| Were his actions right? |
| Yes |
|
25% |
[ 2 ] |
| No |
|
75% |
[ 6 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 8 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
 Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:25 pm Ehren Watada |
|
Quoting the entire article, since it's from wikipedia.
| Quote: | Ehren Watada (born 1978) is a First Lieutenant in the United States Army, 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division Stryker Brigade Combat Team, who in June 2006 publicly refused to deploy to Iraq for the Iraq War, saying that he believed the war to be illegal and that under the doctrine of command responsibility it would make him party to war crimes. Watada is the first commissioned officer in the U.S. armed forces to publicly refuse deployment to Iraq.[1] Watada's court-martial began on February 5, 2007.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Charges
3 Article 32 hearing
4 Post-hearing developments and debates
5 Court-martial
6 Quotes
7 See also
8 References
9 External links
[edit] Background
Ehren K. Watada was born in Honolulu, Hawaii to Robert Watada and Carolyn Ho. Robert Watada served for ten years as executive director of Hawaii's Campaign Spending Commission and himself refused to serve in the Vietnam War.[3] Ehren Watada attended Punahou School, then transferred in his sophomore year to Kalani High School, where he played cornerback on the varsity football team.
Watada is an Eagle Scout, and was a near straight-A student, graduating from Hawaii Pacific University in 2003.[citation needed] He joined the US Army after the war in Iraq began, stating that after 9/11 he was motivated "out of a desire to protect our country." He was commissioned from the Army's Officer Candidate School at Fort Benning, GA as a Second Lieutenant in the Field Artillery. Watada first duty a tour in Korea, where he was rated by his superiors as "among the best", "exemplary", and recommended for early promotion ahead of his peers. Watada then returned to the United States in June 2005 and reported to Fort Lewis to begin preparation for deployment to Iraq.[4]
Upon discovering that he would be going to Iraq, Watada began conducting research on Iraq, its culture, and the reasons for the U.S. involvement there in preparation to deploy. After reading books and articles by scholars, governmental and non-governmental agencies about international law, the history of Iraq, and the evidence used to justify the war,[5] and speaking with veterans returning from Iraq,[4] he ceased to believe in the legality and morality of the war. In January 2006 he submitted a resignation request, declaring that he would not serve in Iraq. However, he was willing to serve in Afghanistan. Based on this research, Watada claimed, the war violates the Constitution and War Powers Act which "limits the president in his role as Commander in Chief from using the armed forces in any way he sees fit", as well as the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and the Nuremberg Principles, which "bar wars of aggression." Applying the command responsibility would make him personally responsible and liable for legal challenges for violating International law. Further, he asserted that the war was based on misleading or false premises such as the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq and links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, and that the occupation itself does not follow the Army's own legal rules of conduct for occupying a country. For all of these reasons, says Watada, he cannot morally participate in the war.[6]
The Army refused his resignation. Watada has said he is not a conscientious objector because he is not opposed to all wars as a matter of principle, and so offered to serve in Afghanistan,[7] which he regarded as "an unambiguous war linked to the Sept. 11 attacks." This was also refused. Watada, in turn, refused an offer for a desk job in Iraq without direct combat involvement.[4]
[edit] Charges
In response to Lt. Watada's refusal to deploy, the U.S. Army has leveled a number of charges against him under the UCMJ:
conduct unbecoming an officer (for statements made in speeches and interviews) (Article 133)
missing movement (for refusing to deploy to Iraq on June 22) (Article 87)
contempt toward officials (in this case, President Bush) (Article 8
At the time of these initial charges, Lt. Watada faced the possibility of a court-martial and up to seven years in prison as well as a dismissal if convicted. About this eventuality, Watada said that he does not regret his decision and is willing to face the consequences, citing it as what he believes is a moral responsibility:
When you are looking your children in the eye in the future, or when you are at the end of your life, you want to look back on your life and know that at a very important moment, when I had the opportunity to make the right decisions, I did so, even knowing there were negative consequences.[6]
On these charges, Watada's lawyer, Eric Seitz, comments:
Well, we expected him to be charged with missing movement or violating an order to get on a bus to accompany his unit to Iraq. We did not really anticipate that they would charge him with additional offenses based upon the comments and the remarks that he's made. And that opens up a whole new chapter in this proceeding, because what the Army has clearly tried to do by the nature of these charges is send out a message to people in the military, that if you criticize the war and if you criticize the decisions that were made to bring the United States into this war, that you, too, could be charged with disloyalty, contemptuous remarks and disrespect for higher officers, and in this case, specifically in this charge, the President.[8]
[edit] Article 32 hearing
Lt. Watada's article 32 hearing to determine whether or not he was deserving a court-martial was held on August 17, 2006.[9] Investigating officer Lt. Col. Mark Keith presided.[10]
The Army prosecutor, Capt. Dan Kuecker, described Watada's actions as contemptuous of President Bush, and argued that Watada's public statements hurt morale in his unit, coming as they did as his unit was approaching deployment to Iraq.[10] He played video clips from Lt. Watada's address to a Veterans for Peace conference.[11] In that speech, Watada called on his fellow soldiers to stop fighting.[12] Eric Seitz, Watada's civilian counsel, and Capt. Mark Kim, Watada's military lawyer, raised the issue of the legality of the war. Over the prosecutor's objections, Seitz and Kim called three witnesses to question the legality of the war.[10] University of Illinois Professor of international law Francis Boyle testified that the war is illegal because it was not authorized by the U.N. Security Council, and because Congress approved the war only after being lied to by the Bush administration. Also testifying in Watada's defense were Former United Nations Undersecretary Denis Halliday, and Army Colonel Ann Wright (ret.), who resigned from the army in March 2003 in protest of the coming invasion. Like Boyle, both asserted that the war was illegal and that therefore Lt. Watada was within his rights to refuse participation in it. Also, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a friend-of-the-court brief, stating that "soldiers should not be court martialled for explaining their views."[13]
Lt. Col. Keith recommended Watada for court martial on all charges, saying, however, that he thought that Lt. Watada appears to be "sincere in his beliefs." Of the court-martial recommendation, Eric Seitz has stated that he is dismayed that the Army seems to be trying Watada without looking seriously at his arguments and that of the other experts appearing at the trial about the legality of the war.[14]
[edit] Post-hearing developments and debates
On September 15, the Army announced that it leveled another charge against Watada of "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman", based on remarks that he made at a Veterans for Peace convention. This brought the potential prison term faced by Lt. Watada to eight and one-half years in prison if convicted of all charges. Approximately six of these years would have been for statements that he made concerning the war rather than his refusal to deploy to Iraq; "missing movement" is normally punishable by two years. Lt. Colonel Keith justified the additional charge by asserting that "contempt for the President and suggestion that US soldiers can stop the war simply by refusing to fight borders on mutiny and sedition." [15]
On the other hand, Eric Seitz asserts that the Army added the new charge to make a public example of him: "He's not doing anything other than saying things he believes to be true, and that we believe are true. This makes it that much clearer that this is just a political prosecution, and that's really all this case has been about from the beginning." Kelly Dougherty, Chairperson of Iraq Veterans Against the War, agrees: "The charge is unwarranted. They are trying to show others how hard they will be punished if they speak out. Right now the military sees more and more soldiers speaking publicly and it's threatening to them. They are creating an atmosphere of threats and of fear."[15]
Opinions about Lt. Watada differ widely. Besides the ACLU and Iraq Veterans against the War, Veterans for Peace has come out in support.[16] Also, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that approximately 200 supporters held a demonstration at the Fort Lewis gates. James Yee, the former Muslim chaplain from the Guantanamo Bay detainment camps, in Cuba, was also present,[5] and Watada has told reporters that "almost every day, someone from the military or the outside sends me some kind of correspondence or approaches me in person to render support or their respect.�[17] On January 4, 2007, two-hundred people gathered at the Federal Building in downtown San Francisco to demonstrate support for Lt. Ehren Watada, which led to 28 supporters being arrested by local police officers.[18] Amnesty International issued a press release [19] stating that if Lt Watada were convicted and imprisoned, the organization would consider him a "prisoner of conscience and call for his immediate and unconditional release."
Conversely, others are opposed to Lt. Watada's actions, such as Military Families Voice of Victory, who claim that he is helping al-Qaeda,[20] and some Japanese American veterans, who claim that as a Japanese American he brings shame to the Japanese American community.[21] Watada has also reported that although he has not received any open hostility from his fellow soldiers, still there is "definitely a tension."[5] There was also a small "counter demonstration" at Fort Lewis opposite his supporters.[9]
His mother, Carolyn Ho, has become an anti-Iraq War activist.[22]The Post-Intelligencer reported that she founded a website to support Watada, at www.thankyoult.org.[9] The text of his address to the Veterans for Peace conference can be found there. Also, Lt. Watada's father, Bob Watada, went on a national tour to raise money for Lt. Watada's defense, from October 26 to November 17. Watada was on hand to speak, and shared the stage with other prominent critics of the war, including Jane Fonda, Sean Penn, and actor Tim Robbins, at an Anti-War protest on January 27, 2007 in Washington, DC.[23]
[edit] Court-martial
On November 9, 2006, the U.S. Army announced the decision of Fort Lewis commander Lt. Gen. James Dubik that Lt. Watada would face a court martial. The charges of "contempt toward officials" were dismissed without comment. Without the "contempt for officials" charges, Watada will face up to four years confinement, two for missing movement and two for statements that he made, as well as a Bad Conduct Discharge, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances, if convicted of the remaining charges.[24]
Lt. Watada's defense team had intended to demonstrate the war's alleged illegality, by maintaining that the required congressional approval was granted only on the basis of the existence of WMDs in Iraq and ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. They also had intended to subpoena witnesses to testify, and to cite the Nuremberg Principles,[25] which require soldiers to disobey illegal orders. However, on January 16, 2007, Judge Head ruled that Watada would not be allowed to present any defense based on the Nuremberg principles, stating that the legality of a war was a "nonjusticiable political question"[26] and ruling also that the order that Watada had refused was lawful. Watada was also forbidden to present a First Amendment defense.[27] Seitz has said about the rulings that "they are essentially saying there is no right to criticize, which we all know is not true," and that they intend to appeal any conviction to the federal courts.[28]
At a pre-trial press conference Lt. Watada remarked that he believes it his duty to refuse to fight in the war, and that he is prepared to face prison time for his beliefs.[25]
On February 5, 2007, as his court-martial began, Lt. Watada entered a plea of not guilty, to all of the specifications against him. He faces three specifications, one for missing movement, and two for "conduct unbecoming an Officer" related to his public comments criticizing the Bush administration and the Iraq war.[29] Panel selection was conducted on the first day, narrowing a pool of ten Officers down to seven, holding the rank of Captain through Lieutenant Colonel. The court-martial panel is similar to a jury in a civlian trial, but due to special rules provided in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, panels consist of of service members equal to, and superior in rank to, the defendent.
On the second day of his court-martial, the prosecution presented opening arguments, stating that Lt. Watada had "abandoned his soldiers and disgraced himself and the service"[30] and began calling witnesses. The first witness called was Watada's former Battalion Commander, Lt. Col. Bruce Antonia. He testified that he learned of Watada's feeligns about the war soon after Watada concluded, in early January 2006 that the war was illegal. Antonia stated that he told Watada not to make any public statements. Yet, in June 2006, he released a video statement at a news conference in Tacoma, Washington, in violation of the lawful order his Battalion Commander had given to him, setting in motion the chain of events that have led to the current court-martial.
[edit] Quotes
"It is my duty as a commissioned officer in the United States army to speak out against grave injustices. My moral and legal obligation is to the constitution. Not to those who issue unlawful orders. I stand before you today because it is my job to serve and protect American soldiers and innocent Iraqis who have no voice. It is my conclusion that the war in Iraq is not only morally wrong, but also a breach of American law," Ehren Watada, June 7, 2006.[31]
|
Oddly enough, the only place I've really been seeing any updates is on AOL, and it's useless to link if others aren't also on AOL.
What do you think of this situation? Do you think he's right or wrong to do what he did?
| Thomas Jefferson wrote: | �The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.�
|
| Watada wrote: | | My moral and legal obligation is to the constitution. |
Last edited by Theresa on Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:33 pm; edited 1 time in total
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
| Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:31 pm |
|
He didn't do the right thing. He's disobeying an order, and as a military officer, he must follow them.
(The war in Iraq isn't illegal, as we voted to go to war)
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:34 pm |
|
Clearly wrong and un-American.
|
|
|
Kyle Reese
Cadet Gunnery Sergeant
Joined: 21 Apr 2003
Posts: 5672
Location: The United States of America
|
| Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:38 pm |
|
He's a disgrace to the Army. Lock him up for a while.
|
|
|
Captain Patrick
Commodore
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2421
|
| Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:15 pm |
|
| WeAz wrote: | He didn't do the right thing. He's disobeying an order, and as a military officer, he must follow them.
(The war in Iraq isn't illegal, as we voted to go to war) |
Uh excuse me, i was a military officer i served two year terms in the USAF Academy, i was supposed to be an officer but was honorable discharged in January due to medical complications. What he said is the right thing to do, even if you don't argee with him, when you enter a military service the oath you take holds you to the Constitution not to your general or the president, you swear to follow the Constitution and protect what it stands for, if he feels it goes againist the Constitution it is his right and obligation to let it be known. Now that does not mean he is right 100% but its his right and what he swore by when he entered the service.
You do not have to follow all orders given by a higher rank, if you wish not to you can and their are steps you can take to have that order looked over and seen if its the right thing to do or not. Now he proably will be discharged or court martialed to a lower rank but what he did is not directly wrong.
Last edited by Captain Patrick on Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:17 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:50 pm |
|
If you were discharged from the Academy, doesn't that make you a cadet when you leave? I know that's how it works at Annapolis.
And his orders weren't unlawful. He missed a movement, disobeyed lawful orders, etc... He violated a contract he signed. He enlisted after the war started, and then decided to "educate" himself. Seems to me he did it backwards. If he was correct in what he'd done, the Army wouldn't be pressing any charges. He's causing erosion at the very foundation of the military, and that's very dangerous.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Captain Patrick
Commodore
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2421
|
| Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:54 pm |
|
| Theresa wrote: | If you were discharged from the Academy, doesn't that make you a cadet when you leave? I know that's how it works at Annapolis.
And his orders weren't unlawful. He missed a movement, disobeyed lawful orders, etc... He violated a contract he signed. He enlisted after the war started, and then decided to "educate" himself. Seems to me he did it backwards. If he was correct in what he'd done, the Army wouldn't be pressing any charges. He's causing erosion at the very foundation of the military, and that's very dangerous. |
No i was technically a Second Lieutenant(2nd. Lt), my class was Cadet for only the first year term.
It all goes back to your own opinion on the matter, but from the legally stand point yes he did violate a contract but he was correct in how he did it, he was doing excatly what that contract told him to do, which was protect the Constitiution so in away he was right although wrong at the same time. The hole gray area type thing.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:06 pm Re: Ehren Watada |
|
| Thomas Jefferson wrote: | �The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.�
|
The Constitution is neither set in stone, nor ironclad. There is always room for interpretation. And as WeAz sated, our government voted to go to war. They stood behind our President, who our military calls Command In Chief. If you, as an active member of the military, aren't allowed to publicly criticize your leader, he knew his actions were wrong as well.
Fine, he offered his resignation as he should have. It was refused. Tough. Now do your job, or register as a conscientious objector (which he refused).
Since you went to the Air Force Academy, you are aware that not all information regarding any orders you may be given is forthcoming. (not all information is given to you). Officers have to know that they can order a man to his most likely death, and that he will follow that order. I morally object to dying at my age, but if I volunteered to serve in my countries military, I think I'd be quite aware, especially at war time, that that could be a very likely possibility.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Scapegoat Bob
Commodore
Joined: 02 Sep 2001
Posts: 1198
Location: The Barn
|
| Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:35 pm |
|
tssss
HES a VEGETARIAN! DUUUUUH! 
they should be baned from the army
-------signature-------
Here, kitty kitty kitty!
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
