancelot

02-06-2007, 12:47

Mooks

02-06-2007, 12:53

What's that got to do with anything? Could it be that you were plainly wrong with the cowardice accusation, but you don't want to admit you were wrong, so you're now casting around for other things to accuse him of?

The weather thing was a joke. I still stand by my cowardice accusation. If I remember correctly from reading the article, his father wouldnt go to vietnam (Runs in the family?)

Watchman

02-06-2007, 13:34

That's a slippery slope you're standing on, son.

Tribesman

02-06-2007, 13:49

That's a slippery slope you're standing on, son.
Its not just a slippery slope it is a steep slippery slope and bandit is wearing rolleskates , the wind is behind him and he is now raising a sail to speed his descent to an even lower level than was previously thought possible. :thumbsdown:

Redleg

02-06-2007, 14:36

@Redleg

Perhaps you could explain for me, as I freely admit to a lack of knowledge on such a topic...

From what I can gather from your last post- A solider is morally required to follow lawful orders- hence he should refuse an order by his direct superior to put a bullet in an unarmed prisoners head, for example...correct so far?

A soldier is obligated by his oath not to follow orders that are unlawful.

A soldier is obligated to follow all lawful orders. Its a legal responsiblity not a moral one.

But he is not allowed to refuse an order from the US government or authority way above his battalion commander (for want of a better expression)...ie- go invade this country.

I have not stated that. If the soldier refuses to obey an order that he believes to be unlawful - that soldier must be willing to face the consequence of his refusal. In the United States Military a Courts Martial is held if that is the course that the soldier elects to take if given a non-judicial or judicial choice. Sometimes the commander does not give the choice and immediately pursues the Courts Martial, a judicial action. At the Courts Martial the panel will determine if the order of the soldiers commander was lawful or unlawful.

Now since this was an order to deploy by his commander - which is based upon a deployment order from the Department of the Army, which is based upon an order by the Commander in Chief, which is based upon an authorization to use force. The Courts Martial will most likely determine that the soldier was incorrect in his refusal. The legality of the invasion comes from the United States Congress, with its authorization for the use of force. The case will have to go through the appeal process to the Supreme Court to determine wether the Order was an unlawful order, because of the nature of the individuals defense for refusing to obey an order.

So by this guy saying he thinks the war is illegal and refusing to follow that order, who is he disobeying and at what level is he committing his crime? his battalion CO, the constitution, both or something/one else?

He disobeyed his immediate superior officer, this is what this Courts Martial will be most likely dealing with given the reports that I have read and the two decisions of the head military judge that were linked to alreadly in this thread.
The main defense seems to be an appeal to the "Nurenberg Defense" and the United Nations Charter. Now because the lead judge in the case alreadly ruled on the 'Nurenberg Defense" without allowing it to be presented in this Courts Martial the defendent will most likely attempt to use it in the appeal process. WHich is probably why it was attempted at this level in the first place, so that the defense has a solid foundation for its appeal. Ie we wanted to introduce this defense but the Courts Martial judge would not allow us.

Last question- If a solider thinks XYZ orders are illegal/morally wrong/whatever and feels morally obligated to not follow it- he has to wait till the state, in effect decides to agree with him before exoneration?

He has to go through the Courts Martial Process and use the appeal process to attempt to get through to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court can determine if the order of the President and the legislative actions of the Congress violates the constitution. Because of the very nature of the Military an order by the Commander in Chief authorized by Congress is considered lawful since it follows the interpation of the Constitution that allows authorization for the use of force. Only the Supreme Court will be able to satify the request of this soldier to determine if the order was illegal or not.
A lower court might try - but will also be meant with immediate appeal by either side depending upon the decision.

One must understand that so far his defense seemly is based upon using a treaty as a document to override the Constitution. Its going to be a long uphill legal fight for this young LT to prove that the order was unlawful.

A reference case would be Specialist New and his refusal to wear the blue beret.

Redleg

02-06-2007, 14:40

The weather thing was a joke. I still stand by my cowardice accusation. If I remember correctly from reading the article, his father wouldnt go to vietnam (Runs in the family?)

It actually takes more moral courage to do what this young man is doing. He is standing up for a belief that he has. That I think he is incorrect in his decision does not for a second mean I think the man is a coward.

It takes a lot of courage to refuse an order and then accept the legal consequences of that decision. I don't see the young man attempting to remove himself from that consequence. Remember he was alreadly offered choices that would not land him in jail if the court determines that he is wrong.

A misguided effort maybe - an act of a coward most definitily not.

KukriKhan

02-06-2007, 16:02

A couple of side questions for the peanut gallery:

1) If the CMA (Court of Military Apeals) or SCOTUS did find that the order was unlawful, does that then implicate every soldier who did comply, in a crime? Are they guilty then of war crimes, for failing to disobey?

2) By refusing to deploy, the Lieutenant, by definition, forced some other Lieutenant to go, who would not have otherwise needed to deploy. If that guy gets killed or hurt, is 1LT Watada culpable?

Redleg

02-06-2007, 16:05

Seamus Fermanagh

02-06-2007, 17:17

A couple of side questions for the peanut gallery:

1) If the CMA (Court of Military Apeals) or SCOTUS did find that the order was unlawful, does that then implicate every soldier who did comply, in a crime? Are they guilty then of war crimes, for failing to disobey?

To expand on what Redleg said, I would add the following. The CMA is very much UNLIKELY to rule in favor of the defense. Having received an order from National Command Authority via the duly promulgated chain of command to participate in military action that furthers the interests of the USA and has been authorized by Congress and which is not obviously in contradiciton of the accepted laws of war (no "shoot the civilians" kind of thing), nothing within the military is out of line.

His view of the war as "unlawful" can only rest on one of two instances.

1. Congress had no right under the Constitution to grant the Executive the power to begin hostilities without a formal declaration of war. While I think Congress was a collective bunch of schmoes trying to side-step responsibility when they issued Bush his terrorsit hunting license in the fashion they did, they did do so. Moreover, based on the information then available, they voted again to authorize action in Iraq. I don't think this will fly as "unlawful" from a Constitutional angle.

Even if SCOTUS rules that Congress was operating outside the intent of the Constitution in this instance, the military was responding to what seemed to all parties concerned to be a legitimate authorization of the use of force in a manner not contradictory to the accepted "guidelines" for waging war. In that sense, there will be no "war crime" for having failed to disobey. In this instance, Waneda may spark an important Constitutional decision -- that the Congress cannot delegate its power to declare war -- but still end up losing his appeal.

2. That the action of the United States and its coalition partners was, from its inception, a war of aggression -- a type of war forsworn by the USA in its signed participation in the UN. This argument takes as its base the idea that the Bush administration purposefully suppressed information/actively lied so as to make Saddam's Iraq appear to be a threat for the express purpose of conquering Iraq and installing a satrapy in the Middle East. In this instance, Waneda would win his appeal. By corallary, any persons involved in the active deception of Congress to secure the authorization for hostilities would have been responsible for war crimes/crimes against humanity.

I don't think this will occur because the USA will not submit itself to review in the Hague or wherever they would hold such an inquiry, while the CMA and the SCOTUS -- being bound respectively by the UCMJ and the Constitution, will not address this issue in their reviews.

2) By refusing to deploy, the Lieutenant, by definition, forced some other Lieutenant to go, who would not have otherwise needed to deploy. If that guy gets killed or hurt, is 1LT Watada culpable?

Only to the extant that he refused orders to deploy. He did so refuse and is standing court martial etc. -- and will likely be punished -- for that decision. He is neither guilty of negligence in putting someone else in harm's way (he did not simply go over the hill and leave his unit in the lurch), nor is he the one who would have/will have harmed the other lieutenant. He may feel morally responsible on a personal level -- that's a matter for his conscience.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-06-2007, 17:31

The weather thing was a joke. I still stand by my cowardice accusation. If I remember correctly from reading the article, his father wouldnt go to vietnam (Runs in the family?)

Accusing the man of cowardice is, in my opinion, unjustified. Making such an accusation without addressing the facts of this event is tantamount to slander. At a minimum, you should profer a better argument.

You compound this with an implied attack on the man's father. His father's actions are those of his father. They have no bearing here.

Do you wish to be taken seriously, or are you simply reveling in the fact that such posts as yours generate strident responses?

Pindar

02-07-2007, 19:25

2. That the action of the United States and its coalition partners was, from its inception, a war of aggression -- a type of war forsworn by the USA in its signed participation in the UN. This argument takes as its base the idea that the Bush administration purposefully suppressed information/actively lied so as to make Saddam's Iraq appear to be a threat for the express purpose of conquering Iraq and installing a satrapy in the Middle East. In this instance, Waneda would win his appeal. By corallary, any persons involved in the active deception of Congress to secure the authorization for hostilities would have been responsible for war crimes/crimes against humanity.

This stance would be problematic on two counts: one, The U.N. itself has no extra-territorial authority under U.S. law. Two, the ratifying authority of the U.N. Charter was the Senate. This Senate authorized action in Iraq. The ratifying authority can stipulate at any time a change to a signed convention. In short, treaties or their ilk have weight only insofar as the signatory deems them to have such.

The confused Lieutenant's position is legally stupid. He should have sought better counsel prior to jumping off the bridge.

Xiahou

02-07-2007, 19:59

1. Congress had no right under the Constitution to grant the Executive the power to begin hostilities without a formal declaration of war. While I think Congress was a collective bunch of schmoes trying to side-step responsibility when they issued Bush his terrorsit hunting license in the fashion they did, they did do so. Moreover, based on the information then available, they voted again to authorize action in Iraq. I don't think this will fly as "unlawful" from a Constitutional angle.
There is no requirement for a "formal" declaration of war that I see in the constitution. It says nothing of "formal" declarations or of how they should be written. The AUMF is a declaration of war in every sense but the "formal" one. Congress authorized the president to use the military to invade Iraq- sounds a lot like declaring war to me.

Seamus Fermanagh

02-07-2007, 20:59

There is no requirement for a "formal" declaration of war that I see in the constitution. It says nothing of "formal" declarations or of how they should be written. The AUMF is a declaration of war in every sense but the "formal" one. Congress authorized the president to use the military to invade Iraq- sounds a lot like declaring war to me.

Both you and Pindar before you are preaching to the choir, here. I was trying to posit a possible answer to the question I asked Navaros earlier but which he did not answer.

My point is, the "unlawful war" argument falls short, so while I admire this man's willingness to face the consequence of his actions, I believe he is legally incorrect -- and I personally disagree with his decision.

KukriKhan

02-08-2007, 05:58

Sir Pindar introduces an interesting (to me) concept: the continuum of the US House, Senate, Presidency, and courts, when he wrote: "...this Senate..."

In other words: no matter the personalities involved, or their status as alive or dead, corrupt or righteous, currently-elected or ancient; the actual persons making laws, executing laws, or judging laws is irrelevant; the 'will of the people' , the overall zeitgeist, will inevitably, be observed and served. Beautiful. Really. :bow:

Lieutenant Watada's case was declared a mistrial (rightly, I think) because his lawyer could not agree to the details of his client's pre-trial stipulation(s), or their implications.

Mister Watada will soon have to decide whether he wants to be the prosecutor of US v Bush, or the defendant of US v Watada.

Redleg

02-08-2007, 07:00

Well Kurki-san that kind of throws Navarous claim of Nazi-esque and Kangeroo Court out the window don't you think?

A report on the Mistrail Ruling

http://www.thankyoult.org/content/view/1020/29/

KukriKhan

02-08-2007, 12:33

Well Kurki-san that kind of throws Navarous claim of Nazi-esque and Kangeroo Court out the window don't you think?

I think one could argue that the claims have been demonstratively defenestrated.

This trial is dove-tailing nicely with Congress' faltering attempts to craft a Resolution opposing the 'surge'. This whole series of events may become an interesting little drama for our time.

Del Arroyo

02-08-2007, 15:20

This trial is dove-tailing nicely with Congress' faltering attempts to craft a Resolution opposing the 'surge'.

Yeah, what's next? A Congressional Resolution on the proper timing of convoys??

There's really nothing quite like saying "Yes, we support the mission, but not the people we assigned to carry it out."

Xiahou

02-08-2007, 15:25

There's really nothing quite like saying "Yes, we support the mission, but not the people we assigned to carry it out."
I thought they support the people who are carrying out the mission, just not the plan that those same people came up with. :dizzy2:

Del Arroyo

02-08-2007, 15:29

I thought they support the people who are carrying out the mission, just not the plan that those same people came up with. :dizzy2:

I concur: :dizzy2:

Tribesman

02-08-2007, 15:55

I thought they support the people who are carrying out the mission, just not the plan that those same people came up with.
Wow you mean they actually had a plan .
and there was me thinking they just decided to go off on some half baked idea and hope for the best .

Xiahou

02-08-2007, 17:41

Wow you mean they actually had a plan .
and there was me thinking they just decided to go off on some half baked idea and hope for the best .
No idea what we're talking about, huh? :coffeenews:

Tribesman

02-08-2007, 18:12

No idea what we're talking about, huh?
Don't be silly Xiahou , they can support the troops yet not support the plan , and anyone the supports the new halfarsed plan is even more stupid than anyone who supported the original plan .
Now if someone really supported the troops then they wouldn't send them off on an idiotic mission in the first place .
So Xiahou , since you support this madness in Iraq it does raise the question , why do you hate the troops so much ?

Xiahou

02-08-2007, 19:00

Don't be silly Xiahou , they can support the troops yet not support the plan , and anyone the supports the new halfarsed plan is even more stupid than anyone who supported the original plan .
Now if someone really supported the troops then they wouldn't send them off on an idiotic mission in the first place .
So Xiahou , since you support this madness in Iraq it does raise the question , why do you hate the troops so much ?
Another swing and a miss. :laugh4:
Want a clue, or would you like to flail away some more?

Tribesman

02-08-2007, 19:44

EDIT: Removed personal attack. BG

Banquo's Ghost

02-08-2007, 19:56

Let's try and see if we can disagree without insulting each other, shall we?

ajaxfetish

02-08-2007, 19:57

Tribesman

02-08-2007, 20:20

Tribesman, they're not talking about 'the troops.' Unless I'm mistaken, they're discussing the military leadership, and the issue at hand is not the quality of the plan, but the unwillingness of congress to commit itself. If they assign generals to accomplish a task and then block those generals' plans, they show either that they are determined to fail or that they don't trust their own appointees, either of which is discouraging.

But the issue is the quality of the plan isn't it , the administration was offered several plans , it chose a crap one (again) . Why should the senate or congress commit to it without thourough debate . A major issue in the mid-terms was sorting the mess out in Iraq , the plan does nothing of the sort and there is cross party support saying this ,though not in sufficent numbers from either side to resolve it yet .

But I must say the change in attitudes towards Casey is quite funny .

Xiahou

02-08-2007, 21:02

Tribesman, they're not talking about 'the troops.' Unless I'm mistaken, they're discussing the military leadership, and the issue at hand is not the quality of the plan, but the unwillingness of congress to commit itself. If they assign generals to accomplish a task and then block those generals' plans, they show either that they are determined to fail or that they don't trust their own appointees, either of which is discouraging.

Ajax
Yup, he's got it. :bow:
General Petraeus was confirmed unanimously by the Senate with the many of them going out of their way to gush and heap praise on him. However, they oppose the plan to secure Baghdad that was written in a large part by and certainly supported by Petraeus. It's mind boggling cognitive dissonance and smacks of political pandering.

ajaxfetish

02-08-2007, 21:03

I'll agree with you wholeheartedly that the quality of the plan is an issue. The point is that it is not the issue Del Arroyo and Xiahou were discussing. No need to sound like a broken record, as there are certainly plenty of opportunities here to address the issue you'd prefer to be discussing (and I'm sure you'll take advantage of them ~;)) without the danger of starting a needless flaming session when folks are discussing something else.

Ajax

Tribesman

02-08-2007, 23:58

General Petraeus was confirmed unanimously by the Senate with the many of them going out of their way to gush and heap praise on him. However, they oppose the plan to secure Baghdad that was written in a large part by and certainly supported by Petraeus. It's mind boggling cognitive dissonance and smacks of political pandering.

Yep , yet while the gave him the shoo in they were still questioning how according to his own expert writings on counter insurgency he would need 120,000 troops just to secure Baghdad .

So if he has written that in his expert opinion a certain level of troops are neccesary then that means to recommend or agree to go with less is a severe cognital malfunction and political pandering on the part of the General .

Since they retain the ability to challenge the plan itself then the fact that they approved the nominee for the job has no relevance at all .

Appointing someone because you have faith in their abilities is no reflection at all on having faith in a policy . The policy is what is screwed up .

So to paraprhrase some of the "gushing praise " heaped on the General at the time of his appointment ."Its screwed but if anyone can make some sort of sense out of the mess then Petraeus is the fella , the plan stinks but lets give him the job"