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

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

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

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.).

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

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

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:

---

Its obvious that you understand the rules of being a soldier, or the method in which one seeks justice while in uniform.

One can protest when one is in uniform if one is willing to suffer the consequences of that protest. The UCMJ is that consequence - he has to follow this procedure to get a ruling from the Supreme Court concerning the military's action in regrads to the conflict and following the orders of the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and the Congress that sent them there. The military has no choice but to prosecute him for failure to follow their lawful orders - the case will have to go all the way to the Supreme Court before the ruling you and he are after. I hope this young man understands that principle and the procedures he embarked himself on, because if he doesn't he will have a very rude shock when the Courts Martial finds him guilty of the proposed charges.

Learn the lesson well my young friend because that is the way that it works.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patriarch of Constantinople

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.).

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

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.

Double post.

Ok, think of it like this.

Was World War 2 an illegal war?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patriarch of Constantinople

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patriarch of Constantinople

Ok, think of it like this.

Was World War 2 an illegal war?

---

Ummm... was Hitler justified to invade Poland?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Ummm... was Hitler justified to invade Poland?

---

Was Saddam justified to invade Kuwait?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patriarch of Constantinople

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patriarch of Constantinople

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patriarch of Constantinople

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patriarch of Constantinople

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Was Saddam justified to invade Kuwait?

---

No , what he should have done is either renegotiated the deal or just simply refused to pay .

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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.

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

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

---

That doesn't really work does it .

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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Somebody Else

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:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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: