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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linked article

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/exer...CD7ACC8652.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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

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.

@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?

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.

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?

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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?)

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

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lancelot

@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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holybandit

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

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 early for that question there Kukri. But you have hit on the reason why the initial Courts Martial will go against the LT. This is very similiar to the case that SPC New attempted. SCOTUS refused to hear his case for several reason. The main one being that they found no procedure violations by the lower courts.

Quote:

---

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?

---

In short, No. Who is to say that 1LT Watada would of suffered the same event.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holybandit

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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.

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.

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/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

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:

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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:

Quote:

---

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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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?

EDIT: Removed personal attack. BG

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

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

Quote:

---

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 .