Lt. Watada is a real deal hero

[slim 1,525]

Steven, you asked the right question. What is a soldier to do?

There simply is no right answer. I was in the military, and I have been on both sides of UCMJ proceedings. I can tell you that he did violate the UCMJ and will be court-martialed for it. However, I'd be willing to bet that his defense will be one that even though he was ordered to go to Iraq, that order itself is an unlawful order becuase of the status of the UN Security Council's original authorization of use of military force.

That doesn't mean it's going to work. Truth-be-told, he probably doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell to get acquited. However, look at all the attention this is shifting on the issue right now. Here we don't just have a soldier refusing to go to Iraq on moral grounds, we have an "officer" refusing to go on moral grounds.

Like you, I agree that legal or illegal, it took a lot of guts for this guy to do what he's doing, and that's what makes him a hero. (A hero stands up for what is right, not participates in an action that they believe is morally unjust... just to stay out of trouble.)

But, since the vast majority of people on this thread (and probably America too after seeing it on the news and in the paper about how this guy refused to "fight in the war") will say that he is a coward, Artegal's description of him as a martyr is going to be more accurate.

[slim 1,525]

Hap Arnold commented that if Japan would've won the war, he guessed he would've been the one on trial for war crimes. The occupation of Iraq is not a UN mission because the UN Security Council didn't vote directly on "serious consequences" of non-compliance with Resolution 1441. France, China, and Russia all passed the Resolution with the understanding that "serious consequences" did not mean military action and any action would require a further vote. Furthermore, France made it clear that they would veto any authorization on the use of military force. The U.S. did not wait for that vote, and proceded with a military invasion. Only time will tell if the U.S. will be held accountable for invading a sovereign nation without approval from the UN Security Council. Hopefully, like in Hap Arnold's case, it goes our way again. Unfortunately for Lt. Watada though, he will be left high-and-dry for essentially not supporting an unauthorized invasion. (Didn't Iraq invade a country without UN Security Concil approval one time?)

Edited July 11, 2006 by slim

[Luvinmybaby 0]

Since when have we thrown our constitution out the window and delegated our military to the UN? I don't like the way this country is going these days. Our military is there to protect us at the command of the president and the consent of the congress. The last time I looked the congress authorized the use of force and the president ordered the action. The UN has no say so about what we do with our military. There isn't an amendment to our constitution stating that we must get the OK from the UN to do ANYTHING! I really don't care what the rest of the world thinks of us. If it is in our national security and we have the consent of the congress (which we did) then the president had the right to order the action. This coward didn't want to go into harms way and fight. He should me courtmarshaled and imprisoned.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Since when have we thrown our constitution out the window and delegated our military to the UN? I don't like the way this country is going these days. Our military is there to protect us at the command of the president and the consent of the congress. The last time I looked the congress authorized the use of force and the president ordered the action. The UN has no say so about what we do with our military. There isn't an amendment to our constitution stating that we must get the OK from the UN to do ANYTHING! I really don't care what the rest of the world thinks of us. If it is in our national security and we have the consent of the congress (which we did) then the president had the right to order the action. This coward didn't want to go into harms way and fight. He should me courtmarshaled and imprisoned.

How does the Iraq war uphold US national security? Just wondering.

[Luvinmybaby 0]

Since when have we thrown our constitution out the window and delegated our military to the UN? I don't like the way this country is going these days. Our military is there to protect us at the command of the president and the consent of the congress. The last time I looked the congress authorized the use of force and the president ordered the action. The UN has no say so about what we do with our military. There isn't an amendment to our constitution stating that we must get the OK from the UN to do ANYTHING! I really don't care what the rest of the world thinks of us. If it is in our national security and we have the consent of the congress (which we did) then the president had the right to order the action. This coward didn't want to go into harms way and fight. He should me courtmarshaled and imprisoned.

How does the Iraq war uphold US national security? Just wondering.

I wasn't making a judgment call on whether or not it was justified. Thats for the ones that have all the info to make that decision. Whether we like the war or not the point is it is a "legal" war because the constitution was followed. That means this guy doesn't have a leg to stand on. The UN part of the argument is moot.

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

The UN part of the argument is moot.

i can see fishdude needing cpr when he reads that

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Since when have we thrown our constitution out the window and delegated our military to the UN? I don't like the way this country is going these days. Our military is there to protect us at the command of the president and the consent of the congress. The last time I looked the congress authorized the use of force and the president ordered the action. The UN has no say so about what we do with our military. There isn't an amendment to our constitution stating that we must get the OK from the UN to do ANYTHING! I really don't care what the rest of the world thinks of us. If it is in our national security and we have the consent of the congress (which we did) then the president had the right to order the action. This coward didn't want to go into harms way and fight. He should me courtmarshaled and imprisoned.

How does the Iraq war uphold US national security? Just wondering.

I wasn't making a judgment call on whether or not it was justified. Thats for the ones that have all the info to make that decision. Whether we like the war or not the point is it is a "legal" war because the constitution was followed. That means this guy doesn't have a leg to stand on. The UN part of the argument is moot.

Here's where it gets tricky. The military are (ultimately) required to uphold the constitution, certainly, but above that the government (which controls the military) is bound by international law. Soldiers are also bound by certain articles of international law not to commit war crimes - but it gets tricky again too, seeing as the US refused point blank to sign up to the International Criminal Court, which would apply a general standard of law to any war crimes case.

To correct you slightly, you cannot 'legally' do whatever you like with your military - at some point the international community will step in (as it did against Saddam, for instance, in the first gulf war). Quite simply, refusing to serve is a crime under US law. Pre-emptive invasion is a crime under international law. This guy is using the 'international' defence to evade the crime he has committed in the US.

Edited July 11, 2006 by Fishdude

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

Here's where it gets tricky. The military are (ultimately) required to uphold the constitution, certainly, but above that the government (which controls the military) is bound by international law. Soldiers are also bound by certain articles of international law not to commit war crimes - but it gets tricky again too, seeing as the US refused point blank to sign up to the International Criminal Court, which would apply a general standard of law to any war crimes case.

To correct you slightly, you cannot 'legally' do whatever you like with your military - at some point the international community will step in (as it did against Saddam, for instance, in the first gulf war). Quite simply, refusing to serve is a crime under US law. Pre-emptive invasion is a crime under international law. This guy is using the 'international' defence to evade the crime he has committed in the US.

um no. the military does not uphold the constitution. protect and defend it, yes. uphold - that's the realm of the judicial branch.

[Luvinmybaby 0]

I am speaking strictly in the context of the original post. The question of international law being broken is another topic. (in fact there is one addressing that now) I am speaking about military and constitutional law which is what this guy is subject to and charged under. As far as the constitution is concerned the war was "legal". The order to send him was also "legal" His feelings as to whether it was moral/legal is irrelevant. He took an oath, given a lawful order and he refused on grounds that have no bearing or relevance under our legal and military law. If he didn't like the war he should have declared that before he was given the order and resigned his commision. To wait until afterwards took away any justification to refuse.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I am speaking strictly in the context of the original post. The question of international law being broken is another topic. (in fact there is one addressing that now) I am speaking about military and constitutional law which is what this guy is subject to and charged under. As far as the constitution is concerned the war was "legal". The order to send him was also "legal" His feelings as to whether it was moral/legal is irrelevant. He took an oath, given a lawful order and he refused on grounds that have no bearing or relevance under our legal and military law. If he didn't like the war he should have declared that before he was given the order and resigned his commision. To wait until afterwards took away any justification to refuse.

Which is actually what I was saying. This guy, as a member of the armed forces is under the immediate legal jurisdiction of the United States. I was responding to your claim that the US can 'do what it likes with its military without UN approval'. On a basic level that's true - but when you get into breaking articles of international law, I'm not sure how justifiable it is to say "we should be able to do whatever the hell we like and #### everyone else". Precisely why we have the UN (flawed as it is) is to prevent the Hitler's and Saddam Husseins of the world assuming significant power.

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

Precisely why we have the UN (flawed as it is) is to prevent the Hitler's and Saddam Husseins of the world assuming significant power.

and we saw just how effective the un was with saddam too

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Precisely why we have the UN (flawed as it is) is to prevent the Hitler's and Saddam Husseins of the world assuming significant power.

and we saw just how effective the un was with saddam too

So what? It is what it is. There is after all a reason it was brought into existence to begin with.

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

Precisely why we have the UN (flawed as it is) is to prevent the Hitler's and Saddam Husseins of the world assuming significant power.

and we saw just how effective the un was with saddam too

So what? It is what it is. There is after all a reason it was brought into existence to begin with.

currently it's reason for being seems to be to suck up 3 billion a year in our taxes

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If you say so.

[Ban Hammer 13,335]

If you say so.

unless of course you can count the oil for food scandal, another example of the rich getting richer off the backs of the poor. but where's the outrage in that?