Court Marshal for Lt Ehren Watada?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

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

He tried that, and was rejected. It's an option, not an absolute. I can't believe this guy went thru officer's trainiing, but was so short sighted as to believe he could tell his superiors what he would and would not do.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

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

He tried that, and was rejected. It's an option, not an absolute. I can't believe this guy went thru officer's trainiing, but was so short sighted as to believe he could tell his superiors what he would and would not do.

I meant, "did he try V-W'ing from the military as a whole?" (as in complete discharge).

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Yea, that's what I responded to. They didn't allow him to resign from the military, from what I understand.

[mybackpages 0]

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

He tried that, and was rejected. It's an option, not an absolute. I can't believe this guy went thru officer's trainiing, but was so short sighted as to believe he could tell his superiors what he would and would not do.

I meant, "did he try V-W'ing from the military as a whole?" (as in complete discharge).

It is quite possible that he joined specifically to take on the refusal of deployment as a test case. If he didn't, then doing V-W would not serve his purpose of making this challenge. Either way, V-W would not be an option for what his goal is.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

This just in....

Soldier's court-martial ends in mistrial

By MELANTHIA MITCHELL, Associated Press Writer

13 minutes ago

FORT LEWIS, Wash. - The judge overseeing the court martial of an Army lieutenant who refused to deploy to Iraq declared a mistrial Wednesday, saying the soldier did not fully understand a document he signed admitting to elements of the charges.

First Lt. Ehren Watada was fighting charges of conduct unbecoming an officer and missing movement for refusing to leave last June with his unit, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070207/ap_on_...war_objector_20

[natty bumppo 297]

This just in....

Soldier's court-martial ends in mistrial

By MELANTHIA MITCHELL, Associated Press Writer

13 minutes ago

FORT LEWIS, Wash. - The judge overseeing the court martial of an Army lieutenant who refused to deploy to Iraq declared a mistrial Wednesday, saying the soldier did not fully understand a document he signed admitting to elements of the charges.

First Lt. Ehren Watada was fighting charges of conduct unbecoming an officer and missing movement for refusing to leave last June with his unit, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070207/ap_on_...war_objector_20

More:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070207/pl_af...ugnsUrf19NH2ocA

"A date for a new court martial has been set for March 19.

.....

Watada had been expected to testify Wednesday but the case ground to a halt after defense lawyers requested that the judge give a special instruction to military panel members hearing the court martial.

The judge said the instructions requested by the defense, which were not immediately clear, could conflict with a pre-trial agreement between prosecution and defense concerning Watada's motives for not deploying to Iraq."

Why does this not suprise me ...

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Soldier's court-martial ends in mistrial By MELANTHIA MITCHELL, Associated Press Writer

7 minutes ago

FORT LEWIS, Wash. - The judge overseeing the court martial of an Army lieutenant who refused to deploy to Iraq declared a mistrial Wednesday, saying the soldier did not fully understand a document he signed admitting to elements of the charges.

Military judge Lt. Col. John Head announced the decision after 1st Lt. Ehren Watada said he never intended to admit he had a duty to go to Iraq with his fellow soldiers — one element of the crime of missing troop movement. Head set a March 12 date for a new trial and dismissed the jurors.

Last month, Watada signed a 12-page stipulation of fact in which he acknowledged he did not go to Iraq with his unit, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, last June. He also acknowledged making public statements criticizing the Iraq war, which he believes to be illegal.

In exchange, prosecutors dropped two charges of conduct unbecoming an officer charges against him, and agreed to proceed to trial on the remaining charges: missing movement — for his refusal to deploy last June — and two other allegations of conduct unbecoming an officer for comments made about the case.

To prove a charge of missing movement, the prosecutors need to show that Watada did not report when he had a duty to do so. The disagreement that prompted the mistrial was about whether Watada admitted missing troop movement and having a duty to report, or only missing troop movement.

"I see there is an inconsistency in the stipulation of fact," the judge said Wednesday. "I don't know how I can accept (it) as we stand here now."

Because much of the Army's evidence was laid out in the document, rejecting it would hurt its case, Head acknowledged. He granted the prosecutors' request for a mistrial, which Watada's lawyer opposed.

Watada, 28, of Honolulu, was expected to testify in his own defense Wednesday until Head and attorneys met in a closed meeting for much of the morning.

In their opening statements Tuesday, prosecutors said Watada abandoned his soldiers and brought disgrace upon himself and the service by accusing the Army of war crimes and denouncing the Bush administration for conducting an illegal war founded on lies.

Watada's attorney, Eric Seitz, countered that Watada acted in good conscience, based on his own convictions.

Watada could receive four years in prison and a dishonorable discharge if convicted of missing movement and conduct unbecoming an officer for his statements against the war.

Watada is the first commissioned officer to be court-martialed for refusing to go to Iraq, said Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice in Washington, D.C.

After concluding the Iraq war was illegal, Watada asked to take a combat post in Afghanistan or elsewhere. The Army refused those requests, along with Watada's request that he be allowed to resign.

Watada then made several public appearances to denounce the war.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070207/ap_on_...war_objector_21

Edited February 7, 2007 by wife_of_mahmoud

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Charles is right. Deploying is not illegal. Illegal would be something along the lines of "shoot that unarmed child". It has to be specific.

Whether Watada is a good guy or not, he should be court martialed. I am confident he will be.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Charles and Green-Eyed Girl are right -- anyone who either enlists or is appointed for a position in the military and doesn't expect to be deployed to fight (whether or not they necessarily agree with the conflict at hand is a moot point; they aren't there to express their beliefs on the subject) is, in my opinion, either a complete moron or utterly naive.

Maybe that's harsh, but the military wasn't designed to paint houses or sell cookies door-to-door. B)

[RaspberrySwirl 20]

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.

...

Why would you say something like that?

How does Nessa feel about that? Oh wait, I'm sure she doesn't have to do the dishes because she agrees with everything her sugardaddy says.

[mybackpages 0]

Military law says soliders can be punished for not following orders. It also says soldiers can be punishing for following orders that were unlawful.

Many many cases have tried to use the defense of "i was only following orders" but without any (at least to my knowledge) success. If a soldier is told to follow an order- it is up to the soldier to decide if following that order is a violation of the law.

Watada's argument is following the order to deploy would require him to engage in ilegal activities. If he is right (and this is debatable) then refusing to follow orders is his right and moral duty. By obeying this order, he would subject himself to prosecution should the case be made that the war is indeed ilegal.

Stating that his refusal is not a right is simply an interpretation of the law, not a fact.

ETA: I think it is a fine line here. Watada is not refusing to deploy because he does nto agree with the war in Iraq, but because he belived the order is an ilegal one. There is a difference.

Edited February 8, 2007 by mybackpages

[DeadPoolX 9]

Military law says soliders can be punished for not following orders. It also says soldiers can be punishing for following orders that were unlawful.

Many many cases have tried to use the defense of "i was only following orders" but without any (at least to my knowledge) success. If a soldier is told to follow an order- it is up to the soldier to decide if following that order is a violation of the law.

Watada's argument is following the order to deploy would require him to engage in ilegal activities. If he is right (and this is debatable) then refusing to follow orders is his right and moral duty. By obeying this order, he would subject himself to prosecution should the case be made that the war is indeed ilegal.

Stating that his refusal is not a right is simply an interpretation of the law, not a fact.

As it's been said already, an unlawful (i.e. illegal) order would be to shoot unarmed individuals, such as civilians or POWs. If a soldier's commanding officer told him to "rape a civilian woman and then shoot her in the head," that would be an unlawful order and the soldier would be duty-bound to refuse it.

Having said all of that, deployment to a war zone is not an unlawful order, even if the soldier or officer in question feels the conflict itself is unlawful. Why is this? Because while the background and reasons for the war may be illegal in the soldier/officer's mind, the actions he takes would not be -- providing he follows military protocol. If he stuck to engaging in combat against armed opposition and assisting his fellow soldiers/officers, then he would be only doing his job.

If all military personnel could get out of combat by claiming that getting deployed into combat was unlawful because they feel the conflict is an illegal one, then the U.S. would have no standing military. Do you actually think any of these soldiers and officers really want to be fighting in Iraq? I know I sure wouldn't want to be, but if I was a soldier or officer in the military, I'd have no choice. I volunteered for the duty.

[mybackpages 0]

Military law says soliders can be punished for not following orders. It also says soldiers can be punishing for following orders that were unlawful.

Many many cases have tried to use the defense of "i was only following orders" but without any (at least to my knowledge) success. If a soldier is told to follow an order- it is up to the soldier to decide if following that order is a violation of the law.

Watada's argument is following the order to deploy would require him to engage in ilegal activities. If he is right (and this is debatable) then refusing to follow orders is his right and moral duty. By obeying this order, he would subject himself to prosecution should the case be made that the war is indeed ilegal.

Stating that his refusal is not a right is simply an interpretation of the law, not a fact.

As it's been said already, an unlawful (i.e. illegal) order would be to shoot unarmed individuals, such as civilians or POWs. If a soldier's commanding officer told him to "rape a civilian woman and then shoot her in the head," that would be an unlawful order and the soldier would be duty-bound to refuse it.

Having said all of that, deployment to a war zone is not an unlawful order, even if the soldier or officer in question feels the conflict itself is unlawful. Why is this? Because while the background and reasons for the war may be illegal in the soldier/officer's mind, the actions he takes would not be -- providing he follows military protocol. If he stuck to engaging in combat against armed opposition and assisting his fellow soldiers/officers, then he would be only doing his job.

If all military personnel could get out of combat by claiming that getting deployed into combat was unlawful because they feel the conflict is an illegal one, then the U.S. would have no standing military. Do you actually think any of these soldiers and officers really want to be fighting in Iraq? I know I sure wouldn't want to be, but if I was a soldier or officer in the military, I'd have no choice. I volunteered for the duty.

There is nothing in the law that says an unlawful order has to be specific. This case is a test case. Just because no soldier has won such an argument does not mean the law prevents it. A claim that the war is unlawful does not make the war unlawful and no soldier could make that claim to excuse him/herself from duty. But if it is proven to be an ilegal war, any soldier who engaged in the war can be proscecuted. Watada is laying the groundwork for this argument.

[Spartacus 0]

Military law says soliders can be punished for not following orders. It also says soldiers can be punishing for following orders that were unlawful.

Many many cases have tried to use the defense of "i was only following orders" but without any (at least to my knowledge) success. If a soldier is told to follow an order- it is up to the soldier to decide if following that order is a violation of the law.

Watada's argument is following the order to deploy would require him to engage in ilegal activities. If he is right (and this is debatable) then refusing to follow orders is his right and moral duty. By obeying this order, he would subject himself to prosecution should the case be made that the war is indeed ilegal.

Stating that his refusal is not a right is simply an interpretation of the law, not a fact.

As it's been said already, an unlawful (i.e. illegal) order would be to shoot unarmed individuals, such as civilians or POWs. If a soldier's commanding officer told him to "rape a civilian woman and then shoot her in the head," that would be an unlawful order and the soldier would be duty-bound to refuse it.

Having said all of that, deployment to a war zone is not an unlawful order, even if the soldier or officer in question feels the conflict itself is unlawful. Why is this? Because while the background and reasons for the war may be illegal in the soldier/officer's mind, the actions he takes would not be -- providing he follows military protocol. If he stuck to engaging in combat against armed opposition and assisting his fellow soldiers/officers, then he would be only doing his job.

If all military personnel could get out of combat by claiming that getting deployed into combat was unlawful because they feel the conflict is an illegal one, then the U.S. would have no standing military. Do you actually think any of these soldiers and officers really want to be fighting in Iraq? I know I sure wouldn't want to be, but if I was a soldier or officer in the military, I'd have no choice. I volunteered for the duty.

There is nothing in the law that says an unlawful order has to be specific. This case is a test case. Just because no soldier has won such an argument does not mean the law prevents it. A claim that the war is unlawful does not make the war unlawful and no soldier could make that claim to excuse him/herself from duty. But if it is proven to be an ilegal war, any soldier who engaged in the war can be proscecuted. Watada is laying the groundwork for this argument.

Wrong.

If the war is declared ilegal by who? International community? Wahh Wahh, they have no authority.

He cannot refuse to serve because he doesn't believe in his assignment. He cannot claim to be apacifist because he joined up of his free will.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If the war is declared ilegal by who? International community? Wahh Wahh, they have no authority.

Exactly.