You don't have the luxury of signing a conditional contract.
The odds have always been against him serving in Afghanistan. Without trying to quote troop counts, there are far more involved in Iraq than Afghanistan, and still more stuck in the United States (or elsewhere). So by signing a contract he was rolling the dice on a less than 50% chance he would go where he wanted.
That doesn't make sense to me. Why would anyone do that? If I were offered a job with a large company which produced two main products, one of which was an illegal drug, I would choose not to work for them at all rather than cross my fingers and hope I wasn't asked to do wrong.
If you have never suffered through the military inprocessing experience then you may find it hard to believe, but they do a pretty thorough job of explaining that you are literally signing your life away. They can send you anywhere, and while some tentative promises are made for enlisted soldiers (you can choose infantry, artillery, etc.) officers are allowed only to make requests, and those are only honored if it is convenient for the Army.
Watada states among his reasons for refusing to deploy:
Quote:
|
"The wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of the Iraqi people with only limited accountability is not only a terrible moral injustice but a contradiction to the Army's own Law of Land Warfare,"
|
This simply isn't happenning, and he wouldn't know since he refused to even deploy. Once in Iraq, should he be given an order to slaughter and mistreat the Iraqi people, he would be entirely justified to refuse that order. However, to refuse to deploy out of fear that he may be told to do something wrong is ridiculous.
Also:
Quote:
|
the war violates the democratic system of checks and balances and usurps international treaties and conventions.
|
It in no way violates checks and balances. It is a war approved by congress and the president. If either the legislative or the executive branch decided that the war simply needed to be terminated they both have the power to do so.
As far as violating international treaties: Most arguments for this center around a war of agression being in violation of international treaties, etc.
However, from Wikipedia (take it for what it's worth):
Quote:
A United Nations factsheet on the ICC states:
What about aggression? Isn't it in the Statute?
Aggression has been included as a crime within the Court's jurisdiction. But first, the States Parties must adopt an agreement setting out two things: a definition of aggression, which has so far proven difficult, and the conditions under which the Court could exercise its jurisdiction. Several proposals have been considered. Some countries feel that, in line with the UN Charter and the mandate it gives to the Security Council, only the Council has the authority to find that an act of aggression has occurred. If this is agreed, then such a finding by the Council would be required before the Court itself could take any action. Other countries feel that such authority should not be limited to the Security Council. There are proposals under consideration that would give that role to the General Assembly or to the International Court of Justice, if an accusation of aggression were made and the Security Council did not act within a certain time. In September 2002, the Assembly of States Parties to the Court established a special working group, open to all States, to elaborate proposals for a provision on aggression.
Another UN paper, states that there are two definitions of aggression under consideration for presentation to the 2009 Rome Conference:
|
And more importantly:
Quote:
|
The Definition of Aggression was a definition of the term "aggression" adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 14, 1974. The definition was adopted without a vote during the General Assembly's 2319th plenary meeting and attached as an annex to General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX). Although often cited in opposition to military actions, it has no binding force in international law. Perpetrating an act of aggression remains uncriminalised, though it is intended that the International Criminal Court will exercise jurisdiction in this area in future.
|
So we have agreed to make a war of agression illegal...after we agree on what that really means, who will enforce it, and what the penalties for waging one will be...which hasn't happenned yet. So so far a war of agression is not criminal and is not a violation of international law. Like it or not, right by conquest is still valid legally (if not morally).
Also, Watada references Command Responsibility, which places responsiblity for the actions of subordinates on the commander. It was used to prosecute high-ranking officials after WW2 for the atrocities committed by the men under them.
It is true (and justly so) that an officer is held responsible for the actions of his men. However, as an officer it is Mr. Watada's responsiblity to ensure that his men don't commit war crimes rather than simply throwing up his hands and refusing to lead them.
He also seems to use command responsiblity to infer that he could be held accountable for the actions of his superiors. This doesn't work however because command responsibility places responsibility up the chain of command, not down. You don't blame a private because a general made a bad decision.