"First Lieutenant Ehren Watada still refuses Iraq deployment orders, calling the war illegal. A six-year prison term could result. Preliminary hearings are set for Thursday."
On the surface, this seems like a soldier who simply doesn't want to go, but if you read the article in detail, he seems to have very sound reasoning behind his decision.
This does bring up the question, to what extent does a soldier have either/both a right and a duty to refuse to engage in actions they believe are illegal?
This soldier claims his oath was to uphold the Constitution and defend the country, not to support the personal agendas of irresponsible politician. He also says those politicians have a moral responsibility not to waste the lives of soldier they have been entrusted to command.
This seems like a very intelligent group here, and I am interested in hearing your comments on this subject.
Personally, I have mixed emotions. If this soldier is really true to the principles that he is claiming, then I fully support him.
I believe the war in Iraq was, based not on the information we were presented, that wasn't the cause for the war, that was merely the excuse, but was perpetrated as a purely political war that furthers the Executive branches personal agenda. 9/11 was merely the provocation they needed to push that agenda.
There is one question that I would like to ask him though, but am not sure how to go about it. I would like to ask him if his orders were to go to Afghanistan, would he go? Afghanistan is a completely separate war with completely separate justifications. This is the one critical question that the interviewer did not ask.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I've been hearing about this story for over a year now, and I seem to recall that he explicitly said he would deploy anywhere else, including Afghanistan.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Found this on the Internet, it seemed appropriate -
Mark Twain said, "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it."
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
He is guilty, and will serve time.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I've been following the story for a while, because it's very close to home--he grew up in Hawaii and attended my high school for some time, was stationed here in Washington, and is a Japanese American soldier, something very much tied into my family's history--and I hear about it both from my family back home and locally in Seattle.
I'm not sure what to think. On the one hand, I deeply sympathize with his attitude that the war in Iraq has long since changed from an American war to an individually motivated one. I respect his courage in electing to stand up and voice his opinion.
On the other hand, he joined the military after the war in Iraq had begun. He must have known that being deployed to Iraq was a real possibility, and I can't imagine he didn't consider the consequences of joining the military during the middle of an offensive campaign, especially as an officer (my military friends are constantly joking about how quickly lieutenants get cycled through Iraq, because there is such a severe shortage). I have my doubts as to whether his intentions in joining the military were honest.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
In principle I'd agree with you Steve, and the venerable Mr. Clemens.
In fact I am reasonably certain that the uniform code of military conduct (or whatever the appropriate term is) specifically states that illegal orders are not to be followed (see stipulations about relieving superior officers of command in times of emotional duress or when giving illegal orders...)
Now I'm not as certain that such points can actually be applied in this light, and were almost certainly not intended for this type of occurance. Much as I personally think that the war was begun under false pretenses, I think it is likely impossible to officially judge it as "illegal." 1) because international law is murky at best (to my understanding) 2) because even if there was a lot of evidence stating that there were no WMDs or no connection to 9-11, there could have been miscommunication of this evidence (or lack therof) and/or other evidence which was enough to "convince" the leadership to start the war. It is highly highly doubtful that you can ever actually prove that W was straight out lying about this, or that he didn't believe (because of whatever information) that this was a just cause for a war...
also, to the best of my understanding, the rules about disobeying illegal orders are intended for small-scale immediately understandable situations such as an illegal order to gun down some civilians or execute/torture prisoners etc.
What particularly gets me about this case is that the Lt. signed up while the war was getting underway, and was in support of it at first. This really weakens his position in my mind, since as far as we know the leadership could have been in a similar situation as him (thinking initially that this was all justified, and now realizing that it really wasn't). If he had been opposed to it the whole time (as I was every time there were reports that Iraq was a direct threat to the US) then it would be a different story.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
His willingness to accept his punishment when it is handed down will play a big part in determining how I feel about this.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
The oath of enlistment goes something like this (and I assume it's along the same lines as the officerly one) "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God".
I copied that off of a card that the sailors I work with are required to sign and then wear with their badges. I wear one too because the AF one is stupider.
Anyway. Read the oath, notice where Mr. Watada goes wrong, and then have a pleasant day.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think his argument hinges on the "according to regulations," since he believes he's being ordered to commit a war crime.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think his argument hinges on the "according to regulations," since he believes he's being ordered to commit a war crime.
The war was authorized by Congress, and the internationally-recognized government of Iraq had requested the presence of U.S. troops by the time he was ordered deployed. There's no credible way for him to have believed the deployment to be illegal.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
As a former soldier who did a tour of duty in this war, I sympathize very much with him. I would hate to be made to go back and fight a war that I belieive has been a big waste and will continue to be a big waste. But he doesn't make the decisions. His commander-in-chief does. He should fully expect to be sent to jail. And if he truly feels that his judgment is worth standing up for, then he should do it without complaint.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
quote: His willingness to accept his punishment when it is handed down will play a big part in determining how I feel about this.
I Agree
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
He can believe the war is immoral, unnecessary, stupid, and falsely justified six days a week and twice on Sundays, and I'll listen to him. He's got a lot of potential credible arguments to support those statements, after all.
Illegal? Illegal to who? Certainly not illegal under United States law, nor under Iraqi law as Dag has pointed out. For the only purposes that matter as concerns him as a soldier, the war is not illegal.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:The war was authorized by Congress, and the internationally-recognized government of Iraq had requested the presence of U.S. troops by the time he was ordered deployed. There's no credible way for him to have believed the deployment to be illegal.
What about international law?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Two things make this irrelevant:
1) "the internationally-recognized government of Iraq had requested the presence of U.S. troops by the time he was ordered deployed" - no matter how the war started, by the time Watada was ordered to go, our being there was legal under international law.
2) Acts of Congress and ratified treaties have the same force and effect under U.S. law. If a law is passed that conflicts with a treaty, the law takes precedence. Therefore, under U.S. law - which is what matters for the purposes of evaluating an order's legality - whether or not the invasion violated the U.N. Charter is not relevant. Congress authorized the invasion. If that authorization did violate the Charter, then the later of the two applies - the authorization.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
BTW, he has a colorable double jeopardy argument here, assuming his lawyers preserve it correctly. There's a non-trivial chance this will not be decided on the merits.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What about international law?
American soldiers are governed by international law? Since when, exactly?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I was just curious, I wasn't making an argument one way or the other.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: BTW, he has a colorable double jeopardy argument here, assuming his lawyers preserve it correctly. There's a non-trivial chance this will not be decided on the merits.
Could you elaborate, Dag? I'm not sure what this means, and I'm curious.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: BTW, he has a colorable double jeopardy argument here, assuming his lawyers preserve it correctly. There's a non-trivial chance this will not be decided on the merits.
Could you elaborate, Dag? I'm not sure what this means, and I'm curious.
This, I think.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:What about international law?
American soldiers are governed by international law? Since when, exactly?
Ahh, yet so eager to bring up Geneva Conventions when it is US or allied forces being accosted. in case you were unaware, the US military is just as liable for breaking international law as any other nation's military. A soldier can deny to follow orders that he believes are breaking international law (like the well known Geneva Conventions). "Just following orders" is not an acceptable defense, if I recall correctly.
Dagonee's argument about whether there would be precedent to cite international law is more appropriate. He and his lawyer are going to have a lot to prove and place the aftermath of the invasion under that pretext if he hopes to win. Considering the complexity of the situation that possibility is miniscule, for reasons Dagonee pointed out.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote:Ahh, yet so eager to bring up Geneva Conventions when it is US or allied forces being accosted
The US military adheres to the Geneva Conventions because we signed a treaty agreeing to be governed by it. It doesn't take precedence over US law because we've agreed that to some degree it is also our law.
Keeping that it mind, the US raises the Geneva Conventions as a flag when other treaty countries blatantly and systematically ignore it.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The war was authorized by Congress, and the internationally-recognized government of Iraq had requested the presence of U.S. troops by the time he was ordered deployed. There's no credible way for him to have believed the deployment to be illegal.
That's just wrong. There's plenty of credible ways to believe the deployment to be illegal. He might believe Congress' authorization is not enough - the war was not officially declared after all. Or he might believe Congress was illegally tricked into authorizing it. Or he might believe international law did not allow it, regardless of what the international community now (After the fact) recognizes as the sovereign government. And so on.
quote:American soldiers are governed by international law? Since when, exactly?
Since America began interacting with the international community - or, in other words, since America was founded.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Credible to who, Tres? A liberal group of bloggers, or a jury of military officers? Also, the issue is not what Lt. Sites may or may not believe.
We don't have a draft. He signed up after the Iraq war started, took an oath, and now has second thoughts. Or he really believes the war is illegal for whatever reasons. But in claiming that the war is illegal, he's not just skating on thin ice, he's skating underwater. Congress and the Supreme Court haven't said so, nor has the UN. And the judges won't let him bring lots of political evidence anyway.
He says
quote: It seems like people and critics make this distinction between an order to deploy and any other order, as if the order to deploy is just something that's beyond any other order. Orders have to be determined on whether they're legal or not. And if the order to deploy to a war that is unlawful, if that is given, then that order itself is unlawful.
But it's not given, and he will be unable to prove it. He's guilty, and will be found so.
Note that I was against the war from before it started. But oaths should be fulfilled.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Credible to who, Tres?
I think it should be credible to any person being reasonable.
If one thinks it is impossible to even believe that the deployment of troops to Iraq is illegal, then I think that would be unreasonable. It would be to suggest that all those people who say they think the deployment is illegal are lying - that they don't really believe that.
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
quote: Or he really believes the war is illegal for whatever reasons. But in claiming that the war is illegal, he's not just skating on thin ice, he's skating underwater. Congress and the Supreme Court haven't said so, nor has the UN. And the judges won't let him bring lots of political evidence anyway.
Well, I would think though that assuming he really thought the war to be a crime then it shouldn't matter to him what the law says, US law or international. This is not to say that he shouldn't be locked up for it, I don't really have an opinion on that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That's just wrong. There's plenty of credible ways to believe the deployment to be illegal. He might believe Congress' authorization is not enough - the war was not officially declared after all. Or he might believe Congress was illegally tricked into authorizing it. Or he might believe international law did not allow it, regardless of what the international community now (After the fact) recognizes as the sovereign government. And so on.
He might think that those statements represent what the law should be. But they don't represent what the law is.
If he truly believes his deployment to Iraq - not anything else occurring there, not the initial invasion, but the actual movement of his unit from the U.S. to Iraq - is illegal, then he is basing this on recklessly poor understanding of the law.
I don't believe that - that is, I don't find it credible. Regardless, such an unreasonable belief will not serve as a defense.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
I don't agree with the soldier. He is a soldier and is supposed to go where he is told. That's what soldiers do. I understand his point on it being an illegal war, but if he goes and serves, he can not be held responsible for what happens. Plus, "he feels" it is an illegal war. War crimes have not been brought up on George Bush.
A soldier is trained to fight, just like a firefighter is trained to put out fires. What if a firefighter is called to put out a fire at a Ku Klux Klan establishment and refuses. What would we say about that firefighter? What if it were an abortion clinic, or a Jewish Temple.
quote:I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD.
This is what every soldier swears to when they sign up for the military. I think that says it all.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Congress and the Supreme Court haven't said so, nor has the UN. And the judges won't let him bring lots of political evidence anyway.
I think it's obvious that at least one of his goals is to present evidence in court that he and his lawyer(s), at least, believe demonstrate the "illegality" of the war in Iraq. The judges so far appear perfectly aware of this intention.
quote:This is what every soldier swears to when they sign up for the military. I think that says it all.
Except that it doesn't. Soldiers are under legal obligation not to obey illegal orders. While the order to deploy to Iraq is almost certainly not illegal, it does logically follow that if he thinks it is, he is required by law not to obey. And if he's proved wrong about the illegality of that order, he gets punished for disobedience. *shrug* End of story.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
I know it is a slippery slope. My question is, why is he in the military anyway? We are not in a draft situation, so I don't see why he is even in the military. I understand what he says his reasons are, but it just sounds hinky.
This makes me angry.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Presumably he is in the military because he trusted that the President would not give him orders he would be required to disobey.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
I get that. And that makes it a slippery slope. Maybe it is because I do not see the war as illegal. Neither does the US government, the UN, etc. How does this one person have more information than everyone else.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Tom, I don't think that's a realistic goal. And apparently neither does Lt Watada or his lawyers.
quote: SITES: Do you think President Bush and his advisers are guilty of criminal conduct in the prosecution of this war?
WATADA: That's not something for me to determine. I think it's for the newly-elected congress to determine during the investigations that they should hold over this war, and pre-war intelligence.
SITES: But in some ways you have determined that. You're saying this is an illegal war, and an illegal act usually takes prosecution by someone with criminal intent. Is that correct?
WATADA: Right, and they have taken me to court with that, but they have refused — or it will be very unlikely that the prosecution in the military court will allow me to bring in evidence and witnesses to testify on my behalf that the war is illegal. So therefore it becomes the responsibility of Congress, since the military is refusing to do that. It becomes the responsibility of Congress to hold our elected leaders accountable.
Before I read this, I would have guessed that it would be difficult if not impossible to get in solid evidence that the war is illegal, that it would be found irrelevant. This shows that even Lt Watanda and his lawyers doubt their chances of getting in such evidence.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Maybe it is because I do not see the war as illegal. Neither does the US government, the UN, etc. How does this one person have more information than everyone else.
It is not a matter of having more information. I think it is a matter of understanding the implications of the available information better (or worse) than others.
And whether or not you agree with this soldier, there is definitely historical precedent for a small minority understanding a situation better than the masses and the governments that represent those masses. Slavery, genocide, ethnic cleansing, totalitarianism, ultranationalism, religious persecution, imperialism - all are cases in which popular majorities and governments belived things that small minorities knew were wrongful.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Jutsa,
quote:Ahh, yet so eager to bring up Geneva Conventions when it is US or allied forces being accosted. in case you were unaware, the US military is just as liable for breaking international law as any other nation's military. A soldier can deny to follow orders that he believes are breaking international law (like the well known Geneva Conventions). "Just following orders" is not an acceptable defense, if I recall correctly.
You have really got to get over this idea you've got, that you know what my opinions are before I actually say them. You don't. It was irritating before, it's irritating now. If you'd like to ask me about it, that's fine. I'd be happy to discuss it. But please, stop with the presumptive assumptions based solely on what you think my politics are.
Now, that said...can you cite a case or a law that states that an American soldier can legally refuse an order that violates international law that also does not violate American law, Jutsa? If so, I have never heard of it before, in a history text or on the news. The United States hesitates to let its military be answerable to international courts, so I find it difficult to believe it holds its military as answerable to international law.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Slavery, genocide, ethnic cleansing, totalitarianism, ultranationalism, religious persecution, imperialism - all are cases in which popular majorities and governments belived things that small minorities knew were wrongful.
And yet the issue isn't whether his deployment was wrongful - it's whether his deployment was illegal.
This wasn't an order which he had to decide to obey or not in a split second, where some deference to differences of understanding should be granted. He had time to investigate and research the law. One sentence possibilities about what he might be thinking don't cut it.
He's not arguing "this is legal but wrong, therefore I won't participate." He's arguing that it's illegal, and he's got nothing to back that up.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Maybe it is because I do not see the war as illegal. Neither does the US government, the UN, etc. How does this one person have more information than everyone else.
It is not a matter of having more information. I think it is a matter of understanding the implications of the available information better (or worse) than others.
And whether or not you agree with this soldier, there is definitely historical precedent for a small minority understanding a situation better than the masses and the governments that represent those masses. Slavery, genocide, ethnic cleansing, totalitarianism, ultranationalism, religious persecution, imperialism - all are cases in which popular majorities and governments belived things that small minorities knew were wrongful.
Good points but not ones where a soldier has to make the decision to participate or not.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Which conflicts/wars in US history would this person have participated in?
Grenada, Somalia, Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, Civil War, Civil War, Indian Wars, etc.
One could find something wrong with a lot of them. My analogy of the firefighter, I think, is still valid. Soldiers are meant to fight.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I am impressed with him. I wouldn't go so far as to call him a Ghandi or a Martin Luther King, but I think his motivations, actions, and conduct are in keeping with the same spirit.
Here are some quotes and then my thoughts:
quote:And I saw the pain and agony etched upon the faces of all these families of lost soldiers. And I told myself that this needs to stop. We cannot have people in power that are irresponsible and corrupt and that keep on going that way because they're not held accountable to the people.
quote: I agree, never again will we allow those who threaten our way of life to reign free. Be they terrorists or elected officials. The time to fight back is now, the time to stand up and be counted is today
quote:So therefore it becomes the responsibility of Congress, since the military is refusing to do that. It becomes the responsibility of Congress to hold our elected leaders accountable.
You need to take interest, and ask yourself where you stand, and what you're willing to do, to end this war, if you do believe that it's wrong — that it's illegal, and immoral. And I think I have accomplished that. Many, many people come up to me and say, "because of you, I have taken an active interest in what's going on over in Iraq.
It doesn't sound like he is trying to get out of service. It doesn't even sound like he is making a political statement. It sounds like that he is trying to force congress to take a second look at this war and administration.
He is, in his own way, sacrificing himself to generate enough awareness and media attention to influence our leaders to do what he considers is the democratically appropriate thing to do.
quote:And also, you know, [I want to] give a little hope and inspiration back to a lot of people. For a long time I was really without hope, thinking that there was nothing I could do about something that I saw, that was so wrong, and so tragic.
quote:I'm trying to end something that is criminal, something that should not have been started in the first place and something that is making America less safe.
Here is where my respect for him soars:
quote: STES: Are you ready to deal with all those consequences with this decision? WATADA: Sure, and I think that's the decision that I made almost a year ago, in January, when I submitted my original letter of resignation. I knew that possibly some of the things that I stated in that letter, including my own beliefs, that there were repercussions from that. Yet I felt it was a sacrifice, and it was a necessary sacrifice, to make. And I feel the same today.
He knows there is a consequence. He will accept the consequence. If you truly think your leader is corrupt beyond the regular mudslinging done in campaigns...if you truly believe the leaders are criminal...if you truly feel the leaders are a threat to democracy, then it is keeping within the spirit of the American way to expose the leaders, even if you pay a heavy personal sacrifice.
I don't necessarily agree with him. However, I trust his motivations and hope that if he serves 6 years then congress will take another look at the buildup to war. I also hope it generates a lot of public buzz.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Time will tell whether or not he will accept the consequences. I can't say that given the date of his enlistment, I think he's some sort of hero or worth of enormous respect. It's too soon to tell what his motivations are, I believe, just given that.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
I don't see it that way. But that's is what makes this country great, we don't have to agree.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget:
quote:Ahh, yet so eager to bring up Geneva Conventions when it is US or allied forces being accosted
The US military adheres to the Geneva Conventions because we signed a treaty agreeing to be governed by it. It doesn't take precedence over US law because we've agreed that to some degree it is also our law.
Keeping that it mind, the US raises the Geneva Conventions as a flag when other treaty countries blatantly and systematically ignore it.
I'm not arguing the validity of the Geneva Conventions. I am saying that the US government and some individuals like to cite them when it is advantageous to do so, and skirt them when otherwise (the US has actually demanded legal proceedings in the past for enemy militaries' use of waterboarding as torture, for instance).
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You have really got to get over this idea you've got, that you know what my opinions are before I actually say them. You don't. It was irritating before, it's irritating now. If you'd like to ask me about it, that's fine. I'd be happy to discuss it. But please, stop with the presumptive assumptions based solely on what you think my politics are.
Get a grip. In the Iran thread which was deleted, both you and Kwea were citing Geneva Convention infractions (incorrectly, I might add). However I can find no record of you speaking out so vehemently about the televised pictures of Uday and Qusay Hussein's dead portraits in the media. Perhaps you felt that was wrong as well, but I cannot find a post regarding it. All I am judging you on is your own posted content. Stop being so defensive about your politics. If you believe you are being improperly attributed to certain ideals, then perhaps you shouldn't send out mixed signals. If US soldiers break international law, then they must either be tried under US (military) law or face the world court. They are not exempt from international law. You have yet to acknowledge that, and I seriously doubt you will ever acknowledge such a correction from me considering what seems to be a personal problem. You can prove you are a bigger man than that right now by simply admitting you misstated in your post.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Now, that said...can you cite a case or a law that states that an American soldier can legally refuse an order that violates international law that also does not violate American law, Jutsa? If so, I have never heard of it before, in a history text or on the news. The United States hesitates to let its military be answerable to international courts, so I find it difficult to believe it holds its military as answerable to international law.
That is a nice demand, but what you are asking for is ridiculous. However, I submit House Resolution 6054, which was eventually called the Military Commissions Act of 2006. The tribunals section has since been mooted, but if you look on page 82 and start at the bold text a quarter of the way down, you will see one of the many reasons you will never see such a case as you demand I cite. This bill retroactively absolves soldiers from liability in US civilian and military court, as well as adding a sentence to the US Uniform Code of Military Justice, and was not in place until September of 2006. Any case that would be brought up now of such actions would likely not be heard in a court, because this bill (which passed) worked retroactively. I suppose if you want to cite shifting goalposts as your basis for your claim, you might have a shred of merit. Another example is waterboarding: considered torture in most other nations, pretty okay for the bad guys to the US military (or CIA). Showing the British prisoners in Iran is bad, but showing pictures of the dead faces of Saddam Hussein's sons is okay. When the government is shifting its definition of what "legal" is on a regular basis, you aren't going to find much. Add to that the US propensity to eschew universal jurisdiction with regard to some international law (while invoking it with regard to others), and you have a difficult challenge, to be sure. There are charges like the ones listed in this Time article, however, that I believe should fall within the realm of your demands. You are right that the US tends to thumb its nose at universal jurisdiction, but don't let individuals for whom charges have been pressed get caught in a nation that doesn't, because they certainly will be tried.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: This wasn't an order which he had to decide to obey or not in a split second, where some deference to differences of understanding should be granted. He had time to investigate and research the law. One sentence possibilities about what he might be thinking don't cut it.
He's not arguing "this is legal but wrong, therefore I won't participate." He's arguing that it's illegal, and he's got nothing to back that up.
I tend to agree with this, because it unless he can make the case that the war in Iraq is illegal, which is unlikely, he is liable to the agreement he made when entering the military regarding deployment. He and his legal counsel are not going to be able to make such a case, not with regard to the charges against him.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:He's not arguing "this is legal but wrong, therefore I won't participate." He's arguing that it's illegal, and he's got nothing to back that up.
I have heard several respected Consitutional Scholars with years of experience as law school faculty and in the courts argue that the war in Iraq is illegal. Their arguments have convinced me that this is not the open and shut case you claim it to be Dag.
Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders -- if the order was illegal. At the same time, soldiers who disobey a direct order can be court marshalled and even sentenced to death. If a soldier is given a "questionable" order, he/she must decide whether or not the order is legal knowing that a wrong decision could send them to prison or even death. This puts the typical US soldier who has minimal legal training in a very precarious position.
For this reason, the standard soldiers should be held to when they claim that they are disobeying an illegal order should be very different than what might be reasonable under different circumstances. If the soldier can demonstrate that he/she sincerely believed the order to be illegal, the soldier should not be sent to prison. If we apply a different standard, how can we reasonably hold any soldier responsible for committing war crimes under orders?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Jutsa,
quote:In the Iran thread which was deleted, both you and Kwea were citing Geneva Convention infractions (incorrectly, I might add).
I don't recall talking about the GC even once in that thread. But I suppose, as has been the case with you in the past, if I disagree with you, I'd be lying--which is something you explicitly said in that thread, among other politically bigoted insults towards me.
quote:However I can find no record of you speaking out so vehemently about the televised pictures of Uday and Qusay Hussein's dead portraits in the media.
Well, first of all, they weren't soldiers. Or at the very least, they weren't soldiers first. Second, you haven't even looked for my opinions on US involvement in Iraq, because if you did, you wouldn't be so consistently mislabeling me.
quote:All I am judging you on is your own posted content. Stop being so defensive about your politics.
No you're not. You've even said, in this same paragraph, that you're judging me on what I'm not saying!
quote:you believe you are being improperly attributed to certain ideals, then perhaps you shouldn't send out mixed signals.
Here's a better idea: base your attributions on what I say, rather than on what signals you think I'm mixing. Since you have already rather stupidly thought that I was, among other things, a Fox News fan and a Rush Limbaugh supporter, maybe you need to tune your rhetorical radio a bit better. It's not reading right.
quote:If US soldiers break international law, then they must either be tried under US (military) law or face the world court. They are not exempt from international law. You have yet to acknowledge that, and I seriously doubt you will ever acknowledge such a correction from me considering what seems to be a personal problem. You can prove you are a bigger man than that right now by simply admitting you misstated in your post.
I'm not remotely interested in proving my manhood to you, or anyone else on this board. If I was, first I would have to agree with your statement, which I don't anyway. But it's strange, because apparently this is some sort of manhood contest to you. Talk about something to prove!
I pointed out that American soldiers are not governed by international law. And they're not, at least not so far as I know. Unless you can find me a case under which an American soldier has been prosecuted for violating an international law that wasn't also an American violation, or a specific order or part of the UCMJ that states that American soldiers are governed by international law, the question I asked stands.
All your posting in the paragraph after that seems to be based on moral weight and whatnot. I wasn't talking about what should be, I was talking about what is.
Here's an idea: why not go back to not responding to me? That lasted, what, a few days? Why don't you "prove you're a bigger man"? Hehe.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Dag's quote on down would have been fine, Justa.
Rakeesh- I'm tired of this character hijacking threads because he feels that the responses are all addressing him. Please stop feeding him.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I have heard several respected Consitutional Scholars with years of experience as law school faculty and in the courts argue that the war in Iraq is illegal. Their arguments have convinced me that this is not the open and shut case you claim it to be Dag.
Can you link one that specifically explains how our presence at the time this order was issued is illegal? Because all the ones I've seen talk about the initial invasion, not the act of sending in troops at the request of the internationally recognized government of Iraq.
quote:For this reason, the standard soldiers should be held to when they claim that they are disobeying an illegal order should be very different than what might be reasonable under different circumstances. If the soldier can demonstrate that he/she sincerely believed the order to be illegal, the soldier should not be sent to prison. If we apply a different standard, how can we reasonably hold any soldier responsible for committing war crimes under orders?
Because some orders are more obviously illegal than others. Further, a decision that must be made under fire in the field is very different than one that can be made with access to legal counsel in advance.
A justification defense - which is what this in essence is - always carries a risk that honest belief will not be enough. The person taking the otherwise illegal action - and disobeying orders is illegal absent justification - has a pretty serious burden.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Jutsa,
quote:In the Iran thread which was deleted, both you and Kwea were citing Geneva Convention infractions (incorrectly, I might add).
I don't recall talking about the GC even once in that thread. But I suppose, as has been the case with you in the past, if I disagree with you, I'd be lying--which is something you explicitly said in that thread, among other politically bigoted insults towards me.
It is a pity I do not have any desire to share e-mails with you. If you have access to someone else's copy, I'll show you where you are a liar. Page 3, tenth post up from the bottom:
quote:Rakeesh stated in a deleted thread: Perhaps the best time to bring that up isn't when an extremely religious semi-autonomous branch of their military is holding over a dozen sailors and marines of our closest ally prisoner. And violating their GC rights, no less.
Page 4, 12th post from the top:
quote:Rakeesh stated in a deleted thread: Too soon to tell, although Iranian flagrant GC violations and demands that Britain admit to wrongdoing prior to visitation-a step I'm sure you think they should take-probably shouldn't change the tenor of the situation to you, either.
I'm sure someone else besides me saved those pages. Ask them for a copy, or simply admit you said it.
As for the name-calling, on more than one post you called me a jackass, anti-American, and some other names on that other board. You have no moral high ground, because all I accused you of is toeing a jingoistic line. I didn't question your status as an American. I didn't call you a jackass and other assorted names. You even demanded in a different thread I come back and "fight" with you. I disagreed with you and accused you of having just as much or more bias than you accused me of having. You broke the ToS in that thread, I just pissed you off.
Just admit you actually did say it, or get someone to give you copies of the pages to prove it to yourself. You did accuse Iran of breaking Geneva Conventions, and now you are playing a victim because I've got a better memory than you.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:However I can find no record of you speaking out so vehemently about the televised pictures of Uday and Qusay Hussein's dead portraits in the media.
Well, first of all, they weren't soldiers. Or at the very least, they weren't soldiers first. Second, you haven't even looked for my opinions on US involvement in Iraq, because if you did, you wouldn't be so consistently mislabeling me.
Uday and Qusay were both government officials, and Qusay was the head of intelligence. What does being soldiers have to do with it, since Britain was and is not at war with Iran? You are mixing your excuses up.
quote:
quote:All I am judging you on is your own posted content. Stop being so defensive about your politics.
No you're not. You've even said, in this same paragraph, that you're judging me on what I'm not saying!
No, I'm judging you by what you had said. When you objected to being mislabelled, I pointed out how you seem to only stick your opinion out there when it follows a certain motif. It isn't about what you didn't say, it is about how you only seem to be judgmental under certain conditions, and not consistently. Ironic how you are now assuming what you believe my intentions and motivations are.
quote:
quote:you believe you are being improperly attributed to certain ideals, then perhaps you shouldn't send out mixed signals.
Here's a better idea: base your attributions on what I say, rather than on what signals you think I'm mixing. Since you have already rather stupidly thought that I was, among other things, a Fox News fan and a Rush Limbaugh supporter, maybe you need to tune your rhetorical radio a bit better. It's not reading right.
You inferred in this thread that US soldiers are not liable to international law. The US might not uphold international charges in every case, but in cases where the US government does not accept universal jurisdiction, it means that those individuals are still under risk of detainment if they are arrested in a nation that does accept universal jurisdiction. That's all you have to admit instead of turning this into a pissing contest.
quote:
quote:If US soldiers break international law, then they must either be tried under US (military) law or face the world court. They are not exempt from international law. You have yet to acknowledge that, and I seriously doubt you will ever acknowledge such a correction from me considering what seems to be a personal problem. You can prove you are a bigger man than that right now by simply admitting you misstated in your post.
I'm not remotely interested in proving my manhood to you, or anyone else on this board. If I was, first I would have to agree with your statement, which I don't anyway. But it's strange, because apparently this is some sort of manhood contest to you. Talk about something to prove!
Nothing to prove, offering you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you were unaware that detainment in other nations is still possible. Perhaps you were unaware that people in other governments have pressed charges against Americans per international law and those charges were not recognized by the US. If that is the case, then I am offering you a chance to say "I did not know that" and be done with it. It has nothing to do with me, it has to do with whether you are someone who can actually look at something, think on it, and alter your opinion on the matter based on information you may have previously not been privy to. Either you are that person or you are not.
quote:[qb]I pointed out that American soldiers are not governed by international law. And they're not, at least not so far as I know. Unless you can find me a case under which an American soldier has been prosecuted for violating an international law that wasn't also an American violation, or a specific order or part of the UCMJ that states that American soldiers are governed by international law, the question I asked stands.
All your posting in the paragraph after that seems to be based on moral weight and whatnot. I wasn't talking about what should be, I was talking about what is.
No one is governed by law. People are subject to law or liable for their actions according to law. Law is not government, law is the basis by which we determine whether an action or behavior is just. So if you want to quibble on wording, then a soldier is not governed by any law, they are governed by the Military Code of Conduct.
I was not arguing the morality of it, I was pointing out that, after the resolution was passed in 2006 and even though the military commissions part was later mooted, the liability was absolved by the US government for possible crime charges that could come up from within the US, but that it wouldn't negate charges coming from other nations. Were an individual charged in another country and detained there, they would go before court under those charges in a nation recognizing universal jurisdiction regarding times of war. That isn't a moral judgment, it is pointing out that just because the US retroactively immunizes those involved with the war from legal action, that it only applies on US soil. They still risk legal action on soil that recognizes universal jurisdiction. I urge you to read the link explaining it if you don't believe me. This is how we managed to capture and try a number of those that could be called war criminals in the past, but it does not only apply to military circumstances.
quote:Here's an idea: why not go back to not responding to me? That lasted, what, a few days? Why don't you "prove you're a bigger man"? Hehe.
Here is a better idea: stop calling me a liar for pointing out things you have said previously. I gave you your cases where charges were brought against Americans using international law and not recognized by US government. The cases have gone nowhere, but they are the most recent examples. you asked, I gave and I offered more information. Now that I have met that demand, you are now telling me to leave you alone?
Given the information I have provided, do you or do you not accept that Americans can still be held liable to international law even if the US government does not try them? Just answer that simple question, and I believe all the rest is just semantics between us.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Jutsa,
Ah, well I freely admit to the GC stuff. I was entirely wrong about that. I do remember it now that I see the context.
quote:As for the name-calling, on more than one post you called me a jackass, anti-American, and some other names on that other board.
As I remember that thread, I started calling you names after you smeared me with the Fox News insult. That wasn't just a comment on my favorite source of news either. You started that fight, not me.
quote:You did accuse Iran of breaking Geneva Conventions, and now you are playing a victim because I've got a better memory than you.
If I were inclined to playing the victimhood game, you're certainly far, far down the list of people I'd be playing it to, Jutsa. Iran did violate the GC with its treatment of those prisoners, by the way. Hardly just an accusation by me.
quote:Uday and Qusay were both government officials, and Qusay was the head of intelligence. What does being soldiers have to do with it, since Britain was and is not at war with Iran? You are mixing your excuses up
No, I'm not. You're comparing the mistreatment of soldiers to the mistreatment of government officials.
quote:When you objected to being mislabelled, I pointed out how you seem to only stick your opinion out there when it follows a certain motif.
Tell you what. Ask around. If there's a consensus about what my opinion is, I'll sure as hell bet it doesn't match what you think it is.
quote:You inferred in this thread that US soldiers are not liable to international law.
I inferred that they are liable to American law first.
quote:Nothing to prove, offering you the benefit of the doubt.
I don't believe you. Probably because I'm a Fox News fan And no, I'm certainly not going to forget about that insult, or stop bringing it up, especially when you keep insisting that this is an even trading of accusations.
quote:It has nothing to do with me, it has to do with whether you are someone who can actually look at something, think on it, and alter your opinion on the matter based on information you may have previously not been privy to. Either you are that person or you are not.
Well, I suppose I fail this little test of yours. Gee-willikers, maybe someday I'll look back and then have my growing moment!
quote:I gave you your cases where charges were brought against Americans using international law and not recognized by US government. The cases have gone nowhere...
I can be charged with jaywalking in Zimbabwe. Doesn't mean that law has any power over me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, and to be clear: I didn't call you a liar. I correctly pointed out that you said in that thread that if I disagreed with you, or didn't own up to what you said I said, I'd probably be lying.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm sorry Dag. The scholars are all people I've heard speak at various forums at the University and I can't seem to find a written version of their remarks.
I can agree that a decision made under fire in the field is different from one that can be made with access to legal counsel in advance, but even with access to expert legal counsel the soldiers situation is I believe unique in our justice system. If a soldier is given an illegal order and follows it, he has committed a crime. If he is given a legal order and refuses to follow it, he has committed a crime. He is forced to make a legal judgement and if his judgement is different than the courts, he goes could to prison or even be executed.
How many times do legal scholars make judgements that are over turned by the courts? And if legal scholars can reasonably make a judgement which higher authorities overturn, isn't it far more likely that a soldier with minimal legal training would reasonably judge an order to be illegal even if the courts might disagree.
And the justification defense is truly meaningless in this context. Soldiers are trained that it is their legal obligation to uphold the geneva convention and other international law. They are trained that they must refuse to follow an illegal order. The justification defense must works both ways. Going into another country heavily armed and bombing and shooting people is an action that would be considered a capital crime in any context other than a legal war.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Ah, well I freely admit to the GC stuff. I was entirely wrong about that. I do remember it now that I see the context.
And yet you persist with the personal debate. you want to accuse me of "starting the fight," but it was only a fight to you. For me it was being dogpiled by others and yourself being accused of being unAmerican, anti-American, and other insults.
Regarding the Geneva Conventions:
quote: You're comparing the mistreatment of soldiers to the mistreatment of government officials.
Are you aware that the Geneva Conventions apply to both? They apply to non government civilians as well.
quote:I inferred that they are liable to American law first.
No, you said that soldiers were not "governed by" international law. If that was what you meant, then that is fine and I agree. However, what you said and what you meant are, in this thread, two different things. Your first post, which was the one on which I commented, pointed out you citing Geneva Conventions previously, which are international laws, and pointed out that "governed by" does not mean Americans cannot be held liable. If you want to discuss which parts of the Geneva Conventions Iran broke with their actions, I do believe I had a thread discussing things having to do with Iran, and you can feel free to post them there or in a new thread. The point was that you actually cited them even though you originally claimed you did not.
quote:I don't believe you. Probably because I'm a Fox News fan And no, I'm certainly not going to forget about that insult, or stop bringing it up, especially when you keep insisting that this is an even trading of accusations.
You don't have to believe me. I am telling you that your assumptions are wrong. You are free to continue with your assumptions, but it makes you seem more hypocritical to me. As for the insults, I am saying specifically that they are not equal. You lobbed personal insults against the ToS, I questioned your bias and called you on it. I didn't call you a jackass and worse. I didn't question your loyalty to America. You may disagree, but your behavior has been far worse and "you started it" is no justification.
quote:I can be charged with jaywalking in Zimbabwe. Doesn't mean that law has any power over me.
No, you don't understand. If you commit a crime against international law, and it would have to be a significant crime, you can have charges brought against you. However, if the US decides not to hold those charges against you, then you will not be charged while on American soil or in a nation that does not recognize universal jurisdiction (the link lists some countries that do). In the example I gave of such charges, Rumsfeld, Tenet, and Gonzales had charges against them that, were they to step foot in the nation where the charges oriented, they could be detained under that jurisdiction. However, were they to remain in the embassy during their time there, the US could claim that universal jurisdiction does not apply. The cases themselves seem to have gone nowhere, but the precedent of what I have been pointing out from the beginning existed in those cases. It does have power over you in that you can be detained and tried if you are not on US soil and the authorities in the nation in question decide to detain you. There is an argument of strained diplomatic relations, but that doesn't change that international law can still apply to you if you have been charged in a nation that accepts universal jurisdiction. What changes is how national governments decide to handle such incidents in favor of diplomatic relations. Your being an American doesn't change your liability in those situations, it only affords you a better chance of being vetted off to the local embassy and shuttled back to your country.
I repeat: Given the information I have provided, do you or do you not accept that Americans can still be held liable to international law even if the US government does not try them? Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And yet you persist with the personal debate. you want to accuse me of "starting the fight," but it was only a fight to you.
Oh, I see. You're pointing out that you didn't intend it to be a fight. You only intended to make a personal, bigoted remark based on your faulty assumptions about my politics, and expected that to be left out there on the field, so to speak.
I'm not like that. So, you can just drop that expectation. I don't take kindly to people asserting (in a transparent, smugly superior way) that I'm a foolish follower and that they're smarter than me, all the while asserting that I'm the one who's narrow minded. One, it's pretty damn irritating. That's where the duration of my response comes from, that and I find these kinds of stories interesting to read about. Two, I'm more than confident that I am not, in fact, narrow-minded, or a follower. I might very well be a fool, but I don't think so.
And as for accusing you of being "anti-American", well, I'm just guessing here, but that probably had something to do with you taking, from the very start, an openly pro-Iranian perspective in that thread. Also, you going out of your way to believe Iranian news sources and speak in support of them.
And while we (and by we I mean you) are dredging up that thread, how about we talk about who exactly captured those sailors and marines? As I recall, I claimed that it was a religious, nationalist element of the Iranian military. You (wrongly) asserted that it wasn't, and yet you had the gall throughout that thread to assume that I was the one who was shooting from the hip.
quote:As for the insults, I am saying specifically that they are not equal. You lobbed personal insults against the ToS, I questioned your bias and called you on it
You questioned a bias you guessed existed, and did it in a smug, condescending way. You've still never apologized for, or even admitted, that you were wrong about that, by the way. In fact, you asserted that if you were right, I'd never admit it-calling me in effect a liar. Quit hiding behind the ToS. If you fling accusations like that at me, I'm gonna call you a jackass. Whistle the post if you want. Oh, maybe you could whine about another forum as well, even though I've never said anything there that I haven't said here, to your face.
Ugh. Well, now my irritation with you has been overcome by my irritation with myself for gabbing about this for so long. I think I'm done with this conversation--with you--for awhile. And again, unlike you, when I say that, I mean it Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
Given the information I have provided, do you or do you not accept that Americans can still be held liable to international law even if the US government does not try them? Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Let it go and move on, guys. Please.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
If nothing else, he's taking one for the team. The team here being people who think the whole situation is messed up, and that more attention needs to be directed towards fixing it, and holding accountable the people who messed it up in the first place.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with what he's doing, but I think it's a lot more than many people are willing to do, and I respect that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm sorry Dag. The scholars are all people I've heard speak at various forums at the University and I can't seem to find a written version of their remarks.
OK, but can you clarify whether they were speaking of the invasion or of the movement of troops into the country 2 years later at the invitation of the internationally recognized government of a sovereign nation?
Because that makes a HUGE difference.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:This does bring up the question, to what extent does a soldier have either/both a right and a duty to refuse to engage in actions they believe are illegal?
There's a very simple answer here. The soldier has an absolute right to refuse any orders he wishes. The military, however, has a corresponding right to punish him to the letter of the law for it.
Best of both worlds!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust: This does bring up the question, to what extent does a soldier have either/both a right and a duty to refuse to engage in actions they believe are illegal?!
As I understand it, US soldiers have a duty to refuse to engage in actions that are illegal and a duty to follow all legal orders. If a US soldier obeys an illegal order, he can be punished. If he refuses to obey an legal order, he can be punished. If he believes an order to legal and follows it, but it was not legal, prison or possibly death. If he believes an order to be illegal but it is determined to have been legal, prison and possibly death.
Our laws truly put our soldiers in a very untenable position. If we want out soldiers to be responsible for their actions, we need to make the risks for disobeying an order that the soldier believes to be illegal lower.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I'm sorry Dag. The scholars are all people I've heard speak at various forums at the University and I can't seem to find a written version of their remarks.
OK, but can you clarify whether they were speaking of the invasion or of the movement of troops into the country 2 years later at the invitation of the internationally recognized government of a sovereign nation?
Because that makes a HUGE difference.
The scholars I've referred to were referring specifically to the legality of the continueing occupation of Iraq. I'm afraid I am not qualified to summarize the legal arguments. They ranged from violations of rules of occupation which have been established in various international treaties to arguments about the legitimacy of the current Iraqi government.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Dag, With some effort, I did find this informal analysis written by a University of Illinois law professor.
His arguments are not identical to those I have heard in other forums but there is over lap.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Foust: This does bring up the question, to what extent does a soldier have either/both a right and a duty to refuse to engage in actions they believe are illegal?!
As I understand it, US soldiers have a duty to refuse to engage in actions that are illegal and a duty to follow all legal orders. If a US soldier obeys an illegal order, he can be punished. If he refuses to obey an legal order, he can be punished. If he believes an order to legal and follows it, but it was not legal, prison or possibly death. If he believes an order to be illegal but it is determined to have been legal, prison and possibly death.
Our laws truly put our soldiers in a very untenable position. If we want out soldiers to be responsible for their actions, we need to make the risks for disobeying an order that the soldier believes to be illegal lower.
In situations where you think orders are illegal (assuming you have as much time as Mr. Watada did), you have a couple of options that can go, or not go, in this order
1)express your concerns (and then follow orders anyway) 2)start chain of command hopping 3)hit up the Inspector General (IG)
If you fight Big [Insert Service] you will get stomped. Mr. Watada fought The Boss and The Board, and I expect he will be thoroughly thrashed.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
I wish I had more to say on this subject, but I find it somewhat perplexing. On one hand I admire this soldier for standing up to his convictions regardless of the consequences.
One thing I have learned from Harry Potter is that sometime the right thing to do is the wrong thing to do. By this I mean, sometimes the morally right thing to do is to defy rule and laws. Rules and Laws are our guides for general living, but sometimes the specific overrides the general.
Before the troops were even deployed, I was convinced that the Administration was simply using 9/11 as an excuse to do what they wanted to do. There subsequent evidence to me rang just as phony as their original intent. I never once thought their evidence or justification was substantial; meaning I always felt it was lacking in substance. But at that time, no one would let you say a word against the President.
I wondered where the Journalist were, why they weren't digging deeper into these issues and this evidence. But they all seem to be towing the party line. There was little I could do by make my voice heard to those who were close enough to listen to me, but no of us have power or influence. So what could we do, but stand by while our country went into a clearly unnecessary war.
Now don't get me wrong Sadaam was a bad guy, amoung the baddest. I felt that likely at sometime we might have to go into Iraq and do something. But I didn't feel this was the time, I didn't feel we had the evidence or the genuine provocation.
So, I do have great sympathy for this soldier, but at the same time my nephews are literally going to war, while this person refuses.
Though I will note that this particular soldier has not refused to serve his country. He is willing to go to war in Afghanistan or any other LEGAL war zone. He seems well aware that his IS GOING to pay a very high price for taking this stand, and he seems willing to pay that price. He seem true to his conviction, and firm in his stance.
He seems to be playing the role of Harry Potter. Instead of quietly sleeping with the rest of his classmates, he is out breaking the rules because the current moral circumstances call for the rules to be broken.
Sometimes doing the wrong thing is the morally right thing to do. Heroes and martyrs have known and lived by this paradox from the beginning of time.
For what it's worth.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Battler03 (Member # 10453) on :
I am not sure how it got in everybody's heads that Watada said he'd happily go to Afghanistan or somewhere else besides Iraq. It's common knowledge in the army that the guy provided a typed memo to his chain stating that he wouldn't deploy to ANY war under this administration because he didn't want to be "Bush's tool" or something like that. Wish I could point to a reference, but there must be something out there as it is so widely known among soldiers.
I also want to point out that his two Article 88 charges (disrespect toward elected officials) really doesn't cast him in a good light. More than anything, it makes him seem like a guy who just hates the administration but made the mistake of joining up.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Time will tell if he's a Harry Potter or not. It's too soon.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Rabbit, thanks for the link. It will take me a long while to be able to comment on it, and I might not ever get to it, but I'm glad I've read it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
One quick thing - it deals with international law only. Statute and treaty are both coequal in U.S. law (and each subject to the Constitution). The later of two contradictory laws - whether statute or treaty - overrides the earlier. Although generally a court will interpret the later so as not to conflict if possible, the specific will be held to control over the general (as a general matter of construction). So I'm not sure this answers the question "was this legal under U.S. law?"
Again, though, thank you for posting it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Wish I could point to a reference, but there must be something out there as it is so widely known among soldiers.
Why do you assume that soldiers would be the best source of accurate, unbiased information about someone that their culture is practically designed to pillory?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think its ridiculous to argue that the war is "illegal."
Immoral perhaps, I do not believe that is so but I believe very strongly in the words of Thoreau,
"Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison"
If we fight a war that I believe is wrong, if I believed it was evil enough, I would refuse to pay for it and go to jail.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Sometimes doing the wrong thing is the morally right thing to do. Heroes and martyrs have known and lived by this paradox from the beginning of time.
So have almost all the villains of the world, though. That's the tricky thing.
quote:Time will tell if he's a Harry Potter or not. It's too soon.
I just hope that it won't turn out that Saddam had a horcrux....
Posted by Battler03 (Member # 10453) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:Why do you assume that soldiers would be the best source of accurate, unbiased information about someone that their culture is practically designed to pillory? [/QB]
I've never been led astray going with conventional wisdom of soldiers. The military is an excellent microcosm of mainstream American society in general; and even our lowest privates today are far more intelligent, disciplined and educated than their civilian counterparts.
Low-ranking soldiers are also an excellent guage of how well a strategy is working. If you get a squad-sized group of average-intelligence privates together and explain a plan, they can give you a pretty good call on whether or not the plan will work. I am sometimes confused as to why no reporters have figured this out--because any private can tell you that we're gonna be in Iraq for decades to come.
Posted by Battler03 (Member # 10453) on :
quote: If we fight a war that I believe is wrong, if I believed it was evil enough, I would refuse to pay for it and go to jail. [/QB]
I agree with this...what ever happened to facing the consequences of your actions? If it's so important to you that you don't participate in an "evil" war, then you should be willing to do some time for it.
The growing "I shouldn't have to be responsible for my own actions" attitude in America is starting to worry me. For instance, freedom of speech doesn't grant you immunity from the consequences of everything you say. And maybe this kid should have thought of going to jail before he spoke up. The extreme left would crown him their king once he got out, anyway.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Battler03, Welcome to Hatrack!
quote:Originally posted by Battler03: I am not sure how it got in everybody's heads that Watada said he'd happily go to Afghanistan or somewhere else besides Iraq. It's common knowledge in the army that the guy provided a typed memo to his chain stating that he wouldn't deploy to ANY war under this administration because he didn't want to be "Bush's tool" or something like that. Wish I could point to a reference, but there must be something out there as it is so widely known among soldiers.
I also want to point out that his two Article 88 charges (disrespect toward elected officials) really doesn't cast him in a good light. More than anything, it makes him seem like a guy who just hates the administration but made the mistake of joining up.
Battler03, One of Watanda's superior officers', Lt. Col. James, acknowledged in the first court-martial that Watanda offered to serve in Afghanistan. Maybe it got into everyone's head because it is true?
quote:Watada's attorney, in opening arguments, said his client acted and spoke out of deeply held beliefs. The Army, said defense attorney Eric Seitz, had ample opportunity to respect Watada's beliefs and reassign him to alternative duty, including serving in Afghanistan.
"We will argue at the end of the trial that he conducted himself as an ethical officer in accordance with any standards that you may hear about," Seitz said.
But Antonia and Lt. Col. William James, another officer who counseled Watada, said the first lieutenant lost the respect of his soldiers and was no longer fit to serve as their officer.
"He gave his word; he broke his word," James said.
James also said he found Watada's offer to serve in Afghanistan in "direct conflict" with Watada's written statement that he did not want to deploy as a "tool" of the Bush administration.
edit: I read what I posted, and it seems the Lt. both made a statement that he didn't want to deploy under Bush's orders, AND offered to go to Afghanistan in lieu of Iraq.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
When Watada said he didn't want to be 'a tool of the Bush Administration', I don't see that as being in direct conflict with his position. He is saying he will not be a tool of Bush's personal and political agenda which is quite different that the necessity of confronting the enemy directly on their soil.
The idea that forces inside Afghanistan were a threat was very real and indisputably factual. The idea that forces inside Iraq were a threat was, in the view of some, a whole fabricated idea that served the personal agenda of individual politicians. One represents serving your country, the other represents serving special interests.
It's not that hard for me to see the distinction between the two, and I reject the Army's assertion that either one represents serving as a tool of Bush's personal agenda.
To those who say this soldier should take this stand unless he is willing to do the time, he seem perfectly willing to so just that. He seems to understands and accept prison time as a consequence.
Just a thought. Steve/BlueWizard
[ April 20, 2007, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: BlueWizard ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:He is saying he will not be a tool of Bush's personal and political agenda which is quite different that the necessity of confronting the enemy directly on their soil.
What, exactly, does being 'Commander-in-Chief' mean, then, if an individual soldier can decide he won't be that CiC's tool?
ETA:
quote:One represents serving your country, the other represents serving special interests.
Special interests like...the US Congress?
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
To the best of my knowledge Congress did not authorize this war. They gave the president General Authorization to take Preemptive Action if such action became necessary and justified.
Further I make a distinction between the interests of the Commander-in-Chief in general, and those specifically of the President and his staff. Commander-in-Chief is a universal and eternal title whereas Presidents, their staff, and their personal agendas come and go.
For what it's worth. Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If Congress did not authorize this war, why have they not made that clear since it began, exactly? Or is it only the side that now dissents with the war that gets to decide whether or not the Congress of years ago in fact authorized it?
quote:Further I make a distinction between the interests of the Commander-in-Chief in general, and those specifically of the President and his staff. Commander-in-Chief is a universal and eternal title whereas Presidents, their staff, and their personal agendas come and go.
"Universal and eternal"? What does that mean, exactly? That soldiers are required to serve as the tools of CiCs...but not of the people who legally and legitimately hold that title? If the CiC is to be taken as seperate (because it's "universal and eternal") from the President (who is, as far as I've ever learned, the Commander-in-Chief), exactly what is to stop a soldier from refusing orders because they disagree with the "personal agenda" of the President (not to be confused with the eternal and universal Commander-in-Chief)?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:To the best of my knowledge Congress did not authorize this war. They gave the president General Authorization to take Preemptive Action if such action became necessary and justified.
That's what authorization means - telling someone else that they have the power to do something.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think he may have been focusing on the part that started with if, there.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.
In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Many authorizations are conditional on the authorized person making a determination. It doesn't make them not authorizations.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
To me its immaterial that he was willing to serve in Afghanistan. If the army decides to take that into consideration and give him that option then I'm glad everyone can get what they want.
But if the army for any reason decides that is not the case, for example, "If we cater to this soldier, why not every soldier who tries to hand pick their assignment and refuses to fight if they are not appeased?" Then he is in dereliction of his duty and post and should be disciplined.
Soldiers throughout history have disobeyed orders they thought were wrong, both in the moral sense and in fact. The ones who do not instigate coups accept the ramifications of such actions.
Posted by Battler03 (Member # 10453) on :
Maybe it's just my fatalism, but I don't see why not believing in "the cause" excuses a contracted soldier from making war. Soldiers have always approached their conflict with a grain of salt--however, they have always (generally) gone ahead and carried out orders.
You think the Janissaries actually WANTED to assault the impregnable walls of Vienna? They went ahead and effing did so anyway.
Your personal feelings have no bearing on the matter. That is the whole point of being a warrior. Frankly, as a warrior, I'd consider it more or less a blessing that I don't have to (because I am sort of forbidden to) think about the abstract philosophical or moral implications of my actions.
Say what you will, but once your name is on the dotted line, you opinions go out the window. If the Army (or the Corps, or whatever) wanted you to have an opinion--as the saying goes--well then hell, they would issue you one.
Posted by jeremySSN769 (Member # 10456) on :
It is very simple I was in the Navy for six years untill an injury ended that. By your oath you shall follow the orders of the President this war was ordered by the President and authorized by the congress as the representatives of all the people in the United States of America. Any and every order in relation to the execution of that war is now legal unless superceded by regulations that state otherwise (Uniform Code of Military Justice) such as committing an attrocity. Being deployed to Iraq does not qualify on any of these grounds. Now if when he got to Iraq he was ordered to slaughter a village then by all means refuse to do so and in fact it is his duty to prevent that by any means neccessary such as removing that officer from command. However, untill such an event happens he has no rights to operate on his own volition with regard to second guessing his orders. Otherwise if he does not deploy he could be found guilty of UCMJ Articles: 86 Absence without leave 87 Missing movement 88 Contempt toward officials 89 Disrespect toward superior commissioned officer 90 Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer 92 Failure to obey a lawful order or regulation 98 Noncompliance with procedural rules 99 Misbehavior before the enemy 104 Aiding the enemy 132 Frauds against the United States 133 Conduct unbecomming an officer and a gentleman 134 General Article Will they charge him with all of these I doubt it some do not apply depending on his attitude in his "protests". Either way if he is prosecuted to the fullest extent of Military Law by which he is bound his life is effectively over regardless of his education or past work experience if he chooses to remain in the United States.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'm not remotely interested in proving my manhood to you, or anyone else on this board. If I was, first I would have to agree with your statement, which I don't anyway. But it's strange, because apparently this is some sort of manhood contest to you. Talk about something to prove!![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)