RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,127377_2,00.html

Great article. Reminds me of the phrase " To be or not to be", that is the question???"
In the Lt's situation, it still boils down to disobeying a lawful order. Like what my commanding officer said to me way back, You can always object, but do this after you follow the direct order to the "t". Then you can do the "BMW", *****, moan and whine.

LouieSuzara;

There are many many Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and other individuals that are unaware of the words that you put in your post. I have been out of the Military for nearly 30 years and I do not understand the very last part of your post, but the meat of what you said is that each Military member is required to carry out any direct order because they themselves are not able to determine if this is a lawful order or not. Only after carrying out a direct order the individual may be allowed redress. First Lieutenant Watada had his orders and did not carry them out, was this a direct order? Was it a lawful order? In my opinion the answer to both is yes, but the way the legal system including the UCMJ and the Manual for Courts Martial can be twisted by legal council the answer is unknown until the Courts Martial Board chooses to give it. All I know is that if the decision goes to the Lieutenant this will certainly affect untold numbers of our Military and their attitudes concerning Military Justice.
Navyman834

That is an extremely well written article...clearly explains both sides of thought backed by fact...

Obeying orders - reminds me when I first went into the service and went from the orderly room to the operations center on an errand for the 1st Sgt and the LCol told me to make a pot of coffee - I said one moment and went back to the lst Sgt who called the LCol and told him that the UCMJ frowned on those type of orders - end of my making coffee and the LCol is probably still on fire. That old crusty WWII First Sergeant was a toughie.

This was a great article by Jeff Edwards. It is too long for my ageing and dwindling attention span to absorb all at once, though.

From a legalistic point of view, Lt.Watada's position is weak. To argue that the war in Iraq is unconstitutional has merit; but to do that, he can't distinguish service in Iraq from that in AFGHANISTAN.

Military men take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, both foreign and domestic. This leaves open the possibility that military men may have to fight against their fellow countrymen, even their president, should either the Congress or the Supreme Court determine that the President is wilfully violationg the Constitution or deliberately misinterpreting it for his own ends.

Remember that John Brown took up arms against the United States in an effort to end slavery. Were his actions illegal? Of course! Was he rebelling to uphold the Constitution? No! But his actions were principled and righteous, nonetheless. And he accepted the consequences of his rebellion!

Lt. Watada's protest may be principled and righteous; but, like John Brown, there will be consequences. He should be prepared to accept them.

As I understand it Lt. Watada is hanging his hat on the "Bush lied bull sh*t." Tooooooo bad Lt. you lose.

Bush made a BIG stratagic error in invading Iraq. He DID NOT lie.

How quick the extreme left forgets that every freeking intel service in the world (damn near) thought Sodam Insane had WMD's. Its not a lie to be wrong. How tough is this to understand? Not only was Bush wrong but CIA/NSA/MI5/Mosad.....the list gors on....they were ALL wrong.

An error no matter how big and important is NOT a lie.

Perhaps we should send the Lt. to Afgan. In a month of so the fighting/news from there will excede Iraq as the Islamo Facists begin their largest spring offensive yet.

Agree with the article- He did the crime, possibly based on his beliefs, he abandoned his men- If he truly believes the war is illegal- then he should take his day in court w/his head high and his shoulders back. This B'S' of his does not sound like he wants the punishment, should have thought of that before the crime

A general court martial followed by a swift execution by firing squad...out here

You are a retired CPO, I'm a retired SCPO, how many times did we give the GMT on this very subject. Illegal orders are us telling the BMOW to pull his sidearm and shoot the QMOW. The Lt raised his hand and said he would follow the orders of those appointed over him. You don't get to pick and choose which conflict you want to be part of or which patrol you want to go on. He could question every order from secure that building to which movie he wants to see after evening chow. He joined for the benefits and now that it's time to earn them he doesn't even have the guts to say the real reason. He is a g#@d$%mn coward pure and simple. He's afraid to be in harms way, who isn't. I didn't like being shot at either, but I didn't hide behind phony convictions. 5 years and a dishonorable discharge.

I guess what I'm missing here...is, if the Iraq war was in fact illegal - why hasn't the President been impeached? Why have the UN not done anything about it?

The only conclusion I can arrive to, is that the legality of the war comes down to an interpretation of Article 1441 of the UN Security Council Resolution.

The United States, Britian and other coalition forces went to war based on the fact that Iraq had lied, covered up and hidden the truth about things such as WMD's, Chemical Agents and long range missiles, they declared that the next step was to go in by force.

The UN is saying that because the UN did not agree unanimously, it was not a UN sanctioned resolution, therefore illegal.

The fact that this hasn't been declared, officially, as an illegal war and is only a matter of interpretation and opinion - would, in my books, mean that Lt Watada's stand has no ground currently and he's caught in a tide of opinion.

Talk about being on a knife edge. I might be wrong, but that's my understanding of it - and Lt. Watada is taking a big gamble. If the Iraq war is not ever concluded to be illegal - officially - then he's just sealed his fate.

Not to be too crass or disrespectful but this is complete garbage! This guy disobeyed a direct order end of story! This isn't a situation where we need to determine if a war is legal or not. The war is legal and authorized by the President and Congress. WMD aside, which is a separate issue, and not the only one we went to war over, Iraq and the US have been attacking each other since the first Gulf War. I was deployed there in the late 90's and afterwards when they would target or fire on our jets in the no-fly-zone and we would in turn bomb them back.

This never made news here so most of the American public doesn't know these facts. I can feel the bile rise in my gut when people write things like this article. "Well, he said he would go to war here, but not there???" Give me a break! So now it is okay to let soldiers pick and choose? NO IT IS NOT! And thank God for that --the military system could not function that way. Unlawful orders are easy to spot and anyone who was in for any length of time knows that. This guy wasn't having a moment of moral crisis or the conundrum of deciding if an order was lawful. He was acting as a coward does plain and simple --and he should be treated and tried as such.

I don't mean to disrespect the chief, he served much longer than I did, but I don't agree with him at all here. This is an open and shut case of someone just up and saying, I really don't want to fight. He knew once he said that he wouldn't go to Iraq, that there was going to be no chance that the Army would say okay, and send him to Afghanistan. Quite frankly, I hope they really throw the book at him so that people realize that the military mission is what is important and that if you are in the military you cannot get away with stuff like this.

But whatever happens please don't try to sell me the idea that there is a possibility of justifying this guys argument. I mean he joined the war after 9-11, and the start of the Iraq war if I am not mistaken; so did he tell his recruiter that he only wanted to fight in one place and not the other; or did he say to the DI I can't fight there but only there. Have we gone so far down this road of PC'ness (for lack of a better term) that we just can't recognize a coward when we see one? God I am really sick over this, Lord have mercy on us all!

Good Article, well balanced. There is a difference between disagreeing with an order and disobeying an unlawful order. If you disagree with an order, follow the order and ask for clarification after but if you believe the order is illegal and you obey it you have no legal protection. War crime tribunals set a precedent in history that no one may be excused from reprimand for war crimes because they were ordered to do so. My Lai Vietnam incident in 1968 is an American example Lt Calley was charged with several counts of premeditated murder in September 1969, and 25 other officers and enlisted men were later charged with related crimes. It has been used in the war too at Abu Ghraib prison and I say used I personality do not believe that it was a crime but the courts disagree. My take one this is a mater of personal involvement in the criminal act, if 1st Lt. Watada was ordered to kill an unarmed detainee that is murder and an unlawful order, but disagreeing with the war is an opinion and not subject to the same argument. As for public interviews, dishonoring his Unit and comrades, in regards to this I live in Texas “Get A Rope” maybe mob justice is not the answer but I can hope the court deals harshly with this.
God bless and protect all our people in harms way where ever they are.
Pro Deo et Patria

Excellent article

Amen! Disobedience of a lawful order is punishable by death.
Semper Fidelis.
Stop Jihad!

quote:

Originally posted by kennyc:
A general court martial followed by a swift execution by firing squad...out here

I think that Lt. Watada got a dose of reality prior to shipping out and is using the anti-war movement as his way to keep out of harms way.

But whatever the reason he decided to disobey his orders, he should be a man and accept the consequences for his decision. Anything less is as you said “posturing for the television cameras.”

Lt. Watada is right, in that Iraq war was, and still is illegal because

-Iraq had no WMD's

-Iraq had no ties to Al-Qaeda

-Iraq was NOT a threat to the U.S.

(Not too mention that the Iraq war was bungled)

and since war is only legal if done in self-defense, which Iraq wasn't, then the Iraq war is thus:

-Illegal

And it is the law that illegal orders must be disobeyed.

Also, the pledgee takes an oath to defend the Constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

And as for Lt. Watada trying to avoid the punishment, it's about precedent, if he can get the Iraq war declared illegal (which is already true) then ...

and remember, if we didn't question authority, THEN WE'D STILL BE BRITISH!

-Also as for Bush not being impeached, blame the politicians.

Yo There ...

enetman...Congress APPROVED the War...and your so called reasons have been disproved LONG ago...

also...and please pay attention because you and your far left kind can't seem to get educated...

YOU CANNOT IMPEACH SOMEONE WHO HAS COMMITTED NO IMPEACHABLE OFFENSES!!!

So do us all a favour...take one more step to left and fall of the edge of the world...

TO enetman1000:

You need to recheck your facts and also gain a better understanding of both civil and military law. I don’t mean that to be argumentative or in an offensive way. But the mistake you make is one that a great many people through out country are making. The reasons you stated (with which I disagree 100% by the way --but that is not the point) are not reasons which in anyway make the war illegal. You and others of your ilk may feel that the war is illegal, immoral, or whatever but that isn't the same as being against the law. We went to war over more than just WMD and people need to remember that. Yes WMD was a big 'selling' point if you want to look at it that way, and the argument can be made that since they didn't find the WMD then the Intel was wrong. Actually they did find WMD just not in the amounts specified or the processing capability.

The United States was authorized by the UN to go into Iraq. After Congress asked for more time the WMD Intel was made public. Congress had already given the President the green light back when the UN said yes to the Resolution. What they wanted, wished for was more support from other nations. Iraq has been found to have ties to Al-Qaeda and other Islamic terror groups; to what extent is still not fully known. Iraq was most certainly a threat to the US. I was there when they were targeting our pilots in the no fly zone and making other hostile moves on US/Allied forces in the Gulf Region. This went on for 12years from the end of the first Gulf war. The war definitely wasn’t bungled. From a military stand point what was accomplished is an amazing success. Very few have lost their lives, and yes I know that one life is to many, very few civilians and civilian structures were destroyed –compared to other wars. I mean if you look at history the military did a damn good job. As far as an exit strategy and all that nonsense I have seldom seen a war where a country had an exit strategy up front. At the end of WWII thousand upon thousands of German soldiers surrendered and overwhelmed the US/Allies because guess what the Allies hadn’t anticipated what to do when the war ended. Korea, Vietnam, same thing no one anticipated what to do at the end of the war(s). I have seen footage from the fall of Saigon –tell me they had an exit strategy over there.

Questioning authority has nothing to do what this Lt. did. He was a coward and just didn’t want to fight. He didn’t even go to fight and then object. Also if as you say the war was illegal why then did this guy enlist –after 9/11 and after the Iraq war was declared, and after the controversy about WMD started. I looked and he joined up around the end of 03’-beginning of 04’.

The end of your post is just ridiculous President Bush has done nothing to be impeached. It is too late and I am too tired to go into the law surrounding impeachment. Don’t just sing the liberal media line go and do some studying on your own. Your post sounded like NPR or NBC.

quote:

Originally posted by enetman1000:
Lt. Watada is right, in that Iraq war was, and still is illegal because

-Iraq had no WMD's

-Iraq had no ties to Al-Qaeda

-Iraq was NOT a threat to the U.S.

(Not too mention that the Iraq war was bungled)

and since war is only legal if done in self-defense, which Iraq wasn't, then the Iraq war is thus:

-Illegal

And it is the law that illegal orders must be disobeyed.

Also, the pledgee takes an oath to defend the Constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic"

And as for Lt. Watada trying to avoid the punishment, it's about precedent, if he can get the Iraq war declared illegal (which is already true) then ...

and remember, if we didn't question authority, THEN WE'D STILL BE BRITISH!

-Also as for Bush not being impeached, blame the politicians.