Lt. Watada is a real deal hero

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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?

What's the point? Corruption is universal? No kidding.

[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.

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.

Ok, your right. I digressed a bit and let my opinion of the UN get in the way of my point. Let me try to put my opinion into a cogent statement.

The responsibility of determining if the action in Iraq is legal by international law rests totally on the shoulders of the president. If there is a violation of international law he is the responsible party. As I said, that is for a different topic to discuss. From the point of view of the officer in question here it is not up to him to say the war was illegal and therefore have the right to refuse an order to deploy. From his standpoint the order was legal and to obey it would not put him at risk of committing a war crime. If he disagreed with the war he should have resigned before the order was given. After the order was given he had an obligation to follow it. To refuse does not make him a hero it makes him a criminal. Now, if he would have stood up at the beginning of the war, before he was given the order to deploy, and said he objected then his personal convictions would have made him "heroic" in some eyes. I wouldn't have a problem with him at that point. But since he waited until he was given the order to deploy makes him a coward. He was just hoping to get a "pass" and not have to stand up for his beliefs.

[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.

Ok, your right. I digressed a bit and let my opinion of the UN get in the way of my point. Let me try to put my opinion into a cogent statement.

The responsibility of determining if the action in Iraq is legal by international law rests totally on the shoulders of the president. If there is a violation of international law he is the responsible party. As I said, that is for a different topic to discuss. From the point of view of the officer in question here it is not up to him to say the war was illegal and therefore have the right to refuse an order to deploy. From his standpoint the order was legal and to obey it would not put him at risk of committing a war crime. If he disagreed with the war he should have resigned before the order was given. After the order was given he had an obligation to follow it. To refuse does not make him a hero it makes him a criminal. Now, if he would have stood up at the beginning of the war, before he was given the order to deploy, and said he objected then his personal convictions would have made him "heroic" in some eyes. I wouldn't have a problem with him at that point. But since he waited until he was given the order to deploy makes him a coward. He was just hoping to get a "pass" and not have to stand up for his beliefs.

True. Which is why he shouldn't have signed up and would have been better served by joining some sort of political action group.

[Luvinmybaby 0]

True. Which is why he shouldn't have signed up and would have been better served by joining some sort of political action group.

I would agree with you if he signed up after the war started, his beliefs would have been better served if he joined an anti-war PAC. However, the OP stated he signed up right after 9/11. Now, I don't know the man's mind but a few possibilities come to mind. First he could have joined up in a flush of patriotism and when the war in Iraq started he disagreed with the reasons for going. If that was the case then, as I stated before, he should have stood up then and resigned. Second, he could have joined because he got caught up in the moment of the aftermath of 9/11 and got cold feet when he knew he was going to get shot at. That makes him a coward from the beginning and he had no business joining at all. He made a commitment, swore an oath, took the training and when he was needed he failed in his duty. But he compounded his cowardice in another important way. When I was in the military I was instructed that I was barred from political speech while on active duty. I was also barred from criticizing the president in public. It's one of those freedoms you sign away when you join and you have to take that into account when you decide to join up. When he made up his mind to not obey his orders he compounded his crimes by publicly criticising the president. It is obvious to me anyway he did that to try and draw off of the anti-war sediments of the country and try to mitigate his culpability. He didn't even have the courage to take his punishment like a man. To me he is beneath contempt and in no way a hero.

Edited July 11, 2006 by Luvinmybaby

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here's something from someone on another blog....

I have a very good friend who is one of the top lawyers in the country for military law. He is an ex-JAG, defense attorney, he now devotes most of his time to defending soldiers trying get out of deployment and working on GITMO cases, he worked on several cases with Lt Cmdr Charles Swift, he worked on the Hamdan case.......

Long story short - D. knows his stuff.

He has said, privately of course, that Watada is toast because of horrible legal advice. Here's his assesment of this quagmire.

1 - By holding press conferences and releasing press releases about what he intended to do, Lt Watada put himself in a position of being subject to arrest and prosecution for "Conduct Unbecoming an Officer", a vague term for whatever the military decides it means. Which, of course, the army did. D. called this one a few weeks ago.

2 - Unfortunately, "free speech" while in uniform is NOT protected - he can say what he wants when he's out of uniform, but "in uniform" he is subject to reduced First Amendment rights. SCOTUS decided that during Vietnam and his lawyers should have known that and shut him up for his own protection. "his lawyers should be reading the law, instead of soliciting "donations." - D.

3 - A soldier does not have the right to refuse to obey an order to deploy - that is not an "illegal" order, and a LT does not have the right to declare a war "illegal." As much as I agree that the war is illegal, he doesn't have the legal authority to declare it so and therefore, no legal standing to refuse the order. **If life worked that way, I'd declare myself to be Johnny Depp's personal shower attendant and live happily ever after, but this is the real world. **

4 - He has been ordered to have no contact with any non-military personnel except his civilian lawyer. That is an ILLEGAL order. You can't order someone in the military to have no contact with his civilian mother, or any other civilian for that matter.

5 - Had he not gone "public" as his lawyers urged, he would have been discharged from the Army - even if he refused to deploy. Now, because he has created a "morale" issue with the lower ranking enlisted troops, he is going to be made an "example" of by the Army.

6 - His lawyers have had many other lawyers, including the army JAGs, give advice on how to handle this mess they've made and they've refused. No dice from the learned (lol) counsel, so now they're making all the wrong moves and Watada is toast.

D.'s final thought - "He's backed the Army into a corner, and they'll stomp on him like a bug."

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

4 - He has been ordered to have no contact with any non-military personnel except his civilian lawyer. That is an ILLEGAL order. You can't order someone in the military to have no contact with his civilian mother, or any other civilian for that matter.

actually, yes the military can order such. i've seen it done before from when a soldier is getting too friendly with another one's spouse. and in one instance the one barred from contact was a LTC.

[ual777 0]

D.'s final thought - "He's backed the Army into a corner, and they'll stomp on him like a bug."

Someone owes me a new keyboard and soda.

The more I think about this, the more I think this guy is a moron. I wonder who put him up to it....ACLU maybe?

This guy is going to be crushed, and rightfully so. By having a press conference saying he was refusing an order, is like flicking a booger on your school principal's face. He is going to pay dearly.

Further, I think maybe he did it trying to sway public opinion in his opinion, but all he did was condemn himself.

Good Riddence.

[*Robert* 2]

That was pretty funny, though I think it should have read "squash him like a bug"!

He is definitely dead meat. What a schmuck to take such bogus advice. If anything, he should be suing the numb nuts that gave him his legal advice!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

That was pretty funny, though I think it should have read "squash him like a bug"!

He is definitely dead meat. What a schmuck to take such bogus advice. If anything, he should be suing the numb nuts that gave him his legal advice!

So can we agree then that it's NOT about his refusal to be deployed to Iraq, but how he handled it? To have strong convictions about not going - I just can't ever find fault in a person doing that. However, I concede that the way he went about it has gotten him into a lot of unnecessary trouble according to this military defense lawyer.

Edited July 13, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[GaryC 7]

Hey steven! That picture you have there looks just like the Kenny Rogers resturant I was just at in Olongapo! Any chance that's where it was taken?