Army to allow Iraq war objector to resign

[OpaDC]

This makes me sick.
Watada, 31, refused to deploy to Iraq with his Fort Lewis, Wash.-based unit in 2006, arguing the war is illegal and that he would be a party to war crimes if he served in Iraq.
OH wait, you mean I have to go to a war zone? I've changed my mind. (3 years later)

From another article:
'Against all enemies' -- The case of Lt. Ehren Watada

Posted: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 11:09 AM by Hardball
Lt. Col. Rick Francona


Lt. Watada did not enter the all-volunteer Army until after U.S. forces had invaded Iraq; he knew what he was getting into. Many Americans consider the war on terrorism more closely associated with the invasion of Afghanistan than the invasion of Iraq. That’s fine for those in the military, as long as you honor your oath – “against all enemies.”
Lt. Watada is not entitled to choose the venue of his battles – he volunteered after the invasion of Iraq. Refuse to serve, pay the price.
Our soldiers deserve nothing less.

[cgallery]

I agree. I think this opens Pandora's box.

[Daryl]

If he doesn't wish to serve, he would be a danger to those who do. Kick him out and have him reimburse the taxpayers for his education, being a leiutenant, that would be for four years of college as well as specialty training.

[cabinetman]

What's fortunate IMO:
That he didn't deploy to a war zone and put soldiers in jeopardy.
That he will be discharged from the Army and carry a stigma.


What's unfortunate IMO:
That the Army spent a single penny on him.
That a second Court Martial didn't happen, and a conviction handed down.
That he will not spend time in prison.


What is disgusting IMO, is the statement from his attorney:
Kagan said he felt history would treat Watada "more favorably" than the U.S. Army.

"It has been our distinct honor to have represented a hero and a patriot," Kagan said.


Hopefully, he will live the shame he deserves for the rest of his life.
.

[Whaler]

He did face a court martial but it ended in a mistrial. At least his discharge will be "Less Than Honorable".

[cgallery]

If he doesn't wish to serve, he would be a danger to those who do.

That's why they invented friendly fire.

[cabinetman]

That's why they invented friendly fire.

AKA - Fragging.
.

[Bruce Cohen]

Give me 10 minutes with this sack of ****, I'll show him what the fine art of Cab's reply really is.

Bruce

[Pappy]

"It has been our distinct honor to have represented a hero and a patriot," Kagan said.

Which client are they talking about? The articles referenced are about some piece of s**t, dishonorable excuse for an officer that refused to honor the oath he took.

I read some of the comments on the second article. One pointed out that the enlisted oath includes "obey all orders of the President" but the officers oath does not. Regardless, all members of the Armed Forces are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Watada (I refuse to address him as an officer) violated several article of that code. It is duty of those wearing the uniform to obey the orders from their superiors.

[Uncle Cracker]

This guy is a piece of crap. Look, if you don't want to fight, don't join up. That's like moving into a whorehouse to practice celibacy. This is a fraud against the service, the taxpayers, and the country as a whole. He should not be allowed to perpetrate it.

[Russianwolf]

Playing the Devil's Advocate here

When you serve, you swear to obey all LEGAL orders of your superiors. If he believed the order was illegal, he has an obligation to question the order, regardless of who the order comes from.

Short of a hearing on the legality of the war, which is somewhat debatable in hindsite, finding him guilty of failure to follow orders could be difficult. And sorry, but speaking against a president should never be a crime, regardless of your station.

[Uncle Cracker]

That's a stretch, Mike. Questioning an order because you believe it to be against the best interests of the command or the nation is one thing, but this looks like nothing more than one man's not wanting to do his duty. The "legal" card being played here seems nothing more than rhetoric and posturing. Men and women who swear oaths of service know that it's not all about parades and passing out cookies to underprivileged kids. Sometimes you've got to go do battle. He knew that going in. What would happen to our armed services if every time somebody got their orders, they could just resign instead? Or maybe just say "Nah, not today..."? It would be bedlam. If everybody who didn't want to fight could just stay home, we'd only need one ship, one plane, and we'd all be speaking German or Russian. A person has to reconcile his feelings about fighting before he makes the decision to become a soldier. Sure, I understand that people do sometimes have a change of heart, but they should have to accept the consequences.

[leehljp]

Societies and cultures are changing - around the world. Basic thought processes along with it. In my organization, we recently had two couples come to work in our area that had undergone months of interviews, psychological testing, and 6 weeks of orientation. Within 6 months of being "overseas" they both said that they changed their mind. In interviews following these actions - both couples said they thought it would be exciting to live in another country and see another culture. They also admitted in the end, that they did not have commitment and knew it coming in. They also said they knew how to "answer" questions to obtain the right opinion.

I could go on but the fact is, "commitment", "honesty" "truthfulness" and other character traits as you fellows know it and as my generation knew it - is not understood or valued by many. . . And it is becoming more so with each generation. Society and cultures are changing what they value. It is not a matter of the fellow disagreeing with the legality, because that was on the table before he joined. It is his excuse for getting out but I will bet it was not his real reason. He got what he wanted - an education.

I am meeting more and more people that believe it is OK to do what you want under false pretenses to obtain what you want in the long run - and not feel guilty about it at all. Then stage what you have to do to get out of the obligation. This is not just a one time military situation.

While I am not a professional counselor, i.e. I don't earn my living from counseling per se, I have contacts with counselors, and psychologists around in many countries and especially in the US. This issue of false pretense obtaining, and staging release has increased dramatically in the last 10 years - it is a societal and cultural change and it is going to get worse. There is a book out on this (I forget the name) but it deals with these issues that the changing societies are emerging in the latest generations. Notice that I said "emerging" as it is enough to be to be noticed as a particular characteristic more with these generations than previous generations.

What I am amazed at is the military letting him off that easy

[footprintsinconc]

Playing the Devil's Advocate here

When you serve, you swear to obey all LEGAL orders of your superiors. If he believed the order was illegal, he has an obligation to question the order, regardless of who the order comes from.

Short of a hearing on the legality of the war, which is somewhat debatable in hindsite, finding him guilty of failure to follow orders could be difficult. And sorry, but speaking against a president should never be a crime, regardless of your station.

my exact thougths.

you made an oath to serve and protect your country. if you have an issue with the legality of a war that your country is entering, you should have the right to be excused. i am not talking about the people who will make excuses to get out of serving in a war zone, but for those who turely believe what he is saying, then you should have a way out, that is if we were truely in search of establishing justice and order.

please do not jump to any conclusions, but step and think of what happened in wwII. those who fought in the german army, anyone that can be found alive despite their age & health condition, are charged with a crime against humanity. those who served in their army were brain washed and allowed themselves to be brainwashed into believing the crap they were fed and hence they were serving their country. anyone who defected and/or plotted to resist the orders that they were given to them were found by hitler and his men as traitors, they were prosecuted. those who faced such a fate at hitlers hands, are considered as people of charactor, who sought justice and couldnt wrong other and are heros in the world's eyes.

now down the road, if the world turns around and finds us guilty of an unjust war, the people who served in those wars are going to be sought out and prosecuted for not standing up against the orders they were given.

if our mouths are going to be shut from letting us to speak against the people in power without facing retribution and humiliation from the people in power or those masses that are brainwashed by media propoganda, then there is no such thing as freedom in that society.

my 2cents...

[jonmulzer]

Devil's Advocate again. He should have known what he was getting into. No doubt. But we also have to allow for people's opinions to change. What we entered into was by every measure a war of aggresssion and unlawful. After 9/11 this country was overcome by undue patriotism. After the rage and paranoia were over and common sense set in, it is likely a person might change their mind. I do not believe in blindly following orders. If the orders are wrong a person, whether a soldier or not, should object. Blind following of orders leads to tyranny. Soldiers are meant to fight for those who cannot or even will not fight for themselves. And that includes fighting against unjust wars.