Court Marshal for Lt Ehren Watada?

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

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?

where did i say he's drafted? it's an all volunteer army.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

You said "doo doo brain"

[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?

where did i say he's drafted? it's an all volunteer army.

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

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

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

commissioned officers have to be appointed by congress. they apply for a commission and congress approves or disapproves it. enlisted personnel enlist, it just requires an oath administered by a commissioned officer to join. the difference should indicate the weight of office a commissioned officer holds versus an enlisted member of the armed forces.

[~kiyah~ 14]

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

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

If you remember the speech Colin Powell gave before the United Nations in February 2003...he cited we had solid intelligence of weapons of mass destruction among other items of intelligence that would justify us going to war in Iraq.

Less than 24 hours before Colin Powell met with the UN, he was specifically told by US intelligence officials that this information was not solid intelligence, only bits and pieces that had not been verified and should not be used in the context the administration intended...nevertheless Colin Powell used this so-called intelligence to receive the UN's blessing in going to war with Iraq. There have been several intelligence officials who were fully aware of this and subsequently resigned their duties because if it...not being able to speak out until they resigned.

In addition, the Bush administration deliberately suppressed information exculpating Iraq information from the same reliable source previously cited by the Administration as confirming that Iraq had developed weapons of mass destruction since the 1991 Gulf War. The administration excised a central component of Kamel Hussein's (Sadaam Husseins' late son-in-law)testimony that he had personal knowledge that Iraq had destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver them.

This is the part I say is "illegal" for lack of a better term. I don't know what else to call it, it's all a lie...this is the betrayal. The reason(s) given to support going to war in Iraq were farced...a cover up to something much larger and more sinister at its core.

Yes...it all must be approved by Congress, but exactly who was in who's back pocket during this time? If Democrats had the majority seats in Congress during when all this unfolded, we probably never would have gone in the first place. It sure wouldn't have been so easy to dupe everyone under the premise that it was done.

This is a huge debate in my family right now with the news of this Lt facing court marshal. It is interesting to see the diverse opinions regarding this issue.

~Kiyah~

Edited February 6, 2007 by Kiya

[Sofiyya 1,687]

In other words, he went thru a lot of trouble just to get into trouble. I, too, believe he's set himself up as a martyr for the anti-war cause.

[mybackpages 0]

In other words, he went thru a lot of trouble just to get into trouble. I, too, believe he's set himself up as a martyr for the anti-war cause.

agreed

[peezey 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.

There were millions of people who didn't oppose the war in 2003 but do now.

[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.

There were millions of people who didn't oppose the war in 2003 but do now.

peezy!

[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.

If you remember the speech Colin Powell gave before the United Nations in February 2003...he cited we had solid intelligence of weapons of mass destruction among other items of intelligence that would justify us going to war in Iraq.

Less than 24 hours before Colin Powell met with the UN, he was specifically told by US intelligence officials that this information was not solid intelligence, only bits and pieces that had not been verified and should not be used in the context the administration intended...nevertheless Colin Powell used this so-called intelligence to receive the UN's blessing in going to war with Iraq. There have been several intelligence officials who were fully aware of this and subsequently resigned their duties because if it...not being able to speak out until they resigned.

In addition, the Bush administration deliberately suppressed information exculpating Iraq information from the same reliable source previously cited by the Administration as confirming that Iraq had developed weapons of mass destruction since the 1991 Gulf War.

This is the part I say is "illegal" for lack of a better term. I don't know what else to call it, it's all a lie...this is the betrayal. The reason(s) given to support going to war in Iraq were farced...a cover up to something much larger and more sinister at its core.

Yes...it all must be approved by Congress, but exactly who was in who's back pocket during this time? If Democrats had the majority seats in Congress during when all this unfolded, we probably never would have gone in the first place. It sure wouldn't have been so easy to dupe everyone under the premise that it was done.

This is a huge debate in my family right now with the news of this Lt facing court marshal. It is interesting to see the diverse opinions regarding this issue.

~Kiyah~

The Clinton administration and all representatives who voted for the war had the same information, and repeated it over years. The Bush administration didn't pull that info out of its azz. Every western security entity and some in the Arab world acted on that same intelligence. On February 18, 1998, Bill Clinton gave a televised speech to justify regime change in Iraq during his term to set the stage for invading Iraq, although he didn't follow thru. In that speech, he said:

“The hard fact is that so long as Saddam Hussein remains in power, he threatens the well- being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with the new Iraqi government, a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.

“. . . Heavy as they are, the costs of inaction must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.”

". . . If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." The stakes, he says, could not be higher. "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

The Democrats in the audience responded with great applause.

Two months before, President Clinton had signed into law the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act (P.L. 105-338), which stated, “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” This policy was unanimously approved by the Senate and strongly supported by the Clinton administration.

The Bush administration inherited the policy of regime change from the Clinton administration and the Democrats who supported his campaign against Saddam Hussein. The only reason Clinton did not invade Iraq was because he could not get a UN resolution to do so. After 9/11, that wasn't a problem. In point of fact, yellow cake uranium, tons of it enriched, was found in Iraq. That is a weapon of mass destruction. This is dry and demonstrable history, but, please, don't allow the facts to interfere with the impulse to blame Bush for the US policy against Iraq.

Edited February 6, 2007 by Green-eyed girl

[Sofiyya 1,687]

A little more info to help in formulating your arguments:

October 10, 2002

Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clintonon S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use ofUnited States Armed Forces Against Iraq

The Iraq Liberation ActOctober 31, 1998 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release October 31, 1998

PS, I got the date wrong for the signing of the Iraq Liberation Act. I apologize for the error.

Edited February 6, 2007 by Green-eyed girl

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I don't know why the links broke.

A little more info to help in formulating your arguments:

October 10, 2002 Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clintonon S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use ofUnited States Armed Forces Against Iraq

The Iraq Liberation ActOctober 31, 1998 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release October 31, 1998

PS, I got the date wrong for the signing of the Iraq Liberation Act. I apologize for the error.

[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.

100% agreed

Who's the hottie?

oops missed this question earlier....cheb mami.

[peezey 0]

Clinton isn't flawless, nor are democrats. What might have been a sound policy move in 1998 and again in 2002 is now a complete mess, and has been for years. The legality of it really is meaningless at this point. It is what it is. A disaster of epic proportions. The disability payments for the first Gulf War veterans is $400 billion per year. This is for what was a short, negligible casuality war. American taxpayers will be paying for the second Gulf War long after we're all dead.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

But that's how war is. It's not predictable, unattractive and deadly, so, when it's entered into, inevitably by flawed humans, "messy" is part of the plan. Next time, ask your representative to fund flower-tossing instead of bomb dropping when the issue of regime change comes up.