Lt. Watada is a real deal hero

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Easy. Don't want to follow orders? Don't join the military.

[Veiled Princess 1]

The funny thing about this... there was another thread about the military lowing standards to allow under educated people in... the main reason being that enough people are not joinging today... I guess this could be one of the reasons they're not. If I was going to enlist in the Army I certainly would change my mind after knowing that I don't have a choice in what I am willing to fight for. There are many people who were all for the invasion of Iraq at first because A. Americans were angry and scared B. we were lied to about Iraq's involvement in producing WMDs but they have changed their minds since the truth came out. There are also many people who view the entire war as illegal and would not want to have any part of it.

I don't know if I would go so far as calling this man a hero but at least he's sticking up for what he believes in.

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

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.

Set aside for a moment whatever your conclusions are of our military presence in Iraq or this officer's personal motives. My question is simple - I'm was asking hypothetically when is it ever justifiable for a soldier to disobey orders? If you are saying that a soldier should put his total obedience into the military and trust the military machine has in place safeguards that would prevent an order to be criminal then I think you are being naive. Ultimately a soldier must test those orders against what they believe is right and just and follow their conscience. I hope at least that is what all our soldiers are trained to do. I'm trying to remember the name of the movie where Denzel Washington decides to ignore Gene Hackman's direct orders.

Getting back to this particular case, none of us though know his motives or the entire story, however, if Lt. Watada truly believes in his conscience that he is doing the right thing, I cannot find fault in that.

Edited July 9, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[Fandango 1,439]

The funny thing about this... there was another thread about the military lowing standards to allow under educated people in... the main reason being that enough people are not joinging today... I guess this could be one of the reasons they're not. If I was going to enlist in the Army I certainly would change my mind after knowing that I don't have a choice in what I am willing to fight for. There are many people who were all for the invasion of Iraq at first because A. Americans were angry and scared B. we were lied to about Iraq's involvement in producing WMDs but they have changed their minds since the truth came out. There are also many people who view the entire war as illegal and would not want to have any part of it.

I don't know if I would go so far as calling this man a hero but at least he's sticking up for what he believes in.

Well he can stick up all the way to a court marshall

Getting back to this particular case, none of us though know his motives or the entire story, however, if Lt. Watada truly believes in his conscience that he is doing the right thing, I cannot find fault in that.

Yet you call him a hero...

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

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.

Set aside for a moment whatever your conclusions are of our military presence in Iraq or this officer's personal motives. My question is simple - I'm was asking hypothetically when is it ever justifiable for a soldier to disobey orders? If you are saying that a soldier should put his total obedience into the military and trust the military machine has in place safeguards that would prevent an order to be criminal then I think you are being naive. Ultimately a soldier must test those orders against what they believe is right and just and follow their conscience. I hope at least that is what all our soldiers are trained to do. I'm trying to remember the name of the movie where Denzel Washington decides to ignore Gene Hackman's direct orders.

Getting back to this particular case, none of us though know his motives or the entire story, however, if Lt. Watada truly believes in his conscience that he is doing the right thing, I cannot find fault in that.

crimson tide is the name of the movie.

as far as violating orders, if the order is illegal the individual is obligated to disobey it. an example would be: go kill everyone in that village. this has been in place since the nuremburg trials. following orders is not an excuse for genocide.

on the other hand, refusing an order for movement is grounds for a court martial (note the correct spelling lisa )

yes, it is punishable under ucmj to disparage the commander in chief. same thing occured during clinton's years. it's not exactly news that anyone in the military should not make public negative remarks about the commander in chief.

and to take a line from the movie steven referred to

"we're here to preserve democracy not practice it"

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

Well he can stick up all the way to a court marshall

Getting back to this particular case, none of us though know his motives or the entire story, however, if Lt. Watada truly believes in his conscience that he is doing the right thing, I cannot find fault in that.

Yet you call him a hero...

Standing up for what you believe is right, even at the risk of losing everything - that to me is heroic. What's your definition of being heroic?

[Fandango 1,439]

Well he can stick up all the way to a court marshall

Getting back to this particular case, none of us though know his motives or the entire story, however, if Lt. Watada truly believes in his conscience that he is doing the right thing, I cannot find fault in that.

Yet you call him a hero...

Standing up for what you believe is right, even at the risk of losing everything - that to me is heroic. What's your definition of being heroic?

But you yourself said 'no one knows his motives' yet you're crediting him with heroism when it could be pure cowardice...see where I'm goin with this?

Oh, and Charles...don't be such a grammarian :P but it was noted

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Well he can stick up all the way to a court marshall

Getting back to this particular case, none of us though know his motives or the entire story, however, if Lt. Watada truly believes in his conscience that he is doing the right thing, I cannot find fault in that.

Yet you call him a hero...

Standing up for what you believe is right, even at the risk of losing everything - that to me is heroic. What's your definition of being heroic?

it should be noted that some will claim any grounds whatsoever to keep from doing what they signed up to do. including suddenly having an attack of the conscience

others have another word besides "hero" - it's "coward"

[Chuckles 0]

I can't help but think about Muhammed Ali and his stand against the Vietnam war. The big difference is of course that Ali was drafted.

Interesting debate though!

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

I can't help but think about Muhammed Ali and his stand against the Vietnam war. The big difference is of course that Ali was drafted.

Interesting debate though!

he had a big dog in the fight when he did that, eh?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You know what really chaps my hide? The fact that ANYONE could even say (with a straight face) that this man is a hero.

THE REAL HEROES GO WHERE THEY ARE ORDERED TO.

THE REAL ONES ARE THERE!

Does ANYONE here that any military personelle is like 'Iraq?!?!? bloody fanstastic!!!' NO But they go anyways because of their OATH that they swore.

I will go you one further, this so called 'hero' of yours is a coward and a disgrace to the uniform & I personally hope they throw the fkin book at him.

To all the military families and servicemen and women who read this:

THANK YOU!!!!

YOU ARE THE HEROES and you have my undying gratitude (L)

I agree that this guy is likely not acting according to any principles other than his own self interest.

That said, the guy who gets shot to death or dismembered or killed by a roadside bomb - what has he actually died for? Really?

I still wonder why it is we ascribe the highest motives to the folks that join up, when that may not necessarily reflect their personal motives. I mean, you only have to look at this guy to wonder why it was he signed up.

Edited July 10, 2006 by Fishdude

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

Here's some more info on Lt. Watada that might shed some light:

A 10 minute interview with Lt. Ehren Watada, U.S. army officer who has refused written orders for Iraq War deployment. This interview was conducted by Courtney Scott (www.madashelltv.com)when Lt. Watada was in Portland last Saturday, June 17, 2006.

Lt. Watada joined the army in March of 2003, believing the administration that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that Sadaam had strong ties to Al Queda and 911 He received his officers commission in December of the same year, served a year in Korea, and upon being redeployed back to the U.S., was informed that he would be deployed to Iraq within a year.

"At that time when I joined up I had no reason to believe that our leaders, the government, the administration would betray the trust of the people........I felt that it was my responsibility as an officer to find out everything I could about war in general in order to better prepare my troops and train them for combat deployment. I also began reading a whole broadbase of articles on the Iraq war on what was going on there at the time and what has led us up to that point. What I found was deeply shocking, not only as a person but also as a member of the military......learning that the administration had betrayed the trust of the people, had deceived us into going into this war that was totally unnecessary and unrelated to the war on terrorism."

Watadas reaction was one of shame, "knowing that our government was doing this in our name. I had to come to a decision on what I was going to do; inside I was in a lot of turmoil. On one hand I had my duty as I knew it, to obey every order without question, to do what I was told, what everyone else was doing, going over to Iraq and fight."

"On the other hand I knew that we were not fighting for Democracy, we were not fighting just terrorist, we were fighting an indigenous insurgency who was resisting our occupation. And many loves were being sacrificed for what I thought was nothing. I came to the point where I could no longer look at the pain and suffering of so many members of the armed forces, so many families being devastated by these loses, and the grief and suffering of Iraqi citizens and all for what I felt was an intentional deception, to wage a war without any purpose, without any noble purpose."

"So, I came to the point to where I believed as a person, not only as a human being, not only as a citizen of this country, but as a member of the military, that I could make a difference in helping to end this illegal war."

Watada first submitted a letter of resignation, giving the military the option to permit him to leave quietly, based on his convictions. They refused to do that. "They said it doesn't matter what your moral beliefs are or what your ideological beliefs, your commander in chief has commanded you to go and you're going to come and fight with us. You really have no choice in the matter."

I felt that I can better serve my soldiers under me, and all soldiers and all members of the military by speaking out against this administration in order to hold them accountable because if we don't, if we stand silent, as Americans, as members of the military, we give those who orchestrated this war leave to do the same, to commit more illegal acts, to violate more of our laws all in our name and to the detriment of our society and to the world."

And so now, June 22, 2006, Watada is restricted to base at Fort Lewis Washington and forbidden to have any communication with non military personnel. A large amount of support for him is growing and a rally is planned for Tuesday, June 27 at the bridge over the freeway at exit 119, just outside Fort Lewis, from 4-6 pm.

It appears that Lt. Ehren Watada has a choice after all, and he is exercising that choice, in the face of gigantic repercussions. He finishes this interview by exhorting others to follow his lead and stand up for their convictions.

"To whoever is watching this, the time has come to really stand up and sacrifice something to insure that true Democracy and true freedom are upheld within our own country. I would challenge anybody; I'm sacrificing my freedom, am willing to go to prisona and be hated by millions for my beliefs and what I believe in this country, and what we all hold as our beliefs as Americans.....What are you willing to sacrifice."

http://rogueimc.org/en/2006/06/6839.shtml

[46]

Set aside for a moment whatever your conclusions are of our military presence in Iraq or this officer's personal motives. My question is simple - I'm was asking hypothetically when is it ever justifiable for a soldier to disobey orders? If you are saying that a soldier should put his total obedience into the military and trust the military machine has in place safeguards that would prevent an order to be criminal then I think you are being naive. Ultimately a soldier must test those orders against what they believe is right and just and follow their conscience.

Let's look at your theory: that every soldier has a right to second guess. What you have done is destablized a collective action problem. A squad is small. If one member doesn't fight and runs, it increases the likelihood of death to the other members by a great amount. If they can't trust you to fight, they now see their own death as more likely and are therefore less likely to fight themselves. In the end, everyone runs. We build trust, and increase the odds of success by removing the choice. If you don't fight, you will be punished severely - possibly the death penalty. That way no one else shoulders your burden.

You assume an ethical standard you agree with (read the white supremacists in the military thread). You assume there is time to hesitate. You assume that each soldier has perfect information about every other individual relying upon them and can make a judgment which maximizes welfare.

Your policy would lead to a perfectly rational cowardice ending missions and possibly losing wars. America is in them to win. Soldiers are hired knowing they cannot second-guess orders in almost all cases. They should use the best of their mental skills executing successful missions and staying alive.

I stand by that both practically and theoretically, second guessing should not be permitted, save in the extreme circumstances of war crimes. And even then I'm wary.

[46]

Here's some more info on Lt. Watada that might shed some light:

http://rogueimc.org/en/2006/06/6839.shtml

It does.

He didn't write the letter until he was called to serve overseas. The simple rule for the military is that you can object before specific orders, with proof of convictions, and be reassigned or discharged.

If your "strong" feelings don't surface until you are ordered to fight, you are either a coward or have a moral/religious objection (political does not count) but wanted to collect free money from the US and are a simple thief who played the odds and lost.

He still joined the army. He still joined the infantry. He's not in the coast guard reserve. The infantry fight where their President commands. His opinion on the legality of the war had nothing to do with his service contract.

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

I stand by that both practically and theoretically, second guessing should not be permitted, save in the extreme circumstances of war crimes. And even then I'm wary.

In my opinion, that is a dangerous mindset to have. Of course as a soldier you have a duty to follow orders, but it doesn't mean you stop thinking for yourself and keep in check what you believe is right and just. It doesn't mean that every little decision is a labored process, but it means a soldier is not simply a tool. That's the kind of military I hope we have today. We should be paying them to think, not to simply act as robots.