Plenty of former officers have criticized the Iraq War, but there's only been one active duty career soldier who's not only come out against the War but also refused to go and fight in it. (He said he would go to Afghanistan instead, but that the Iraq war is "illegal"). That soldier is Lt. Ehren Watada, 30, a junior Army officer from Hawaii who's become a poster child for the anti-war movement. He's also become persona non grata within the military and is facing a possible sentence of six years in prison.
Our friend Tara McKelvey is the first journalist who has gotten close to him in more than a year. She's written an amazing story for The American Prospect about Watada, who's now in legal limbo and being subtly punished at a desk job.
Watada's critique of the Iraq War's legality is boosted by the recent release of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on prewar Iraq intel. And his commitment to doing what he thinks is right is impressive. He told McKelvey:
"I realized we had been lied to. I was standing out in the middle of the desert, and I had a deep sense of betrayal. I had joined an army, and I thought it was noble. And to think we had engaged in something that had caused so much carnage and destruction and then to find out it was unnecessary. There I was in uniform, and I felt ashamed of what I was being asked to do. I think there's no bigger crime than taking your country into a war based on lies."
At the same time, someone else is just going to go in his place, and so members of the military are understandably angry at him for refusing to get on the plane. (They're even madder about his very public statements opposing the War.) Paul D. Eaton, a retired Army major general who was one of the retired generals who in 2006 called for Rumsfeld's resignation said, "Watada is an active-duty soldier, and he has failed to obey the orders of the officers over him. He does not have the right."
Read the article here. What do you think, is Watada a hero or a criminal?
Reader Comments ( Page 6 of 7)
76. "4. Ehren has not been allowed to leave the military though his contract was up LONG ago."-Robin
That's becuase he did not fulfill his contract!
NYShoeGal at 4:14PM on Jun 12th 2008
77. 67. I'm a doctor and I don't think I want to see certain patients
today because they are illegals. Is that OK?
If you were REALLY a doctor you wouldn't be asking this question
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_
Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act
"What if half or all of the soldiers currently serving in Iraq had
instead decided that they were not going to go for the same reasons
as Watada? Is that the way the military should be run?
The case of serving in an illegal war was settled in the Nuremberg
trials following WWII. There were certainly consequences to German
soldiers under Hitler who refused to serve. Our own Chief Justice
Jackson who presided over the trials stated, "That by which we judge
today, tomorrow we shall be judged"
"hoping someone will tell him he's right in the end. Don't we have a
concept of innocent until proven guilty in this country?"
Think about this real hard thinkin at, Ehren first of all was court
martialed for his actions, he didn't run away, nor is it likely that
this war will be declared illegal during the time he would be serving
in prison, so what is he hoping for? A get out of prison pass while
serving? A later vindication after serving years in prison for his
convictions? The war in Viet Nam was never declared illegal, yet we
absolutely know that the Gulf of Tonkin "facts" were manufactured.
We know NOW that the intelligence leading up to the Iraq war was
largely false. Furthermore new revelations are streaming out
constantly. Other than Kucinich with Wexler cosponsoring is nary a
soul doing anything legally to prosecute this criminal
administration? Furthermore, you are saying Ehren should go to
prison because he violated military law but yet you state the
legality of the war is "still up in the air". Isn't HE innocent
until proven guilty? He after all did refuse to deploy due to his
convictions the war is illegal. Just as you state the verdict is
still up in the air concerning the legality of this war, you (and I
do mean YOU) should be holding out your verdict on Ehren also.
But, yet AGAIN, all of this is MOOT MOOT MOOT, Ehren was court
martialed, now his case is on appeal due to his FIRM case of double
jeopardy. The military has yet to submit papers stating why trying
him again is not in violation of his Constitutional rights. You do
value our Constitution which has the double jeopardy clause don't
you? You do believe in a fair trial as guaranteed in our Constitution
don't you? You do believe in "innocent until proven guilty" don't
you?
"4. Ehren has not been allowed to leave the military though his contract was up LONG ago."-Robin
That's becuase he did not fulfill his contract!
So, you think the military has the right to hold him indefinitely? That too is part of his Habeas Corpus filing, yet to be decided by a JUDGE who just happens to be a former JAG PROSECUTOR. Maybe you will allow for that to be decided in the court by a QUALIFIED judge NYShoeGal.
Robin at 5:02PM on Jun 12th 2008
78. "If the President and Congress voted to declare war on terrorism.."
FYI, the CONGRESS must declare war, the president doesn't vote on the declaration of war, basic Government 101 will tell you this. Also, no one EVER voted to declare a "war on terrorism". The term is used only in rhetoric and originated from the executive branch.
We were supposedly going after Al-Qaeda correct?
Guess you haven't read the following:
http://intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?
id=298775
BSMoore did Congress ever declare the Viet Nam war illegal? No. Did we go to war in Viet Nam and ultimately kill four million Vietnamese based on lies (Gulf of Tonkin)? How do you feel about that one? Are you going to say all is hunky dory because our government engaged in this criminal act? I might add that this HAS been accepted as a WRONG our country did, tens of thousands of US soldiers killed, the fallout still be felt today.
Do you think that in all cases a soldier is bound by what it's government orders it to do? What about Hitler? Remember him? German soldiers were just following orders weren't they?
Robin at 5:45PM on Jun 12th 2008
79. Robin I have a question for you..are any of your family members currently serving or have ever served in the armed forces?? I have served in the Army as well as my husband. My grandfathers served in WWII, my father in law served in Vietnam. I was the only female in my family to join. Everyone who joins the military, and from what I can see this "man" was NOT forced to join, knows that there is a chance of being sent to war. He voluntarily signed those papers. Yes, I was and still am against the war, but if I was deployed I would have gone and served and SUPPORTED my fellow soldiers. There is a camaraderie between soldiers that no civilian can ever understand. Like I have said before, these are the men and women who you entrust your life with. He broke that trust. He broke his contract with the Army. In my opinion they should dishonorably discharge him and let him TRY to live the rest of his life with that on his record. That's punishment enough. He'll be working at McDonald's forever, even with his degree.
NYShoeGal at 8:07PM on Jun 12th 2008
80. NYShoe Gal,
My father served in WWII,navy,medic, Hawaii and the Marshall Islands. Father-in-law, navy, Atlantic and on board the first ship in to Nagasaki. He passed away several years ago, but it is something he would NEVER talk about. Myself, only child. Cousin (only one on dad's side-deceased)-career military, ALL uncles on mother's side, served in WWII.
"from what I can see this "man" was NOT forced to join"
You are absolutely correct, he was not forced to join, he joined a few months prior to college graduation, and graduated officer's school with an exemplary record in the top tier of his class. He joined for PURELY patriotic reasons because he really did believe at that time we needed to be in Iraq.
Would me still be a MAN to you if he joined his unit even though his SINCERE conviction, which is also proven in evidence flowing still, that our country was led to war based on lies? I want you to realize something here. Ehren refused to do something that MANY people and fact says is a crime. He did EVRYTHING by the rulebook to resign his commission, but was denied. Just shortly before his Stryker unit was to deploy to Iraq, after he had informed his commanding officer he would refuse to deploy, they STILL sent him on a two week training session to California to lead his unit. For that, he received high marks. It was the MILITARY who decided to send him with his men even though he had told them in no uncertain terms he was not going to board that plane. Do you think the military possibly should have not done this? I am asking because I am aware, though not through personal experience, of troop cohesiveness. Realize something else, (as I wrote prior) his commanding officers who did this and testified at the court martial, said that up til the time Ehren notified them that he would not deploy (after his resignation was denied the second time) he found him an exemplary officer but not afterwards. Yet when asked by Eric Seitz why he still insisted on issuing the deployment orders, why he did this even though he no longer thought Ehren was fit, he did NOT answer. He just sat on the witness stand totally MUTE. Wasn't it up to that commanding officer to insure troop safety and cohesiveness with deploying an officer he deemed fit? You say Ehren let down his unit, I say that commanding officer let down the unit by issuing deployment orders to an officer HE deemed unfit and who also had NOTIFIED the military he was not going to deploy. The news of this was in the media BEFORE the day the Stryker unit left. Then on that day,Ehren reported and turned himself in. Never in anything that Ehren has done has he broken any military rule. His decision to not deploy is based on the Nuremberg defense, and such a thing DOES exist. Again I ask, he faced his court martial yet was denied his testimony because the judge said he admitted guilt by signing the stipulation of fact. Ehren thought he had a defense. Wouldn't the correct thing to have done would have been to allow him that? He was asked that day to remove his stipulation and he refused. The judge and prosecution both knew what he was going to say. If it was worth nothing why not let him say it, finish the court martial and be done with it?
Ehren's ultimate discharge has not occurred yet. He was well aware when he made this decision what was facing him yet he still did what he did. Now however, the military doesn't just get to try him again because they think they should. Please read the page from his website concerning the legal status of his case now.
http://www.thankyoult.org/content/view/2/77/
You may be shocked to know that out of the thousands of supporters Ehren has, someone other than a McDonald's franchise owner would be HONORED to hire Ehren.
Robin at 8:54PM on Jun 12th 2008
81. Robin I am an only child as well. hmm. That's beside the point. If he was not up for the challenge he should not have joined. It's that simple! I wonder if I went to work tomorrow and decided that I did not agree with the work I was supposed to do if I would still have a job tomorrow night...I think not. During training they teach you to kill. You literally scream "kill, kill, kill." Did he think he was joining the boy scouts? And like many have mentioned before it is not up to him to decide if this war is legal or illegal. I could completely understand if he served his time and his duty stations and they sent him on another tour after his term was up. But this is not the case. Now you say that many of your family members have served, what do they think???(BTW I was a medic as well so kudos to your grandfather:) I don't agree with the war and I did not agree with the war when I served. But, Robin this was his job. This is what he was trained to do and this is what he was paid to do. It is very, very hard to leave the military before your time is up. And to be perfectly frank, they let you know before you ship off to initial training. This is not a decision to be made solely because of one's patriotism. This is a decision that you must think long and hard about. It is a life changing decision. The reason why I say "man" is because of this: my husband was severely injured while in the service. He had torn EVERY ligament in his knee. He had surgery and was sent to physical therapy. The Army tried every possible measure to give him a medical discharge. My husband refused . He was one of the strongest and most dedicated soldiers I knew. And even in severe pain- every day I saw this man run, lift weights,ride bicycles,etc. in order to succeed. He eventually did "recover." He is again reenlisting and I plan to join him. To me, he is a man. Against all odds he made it. He finished what he signed up to do. It is called being responsible. Not only as a soldier, but as a person. I understand completely where you are coming from. And although I may seem completely against Ehren, I understand what he is saying. He did not agree with the war, he was lied to. Well, Robin this entire country was lied to. Perhaps he was an exemplary soldier before the situation, but not following orders would of course make him a so-called "bad" soldier. I don't think he is a bad person, but as far as being a soldier-yes. The military is there just for that-to be militant.
NYShoeGal at 9:38PM on Jun 12th 2008
82. NYShoe Gal,
I stated I was an only child only to say that there was no possibility of having a sibling in the military. Your husbands injury, I am very glad it has healed and he is fully recovered.
I want to ask you a very serious question here. You wrote, "The military is there just for that-to be militant." Is the military there to be militant when we are led to war based on lies?
That's what the German soldiers did, that IS the basis of the Nuremberg defense.
What if they gave a war, BASED ON LIES, and nobody came? Would that certainly not be preferable to having the military continue to execute a crime? Because it IS a crime to initiate a war based on lies. It CANNOT be executed without WILLING soldiers, not ROBOTS.
Robin at 9:58PM on Jun 12th 2008
83. usaproud: You call this war illegal--once the Pres issued the order--it became legal. Its not a soldiers right to question where he will go--grow up people.
Your comment shows your utter ignorance or better disregard? for law, national and international, and the president is NOT above the law!
Read An Advisory to US Troops: A Duty to Disobey All Unlawful Orders
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MOS303A.html
Here some excerpts:
The military oath taken at the time of induction reads:
"I,____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God"
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.
..."Aggressive war is one of the most serious transgressions of international law." In fact, at the Nuremberg trials, the issue was not just individual or collective acts of atrocities or brutal actions but the starting of an aggressive war itself. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson stated,
"We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy." (August 12, 1945, Department of State Bulletin.)
..."Under the UN Charter, there are only two circumstances in which the use of force is permissible: in collective or individual self-defense against an actual or imminent armed attack: and when the Security Council has directed or authorized use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security. Neither of those circumstances now exists. Absent one of them, U.S. use of force against Iraq is unlawful."
"There is no basis in international law for dramatically expanding the concept of self-defense, as advocated in the Bush Administration's September, 2002 "National Security Strategy" to authorize "preemptive"--really preventive--strikes against states based on potential threats arising from possession or development of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons and links to terrorism. Such an expansion would destabilize the present system of UN Charter restraints on the use of force. Further, there is no claim or publicly disclosed evidence that Iraq is supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorist.
The Bush administration's reliance on the need for "regime change" in Iraq as a basis for use of force is barred by Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." Thus the rationales being given to the world, the American public, and the armed forces are illegal on their face.
Just in case you didn't know it, the magic word in the Nazi propaganda in Germany also was "self-defense".....
Sounds familiar!?!?
http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id303.html
Traude at 5:42AM on Jun 13th 2008
84. Oh Robin I only mentioned that I was an only child becuase only children tend to be stubborn in their thoughts..as are you and I. Ha Ha. Just in case you read this.
NYShoeGal at 9:33AM on Jun 13th 2008
85. The way the world court is set up is to prosecute those for war crimes when the host country of the perpetrators refuses to do so.
All we need is a prominent attorney or two to bring a Bill of Indictment for war crimes and mass murder to the DOJ. Once they refuse, (which they will, immediately) there is a judge in Spain just waiting for that news. He will try them in absentia. When they are found guilty by the courts (of the world) they will never be able to set foot outside the US because of treaties without fear of arrest for war crimes charges. Can it be that simple? Yes, the judge who made life miserable for Pinochet is alive and well in Spain and waiting for the paperwork to hit his desk.
Let's get these bastards while they're still breathing. This must be how Marie Antionette felt as she gazed upon the River Seine from her dungeon.
Ehren, stay the course!
John McCarthy at 7:25PM on Jun 13th 2008
86. Hi NY Shoe Gal,
I really don't think it's a case of being stubborn only children, because it isn't about you or me. It's a case about a man, Ehren Watada, who refused to deploy to Iraq based on his EDUCATED convictions that the war is illegal, to participate would be a war crime, whether or not his claim is accepted, WILLING to live up to those convictions and spend time in prison for them, facing court martial, having a botched mistrial, and the military continuing to mess with him.
The term "war crime" is not an esoterical term. It's not something lofty or merely legal mumbo jumbo, it is at the very core, a crime against other human beings, Those human beings having every right to live their life in peace and safety, not wake up to a foreign country invading them based on lies concocted to convince the people this is necessary, not continuing to occupy them with their fortune 500 companies making windfall profits, nor people given a job to do on the government's dole, and that WOULD be the military, Anyone saying that Ehren joined the military for a job doesn't know whatsoEVER what they are talking about. It is HE who said no more, it was HE who said I will take what comes to me because I won't do this, I will NOT participate in a war that was based on lies. The cowards are those in the military who think the war is wrong because they too know the lies but continue to fight. You said the military teaches KILL KILL KILL but you never answered my question which was is it ok to do that if the reason why you are there in the first place is lies. Why aren't these people walking away from something they know is wrong? I could understand psychologically if people remained in the military because they think the war is just (I don't agree, but at least they would be doing something they think is right) But WHY do people continue to serve in Iraq. You want to know why?
Because they are playing the odds, they KNOW they'll face court martial, time in prison and a dishonorable discharge so it will for SURE affect them. If they remain, then (remember you're the one who brought up cohesiveness) they'll watch eachother's backs so they get out safely, have their safer jobs when they return home.
Problem is, what about the Iraqi people?
This isn't about our boys dying, because they COULD walk away, it is about our boys who continue to serve participating in something that is so INHERENTLY immoral and a sin. To KILL KILL KILL if you are killing based on lies is WRONG and if nobody gets that, then someone needs to pray very hard for their souls.
Robin at 7:38PM on Jun 13th 2008
87. Dear Robin, I will not question the integrity of those members of the military in or going to Iraq because their sense of duty makes them believe they have no other choice. They face hardships we cannot image, and see things we do not see. If they can, what they need to do is speak, and write. I will not place upon them the burden that 1LT Watada chose for himself. Both the soldier facing death and living torment and 1LT Watada have displayed courage in different forms, and face different challenges on the Dharma Wheel.
Nor is any time spent praying for the souls of those serving in Iraq a useful effort, in my humble opinion. Rather, it is for us to rededicate ourselves to the cause of truth and an end to to this bitter divisive war built on lies. We do that not only to save those soldiers' lives, but the lives of the Iraqi peoples.
We must save them from this debacle not only because it is right to do so [it surely is] but because it is our own very, very, selfish interest to do so. Many will not support a withdrawal from Iraq because somebody else's son or daughter (who volunteered, _get_ _it_) might die. Even more will not lift a finger to save a single Iraqi life.
Yet, when they understand that their ability to drive their 5000 pound SUV any where, anytime, without consequence, is negatively affected, when they cannot make money, and cannot buy toys or influence because this damn war thing is screwing up their plans--well maybe, then, maybe, they will turn on the people who used the atrocious attacks of 9/11 to create a new Fascism in this country. This administration did not even have the guts, will, or _intent_ (the last being the most brutal, horrid, unspeakable thing possibility) to, with devastating (and yes, brutal) force, destroy Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan (where 1LT Watada volunteered to go). They wanted an adventure with rewards of a very tangible nature--money and oil. Oil being more value, for money can lose its value when money devalues.
They didn't get the oil. And now, with the price of oil rising are two views: 1. Bush and company is responsible for the oil crisis by creating anger in Saudi Arabia, 2. Bush is in cahoots with Saudi Arabia and the prices are rising because Bush and the other oil men here and the Saudis have decided to make a killing while they can. I strongly believe the Saudis are very upset with the U.S. over Iraq, and that is the prime reason for them doing what they are doing. Yet it does not matter--either way the actions of the President are reprehensible.
The analogy used by some in preceding posts that once the President declares military action to occur, all that flows thereafter is by definition, legal, should remind us of the logic of the "blood oaths" Hitler demanded of the German military, no allegiance to law--or rather, only is the law.
Watada's primary oath is to the Constitution of the United States; the requirement to obey the Commander in Chief and lesser Commanders flows the assumption that they do not violate the Constitution and substantive law which conforms to the Constitution, and if they are not, then they are the "domestic enemies" to the Constitution, and he thus has a superior obligation to fight against these domestic traitors than to serve their heinous purposes. _That_ is his oath.
We must hope that, like Watada, "the better Angels of our Nature" guide us through this crisis, and that those Angels also serve our troops in Iraq to question and to speak the truth.
"There’s a lady with my tattoo on her so special
Dream of her and me out in the desert
She ridin’ round in her daddy’s Ford Explorer
I’m kickin’ in doors, hey, i thought this war was over
Got sand in my nose, sand in my eyes
But the sand can’t cover up the sights of a
Sniper with my number, got his finger on the trigger,
Hope my baby’s okay, still waitin’ for a letter
All i get are emails, so much unsaid
It’s hot here, baby, but it’s so cold inside my head.
"Mission accomplished, yeah, up on deck
Got no armor for my humvee, left facin’ this train wreck
Shia don’t like me, want Islamic Revolution
Sunni say civil war is part of the solution
Maybe someday there’ll be peace in Fallujah
McDonald’s on the Boulevard, Cadillac cruisin’
I’m tryin’ hard to keep this whole thing straight
But will someone tell me what the hell am i doin’ here in the first place?"
Except from "Downtown Baghdad Blues" by Larry Kirwan of the band, Black 47, from the recent album, "Iraq." Lyrics not verified against published lyrics, but believed by me to be accurate.
"Your flag pin doesn't give you the right to question my patriotism." That one's mine--I hope.
I'm outa here.
Thomas Shoener at 8:51PM on Jun 13th 2008
88. Correction:
The analogy used by some in preceding posts that once the President declares military action to occur, all that flows thereafter is by definition, legal, should remind us of the logic of the "blood oaths" Hitler demanded of the German military, no allegiance to law--or rather, only is the law.
should read, in relevant part:
Hitler demanded of the German military, no allegiance to law--or rather, only _Hitler_ _was_ the law.
Thomas Shoener at 8:57PM on Jun 13th 2008
89. I believe it is an illigal war. Good for the soldier who refused to go to Irac. He has courage. It takes more courage to stand up for what is right than to follow a leader who thinks he fooled most of the country. That country has been devastated with so many innocent people killed, so many of our solders dead. The only way to stop war, is to stop going. If only all the men and women of the world wouldnt go, there would be no one to fight...what a wonderful world this would be. WAR makes the fat cats FATTER.
nina at 10:19AM on Jun 14th 2008
90. Nina,
You have the same opportunity to invest in Halliburton (up 500% since 2001), as Michael Moore does, and become FAT off of the Iraq War as well.
Their ticker symbol is: HAL
Paul Sparcello at 11:12AM on Jun 14th 2008