Court Marshal for Lt Ehren Watada?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Actually, as a free adult - the guy can do whatever he likes That (of course) doesn't make him immune from consequences if in doing so he breaks a legal agreement.

[mybackpages 0]

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.

He is not claiming pacifism. He is not refusing due to any consciencious objector exception. That is the point he is trying to make.

I didn't say his argument would win. I didn't say it would be proven the war is ilegal. I didn't say he could make claims under international law. International law is only relevant when the US has made a treaty in the international community that the US under US law is obliged to follow.

Actually, as a free adult - the guy can do whatever he likes That (of course) doesn't make him immune from consequences if in doing so he breaks a legal agreement.

exactly and there is the rub. If the war is legal, then he suffers the consequences of his actions. I don't think any one disagrees with this.

[William33 110]

Most of you sound like a bunch of defense attorneys, tossing smoke screens about.

You enlist or get appointed as an Officer in the military, you follow orders, period.

The personal opinions, objections or otherwise of service members are expected to be kept to yourself.

This clown was hoping for a free ride through the military, to better posture himself for later civilian career advancement.

He should and will get punished, as deserved.

No other political opinions matter here.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If the war is legal, then he suffers the consequences of his actions.

He suffers consequences if his actions are legal, not if the war is legal. This case will not be going into the legality of this war.

He should and will get punished, as deserved.

[Caladan 19]

First off, court-martial, not court-marshal. The distinction is opposed to a civilian court.

Second, I don't see how the lieutenant has a chance at winning this. He'd have to show that the orders to deploy were unlawful, and the only way he could ground that is if following the order would constitute an action against the laws of war, akin to raping civilians or shooting parachutists. So you'd need to show that the authorization of military force itself was unlawful.

Unfortunately, that's not the same as a non-just war, a dumb war, or an immoral-in-the-every-day sense war. I think he's have to show it was an unlawful authorization, and that's going to take a lot of creative lawyering, and I'm not at all confident he's on anything but very shaky ground.

eta: can't f*cking type tonight.

Edited February 8, 2007 by Caladan

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

exactly and there is the rub. If the war is legal, then he suffers the consequences of his actions. I don't think any one disagrees with this.

Except the judge doesn't have the jurisdiction or mandate to prosecute the war's 'legality'. If that is his defence he won't get far...

I can't get out of a speeding ticket by claiming that I don't recognise the legality of speed limits

Edited February 8, 2007 by erekose

[mybackpages 0]

This clown was hoping for a free ride through the military

More and more I suspect it may be true that his decision to enter the military in the first place was a measured tactic to challenge the war. That is why - so young in his career, he is willing to face a dishonorable discharge. I think it may have been a conscious decision to take the case to the courts.

This case is so much more about the law and the war than a soldier who is refusing deployment.

[DeadPoolX 9]

This clown was hoping for a free ride through the military

More and more I suspect it may be true that his decision to enter the military in the first place was a measured tactic to challenge the war. That is why - so young in his career, he is willing to face a dishonorable discharge. I think it may have been a conscious decision to take the case to the courts.

This case is so much more about the law and the war than a soldier who is refusing deployment.

That's really sad too. Having a dishonorable discharge on your record really hurts you, from what I've been told. Prospective employers don't look too kindly on that sort of past. Even if the discharge was for "standing up for your beliefs," many HR departments won't give someone a chance to tell their side of the story when seeing something like that on someone's record.

[mybackpages 0]

First off, court-martial, not court-marshal. The distinction is opposed to a civilian court.

Second, I don't see how the lieutenant has a chance at winning this. He'd have to show that the orders to deploy were unlawful, and the only way he could ground that is if following the order would constitute an action against the laws of war, akin to raping civilians or shooting parachutists. So you'd need to show that the authorization of military force itself was unlawful.

Unfortunately, that's not the same as a non-just war, a dumb war, or an immoral-in-the-every-day sense war. I think he's have to show it was an unlawful authorization, and that's going to take a lot of creative lawyering, and I'm not at all confident he's on anything but very shaky ground.

eta: can't f*cking type tonight.

I agree and I suspect the defense is not really interested in winning. They have a larger goal. GEt the case into the courts. Even under military law, appealed cases can eventualy reach the federal courts outside of the scope of military law. Not sure I have confidence the case will make it that far either, but it is a legal tactic.

It just seems to make so much sense that his joining was the first step in getting the legal process in gear.

[yogib37 3]

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............

Right, deploying is not illegal but the war in Iraq is illegal..

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

...

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.

answered in order:

because i'm tired of those who know less about the military than an infant knows about rocket science trying to tell me that this idiot was right to refuse to deploy.

nessa don't care

strange you should dig up that lame insult of sugardaddy, as everyone who has gone thru a k-1 can't work for a while. thanks for playing on "what's your best lame insult?"

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

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.

you're wrong. unlawful orders have always been specific. a general order has too much latitude in it for the recipient to be called illegal.

example: take that hill. it is a general order. it grants the recipient wide latitude in determining how to do so in a timely manner.

example: take that hill nlt 1900 by this route and kill everyone you encounter is a specific order.

Edited February 8, 2007 by charlesandnessa

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

This clown was hoping for a free ride through the military

More and more I suspect it may be true that his decision to enter the military in the first place was a measured tactic to challenge the war. That is why - so young in his career, he is willing to face a dishonorable discharge. I think it may have been a conscious decision to take the case to the courts.

This case is so much more about the law and the war than a soldier who is refusing deployment.

That's really sad too. Having a dishonorable discharge on your record really hurts you, from what I've been told. Prospective employers don't look too kindly on that sort of past. Even if the discharge was for "standing up for your beliefs," many HR departments won't give someone a chance to tell their side of the story when seeing something like that on someone's record.

very true. i refused to hire some people due to the nature of their discharge. they didn't even make it past the first cut in applications. and he'll find the same unless he goes to work for the aclu.

[Fandango 1,439]

Reading GeG's posts in this thread made me well up

I'll say it for the first time: I agree with everything she's said. And I have loads of other links on par with what she's posted

one of my faves here

Edited February 8, 2007 by LisaD

[Fandango 1,439]

NEW FAVE HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and another!