the first commissioned officer in the U.S. to publicly refuse deployment to Iraq

Parent Cafe
1

<p>First Lt. Ehren Watada, a 28-year-old Hawaii native, is the first commissioned officer in the U.S. to publicly refuse deployment to Iraq. He announced last June his decision not to deploy on the grounds the war is illegal. </p>

<p>Lt. Watada was based at Fort Lewis, Washington, with the Army’s 3rd (Stryker) Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. He has remained on base, thus avoiding charges of desertion. </p>

<p>He does, however, face one count of “missing troop movement” and four counts of “conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.” If convicted, he faces up to six years in prison. </p>

<p>Watada’s court martial is on February 5. A pre-trial hearing is set for January 4, with an added scope of controversy: the Army has ordered two freelance journalists, Sarah Olson and Dahr Jamail, to testify against Lt. Watada at the hearing. Both journalists are fighting the subpoenas. </p>

<p>Kevin Sites recently spoke with Lt. Watada about the reasoning behind his decision, the controversy the decision has caused and how he is dealing with the repercussions. </p>

<p>Lt. Watada spoke on the phone from his family’s home in Hawaii. Click here to listen to the full audio version of the conversation. A transcript of the interview follows. </p>

<p>THE INTERVIEW: <a href=“http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs19056[/url]”>http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs19056&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>"EHREN WATADA: Sure. I think that in March of 2003 when I joined up, I, like many Americans, believed the administration when they said the threat from Iraq was imminent — that there were weapons of mass destruction all throughout Iraq; that there were stockpiles of it; and because of Saddam Hussein’s ties to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorist acts, the threat was imminent and we needed to invade that country immediately in order to neutralize that threat. </p>

<p>Since then I think I, as many, many Americans are realizing, that those justifications were intentionally falsified in order to fit a policy established long before 9/11 of just toppling the Saddam Hussein regime and setting up an American presence in Iraq. "</p>

2

<p>I agree with him that the war sucks and was wrong but it IS his duty to serve his country because he signed up to do it. I’m sure no soldier goes into war wanting to kill people or necessarily believing that US foreign policy is infallible…but their job is to execute, not make decisions, and if they signed up to execute, they can’t then magically un-sign their contract…</p>

3

<p>If the war is illegal, or even if he just BELIEVES that the war is illegal and hence he has received an order that is illegal, he is REQUIRED under the Nuremberg laws to disobey orders. It is not a matter of choice; he is obligated by law ratified by the United States to refuse the order. </p>

<p>Carrying out orders is no defense under the Nuremberg principles; he is duty-bound to refuse to carry out what he believes to be illegal orders, whether his superiors believe they are legal or not. He doesn’t have a choice; obedience to the principles is required by law.</p>

4

<p>He joined the military and it’s his duty to serve and not pick and choose his battles. Anyone joining the military knows this up front and if they don’t agree with this, they shouldn’t have voluntarily joined.</p>

<p>There are many Americans who don’t agree with the conspiracy theorists that 9/11 was a US government plot or some kind of evil scheme perpetrated by that clever President Bush. It would be great if wars could be fought in hindsight as many are trying to do now but it simply doesn’t work that way in reality.</p>

5

<p>“He joined the military and it’s his duty to serve and not pick and choose his battles. Anyone joining the military knows this up front and if they don’t agree with this, they shouldn’t have voluntarily joined.”</p>

<p>That’s not what the law says. He is duty bound, by law, to refuse to carry out what he believes to be illegal orders. (Of course, they can throw him jail for doing so, but the threat does not remove his legal obligations.)</p>

6

<p>

</p>

<p>Heh. Unless the government decides that he’s wrong, in which case he’ll be breaking rocks at Leavenworth. Deep personal conviction doesn’t carry much weight in a criminal trial – or court martial. </p>

<p>I am a not a lawyer, and definitely not a military lawyer, but IMO this is carrying the refusal to disobey an order to a ridiculous degree. It’s not like a superior is ordering him to fire into an unarmed crowd, drop poison gas on villages, or kill every first-born male child. He’s being ordered to go with his unit into a war zone on Presidential orders with the advise and consent of Congress. His “unlawful war” argument is going to go exactly nowhere, and he’s off to federal prison.</p>

7

<p>Oh, he’ll lose. Just as Germans in World War II would have. But the Nuremberg principles, ratified by the United States, are unequivocal in this regard. And whether they throw him in jail or not, or threaten to do so, does not remove his legal obligations.</p>

8

<p>I don;t know for sure if he’ll lose, the military is cutting deals with alot of those who have refused to go back. He may get time, but not real time. Mr. Watada has a point, I don’t know if the military will want that challenge to come out in the court of public opinion. </p>

<p>All the military has to stand on about the claim of wmd’s is the aspect that they hold the reciepts from the sales to Sadam. I think they will try and let Mr Watada slip into public life with little damage. What they do to him comes back 10 fold. </p>

<p>His mistake was not paying attiention to what was really going on and enlisting based on what the pres said. He should serve a few years for lack of common sense.</p>