Court Marshal for Lt Ehren Watada?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

There are many different thoughts on this subject. I am curious how everyone else feels...keep in mind this officer did not refuse any other military service including deployment to Afganistan (which he was refused)...only his deployment to Iraq.

Personally I believe the stand that Lt. Ehren Watada has taken is bold, and I support his stand that this war is illegal and immoral. It takes more than guts to do what he has done taking a firm stand regarding this issue.

Court Marshal for Lt Ehren Watada

~Kiyah~

the military deploys soldiers according to it's needs, not the needs of the personnel. it's not a bold stand on his part, it's idiocy on his part and against the oath of office he took.

Yes. He took an oath. No one forced him to take it.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

LS, would WITHDRAWAL (v-dub) have been a feasible approach if he didn't want to be posted somewhere?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

His father was just interviewed on FOX. He says his son didn't sign up to kill people. #######?! He volunteered to join the military, not a soccer club!

[Together4ever 1]

As much as I personally disagree with the war itself, I have to agree with Charles and company. When you sign into the military you are pretty much giving up your right as a free-thinker. You are there to obey orders, do what you're told, and not to question your authority. That's an uncomfortable thing for most folks and I can understand that, but this is not a secret about military service. They own your butt. Period.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Still, no one answered my question: would VW (voluntary withdrawal) have been an option for Watada?

Seems to me this would be as good a method of protest as getting court-martialed.

[mybackpages 0]

Yes, Lt. Watada signed a contract with the military. His stand on Iraq is NOT an attempt to back out of this service. He is not a conscientious objector. He volunteered to go to Afghanistan rather than Iraq, but the military rejected this option.

Watada is claiming his right, based on military law, to disobey illegal orders. His argument that Iraq is an illegal war is essential in his decision to refuse deployment to Iraq. If the war is an illegal action, then his participation is illegal.

International law supports Watada’s position. Under international law, there are specific conditions that must exist to make war legal. War that is a choice or “instrument of policy” does not meet these standards. Now I know many will dismiss international law, but the Constitution is very clear- treaties made under the authority f the US are supreme law of the land. The military understands this and teaches in its manuals that laws of Congress have the same weight as US ratified treaties and soldiers cannot separate international law from domestic law.

All of this talk about the President being commander in chief misses the point. The authority of military command comes not from the man who holds office but the rule of law. If the rule of law is violated, the authority is not legitimate. How much clearer can I state this? If the President orders an ilegal action, there is no compulsion to obey.

[mybackpages 0]

Let just add, that the rulings by Judge Head who is presiding over the court martial, have made it almost impossible for Watada to prove the action is ilegal. Witnesses by the defense to offer evidence of war crimes were rejected.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Thank you for your response.

Yes, Lt. Watada signed a contract with the military. His stand on Iraq is NOT an attempt to back out of this service. He is not a conscientious objector. He volunteered to go to Afghanistan rather than Iraq, but the military rejected this option.

His contract did not gie him the option to reject service in Iraq. It does give the military the option to reject his first choice. He knew that.

Watada is claiming his right, based on military law, to disobey illegal orders. His argument that Iraq is an illegal war is essential in his decision to refuse deployment to Iraq. If the war is an illegal action, then his participation is illegal.

"If" is the operative word, and so far, there is no basis for the war to be declared illegal by the powers that be. He is refusing deployment, and when he joined the service, the Iraq war was already authorized. He has taken taxpayer funds that have educated him and elevated him to officer status, then tried to dictate how he will allow the military to use his service. No can do, because if they could, where would authority lie? He will lose on this one.

International law supports Watada’s position. Under international law, there are specific conditions that must exist to make war legal. War that is a choice or “instrument of policy” does not meet these standards. Now I know many will dismiss international law, but the Constitution is very clear- treaties made under the authority f the US are supreme law of the land. The military understands this and teaches in its manuals that laws of Congress have the same weight as US ratified treaties and soldiers cannot separate international law from domestic law.

It's not simply a matter of dismissing international law,; it's not controlling here. The Constitution of the US is the supreme law of the land. It is the source of all law. No treaty entered into trumps the Constitution. Statutes imstigated by Congress are subject to a constitutional test when challenged. Treaty law trumping constitutional law is a meritless argument.

While there is a movement to integrate international law into US national law, that is stil debated and used in contextual issues only. An excerpt from the Wikipedia topic "Foreign policy law of the United States" explains this further:

The United States takes a different view concerning the relationship between international and domestic law than many other nations, particularly in Europe. Unlike nations which view international agreements as always superseding domestic law, the American view is that international agreements become part of the body of U.S. federal law. As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law. The most recent changes will be enforced by U.S. courts entirely independent of whether the international community still considers the old treaty obligations binding upon the U.S. Additionally, an international agreement that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution, and the Supreme Court could rule a treaty provision to be unconstitutional and void under domestic law, although it has never done so. The constitutional constraints are stronger in the case of CEA and executive agreements, which cannot override the laws of state governments.

The U.S. is not a party to the Vienna Convention. However, the State Department has taken the position that it is still binding, in that the Convention represents established customary law. The U.S. habitually includes in treaty negotiations the reservation that it will assume no obligations that are in violation of the U.S. Constitution. However, the Vienna Convention provides that states are not excused from their treaty obligations on the grounds that they violate the state's constitution, unless the violation is manifestly obvious at the time of contracting the treaty. So for instance, if the US Supreme Court found that a treaty violated the US constitution, it would no longer be binding on the US under US law; but it would still be binding on the US under international law, unless its unconstitutionality was manifestly obvious to the other states at the time the treaty was contracted. It has also been argued by the foreign governments (especially European) and by international human rights advocates that many of these US reservations are both so vague and broad as to be invalid. They also are invalid as being in violation of the Vienna Convention provisions referenced earlier.

All of this talk about the President being commander in chief misses the point. The authority of military command comes not from the man who holds office but the rule of law. If the rule of law is violated, the authority is not legitimate. How much clearer can I state this? If the President orders an ilegal action, there is no compulsion to obey.

The rule of law is one reason why this officer will lose. The authority of the President, in the case of Iraq, is buttressed by several necessary elements - Congressional acquiesance and funding, UN resolution allowing it, the competing interests of other nations, and the federal system that is our representative government - all of which legitimizes the actions taken. While the Congress has balancing authority, they are loathe to use it for fear of sending the message to the military that they do not support them, which will be a real problem when they need them. No authority wants to be the first to set in motion the dominos that tell individual military members they have the right to supercede orders to deploy over the orders of hierarchy, which is still topped by the command of the US president.

When our representatives do more than pontificate, but act on their constitutional powers, then there will be a basis upon which to reexamine the legitimacy of the war in legal terms. Until then, it amounts to little more than rhetoric.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Let just add, that the rulings by Judge Head who is presiding over the court martial, have made it almost impossible for Watada to prove the action is ilegal. Witnesses by the defense to offer evidence of war crimes were rejected.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) dictates the procedure for conducting court marshals and the presentation and allowance of evidence. While soldiers are not denied their 1st amendment right to free speech, the law does allow it to be curbed in certain circumstances considered to be essential to its mission. They do lose their rights to be individuals; that is implied in the common term for soldiers, GI, which stands for "government issue".

The court will limit its scope to the disobedience of Lt. Watada, and not broaden it to cover his reasons for his rejection of orders. That is all that is required, they have proper grounds for it, and a debate over the reason for the war is beyond the jurisdiction of this court.

[~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.

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.

I'm not even talking about Clinton and the inherited policy of regime change, I am specifically speaking about the Bush administration and they way THEY have handled this. They have added to this "inherited policy" in a sick and unnecessary way by lying to everyone about the real reasons why we should go to war in Iraq to begin with...they were fully aware of the botched intelligence but used it anyway.

Maybe they felt it politically necessary because the previous administration was not successful...however this does not make it ok in my mind, and I do hold them responsible for the entire fiasco of this war going on in Iraq right now...not pulling back our forces right now. Fully responsible.

~Kiyah~

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Sorry, Kiya. You can't realistically deny that the ground work was laid by the Clinton Admin and the Congress. Regime change was US LAW, by the time Bush came into office. The justifications, the intelligence, the mood, was already in motion and caught fire with 9/11. Nothing illegal about the process.

[~kiyah~ 14]

Sorry, Kiya. You can't realistically deny that the ground work was laid by the Clinton Admin and the Congress. Regime change was US LAW, by the time Bush came into office. The justifications, the intelligence, the mood, was already in motion and caught fire with 9/11. Nothing illegal about the process.

True, I am not disagreeing with you on the ground work being laid by the previous administration and congress before 9/11. There is much change that needs to happen and it's not just with the current administration...there is much in regards to the US policy that needs changing.

I still feel that the current administration is responsible for lying or using bad intel that they knew was bad in respect to the reasons to go to Iraq in the first place. In my eyes that is what is illegal and they way they went about it was totally wrong, that is my opinion. Whether it is actually "illegal" in the eyes of the law, I do not know, I'm certainly not educated in political law and am not claiming to be.

Oh dear, my head couldn't take that...I have enough to deal with processing immigration laws and guidelines as they pertain to myself and my husband. That's more than enough legality for me

~Kiyah~

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Ahem, what do I need to do to get someone here to answer my question about V-W'ing?

[jordanianprincess 0]

Ahem, what do I need to do to get someone here to answer my question about V-W'ing?

LOL start talking about food. Or maybe you need to just post photos of food! That surely brings the crowds in!

[~kiyah~ 14]

Ahem, what do I need to do to get someone here to answer my question about V-W'ing?

I'm not exactly sure this is an option due to what he is being charged with. I was hoping to get feedback about all this from others actually in the military. Maybe someone else could shed light on that one.

~Kiyah~