Lt. Watada is a real deal hero

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm not sure I entirely agree here. The point is that guy did volunteer (voluntarily giving up his civilian freedoms while he is enlisted) - which as I see it makes it rather different than if we were in a draft situation where everyone is forced to go whether they want to or not.

And we're not really tallking about war crimes here - the guy simply refuses point blank to go. That's quite a bit different to refusing illegal orders.

While he probably has no leg to stand on for the initial charges (refusing to be deployed), I'm a little uneasy about the subsequent charges levelled against him, based on his comments about the war and the president.

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

I'm not sure I entirely agree here. The point is that guy did volunteer (voluntarily giving up his civilian freedoms while he is enlisted) - which as I see it makes it rather different than if we were in a draft situation where everyone is forced to go whether they want to or not.

And we're not really tallking about war crimes here - the guy simply refuses point blank to go. That's quite a bit different to refusing illegal orders.

While he probably has no leg to stand on for the initial charges (refusing to be deployed), I'm a little uneasy about the subsequent charges levelled against him, based on his comments about the war and the president.

I understand that premise. My argument is whether or not a soldier and in this case an officer has a moral obligation to stand up for what he believes is right and just or should he be bound by his contract to follow the orders of his superiors? I realize the military cannot function democratically, but to merely be a tool for the commander in chief for his indiscriminate disposal teeters on imperialism. In any case, this soldier is courageous to sacrifice himself because of what he believes in. That's a hero in my book.

[peejay 327]

But nobody is ordering him to commit war crimes. I'm not saying that he doesn't have his reasons for not wanting to deploy to Iraq. I'm just saying that in the context of military service he probably doesn't have much of a chance for aquittal.

BTW...there were plenty of German officers that served in the German army in WW2 and did not commit war crimes.

That's not entirely accurate. Yes, he voluntarily joined the military but that doesn't preclude that whatever orders are given to him from that point on are voluntary. If they were, then the military would simply let him choose his deployment. Let me use those soldiers who tortured the prisoners in Abu Graihb (sp) as an example. Were they following orders or were they acting on their own? If they were merely acting on their own then we have a serious problem when our POW camps are being run by renegade soldiers. Now imagine if this Lieutenent were assigned to one of these prisons. At what point is it justifiable to refuse to follow orders? The whole torture fiasco was mired in whether or not it was technically 'legal' to torture. At some point, a soldier has to follow his own conscience to decide what is right and just.

That is kind of twisted logic. Maybe I should sell my car and give up my driver's license because I might put myself into a situation where I might run over a child?

Maybe I shouldn't have made the choice to drive and maybe he shouldn't have joined the military in the first place.

He's not refusing to commit war crimes...he is refusing to go to Iraq because he might be be asked to commit war crimes? I still don't get it.

[Fuzzness 2]

this guy chose not to participate in a war that he considered illegal. did we forget that somewhere?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm not sure I entirely agree here. The point is that guy did volunteer (voluntarily giving up his civilian freedoms while he is enlisted) - which as I see it makes it rather different than if we were in a draft situation where everyone is forced to go whether they want to or not.

And we're not really tallking about war crimes here - the guy simply refuses point blank to go. That's quite a bit different to refusing illegal orders.

While he probably has no leg to stand on for the initial charges (refusing to be deployed), I'm a little uneasy about the subsequent charges levelled against him, based on his comments about the war and the president.

I understand that premise. My argument is whether or not a soldier and in this case an officer has a moral obligation to stand up for what he believes is right and just or should he be bound by his contract to follow the orders of his superiors? I realize the military cannot function democratically, but to merely be a tool for the commander in chief for his indiscriminate disposal teeters on imperialism. In any case, this soldier is courageous to sacrifice himself because of what he believes in. That's a hero in my book.

I guess the trouble I have with it is that if he were such a 'conscientious objector' wouldn't it actually be more courageous to go? As he was conscientious enough to join up in the first place, you would think that he would want to - to make things better and ensure the Iraq's transition to something approaching a stable democracy.

I just have trouble believing that his 'objections' are anything but self centered. Again we are not talking about a guy who refused to carry out illegal orders, but someone who joined the army (for whatever personal reason) and now wants to renege on the contract.

He's not refusing to commit war crimes...he is refusing to go to Iraq because he might be be asked to commit war crimes? I still don't get it.

He might also be asked to help put in / repair essential utilities, help rebuild schools & hospitals etc. As far as things go, that doesn't seem too bad.

Edited July 9, 2006 by Fishdude

[gimygirl 0]

As he was conscientious enough to join up in the first place ...

how long has he been enlisted??

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

I guess the trouble I have with it is that if he were such a 'conscientious objector' wouldn't it actually be more courageous to go? As he was conscientious enough to join up in the first place, you would think that he would want to - to make things better and ensure the Iraq's transition to something approaching a stable democracy.

I just have trouble believing that his 'objections' are anything but self centered. Again we are not talking about a guy who refused to carry out illegal orders, but someone who joined the army (for whatever personal reason) and now wants to renege on the contract.

He's not refusing to commit war crimes...he is refusing to go to Iraq because he might be be asked to commit war crimes? I still don't get it.

He might also be asked to help put in / repair essential utilities, help rebuild schools & hospitals etc. As far as things go, that doesn't seem too bad.

You and peejay both make valid points. However, I do want to point out that he is now facing up to 7 years in prison which makes it hard for me to believe his motives were self serving as you suggest.

As he was conscientious enough to join up in the first place ...

how long has he been enlisted??

That is a good question. I'll see if I can find out more on the story.

On July 5, U.S. Army First Lt. Ehren K. Watada was formally charged with three articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: two counts of contempt towards officials (Article 88) - specifically President G. W. Bush, three counts of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman (Article 133), and one count of missing movement (Article 87). If convicted of all six charges by a general court-martial, Lt. Watada could be sentenced to over seven years in a military prison.

Most previous prosecutions of Article 88 took place during the Civil War and World War I, and the last known prosecution was in 1965 (Howe vs. U.S.). Lt. Henry Howe protested U.S. foriegn policy during the Vietnam War.

Even before Lt. Watada refused to ship out to Iraq on June 22, the Army was focusing their investigation on his speech. The formal charges confirm that the Army’s primary objective is silencing Lt. Watada’s dissent.

http://thankyoult.live.radicaldesigns.org/...84&Itemid=1

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You and peejay both make valid points. However, I do want to point out that he is now facing up to 7 years in prison which makes it hard for me to believe his motives were self serving as you suggest.

Not necessarily - he might be thinking he will get off the charges. Who knows?

This is why I say people primarily join up for their own reasons, the idea that they all do it to serve their country is romantic nonsense.

That's not to say of course that the troops currently out there aren't making the best of a bad situation.

Edited July 9, 2006 by Fishdude

[Fandango 1,439]

He joined the military, not summer camp.

Nope, not a hero....not at all. You don't get three hots and a cot and all the benefits associated with being in the military & then decide you just don't wanna do what you're told. It's called 'orders' not 'request pretty please if you feel up to it'

Nope

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

I, ___________________________________, do solemly 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 overme, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

link for further reading

he's not a hero, he's violating the oath he took.

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

He joined the military, not summer camp.

Nope, not a hero....not at all. You don't get three hots and a cot and all the benefits associated with being in the military & then decide you just don't wanna do what you're told. It's called 'orders' not 'request pretty please if you feel up to it'

Nope

Jer-ry! Jer-ry! Jer-ry! You're just looking for a good fight, aren't you?

Follow your logic then. If a soldier is ordered to do something that we would all agree is morally reprehensible, would you still think he's a hero for following orders? When would you ever excuse a soldier for NOT following orders?

I, ___________________________________, do solemly 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 overme, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

link for further reading

he's not a hero, he's violating the oath he took.

Same response I gave to LisaD. Read above.

Edited July 9, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think we should dispense with the use of the term 'Hero' - as it is an extremely emotionally loaded word.

Personally I think people are projecting here - you feel the war is morally reprehensible, therefore it follows that this guy must too. I'm not convinced he does - it seems to me to be rather self-serving.

In any case isn't it rather too late to be raising these objections? There was a large opposition to the war, but it was forced through anyway (creating a lot of resentment in the process), now we have to deal with the consequences - and as I see that doesn't involve pulling out without ensuring the country is on the path to political stability and independence.

Of course that doesn't mean Bush/Cheney et al were right, or that they should be let off the hook for it.

Edited July 9, 2006 by Fishdude

[gimygirl 0]

I think we should dispense with the use of the term 'Hero' - as it is an extremely emotionally loaded word.

soooooooooo true .... my children have told me that i'm their hero before! my patients have after helping them through a personal crisis

all depends on what your definition is!

[46]

Follow your logic then. If a soldier is ordered to do something that we would all agree is morally reprehensible, would you still think he's a hero for following orders? When would you ever excuse a soldier for NOT following orders?

Let's make this clear: the man joined the army and then chose the infantry. He made it clear that killing is something he wants to be part of his job. Morally, he has nailed his colors to the mast.

The US military teaches that an order to commit a war crime must be disobeyed. It is (this may no longer be true) the only military in the world to teach this. It deploys JAGs in the field to ensure mission planning does not include war crimes. This is the solitary excuse for not obeying orders.

The war against Iraq is over. Saddam's army was defeated. The current role is in support of a democratic Iraqi government against insurgents. The new government of Iraq has been recognized globally, and therefore coming to its aid is legal.

If Watada was opposed to war in Iraq, he should have spoken-up before deployment. Had he done so, he could have been declared a conscientious objector. However, once the orders are given, one cannot receive this status for the obvious reason that one didn't really object in principle - one is simply a coward. As is Watada.

Watada lied under oath. He took the money and training of a people who believed him. The only thing I will say for him is that seven years seems long. Maybe two-three, paying back the costs of his training and salary, and a dishonorable discharge would suffice. I really don't think Americans should support this deadbeat for another seven years after he has already taken them for three.

[Fandango 1,439]

He joined the military, not summer camp.

Nope, not a hero....not at all. You don't get three hots and a cot and all the benefits associated with being in the military & then decide you just don't wanna do what you're told. It's called 'orders' not 'request pretty please if you feel up to it'

Nope

Jer-ry! Jer-ry! Jer-ry! You're just looking for a good fight, aren't you?

Follow your logic then. If a soldier is ordered to do something that we would all agree is morally reprehensible, would you still think he's a hero for following orders? When would you ever excuse a soldier for NOT following orders?

I, ___________________________________, do solemly 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 overme, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

link for further reading

he's not a hero, he's violating the oath he took.

Same response I gave to LisaD. Read above.

No, I'm not looking for a fight, actually...but I think your view of the word 'hero' is really skewered. If one does not want to follow orders, one should not join the military. As Charles posted...there is an oath that you swear. It's not 'hey lemme see what you planned for me and THEN I'll decide if I want to go' It's the military. Military goes to war. If one is against being called to deployment for a military action, WHY OH WHY would one join the military?

He's not a hero, he's a liar & a thief.