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

[Mooks]

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]

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

[Tribesman]

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.

[Redleg]

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]

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]

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.

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[Pindar]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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?