You have got to be $%^&ing me...

[invertedflyer]

Regardless of whatever political opinion one might subscribe to this young O-2 (he really doesnt deserve to be described as a Lieutenant) is simply masking his cowardice in a cloak of false idealism, he will send others to face danger in his stead.

Concur 100% .. reminds me of that line from The Patriot ... to let others suffer in a foreign country while you refuse to contribute in any way is unforgiveable as an officer IMHO. Apparently he doesn't care much about his fellow soldiers (troop welfare), or making Iraq a stable nation (Mission Accomplishment). As others have said, nobody would follow him.

W.R.T. Iraq, the administration went on the intelligence that they had at the time. Unlike what Watada claimed, the U.N. uncovered significant stores of N.B.C. weapons and facilities to manufacturer weapons post-Gulf War. Iraq had the capability, and theres evidence that the weapons were flown to Syria and/or hurried out of the country prior to the U.S.-led invasion.

If you have more information than that squirt, please privvy us.

 

[IRfly]

He's been found in violation of the UCMJ and he's going to pay a price for it.

The court-martial is still upcoming, no?

From the interview, I don't think he has a case for unconstitutionality. Now, if the Navy officer in charge of the brig in South Carolina where a U.S. citizen was held for three years without charge had had the balls to stand up for the Constitution, he/she would have a case.

 

[thull]

Sounds legal enough to me......

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

was looking for a place I could post that link on the "www.thankyoult.org" website but couldn't find any readily accessible. I'm sure they're working full time on that website to weed out the hate mail.

 

[insanebikerboy]

Just playing Devil's Advocate here for conversation, but if he feels that the war is illegal, then wouldn't an order to go to war therefore be illegal as well? WRT to the CNN link about the Senate voting for it, doesn't the possibility of the courts declaring it illegal exist (the whole checks and balances thing?)

That said, I too think he was in the wrong for refusing the order and should go to jail. I just think it helps to try and look at it from the other point of view so I can develop an even better argument.

Comments?

 

[IRfly]

1Lt. Watada's rationale, according to the interview, is that because the administration allegedly lied to the American people in "justifying" the war in Iraq, the war is therefore "illegal." What he seems to miss is that neither this administration nor any other is or has been under the obligation to justify a war to anyone in order to make it "legal." Without going into a technical explanation of the War Powers Act of 1973, a president can send the military anywhere, anytime, for any reason for up to 90 days. After that Congress has the power to shut down the war, but that doesn't usually happen. But the bottom line is that the president can send the country to war if he doesn't like the face (or politics) of another state's leader and invoke any argument of national interest that you can think of. If Congress buys it, then the war is funded and continues. If the president is mistaken or deliberately misleading the American people in his reasons for going to war, then the recourse for the people is to punish the president and Congress at the polls. The idea that a president has to be telling the truth in order to go to war is historically laughable.

 

[MIDNJAC]

my personal take on this (FWIW) is that if you are going to disobey an order on the grounds that it is "unlawful", you had better be damned sure that you can back up your actions with hard facts/evidence. Relying on the liberal media to exonerate him in a military court of justice is not only half @ssed, but also extremely poor judgement on the part this commissioned officer.

 

[scoober78]

The idea that a president has to be telling the truth in order to go to war is historically laughable.

Yeah...no $%^&! Mexican-American War anyone???

Very well said IR...

 

[squorch2]

my personal take on this (FWIW) is that if you are going to disobey an order on the grounds that it is "unlawful", you had better be damned sure that you can back up your actions with hard facts/evidence. Relying on the liberal media to exhonerate [sic] him in a military court of justice is not only half @ssed, but also extremely poor judgement [sic] on the part this commissioned officer.

It's been a while since I looked at Just War Theory, but as I recall there are four or five requirements for disobeying an order... does anyone out there remember what they were? "Willingness to accept the consequences" was one of them.

There's a good, if not entirely scholarly, article on disobeying an order on jus in bello grounds vs. jus ad bellam grounds at http://www.usafa.af.mil/jscope/JSCOPE03/Shoonhoven03.html

 

[MIDNJAC]

It's been a while since I looked at Just War Theory, but as I recall there are four or five requirements for disobeying an order... does anyone out there remember what they were? "Willingness to accept the consequences" was one of them.

There's a good, if not entirely scholarly, article on disobeying an order on jus in bello grounds vs. jus ad bellam grounds at http://www.usafa.af.mil/jscope/JSCOPE03/Shoonhoven03.html

thanks for the link....good reading for next term in the CO's "ethics" class
(spelling error of my previous post noted :icon_wink )

 

[squorch2]

thanks for the link....good reading for next term in the CO's "ethics" class
(spelling error of my previous post noted :icon_wink )

Yeah, you'll delve into Just War Theory a good bit there. Lots of good discussion to be had. Don't do what I did and forget damn near everything about it, lest it come to bite you in the ass at a later date.

 

[MattWSU]

Oh boy...http://www.thankyoult.org/

 

[tiger84]

Oh boy...http://www.thankyoult.org/

It's too bad there's no way to post messages (of respectful disagreement of course :icon_rage) to that site. I guess they realized the kind of flak they'd get and were smart enough to keep their propaganda read-only.

 

[scoober78]

Yeah...not so much with two way propoganda...enlightened debate ain't really the point...

 

[phrogpilot73]

I was just reminded of it on Friday, when there was a promotion in the battalion for 2 officers... It might not be in the oath, but it sure is in his warrant:

"And this officer is to observe and follow orders and directions, from time to time, as may be given by the President of the United States of America, or other superior officers acting in accordance with the laws of the United States of America."

Guess he wasn't listening...

 

[Stubby]

I always have to roll my eyes at the way things like this are portrayed in the media....

How often do you see the media covering soldiers honorably and dutifully reporting for combat service? How often does the media interview the families that say "we are so proud of our son!", or "I know my daughter is proud to serve her country!", or "My husband really believes in what he's doing!"? These people are the silent majority... because the media saves the platform for the liberals who denigrate the President and further a leftist agenda.

Objectors always get the spotlight... what the media is really saying is "See? This guy agrees with us!" (the media).

As far as this "Officer" goes, assuming he isn't a coward and is truly pursuing his conscience... good for him. HOWEVER, If he is truly following his conscience, he should be more than willing to face the consequences. The consequences should rightly be prison time for failure to follow a lawful order in time of war.