Court Marshal for Lt Ehren Watada?

[~kiyah~ 14]

For dissenters in the military, life is hard, and then you serve time. If you don't want to be ordered around, you don't go into the service. Getting in is voluntary, staying in requires following orders. That's the bottom line, take it or leave it.

I do agree that by signing up for the service you are bound to perform that service...on the other hand I also believe it is a duty not to participate in illegal acts whether they be illegal acts of war crimes, etc. Doesn't what this Lt. stand against fall under this category? He not only feels but KNOWS this war is illegal and against what the United Nations stands for? We all know the Bush administration lied about WOMD among other things which were the very reasons given to the UN for going to Iraq in the first place.

My Grandfather fought in World War II and has been against this war and the 'reasons' we went to war in Iraq from the very start, he feels betrayed as I do by the administration...we were all lied to, point blank. He also commends this Lt for standing up where no-one else would. He also agrees that this is a fine line the Lt. is walking and many people (most people) will not understand or feel the same way. Many people feel...you signed up for it, you do the service no matter if it is illegal or not.

That's why I posted this, to see how everyone else feels about this issue.

~Kiyah~

[Sofiyya 1,687]

My father was an officer and a pilot in WWII, one of my brothers was an officer in Desert Storm. Both returned home decorated war heroes. None of this gives any credence to a mitigation of the facts.

Nonetheless, how we or our relatives feel is irrelevant. The bottom line is, it is an emotional argument based on feelings that the war is illegal, not a legal one. The steps that were required to begin it were taken, and it has been consistantly funded by the Congress. Nothing that was done to commence the war is illegal and no steps that would be neccessary to stop it have been taken. While critics opine and politicians deliver platitudes, the fact is, the term "illegal" is not realisitically applicable, although it may be soothing moral posturing to repeat it.

Edited February 6, 2007 by Green-eyed girl

[Ban Hammer 13,620]

For dissenters in the military, life is hard, and then you serve time. If you don't want to be ordered around, you don't go into the service. Getting in is voluntary, staying in requires following orders. That's the bottom line, take it or leave it.

I do agree that by signing up for the service you are bound to perform that service...on the other hand I also believe it is a duty not to participate in illegal acts whether they be illegal acts of war crimes, etc. Doesn't what this Lt. stand against fall under this category? He not only feels but KNOWS this war is illegal and against what the United Nations stands for? We all know the Bush administration lied about WOMD among other things which were the very reasons given to the UN for going to Iraq in the first place.

My Grandfather fought in World War II and has been against this war and the 'reasons' we went to war in Iraq from the very start, he feels betrayed as I do by the administration...we were all lied to, point blank. He also commends this Lt for standing up where no-one else would. He also agrees that this is a fine line the Lt. is walking and many people (most people) will not understand or feel the same way. Many people feel...you signed up for it, you do the service no matter if it is illegal or not.

That's why I posted this, to see how everyone else feels about this issue.

~Kiyah~

again, deploying is not a war crime. that this is an illegal war is also a non starter.

i also fail to understand how the united nations entered into this equation either. the united nations has nothing to do with this nor will it. this is the united states of america, not the united states of the united nations. now get over it.

this lt will wind up here at ft leavenworth at the usdb. bet on it.

[mybackpages 0]

His oath was to uphold the US Constitution and it is ilegal to follow unlawful orders. BRAVO Lt. Watada. A true profile in courage.

The US Constitution deems the President to be the Commander in Chief of the Armed Services. If Watada wanted to run things, he should have run for president.

funny last time i looked the US Constitution was more than just one line.

That goes without saying, and not one line of it supports what he is doing, whether you agree with him or not. He's not the first, nor will he be the last to protest deployment to an assignment he objects to, and it always ends the same. They lose. No country in its right mind allows soldiers to decide when and where they will fight, and that is as it should be.

Oh i am sure you are right in that he will definately lose the case, but that doesn't make him wrong. It's a principled stand ans one i think is the right stand to take. As an officer, it carried more weight than the enlistedmen who have alredy taken this same stand.

I could make a good legal argument that supports his stand. It is the office of the president not the man who holds it he upholds.

For dissenters in the military, life is hard, and then you serve time. If you don't want to be ordered around, you don't go into the service. Getting in is voluntary, staying in requires following orders. That's the bottom line, take it or leave it.

I do agree that by signing up for the service you are bound to perform that service...on the other hand I also believe it is a duty not to participate in illegal acts whether they be illegal acts of war crimes, etc. Doesn't what this Lt. stand against fall under this category? He not only feels but KNOWS this war is illegal and against what the United Nations stands for? We all know the Bush administration lied about WOMD among other things which were the very reasons given to the UN for going to Iraq in the first place.

My Grandfather fought in World War II and has been against this war and the 'reasons' we went to war in Iraq from the very start, he feels betrayed as I do by the administration...we were all lied to, point blank. He also commends this Lt for standing up where no-one else would. He also agrees that this is a fine line the Lt. is walking and many people (most people) will not understand or feel the same way. Many people feel...you signed up for it, you do the service no matter if it is illegal or not.

That's why I posted this, to see how everyone else feels about this issue.

~Kiyah~

I think you stated the fine line of this argument beautifully. Smart Grandfather you have!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I could make a good legal argument that supports his stand.

Please, if you do, let me know. I'd love to read it.

[mybackpages 0]

His oath was to uphold the US Constitution and it is ilegal to follow unlawful orders. BRAVO Lt. Watada. A true profile in courage.

his oath was also to obey the president and those appointed over him.

once again, you show how clueless you are. deploying is not an illegal order............

YAWN....personal attacks when you can't argue with reason bore me.

[Ban Hammer 13,620]

His oath was to uphold the US Constitution and it is ilegal to follow unlawful orders. BRAVO Lt. Watada. A true profile in courage.

his oath was also to obey the president and those appointed over him.

once again, you show how clueless you are. deploying is not an illegal order............

YAWN....personal attacks when you can't argue with reason bore me.

blather and bluster all you want, you can't even present a reasonable arguement about it. an illegal order = an order to deploy

stick to what you know best, like washing dishes or something.

[Captain Ewok 1,900]

Stop the personal attacks. Please consider the warning and be more civil ... thanks.

[mybackpages 0]

I could make a good legal argument that supports his stand.

Please, if you do, let me know. I'd love to read it.

I know how you appreciate a well reasoned arument, give me some time to sort it out with some documentation and i will. Tonight i am just playing I think Kya is right, its a argument that canbe argued on both sides- a fine line and which side you end up on has a lot todo with your own school of consitutional interpretation.

[Henia 11]

ooops double post

Edited February 6, 2007 by Henia

[Henia 11]

oops sorry again

Edited February 6, 2007 by Henia

[doodlebug 3]

I'm against the war and find it dispicable that the administration made us believe that Iraq was on the verge of having nuclear weapons.

I also agree that this soldier is making a very important stance which, given enough publicity just may change things.

That being said, why the heck did he enlist in 2003 and then suddenly freak knowing he'd go to Iraq?

I mean it's one thing if he had enlisted before 9/11 since who knew there'd be an outright war at that point. But when you enlist after 9/11 you have to be a complete doo doo brain to think you don't have the chance to be sent to either Afghanistan or Iraq. I kind of think he enlisted on purpose for creating this display.....................which isn't a bad thing since I do believe in what he is doing and I think if nothing else it will make people think.

Just spit-ballin' here.

[Ban Hammer 13,620]

I'm against the war and find it dispicable that the administration made us believe that Iraq was on the verge of having nuclear weapons.

I also agree that this soldier is making a very important stance which, given enough publicity just may change things.

That being said, why the heck did he enlist in 2003 and then suddenly freak knowing he'd go to Iraq?

I mean it's one thing if he had enlisted before 9/11 since who knew there'd be an outright war at that point. But when you enlist after 9/11 you have to be a complete doo doo brain to think you don't have the chance to be sent to either Afghanistan or Iraq. I kind of think he enlisted on purpose for creating this display.....................which isn't a bad thing since I do believe in what he is doing and I think if nothing else it will make people think.

Just spit-ballin' here.

actually, he's not enlisting the the military. comssioned officers are appointed.......

here is the oath of office, bolded part by me.

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

an illegal order is along the lines of: dump that oil in that ditch behind the motorpool. fire at that school full of kids. shoot those unarmed civilians.

an order to deploy isn't an illegal order. but according to some, it is

for the uninformed, the military is there to defend democracy, not practice it. you go where you are ordered. it's not pick and choose according to the individual's whim. perhaps that is why these very same people who believe it is an illegal order never served in the military.......

[mybackpages 0]

I'm against the war and find it dispicable that the administration made us believe that Iraq was on the verge of having nuclear weapons.

I also agree that this soldier is making a very important stance which, given enough publicity just may change things.

That being said, why the heck did he enlist in 2003 and then suddenly freak knowing he'd go to Iraq?

I mean it's one thing if he had enlisted before 9/11 since who knew there'd be an outright war at that point. But when you enlist after 9/11 you have to be a complete doo doo brain to think you don't have the chance to be sent to either Afghanistan or Iraq. I kind of think he enlisted on purpose for creating this display.....................which isn't a bad thing since I do believe in what he is doing and I think if nothing else it will make people think.

Just spit-ballin' here.

http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs19056

Here is an interview with Lt. Wahada explaining his decision.

[doodlebug 3]

I'm against the war and find it dispicable that the administration made us believe that Iraq was on the verge of having nuclear weapons.

I also agree that this soldier is making a very important stance which, given enough publicity just may change things.

That being said, why the heck did he enlist in 2003 and then suddenly freak knowing he'd go to Iraq?

I mean it's one thing if he had enlisted before 9/11 since who knew there'd be an outright war at that point. But when you enlist after 9/11 you have to be a complete doo doo brain to think you don't have the chance to be sent to either Afghanistan or Iraq. I kind of think he enlisted on purpose for creating this display.....................which isn't a bad thing since I do believe in what he is doing and I think if nothing else it will make people think.

Just spit-ballin' here.

actually, he's not enlisting the the military. comssioned officers are appointed.......

here is the oath of office, bolded part by me.

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

an illegal order is along the lines of: dump that oil in that ditch behind the motorpool. fire at that school full of kids. shoot those unarmed civilians.

an order to deploy isn't an illegal order. but according to some, it is

for the uninformed, the military is there to defend democracy, not practice it. you go where you are ordered. it's not pick and choose according to the individual's whim. perhaps that is why these very same people who believe it is an illegal order never served in the military.......

So you are saying that he was in a sense drafted into the military? That his involvement was not voluntary?