Willravel

http://www.democracynow.org/article..../02/08/1611225

So here we are. Stipulation facts made between the defence and prosecution before the case have caused the judge to declair a mistrial - without asking the defence lawyer - resulting in a strong possibility of First Lieutenant Ehren Watada being protected under Double Jeopardy.

If you're not familair with the situation, First Lieutenant Ehren Watadastepped forward some time ago as the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse deployment to the Iraqi War and occupation. He faced a court martial (refusing to deploy, conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman). Watada has used his growing fame to act as a figurehead for soldiers who are idologically poopsed to the war, mobilizing grassroots action to allow the freedom of soldiers who believe that the war is illegal to refuse the order to participate.

Yesterday, the Army judge called a mistrail over defence objection in the court martial, and the idiot didn't realize Double Jeopardy. When the Judge declairs a mistrial without the consent of the defence lawyer, the case becomes a mistrail unless something like the death of a juror occours. The jourors are fine, and Watada should be free quite soon.

The judge refused to allow expert defence whitnesses to testify as to the reasonability behind Watada's beliefs about the war, in an obvious attempt to prevent the trial to have anything to do with the legality of the war. Would you want to be the Army judge that ruled that a war was illegal?

So what does everyone think? Was Watada right? How much of an idiot is this judge?

Seaver

I think whatever punishment short of hanging is in order. He joined AFTER the start of the war, clearly with the sole intention of causing all this ruckus. He was not some poor schmuck who wished to pay for college, or some patriot who joined after 9/11 and was upset about being sent to Iraq.

As for why the mistrial was called I do not know. Nor am I aware of the legality of such declarations allowing a new case to be brought at a later date. If it was just the prosecution screwing it up, and the judge not wanting him to go free on account of that, we may never know.

In my opinion he signed up with the single intention of becoming a "hero" to the anti-war crowd. Personally I don't know how you could support him when there are so many heroes out there as it is. If it was to stand up for what you believe in, then it's still null and void because he joined in the first place.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

Willravel

No evidence exists to suggest that he joined in order to make a statement, and evidence dows exist, not only in his public statements but from coroborating statements from friends, that he joined the army after and because of 9/11, "out of a desire to protect our country." While it's easy to try and dismiss someone like this as a purposeful figurehead, someone who is anti-war and a coward, it's wholely incorrect and disrespectful. According, again, to his own statements, he joined to fight those who attacked us on 9/11, not Iraq.

Seaver, I would request that, instead of guessing as to his intent and history, you search out the information.

I can support him because he places his duty of defending the counrty much higher than his duty to simply obey an order. He understands the UCMJ and recognizes, correctly, that the war on Iraq is wholely illegal. As such, he has refused to obey an illegal order. It's really that simple. He is a hero for standing up for the princeples of the military.

Rekna

willravel i'm confused by your position here. Your opening post seems to place you against the soldier and angry at the judge but your response to Seaver seems to imply you support the solider. Could you please clarify your position?

host

seaver, I see the core comments in your post are inaccurate, thus, so is your conclusion. Watatda was assured for months before he enlisted, that Saddam's Iraq was making and brandishing WMD at the rest of the world, aiding al Zarqawi and his "poison camp" at Khermal, deploying mobile biological weapons manufacturing "trailers", and that it was "pretty well confirmed" that the lead 9/11 hijacker, Atta, had met with an Iraqi government "agent" in Prague.

In September, 2006, the US Senate SCI, after a delay since Juky, 2004, revealed that:
Just two days later, VP Cheney was still making the same, deliberately false statements, despite the senate SCI release:
<b>seaver....the war is illegal, not Lt. Watada's refusal to obey a deployment order. Read Cheney's preceding statement excerpt. The crime is in his words, seaver. Compare Cheney's comments to the senate committee conclusions and the Duelfer report on WMD....please stop posting things that cannot be supported, this is getting boring....it's old.....former Nuremberg prosecutor Ben Ferencz compares his and Justice Robert Jackson's prosecutions of WWII crimes of "aggressive war", with the Bush - Cheney invasion and occupation of Iraq......the same thing, over and over, and none of it sinks in, you give not an inch, and you declare that refusal to follow an order to participate in a illegal "aggressive war" should be punished with a sentence, just short of execution of the US military officer who refuses to obey the illegal order from war criminals commanded by a war criminal, CIC. The definition of "crimes against humanity", and the criteria for prosecution of them, has not changed since the Nuremberg trials, sixty years ago, seaver. Only the perpetrators have changed, abd they mouth the same excuses..."they were only following orders".</b>

Willravel

My positions are as follows:

1) I am for the soldier, wholeheartedly, but I feel that in joining the military he should have done the research to find out that most major military conflicts of the past 50 years are surruounded by lies, deciet, and innocent death, and that not only our enemies, but we ourselves were guilty of those horrible things. His not seriously looking into his decision is what's wrong with a lot of soldiers, BUT I do understand the incredible effect 9/11 can have on someone, so I can forgive him. I respect deeply his brave move to stand toe to toe with the people responsible for the Iraqi war/massacre.

2) The judge has made many mistakes, one of the most glaring of which was in his excluding expert wheitnesses on the legality of the Iraq war, but at least I understand it. Do you want to be the Army judge that rules so as to create a precedent for legal desertion? Of course not. While the right thing to do for justice was to allow them to speak to the illegality of the war and thus the reasonable decision that Watada, the Amry thing to do is to protect what you think is best for the service. I might disagree with that, but at least I respect it. The problem I have is that he's too inept to do his job properly. I can't remember any cases in which the judge forgot to get the acceptance of the defense on a ruling of a mistrial. It's so stupid that it's unheard of. He botched a trial, and any judge that botches a trial that badly should seriously consider another line of work.

Elphaba

Will:

1. Watada offered to serve in Afghanistan, but was denied that exchange of service.

2. The judge is being critized by many legal experts at this time. The big question is his intention. The belief is that Watada's defense team found a means to open the door to the question of the legality of the war in Iraq. The judge took some unusual moves to redirect Watada's understanding of his plea agreement, and whether he intended an acceptance of guilt. Watada refused to alter his position with the judge, and also expressed the wish to not declare a mistrial. Nor did the prosecution agree with declaring a mistrail.

There is a very good chance that the judge has given Watada a double jeopardy position, in that only the judge wished to declare a mistrial. This action protects the defendent from retrial on the basis that a trial can't be ended if the judge doesn't like the direction it is going.

Here is a link, but I am sure there are many more:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020807A.shtml

Amazing, isn't it?

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

Willravel

I wonder how aware Watada is of our operations in Afghanistan. He might not want to serve there, either.

I think that a victory in this would be the double jeopardy, which is all but assured, either honorable discharge or allowing Watada to continue service in a manner more befitting to a noble officer (in other words, not going to Iraq), and the new and exciting precedent to use for anti-Iraqi war cases (anything from illegal detention to the illegality of the war and occupation themselves).

I'd like to shake the guy's hand and congratulate him for a victory on princeple.

Elphaba

I think that the judge intended a non-victory for anyone, in that he prevented a military assessment of the legality of the war. What a heroic "support our troops" position is that?

Edit: I am fully aware that the legality of this "war" in Iraq will not be decided in a small room at Fort Lewis, Washington. Watada has opened the door to that question, if we have a congress with the stones to persue it.

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

Willravel

If this was intended as a stale mate, I'd say the judge needs to grow a pair. I think that he may have been overwhelmed to the degree that he made a mistake any first year law student wouldn't make. This was a huge case to have, obviously, and it's possible that he wasn't up to the pressure (I'm sure he felt pressure from his superiors).

I like that Molly Ivins quote.

Elphaba

I added an edit, but I don't think it changes what your post intended. The cynic that I am is more inclined to believe that the judge dropped this hot potato, knowing that the political ramifications ultimately led to war crimes prosecution.

But hey...that's my happy disposition. ::moons will in the spirit of Molly::

__________________
"You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

Jinn

Will, did you write the OP? I've never seen you make consistent typos like that, especially "delcair"...

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Seaver

How is the legality of the war in question? Our military answers ONLY to the U.S. Government. There was NO part in this war which was handled illegally. "But Seaver, Bush lied!" NO, for the last time there was no lies. It was false information, false information that we had believed true LONG before Bush took office. There were no lies, say it again, there were no lies. If every single Democratic leader, who now claims they were given false information, prior to the 2000 election gave fire and brimstone speaches about Saddam's WMD programs then we can be pretty sure that said information was believed long before this "Republican Conspiracy."

Our military does not answer to foreign powers unless specifically ordered to BY THE U.S. Military OR GOVERNMENT. So why does it matter to the military if a war is deemed illegal by the UN? The UN has no power over the US military which the US military does not allow them to have. So what legality is he arguing about? That's like arguing Canadian Law in the US as a defense, it holds no water.

And no, I don't know exactly why he joined, but it's a damn good guess. You say he wanted to join the fight in Afghanistan. Well guess what, you don't have much of a say in the Military and if you could say when and where you went to war it would have horrid consequences. We are in a war, he joined the military in a time of war and then said he did not want to go to war. Guess what, you signed the dotted line you go when and where they tell you.

Defend all you want about who told him want and where he was going to go. Unless he can provide documentation it's hearsay, and if he CAN provide documentation it still is negligible because guess what? He joined the military in a time of war and then claimed he didn't want to fight.

__________________
"Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

Rekna

Seaver if the Bush administration knowingly presented false information they lied. They knew there was no 9/11 Iraq connection and they knew there was no Nigir Uranium but they still said there was.

That is the definition of lieing.

Willravel

I was typing while talking on the phone.
Article 51 of the UN Charter, which was signed in good faither and therefore (unless there is some contradiction with US law, which there isn't) is US law, says that there are only two situations where it is legal to use force against another counrty:
1) self defence against an actual or imminent armed attack, or
2) when the Security Council has authorized use of force

Neither of those circumstances existed, therefore we were and are in direct violation of the UN Charter. The Iraqi invasion and resulting occupation clearly and specifically illegal. Unfortunately for Bush, there simply is no way to expand 'self defense' to a preemptive strike based on questionable intel (and please don't give me the 'everyone thought they had WMDs at the time argument', there needs to be certian proof of an imminent attack, and that evidence did not exist as there were no weapons to fire). Obviously the Security Council did not authorize force.

As for the excuse of 'regime change', Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits 'the threat of force against he territorial integrity or political independence of any state.", therefore that's illegal, too.

The war is clearly and blatently illegal, and all arguments I've seen to the contrary either say that the UN Charter doesn't apply (which, of course it does. The wording is clear), or that we don't have to follow the UN Charter (yes, we do. Our own Constitution says that treaties that are signed by the government, like the UN Charter, are equivalant to the "law of the land", under Article VI, para. 2.).

MuadDib

Does double jeopardy even apply in military court/court martials? I know that a lot aspects of due process that are Constitutionally granted do not apply to military courts and I just wanted to ask if anyone knew for certain that the mistrial without defense consent thing even applies in this circumstance.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

Willravel

As I understand it, yes Double Jeopardy can apply under military preceedings just as it does under civilian preceedings. There are limitations to things like free speech when dealing with the military, but DJ, as far as I know, works just fine.

ratbastid

Best. Typo. Ever.

I believe the whole country could be described as "idiologically poopsed to the war".

host

Under your criteria, an "I was just following orders" would have been reasonable, and permitted at Nuremberg in 1946. Such a defense, Seaver, was specifically prohibited:

Seaver, Bush and Cheney continued to say things to justify invading Iraq that they had to know were untrue....long after the things that they continued to repeat were demonstrated to be false....Cheney's Sept. 10, 2006 assertions to Russert on MTP, are the most blatant recent example. The US is bound to the terms of the UN Charter, which it signed as one of five founding members:
Pre-emptive war is war of aggression, a crime against humanity, Seaver:

Ch'i

Adding to host's post...
First of all, I find it hard to believe that you honestly think our intelligence community is that ignorant, and in such a convenient way. Secondly, Bush and Cheney constantly made statements wherein Suddam, Iraq, and 9/11 just happened to stick together. Couldn't have said it better myself, Mr. Bush.


I smell a thread-jack...

reconmike

Host let me quote Saint Ronald to you, "there you go again", with your crime this and illegal that, what part of the cease-fire from GW1 dont you understand?
Do I need to post all of 1441 and then 1446 for you?
Iraq WAS in breach of the terms of the cease-fire that had us stop firing on him, so we had every right to resume firing on him.

__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?

powerclown

By that logic, removing Iraq from Kuwait was a pre-emptive war.
Was Iraq posing a direct threat to the US by invading Kuwait?
Did the US, by way of the UN, have any business interferring militarily in a conflict that allegedly was not a direct threat to it?

Was the invasion of Kuwait a direct threat to America?

MuadDib

Under the Constitution of the United States all international treaties and resolutions adopted by the United States Congress is the law of the land. We answer to the UN through our adoption of certain charters and conventions that we agreed to and we can not renig on just because we feel like it. Our adoption of international agreements, like the Geneva Convention, are binding law and to simply disregard them because it is convienent is a violation of not only the international agreement but, by way of the Constitution, also a violation of American law.

So, yes Seaver, our military does have to answer to foreign powers because we have agreed to certain ways of conducting our military operations internationally. Our occupation is Iraq may well be illegal because of accusations being made about US forces violating the Geneva Convention both in our military engagement and in our treatment of prisoners resulting from the war. Furthermore, our initial invasion may be illegal because of certain standards agreed upon via our position on the UN Security Council.

I'm sure you've noticed that both of those arguments conclude in that we 'may' be acting illegally. The only reason there is a 'may' about it is because there has been few trials held against the US or its troops either at home or internationally because for the most part we won't allow it. Even in Hamdi and Rasad the Supreme Court was very sure to touch only enough on the international law issues to say that the Geneva Convention did amount to binding law and that the military tribunals needed fixing to be legal. The problem then and now is that finding something illegal sometimes won't change a thing. Even if certain aspects of this administrations approach in Iraq were found to be illegal (and they most likely would be) it would have almost no effect on the war. At most we could cart a few people off to prison but that would just spend more money and not stop the 'illegal' war from continuing. Only after the war itself is over might these types of charges actually make any difference in an attempt to restore legitimacy to the executive office.

So I guess the question about the legality of the war comes down to whether a law has to be immediately effective in halting a crime to be truly considered law. Many would say it does, but I happen to think that just because the law was too weak in the frontier west, a little over a hundred years ago, doesn't mean that all the bank robbers, cattle thieves, railroad bandits, and outright murderers were still criminals even though they were never brought to justice because their gangs were stronger than the law.

That isn't exactly what pre-emptive war means. The Iraq War I was retaliatory against Iraq's aggression against Kuwait. The principle of pre-emption doesn't have to be against a direct threat to self it's about attacking because we don't want our targets to attack first (either us or a third party). Attacking Iran because we are afraid they might attack us or Israel would be pre-emption. Attacking Iran if they had actually attacked Israel would not be.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

roachboy

since the question of the legitimacy of the war lay behind the watada case itself (not the procedural fuck ups indicated in the op directly though), this article from today's washington post is of some interest (despite the threadjack risk):

source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020802387.html

this is interesting from a number of angles--(1) it is simultaneously a strong condemnation of the bush people's rationale for war and a muddying of the waters concerning the question of whether the (obviously false) rationales for war were in fact "lies". it is clear that this was a politically motivated report. it is clear that it was handled in a manner that is improper. it is also clear that the administration was predisposed to rely on it, given their "case" for war. feith is clearly covering his ass in the above. the question of whether false claims are lies or not i suppose comes down to the question of how this report came about. the way it was commissioned indicates that the report was geared from the outset to present "evidence" for the administration's "case" for war--but what i do not know is whether this particular chain of authorizations is in itself unusual. what seems clear is that once this material entered into the regime of infotainment that must have been circulating prior to the iraq debacle's outset, it came to play a fundamental role. i doubt very seriously that there was a preamble attached to it saying that this was a political operative's political report, commissioned for political reasons by political operatives within the administration who for political reasons wanted to start an unnecessary war. but without that kind of preamble, this report appears to have been disinformation.

but is this report a lie?
it was obviously wrong. it's methodology was shabby, its evidence arbitarily assembled and it conclusions fucked up. it was a political action undertaken by the central neocon players within the administration. it looks like fiction to me.

i can see the right trying to claim that this was an informational element amongst others and was therefore part of the "faulty intelligence" that led a well-meaning administration to make poor choices--all that as a way of attempting to shield the administration from having to accept any responsibility for its actions and to protect the legitimacy of an ideology more broadly within which it is possible to act in this manner without contradiction.

but it is not an easy matter to sort out in a clear-cut way.

all this is linked to the watada case via backstory.
but i sense a threadjack in it: if that happens mea culpa will.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

powerclown

OK, but how was Iraq a threat to America by invading Kuwait?
Why is it ok for America to spend blood and treasure fighting someone else's war?
Are you saying that Iraq's aggression towards Kuwait was, by extension, aggression towards America as well?
If so, wouldn't this by definition be an act of preemption?

MuadDib

I do not think that argument needs to be made. We can justify the war as a matter of law. Iraq's invasion was clearly unprovoked and illegal, as a matter of international law we had a duty to defend Kuwait. Moreover you could simply make the argument that there was a moral justification to involve ourselves in the conflict. While either an international law or a moralistic argument might have applied to Iraq II, those justifications were never offered and instead the WMD/pre-emption justification was offered up.

However, I think you could use the extension argument and still not come to the pre-emption conclusion. You could make a strong argument for Iraq's invasion of Kuwait possibly destabilizing the region plus you could throw in some discussion about oil prices/reserves being jeopardized by Iraq's invasion. If I wanted to make that argument and say that those actions were, by extension, aggression towards the US then that would still not be the same as pre-emption because if we considered those actions against Kuwait to extend to actions against us we would merely be retaliating to those actions already committed against Kuwait/ourselves.

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751

powerclown

It seems we have a scenario where both GF1 and the current IW both could possibly satisfy the definition of retaliation, one based on violation of 1441 (and 9/11), and one based on UN Resolution 660, and 678 where the invasion of Kuwait constituted an existential threat to America. In the case of the IW, I agree that violation of 1441 wasn't explained clearly enough, and was poorly and overzealously sold. Great post MuadDib.

Willravel

Iraq never attacked us and was never a real tyhreat of attacking us. It's that simple. Can we please end this threadjack now>? This is about Ehren Watada and the judge, and the information and opinions surrounding them.

host

willravel, if the following was an OT response:
...how can one adhere to your request?

It seems to me that the core claim of Watada's defense, and the pre-trial ruling of the judge to prohibit a "Nuremberg defense", is the premise that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq are illegal. Considering that, under the UCMJ, an accused is presumed guilty until he proves his innocence to the satisfaction of the court martial panel, it is incumbent upon the accused to prove that he refused to obey an illegal order.

I provided information that supports the idea that when Watada enlisted for military service, inspired by the 9/11 attacks, there was no "public knowledge" that contradicted the accusations of Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice, et al, that Saddam's Iraq was an imminent threat to the security of it's neighbors and of the US.

I provided excerpts of the opinion of the premier authority in the world, with regard to the crime of aggressive war, or pre-emptive war, former Nuremberg prosecutor, Ben Ferencz.

None of this information convinces those who believe that Watada is guilty of disobeying a lawful order, of anything to the contrary. There can be no discussion, IMO, of whether the court martial judge intentionally ruled the proceedings against Watada as a mistrial, IMO, if there is no agreement that it is even reasonable to believe that the Iraq war is illegal.

I don't see how we can confine this discussion to Watada and the judge, if some participants here believe that Watada should receive a punishment just short of execution, and that there is no basis for the idea that the war is an illegal, crime against humanity. Trying to discuss Watada and the judge alone, is like trying to discuss reasons for no WMD being found in Iraq, if some participants refuse to believe that WMD were not found.

I think that all participants must agree that it is not unreasonable to believe that the Iraq war and occupation are illegal, if a discussion about Watada, his motivation, his defense, and the judges rulings before and during the court martial, is to be coherent or productive....

Willravel

The point is that it's already been discussed in other threads. Everyone knows that one camp correctly believes that the war is illegal, and the other camp is not familiar with the Constitution, UN Charter, or possibly even the Neuremberg trials. It's being covered. I want to keep this about Watada and the judge.

powerclown

I'm not sure why you're pissed at the judge, willravel. Declaration of war, legal or illegal, falls under the jurisdiction of the US Congress, not the US Military. It would be a conflict of interest tantamount to mutiny for a military judge to in effect overrule Congress, thus the mistrial. Do you see it differently?

It looks real bad that this guy: 1) has a Democratically connected dad who dodged Nam for the same reasons, 2) Joined the military after the war had already started.

Willravel

The job of the judge was to determine whether Watada's thought process was reasonable, not whether the war was illegal or not in the real world. In order to do that, however, he would have been required to hear the testimony of some of the best and brightest of the anti-war movement. He wasn't prepared to let them take the stand in such a prominant case.
How so? As Host pointed out, he was going to be deployed to Afghanistan, not Iraq. As soon as his orders changed, he did research, like a responsible soldier, and discovered that the war was illegal. My father is a pastor, and I'm an atheist. Once the apple is seperate from the tree, the apple is it's own organism. Watada made his own stand.

Slims

Ahem...

He may have hoped he was going to deploy to Afghanistan, but agreed to serve the needs of the Army when he signed on the dotted line. Military contracts are quite clear on that point....You agree to go wherever the military tells you too.

Even if he was able to serve outside of Iraq, he would still have contributed to the war effort as a whole.

If he disagreed with the actions of our military he should never have joined. But since he was not conscripted and he voluntarily signed on the dotted line, he should have shut up and worried about serving the men he was responsible for as an officer.

And Willravel: I am confused because you seem to be applauding the actions of Mr. Watada and his decision to refuse to fight. However, in a previous discussion with me I asked what you would do should you be drafted to serve in the Iraq war. you stated:
If this is what you would do if you were forced to serve, then how can you defend a man who volunteered to serve and then refused?


I have nothing against people who believe differently than me. I have many friends who are vehemenantly anti-war. They are welcome to protest as much as they want and it doesn't bother me. However, to shirk duties you have taken an oath to fulfill is not something I am OK with. The military cannot allow people to 'sit this one out' simply because they realize they might actually have to go do something unpleasant.

He wasn't being asked to go bayonet kids. He was tasked with helping to secure and rebuild Iraq so we can end this conflict and come home.

Personally, I think his actions are nothing short of treasonous. I don't think our current crisis is so desperate that it warrants the execution of those who fail to obey orders, but I think he should be punished and severely so.

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

Willravel

Watada would have fought in Afghanistan. He would have gone anywhere but Iraq. He didn't refuse to fight, he refused to fight in Iraq. There's a difference.
Thank god.
I'm sure as an enlisted officer, you know someone who has served in Afghanistan. It's not a walk in the park. 357 US soldiers have died in Afghanistan, which by percentage is at least on par with Iraq. Watada isn't suggesting that he sit anything out, he wants to serve his country by fighting and/or bringing to justice those blamed for 9/11. It makes sense to me.
Watada was making a similar point to that which I was making in the aformentioned thread: the war in Iraq is illegal, and thus it is the duty of a soldier to refuse the illegal order to serve there. According to the letter of the law, he is absolutely right.
Again, the UCMJ is clear about illegal orders. Watada satisfied himself, through serious study and investigation, that his duty was to refuse to fight in Iraq. His actions may seem cowardly to some, but they do follow the law. In my mind, he is a hero for saying in public what so many soldiers say in tents or barraks. He's hardly the only military officer that thinks the war is illegal.

Slims

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:

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:
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):
And more importantly:
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.

__________________
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill

"All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

Willravel

...and the military doesn't have the luxary of picking and choosing which laws to obey, and in that there lies the issue that Watada was bringing up.

Watada joined up in order to fight those who attacked us on 9/11, unaware that the President and members of the President's club were incorrect in their correlation between Iraq and 9/11. It's true, after all, that many people still erounously believe that Iraq was involved (just ask powerclown). He was also unaware of the legal facts surrounding the invasion and occupation of Iraq. This was, as I pointed out above, a huge mistake. I feel comfortable blaming people for their ignorance because I aknowledge that I am also guilty of ignorance from time to time but I always strive to gain knowledge. Watada also took the time to seek out information about the situation that he was going to be in.

He came to the conclusion that the war was illegal based on facts. He also knew, from the UCMJ, that you are responsible for obeying legal orders, and thus equally responsible for not following illegal orders. As such, with his new found knowledge about the situation, he refused the order to deploy and explained his reasoning, which I belive is basically sound.

Forgive me for saying so, but most embedded reporters have supplied information about kidnappings and murders (be they involuntary manslaughter or first degree), and even rape. While the latter is not the result of order, the former two are often done in following an order. This has happened for the past 3 and a half years there, so Watada is reasonable in his thinking that because of 3 years of precedence and no evidence of this behavior stopping, he would be putting himself in a situation where he could have to do these things which he knows to be morally and legally wrong. It's not an unreasonable fear at all.

Speaking to checks and balances, I think that we can agree that the President mislead Congress. While I may think he did so willfully, and you may think he did so accedentally, the fact remains that Congress authorized the war under false pretenses, the main, of course, being the existence of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons of mass destruction and links to the terrorists that attacked on 9/11. That was the first breach of checks and balances when the executive branch provided bad intel to Congress and it effected their decision to the benifit of the executive branch. This is highly suspect and should have been ruled on by the Judicial branch, but the Supreme Court is stacked with justices that have proven that they will support Bush no matter what (see 2000 election). That is the second failing of our checks and balances.

I'd like to clarify on the point of the UN Charter further. I started looking into Article 51 of the Charter back in 2003-2004, but I only recently came across a report written by Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, New York, and Jules Lobel, Professor of Law at the University of Pittsburgh called "The United Nations Charter and the Use of Force Against Iraq" This report makes clear the point that I cannot make as eloquently that Article 51 is very clear in it's meaning and that the US has breached the whole Charter by ignoring it.

Here is Article 51:
To which the report replies:
Specifically under the letter of the article, one can only take military action if one is attacked. It has later been intepreted that this also includes anticiatory self-defence to an imminent attack. The report continues:
The language of this is very clear, in my opinion (and probably he opinion of Watada or whomever he has spoken to), about the meaning of the UN Charter's 51st Article. Another point to address was one that was brought up earlier by poweclown (ty, pc) about the first Gulf War and it's effect on this. The effect is, in fact, very direct. The US was granted permission by the UN Security Council to act in defence of Kuwait in 1990. We went in, with legal permission, and ended the imminant threat. Under Article 51, the UN had taken the appropriate measures to protect the international peace and security. Under the UN Charter, there are, as stated in the aforementioned thread, two circumstances in which it is legal for a member to use force against another soverign state:
1) Article 51 allows for force to be used against a soverign state in the occurrence of an armed attack by said state, or the attack is imminent.
2) According to Chapter 7 of the Charter, if the measures provided by Article 41 have been found by the Security Council to be inadequate, then the Security Council may permit action (typically this is a naval or ground blocade, but it can on occasion lead to direct military confrontation like Desert Storm)
Neither of the two circumstances has been met, therefore the Invasion and occupation of Iraq is unlawful.

*phew* Moving on...
Ah, but Command Responsibility goes both ways. Watada is responsible for his subordiantes, but Watada isn't a general. He will have a commanding officer of some kind, depending on his responsibilities, and that officer could simply pull rank in the case of Watada keeping his men from committing crimes. Unless he's commanding a group of Watadas, they will probably just obey the superior officer. I think, and don't quot me, he is suggesting that the superiors are already guilty. An example would be the Abu Gurabe prison scandal. That was a bunch of irresponsible children misbehaving, but the command above them was also heald responsible for their actions, and rightfully so. You shouldn't be in command if you can't control your troops. Delegate your authority to other capable commanders down the line, and things like that can be avoided.

powerclown

A few things first about Watada: bottom line, he was wrong to base his defense on the illegality of the war. He can't challenge the judgement of congress in a military court, which is why the judge refused to allow witnesses (pertaining to the il/legality of the war). The prosecution mishandled the case when they brought in Watada's conflicting stipulation of fact because arguing the il/legality of the war before a military jury is not permitted. Thus a mistrial. And Watada is a weasel.

As to the UN: If the idea is to nitpick and ignore world affairs, true enough. The questions remains as to why the UN wouldn't find Sadaam in violation. When in actuality, they did. Repeatedly. They have seventeen resolutions, and each of the last sixteen started with the preamble that Iraq was in violation of 1441 and needed to come into compliance.

The issue wasn't whether Iraq was in violation -- it was -- or whether the UN would find it in violation -- it did. The issue was whether the UN would back its word by actually doing something about it other than another sternly-worded resolution. If one wants to be a nit-picking grain-lawyer one can continue to complain that what the US did under 'international law' was wrong because we didn't ask 'mother may we' from the UN.

And perhaps you know the reason for that: Saddam had succeeded in bribing the French and Russians to the point that they would vote 'no'. The French certainly weren't principled about this (for them it was all about oil), and the Russians had any number of secrets to hide, arms smuggling foremost if the past is any guide. So the question for you to answer, in turn, is whether you would allow unprincipled, lying, thieving states to stymie you from doing what you believe must be done.

So to the chorus of "unilateral and illegal war of aggression", I say: Yes unilaterally, with a couple dozen other countries in support. Legally, per our Constitution. George Bush didn't allow the lying, thieving French and unprincipled Russians to stop him from doing what he knew had to be done. Bravo.

Jinn

Have you ever even been to france OR russia?

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Ch'i

Signs point to "no."

Willravel

Having a familiarity with the law, I will try to explain this point.

Watada has a legal right to claim that an order is illegal. Watada has a right to defend his thought process and thus himself for not shipping out. He was charged with Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer and a Gentleman. To clarify, the charge of Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer and a Gentleman is applicable in an instance when an officer commits a violation of the UCMJ that dishonors or disgraces the officer personally and thus calls into question the person's standing as an officer. During these types of trials, the defendant is allowed to 'defend his honor' and offer proof in support and explaination of his or her thought process. The Article 32 hearing, similar to a prelim or grand jury peoceeding, promises that the accoused is allowed presentation prescribed in subsection (Art. 32, Paragraph C). In this case specifically, that means that the trial should have explored the reasoning behind Watada's actions. Whitnesses supporting Watada's stance would be called by the defence to elaborate on any points not made clear by Watada. Instead of allowing the trial to run correctly, the judge declaired that the war was legal (objection your honor, relevance), thus taking Watada's right to defend himself.

No Watada cannot challenge the legality of the war in court, but he can provide proof that he believed that the war was illegal. That would have been his defense, and it would have proven very difficult for the prosecution and the idiot judge.
The idea is to follow the law.
The UN was obviously succesful in preventing Saddam from developing a weapons of mass destruction program.
You're hurting your argument with "mother may I" type statements. We commited an unlawful act. The UN Security Council has to rule in favor of something like the invasion of Iraq in order for it to be legal. Do you know why they didn't? Look at Iraq. Where there was once a bad government with a bad leader, there is now several different large scale wars going on. Look at the world. Global terrorism is on the rise. The US has not acted in the best interest of international peace, and it is only in that interest that the Security Council is allowed to rule. Had we listened to the UN, we would have 3000 more US soldiers and 100 British soldiers alive today, and there would be tens to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis alive. We have failed and continue to fail, just as Korea, just as Vietnam, just as Cambodia, and the hundreds of other places we've seen fit to militarily destroy in the past 50 years.
You mean in the way that the US allows Israel to commit crimes against humaity against the Palestinians? Yeah, we're hardly the good guys here. At least the Iraqis didn't have WMDs and nukes. Israel is poised to strike, and the proof is dead in the rubble of Southern Lebanon, right next to a good friend of mine who lost his life. The US govrenment's foriegn policy is hypocritical.
Our Constitution does not allow for wars of aggression, therefore the UN Charter is the rule of law. Article 4, paragraph 2 makes it perfectly clear that the treaties we sign are US Law. Bravo indeed. It's entirely possible that, after he is finished raping the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, he will move on to something you care about. Will you wait until that day to finally let your support in him be shaken? Or will you turn on what you care about in order to serve the President?