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 7 of 7)
91. Robin: "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?"
As a matter of fact, yes, Soldiers Obey. Period.
German soldiers should never be held responsible for WW2. No soldier should ever be forced to be accountable for their goverment's desicions regarding war. Excuse me but isn't that what happened to Vietnam vets?
I'm not a lawyer, and though I get the basics regarding the legal issues surronding this case, its all beyond my control. So legally, maybe this is double jepordy, and I would agree with Robin. I think though our justice system screws up every now and then but, its pretty good. And should Lt. Watada be found to be in double jeapordy, or even innocent, then he should be let off.
But morally, he is wrong. Those who haven't served, rarely understand. In combat orders HAVE to be obeyed. So cases like this tear apart the foundation of the military.
Basically I belive for the same reasons that he should be let off legally, he is wrong morally.
Matthew Kurtz at 10:38AM on Jun 16th 2008
92. "But morally, he is wrong. Those who haven't served, rarely understand. In combat orders HAVE to be obeyed. So cases like this tear apart the foundation of the military."
Read the NUREMBERG PRINCIPLES which are attached to the Nurembery TREATY, which the US SIGNED and therefor we are bound by TREATY under our Constitution to follow them
Principle IV
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a MORAL choice was in fact possible to him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Principles
These same rules are enshrined in the Geneva Conventions Matthew, to which the US is also signatory.
Tearing apart the foundation of the military is NOT the issue Matthew. EVERY officer pledges his allegiance to the CONSTITUTION. The war in Iraq was based on LIES. Our government does NOT have the carte blanche right to wage ILLEGAL war. Read further Matthew. Let it sink in, it is NOT against international law NOR our own law which is bound by it to refuse ILLEGAL WAR. What the military does to said individual is their call, in Ehren's case court martial which he FACED.
All you military lemmings need to get this straight. Ehren refused to deploy based on his own EDUCATED evaluation that the war is illegal and egregious. He FACED court martial, he NEVER ran away, he HAD a defense he wanted to present but a MISTRIAL was called. That mistrial was a MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. Ehren was prepared to testify FOR HIMSELF but the jury was never allowed to hear that testimony. He was PACKED and ready to be apprehended if found guilty. But the military judge ABUSED his power and now Ehren stands on FIRM ground for his double jeopardy pending case.
Ehren's own testimony was NEVER heard nor likely never will be from HIM in a court of law because he MOST likely will not be retried because the military screwed it up! There was NO misunderstanding that Ehren stipulated to the fact that he missed deployment, he SIGNED that stipulation. He said he had a MORAL reason why he did not, but NEVER was allowed to present that in court.
That does NOT take away from the fact Ehren was WILLING to stand on his own convictions. Yet that ALSO does not give the military the right to hold him indefinitely against his OWN Constitutional rights!
You want to get mad at someone Matthew, get mad at Judge Head, he's the one who called a mistrial CONTRARY to what he should have done, AGAINST Ehren's wishes! You want to know something, it is what I think the military WANTED, for Ehren to get off on what SOME call a "technicality" but is NOT.
What better way to strip a man completely of his willingness to serve time for his convictions and then have people keep yabbering on. NO amount of anything will be able to take away the fact Ehren did what he did based on MORAL convictions!
So the answer to your question is Matthew, PLEASE listen, Ehren was willing to take the consequences of his MORAL decision, face six years in prison (why so long compared to others? Because rather than going quietly, he spoke out KNOWING what it COULD get him)Now people can still keep saying he should have been convicted.
QUESTION: Since the military screwed up BIG TIME by not allowing the trial to continue, why do you think they would do that? Was it a mistake? NOT HARDLY. They now have a man who will always be called a coward by those who called him that to begin with AND have people say he got off on a mistake. The CRUELEST of punishments to tarnish a man's willingness to do what he felt was RIGHT. If Ehren HAD served time, they would have never been able to say that about the ONE man who STOOD up in this fashion. But again, if you were there, you would KNOW the trial was not going as the military would have liked, with a piss-poor rookie prosecutor who Ehren's attorney made utter mince meat of as WELL as the prosecution witnesses.
Robin at 9:02PM on Jun 17th 2008
93. Here's some others who have written about his mistrial Matthew, so you know, although I have followed this case very closely, others who have followed it closely agree that the military WANTED a mistrial:
In the prelude to the court-martial, a Citizen’s Hearing on the War in Iraq took place. In essence, the hearing looked at the evidence of the war’s legality according to U.S. and international treaties that the U.S. has signed to. This same evidence was disallowed in Lt. Watada’s court-martial by the military judge. Among the expert testifiers were Denis Halliday, former UN Assistant Secretary-General, who had coordinated Iraq humanitarian aid and Daniel Ellsberg.
Ellsberg was the military analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War, which revealed that the U.S government was without a plan to win that war.
The revelation of these papers caused a sharp drop in the numbers of Americans supporting the Vietnam War effort. A figure of historic importance, Ellsberg had the opportunity to meet Ehren Watada and told him “You’re walking point for this country.” Ellsberg also mentioned that Watada is the only one in government service who is “taking his oath to the Constitution seriously.”
When the court-martial of Lt. Watada began in February, it seemed unavoidable that he would be going to prison, because the judge refused to allow testimony as to the legality of the war. It was a surprise therefore, when on the third day of the trial, just before Lt. Watada was to testify, the judge declared a mistrial. It appears that the judge wished to avoid Lt. Watada’s testimony as to his belief in the immorality of the Iraq war. Watada’s lawyer takes the position that since the court-martial began and was declared a mistrial, another proceeding would be double-jeopardy, and be unconstitutional. If this is true, Watada has won his fight and freedom.
With more that 3,100 U.S. soldiers dead, more than 50,000 wounded and more than 600,000 Iraqis that have been killed, Lt. Ehren Watada has shown our people that we can resist this immoral and illegal war. Watada’s our man on point.
In the prelude to the court-martial, a Citizen’s Hearing on the War in Iraq took place. In essence, the hearing looked at the evidence of the war’s legality according to U.S. and international treaties that the U.S. has signed to. This same evidence was disallowed in Lt. Watada’s court-martial by the military judge. Among the expert testifiers were Denis Halliday, former UN Assistant Secretary-General, who had coordinated Iraq humanitarian aid and Daniel Ellsberg.
Ellsberg was the military analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War, which revealed that the U.S government was without a plan to win that war.
The revelation of these papers caused a sharp drop in the numbers of Americans supporting the Vietnam War effort. A figure of historic importance, Ellsberg had the opportunity to meet Ehren Watada and told him “You’re walking point for this country.” Ellsberg also mentioned that Watada is the only one in government service who is “taking his oath to the Constitution seriously.”
When the court-martial of Lt. Watada began in February, it seemed unavoidable that he would be going to prison, because the judge refused to allow testimony as to the legality of the war. It was a surprise therefore, when on the third day of the trial, just before Lt. Watada was to testify, the judge declared a mistrial. It appears that the judge wished to avoid Lt. Watada’s testimony as to his belief in the immorality of the Iraq war. Watada’s lawyer takes the position that since the court-martial began and was declared a mistrial, another proceeding would be double-jeopardy, and be unconstitutional. If this is true, Watada has won his fight and freedom.
With more that 3,100 U.S. soldiers dead, more than 50,000 wounded and more than 600,000 Iraqis that have been killed, Lt. Ehren Watada has shown our people that we can resist this immoral and illegal war. Watada’s our man on point.
http://www.tahomaorganizer.org/watada-our-man-on-point-military-judge-declares-mistrial-by-johnny-callimaco/
Bill Simpich is an attorney himself who was also there all three days of the trial
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/02/08/18359490.php?show_comments=1
Here is the pdf of Judge Settle's temporary injunction. If you are not an attorney, then go to Ehren's website, Thank You Lt.org and search through the website for clear information and the ruling broken down into layman's language by his present attorney, Kagan.
http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/images/stories/pdf/ew/watada-ruling-8nov07.pdf
If you scan down the pdf, you will see that Judge Settles also states that by granting Ehren his Constitutional rights to double jeopardy, it will not impair the military from prosecuting such cases in the future.
BINGO!!! You've got people yabbering away about Ehren being guilty and he SHOULD have been punished, now those same people will say he got off on a "technicality" or as you stated Matthew, a mistake. He fell through the cracks, but it won't prevent the military in the future for prosecuting such cases.
There you go!
Robin at 11:24PM on Jun 17th 2008
94. Dear Robin, the "this rule applies to everybody in the known universe but you" logic was also used against the military in the famous case of Perry Watkins, the Army Sergeant who had truthfully indicated in his induction papers and in his reenlistment papers that he was gay. I do not have the cite in front of me, but that was the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supremes refused to touch the case---as they may refuse to handle Watada, figuring "bad cases make bad law."
About Watkins: "In 1989, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, voting 7 to 4, ordered the Army to allow Mr. Watkins re-enlist. The court did not tackle the broad question of whether homosexuals ought to be permitted to serve but rather cited the fact that Mr. Watkins had been permitted to re-enlist.
Judge Harry Pregerson said the court's ruling would "simply require the Army to continue to do what it has repeatedly done for 14 years with only positive results: re-enlist a single soldier with an exceptionally outstanding military record."
The [George Herbert Walker] Bush Administration appealed the ruling but in November 1990 the Supreme Court let it stand, handing Mr. Watkins his victory. Rather than re-enlist, however, Mr. Watkins settled the case a year later, receiving retroactive pay of about $135,000, full retirement benefits, an honorable discharge and a retroactive promotion from staff sergeant to sergeant first class." From NYT obituary of Watkins, circa 1996.
This case was vigorously discussed in JAG circles, and the merits of Watkins' arguments for being retained were sympathetically discussed by high level instructors. Again, the only reason for dismissing Watkins was his status in violation of the regulation. Of note was the fact that his superiors were also sympathetic towards him. "Best damn file clerk I ever had", etc. So, the Army was estopped from applying the reg against Perry because he always told the truth about his status, and there was no other reason to separate him.
Now, the Watada case is different on a lot of the facts, but this case stinks to high heaven of estoppel. Watada was up front--he gave them plenty of notice of his intentions. He gave the Army several ways out, one of which included combat duty for him. He did what the Army does encourage officers [and enlisted] to do: be aware of the world, know why you are doing things, learn the customs and practices of the places you may go to--"be an ambassador for the Army and the U.S." [that one's almost a direct quote]. It is not the policy of the Army that I am familiar with to completely stifle dissent. Those who say "the military is just to follow orders" do not understand it, at least as I understood prior to the present Bush administration. So, the reference you have made to military "lemmings" seems misplaced and inappropriate. Courage comes in many forms, and is encouraged by the military, as I understand it. So--Watada has shown courage--a different kind than others, but it is courage just the same.
As I understand it, the same Court of Appeals (9th, San Francisco) also handled the most recent "don't ask don't tell" cases, extending the Watkins decision---and also handling the TRO for Watada. Smart move on the part of Watada's attorneys--a friendly forum for soldiers' rights.
I cannot fathom why, as you indicate, the Military Trial Counsel in this case was a "rookie." It would seem, and I have only seen, that cases of this nature are handled by "the pros from Dover" or "hero JAGs"---they may not win the case, but the are going to present it professionally and thoroughly. Cases like Watada's are referred to as "just another opportunity to excel." In other words, a tough, grinding job, with great risk and high stakes, but potentially no recognition.
Watada has crystallized the entire charade of the most spectacular act of moral turpitude on the part of an American President since Taney and Buchanan fixed the Dred Scott case. Ok--Nixon's right up there, too.
The Iraq War and the excesses of the Bush administration on every front relating to its conduct is being examined very carefully in the Senate as we speak. If Clinton lied about an act of fellatio, and was impeached, what are the consequences for starting a war of aggression based on lies. On the one hand, we are dealing with a stained dress and a very angry wife, on the other hand we are talking about hundreds of thousands dead [sure, let's count the Iraqis--they are human, right?], and quite possibility the ruination of this nation, due in large part to the economic consequences of this needless war.
Bush and Cheney seem intent on finishing what Bin Laden started--and might be far, far, more successful.
Just my opinion.
Major Tom at 1:29AM on Jun 19th 2008
95. Dear Major Tom,
When I addressed "military lemmings" I was specifically addressing those who say that no matter WHAT, a soldier, in this case, an officer, must follow orders. That simply is not the case and that certainly needs to be made clear. It is not the case in US military law, it is not the case in international law (Nuremberg and the Geneva Conventions). Indeed, this was what Nuremberg was about. Our own Chief Justice Jackson stated, "That by which we judge today, tomorrow we shall be judged". If people do not understand the basis of Nuremberg and the Geneva Conventions, then they indeed are lacking in knowledge and in my mind rather scary individuals who can not make the individual MORAL decisions necessary when it comes to the lives of others, in this case the Iraqi people, who are every bit as human as anyone. May seem obvious, but when one is willing to participate in a crime perpetrated upon them, it seems it is not.
The Watada case is extremely complex because one MUST go back and see that from day one, Ehren followed all military rules. Even when he spoke out publicly, all he was told was not to do so in uniform nor while on base. He did neither.
You ask about the prosecuting attorney. He was new to the case, if I remember correctly, only reassigned to it two maybe a little bit more weeks prior to the trial. Honestly Major Tom, he was young, VERY ill prepared, and certainly NOT of the caliber one would expect for the military to assign to such a case. He hardly put up a prosecution case at all because as he said himself, "He (Ehren) may think he has a defense, we obviously do not"-again, based on the so-called given, all orders must be followed. In my mind there are only two possibilities of why this was done (the second being my favored choice) 1) the military assumed it was a slam-dunk case 2) again, my contention the mistrial was purposely called so they wanted a rookie in there that could easily be manipulated by the judge.
One must remember that the support Ehren had gained was enormous. Just prior to the trial, a mock trial was held on the legality of the war. This was well attended by many and led by very strong attorneys in international law. Ehren's case HAD become a cause extroidinaire for the anti-war movement. The media there at the trial was EVERYWHERE, the eyes were on that court room, WAS Ehren going to receive a fair trial and would he possibly get off. NOT just because of the matter of the illegality of the war, but was this young officer who had followed every single rule he was supposed to, gain the sympathy of the jury and possibly get off. That is precisely how it was going as Eric Seitz had presented a rock solid case on Ehren's behalf.
HOWEVER, the military could not POSSIBLY allow that to happen, not in a million years. Fact is, they had screwed up BIG time by not (as you correctly stated yourself) allowing him to either deploy elsewhere or resign and THEN he went public-the first time being prior to not deploying, and then several times after. They had a PROBLEM on their hands.
Ehren's testimony was not only going to go to why he refused to deploy, it was also going to go to the process he had gone through which got him to the point he was that day, being court martialled.
Again, Ehren was fully prepared to go to prison for his convictions. No where in anything that I have written here have I stated that Ehren wasn't expecting that, because he was. On the other hand, we all knew he SHOULDN'T have, again, not just because we feel his reasons were correct (of course I do) but ALSO because the military had treated him so unjustly all the way through.
As I stated, Ehren's case is NOT simple. You wrote, "Watada has crystallized the entire charade of the most spectacular act of moral turpitude on the part of an American President since Taney and Buchanan fixed the Dred Scott case. Ok--Nixon's right up there, too."
Tom, THANK YOU, and I mean that sincerely, you do understand, because that is indeed the case. Ehren's case is a microcosm of what this government can do to dissent within the military, but he is also the shining example of an officer and a gentleman who did everything by the rules, AND refused to participate in this administrations crimes. (again, a problem on their hands that they have handled in the worse possible way)
Robin at 10:23PM on Jun 19th 2008