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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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!

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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scurvy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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:

Quote:

---

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 ?

Quote:

---

You deny that there's a problem in Iraq?

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: oh stop :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
here .......

Quote:

---

I cordially invite you to remove your head from the sand.

---

............

Quote:

---

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 ...

Quote:

---

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 .

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

From here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ayad Allawi

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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?

@ 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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

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 .

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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?

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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….

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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:

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?

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holybandit

Cassi Bellum

---

Casus 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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holybandit

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holybandit

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.

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...

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holybandit

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?