• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Lieutenant defies US Army over ‘illegal’ war

big bad john

Banned
Banned
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
360
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1851191.php

Lieutenant defies Army over ‘illegal’ war

By William Cole
The Honolulu Advertiser


In one of the first known cases of its kind, an Army officer from Honolulu is expected to refuse to go to Iraq this month with his unit, citing what he calls the “illegal” and “immoral” basis of the war, his father confirmed.

The officer, 1st Lt. Ehren K. Watada, 28, son of former state campaign spending commission executive director Bob Watada, is believed to be one of the first military officers to publicly take steps to refuse his deployment orders.


“My son has a great deal of courage, and clearly understands what is right, and what is wrong,” Bob Watada said yesterday. “He’s choosing to do the right thing, which is a hard course.”

Watada declined further comment until a news conference planned for 11 a.m. tomorrow at the state Capitol. His son is with a Stryker unit out of Fort Lewis, Wash., and is expected to participate by teleconference.

Jeff Paterson, a former Kaneohe Bay Marine who refused to board a transport in 1990 heading to the Gulf War and now works as an anti-war activist with the organization Not In Our Name, said a second news conference will be held in Tacoma, Wash.

On a Web site Paterson said was created by friends and family, the “Lt.” is quoted as saying: “I refuse to be silent any longer. I refuse to watch families torn apart, while the President tells us to ‘stay the course.’ ... I refuse to be party to an illegal and immoral war against people who did nothing to deserve our aggression. I wanted to be there for my fellow troops. But the best way was not to help drop artillery and cause more death and destruction. It is to help oppose this war and end it so that all soldiers can come home.”

Ehren Watada apparently sought in January to resign his commission, and later asked again and was denied.

Watada, who is not seeking conscientious objector status, but rather has moral objections to the Iraq war, faces the possibility of a court-martial, dishonorable discharge and several years in prison if he refuses the war orders.

According to the GI Rights Hotline, a conscientious objector has a deeply held moral, ethical or religious belief that it is wrong to kill another human being in war.

Some service members discover that opposition after joining the military, and are discharged, the organization said.

Watada doesn’t qualify as a conscientious objector because he does not oppose all wars.

Watada graduated from Hawaii Pacific University in 2003, joined the Army shortly after, went to Officer Candidate School, and incurred a three-year obligation.

The Hawaii man is with the 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry, at Fort Lewis. The unit is part of a larger 3,600-soldier Stryker brigade combat team similar to a unit being developed in Hawaii with about 300 eight-wheeled armored vehicles.

The Fort Lewis brigade is heading to Mosul in northern Iraq, and the soldiers are expected to leave this month and into July.

At a farewell ceremony on Friday, I Corps and Fort Lewis commander Lt. Gen. James Dubik, a former Schofield Barracks commander, said that of 299 million people in the United States, only 2.3 million serve in uniform to defend the nation, the Olympian newspaper reported.

“Less than 1 percent of the nation is carrying 100 percent of the burden of this war,” Dubik said.

But in a sign of increased opposition to the three-year-old Iraq war, anti-war activists demonstrated at the Port of Olympia after Stryker vehicles drove there for shipment, the Olympian reported.

Police used pepper spray on about 100 activists, and 22 people were arrested in one of the more volatile confrontations, the newspaper said.

Paterson, 38, who in 1990 alleged that the Gulf War was about profits and oil in the Middle East and sat down on the tarmac at Kaneohe Bay instead of boarding a transport, said he’s not sure of the number of Iraq or Afghanistan war objectors.

Cases that resulted in court-martial include a Navy sailor sentenced to three months of hard labor for refusing to board a ship headed to the Persian Gulf, a specialist in the National Guard given 120 days in a stand against fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a soldier sentenced to 15 months for refusing to deploy to Iraq a second time.

Robert Arakaki, the 83-year-old president of the 100th Infantry Battalion Veterans group, who saw combat in Italy in 1945, yesterday said Watada “owes the country a lot.”

There “should be some kind of good explanation” for why Watada wants out, he said, and Arakaki takes issue with claims of an immoral and illegal war.

“Who determines what is legal or illegal? Him or our government? Not him,” Arakaki said.

Retired Navy Cmdr. Jack Miller, past president of the Hawaii chapter of the Military Officers Association of America, said “there’s always been the problem of following orders. This time is no different.”

“Being a Vietnam veteran, we went through this,” said Miller, 72. “The rest of the load had to be shared by those willing to follow orders and serve their country.”

Dependable, loyal officers are needed, and “if one doesn’t fit that qualification, a bad apple will contaminate the barrel. He (Watada) should be punished in some way,” Miller said. “You don’t want someone over there in Iraq who’s not going to willingly follow orders. That’s dangerous.”
 
Although...  as much contempt people may have for this officer


It's better than him coming up here and trying to dodge legitmate military service (i.e. Jacky Layton thread).

At least he has the balls to face courts martial for what he believes in (be it right or wrong).

He has conviction... too bad it will most likely LEAD to a conviction and some jail time.


Personally, he has a duty to perform and staying home isn't performing that duty.  We sign on the dotted
line knowing that its not always going to be pretty, happy, or what we agree to.
 
As much as I frown upon his dereliction of his duties (there is no "if the war appeals to you" clause in a commission) I do respect him for facing the consequences and not hiding like Hinzeman and Co.
 
Infanteer said:
As much as I frown upon his dereliction of his duties (there is no "if the war appeals to you" clause in a commission) I do respect him for facing the consequences and not hiding like Hinzeman and Co.
+1
 
Sounds like this dude got caught up in 9/11.  Discharge this guy, wash hands of him and carry on. No need to courtmartial him, too expensive.
 
2023 said:
Sounds like this dude got caught up in 9/11.  Discharge this guy, wash hands of him and carry on. No need to courtmartial him, too expensive.

Quite the opposite I think.  If we make an exception for one, how many more would try to do it.  There has to be
a deterrant for some people to hold up their legal obligation (sad but true).  I think it would be more expensive
to lose a few hundred people who try to follow him (i.e. time and money on trg the lost soldiers vs court martial for this soldier)

But as we've seen before, I have no problems in be corrected if my concept is askew.
 
Ehren Watada apparently sought in January to resign his commission, and later asked again and was denied.

Should have granted his release, saved a lot of trouble; no fanfare.

For what it's worth; I agree with Trinity & Infanteer. He made a decision, took an action and is remaining to face the consequences. Fair enough. Could it have been handled quieter? Of course, but that doesn't seem to be the SOP these days, does it?
 
Isn't it nice that we all live in free countries where we can stand up and speak out.
VS speaking out and getting slapped down (if not snuffed)

While I am not all that impressed with this dude, I am glad that he is standing by his convictions and willing to face any music that comes his way.

Give him his day in court... it is, as they say, a free country.
 
He is fast heading for a date with a court martial. Refusal to obey orders. Missing deployment. As long as he is a member of the armed forces he must obey orders. We dont get to pick and choose if we will deploy or not. He is betting that he will lose his commission with no jail time. The Army will make an example of this officer.
 
It's an expensive choice he's making BUT, when you get down to it, he's standing by his convictions and following it thru to the bitter end.

He can be grateful that this is a democracy and he is being allowed his day in court. Some places would select "alternate means" to solve this issue - shalow grave & oblivion.
 
tomahawk6 said:
He is fast heading for a date with a court martial. Refusal to obey orders. Missing deployment. As long as he is a member of the armed forces he must obey orders. We dont get to pick and choose if we will deploy or not. He is betting that he will lose his commission with no jail time. The Army will make an example of this officer.

Hes going to get punished for disobeying orders, hes going to be made an example of, no doubt, but in the end, its his right to say no and suffer the consequences. 
Overall, its better to weed them out while at home than deal with this in Iraq where he might influence others and negatively affect troop moral and fortitude.
 
If he does actually believe the war to be illegal (not just immoral), is it not his duty to refuse an unlawful order?

I personally am not a fan of this gentlemen.... but the question still stands - of course the test of whether or not the order was lawful is indeed a court martial.
 
Infanteer said:
As much as I frown upon his dereliction of his duties (there is no "if the war appeals to you" clause in a commission) I do respect him for facing the consequences and not hiding like Hinzeman and Co.

Exactly, far more respect for this guy than the wankers that came up here.
 
couchcommander said:
If he does actually believe the war to be illegal (not just immoral), is it not his duty to refuse an unlawful order?

The only orders that can be disobeyed are manifestly unlawful orders.   You'd have a hard time trying to convince any judge that this constitutes one.

Here is a link to the Canadian regulation dictating such - I'm sure you can find a similar one in the UCMJ.
 
Infanteer said:
The only orders that can be disobeyed are manifestly unlawful orders.   You'd have a hard time trying to convince any judge that this constitutes one.

[u=http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qr_o/vol1/ch019_e.asp#19.015]Here[/url] is a link to the Canadian regulation dictating such - I'm sure you can find a similar one in the UCMJ.

That makes quite a difference.

Understood.
 
Infanteer said:
The only orders that can be disobeyed are manifestly unlawful orders.   You'd have a hard time trying to convince any judge that this constitutes one.

To disagree, there are times when you can legally 'not obey' what an officer perceives on their part to be a lawful command.  These are based on the concept of recognized authority.  Any officer can issue a command, but not all officers have the authority to issue such a command, and can thus be 'not obeyed' (which is not the same as 'disobeying').  These are highly dependent on the situation.  For example:
- if an officer attempts to prevent a soldier from completing his task as directed by his organic superior, the soldier is not obliged to obey.  I.e. if your job is to guard a facility, no officer can order you to let him/her enter the facilty without approval from the officer who issued you the command to let no one pass.  This has been upheld as valid by general rank officers.  This applies in particular to military police, other security forces, and troops with specialized skills.  It is also true for couriers and other messengers.  In a more practical application, an officer cannot order a soldier to abandon their duty in order to perform a less important task.     
- the soldier is not obliged to obey an officer who attempts to direct him to perform a task for which he is not trained for, unless he is in the proces of training for that task.  This is based not on disobeying a command but on the fact that the soldier does not know how to obey the command.  Although not unlawful, this is upheld through the threat to personal health and safety.
Of note, neither of these unwritten rules apply when under a threat of attack or if forces are under attack.  In that case, you shut up and do what you are told.

Two other exceptions:
- a soldier is not obliged to obey the commands of an inebriated (read drunk) or otherwise incapacitated (read severely injured) officer.  Their perception and judgement are impaired by either the intoxicant or the extent of the injury.  Basically, if they can't walk, they can't give orders.     
- in the case of responding to an emergency scene (on Canadian territory), the most experienced person or the first person on the scene is in charge.  They are not obliged to hand over control to an officer unless that officer possesses superior emergency care knowledge and experience (i.e. they are a doctor or first responder).  A person who knowingly hands over responsibility of an accident scene to another person without ensuring that person knows what they are doing is acting counter to the Good Samaritan Act, which is a superior law to a lawful command.  (that's how it was explained to me anyway).
 
I had a long, drawn out reply prepared but:

To disagree, there are times when you can legally 'not obey' what an officer perceives on their part to be a lawful command.

It is incumbent upon all soldiers to (1) point out safety issues and (2) to refer to higher authority in the event of a conflict with their existing orders.  It is not, however, incumbent upon soldiers to determine which task is more important (see point 2) or to determine if an officer who "can't walk" (because of an injury) is incapable of giving an order.

There are no laws "more lawful" than others - a legal command is a legal command and must be obeyed.  Officers have the responsibility and the legal obligation to ensure that their orders are lawful, rational and in keeping with the overall commander's intent.  There are, however, checks and balances within the system to ensure that soldiers have sufficient recourse to ensure they're doing the right thing.
 
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1857935.php

Officer who wants to resign gets court date

By Michelle Tan
Times staff writer


An Army Reserve officer who is suing the service so that he can resign his commission will have a chance to present his case in court on July 31.

Capt. Brad Schwan, who filed a lawsuit in federal court, accuses the Army of being in breach of contract and forcing him into “involuntary servitude.”

 
Schwan and government attorneys are scheduled to appear in federal court in California. Judge Dale S. Fischer ruled on June 8 that she wanted to hear oral arguments from both sides before making a decision on the government’s motion to dismiss Schwan’s claim.

The motion states the court doesn’t have jurisdiction over the matter and that Schwan did not meet the legal prerequisites needed for the type of legal action he’s seeking.

Schwan, a military intelligence officer and 1997 West Point graduate, completed his eight-year service obligation in May 2005. He sued after the Army twice denied his application to resign. A recent law school graduate, Schwan is representing himself.

Officer resignations are reviewed based on a policy first detailed in a December 2004 memo from Maj. Gen. James R. Helmly, former chief of the Army Reserve. The policy, included in the government’s motion, states that unqualified resignations submitted by officers who have completed their service obligations will be approved if they meet one or more of the following criteria:

• The officer is assigned to a specialty that is at or above 80 percent personnel strength.

• The officer previously completed a deployment in support of Operations Iraqi Freedom, Enduring Freedom or Noble Eagle.

• The officer provides convincing evidence of compelling personal reasons for separation. Documentation provided in such cases must include statements of counseling from Army medical or chaplain personnel.

The Army says Schwan doesn’t meet any of those criteria; Schwan says he completed his obligation and just wants out.
 
Centurian1985 said:
- if an officer attempts to prevent a soldier from completing his task as directed by his organic superior, the soldier is not obliged to obey. 

Sorry, but this is incorrect.  The soldier is supposed to point out the conflicting order, but if the officer insists, then the soldier continues with the NEW order.  Per QR&O 19.02 (1 & 2)

T

P.S.  Guess who's doing his Military Law OPME?  :)
 
I'm having difficulty reconciling these 2 statements, as one stands in contra-distinction to the other:

-"The only orders that can be disobeyed are manifestly unlawful orders.   You'd have a hard time trying to convince any judge that this constitutes one."

-"There are no laws "more lawful" than others - a legal command is a legal command and must be obeyed."


Exactly what constitutes a "manifestly unlawful" order and what is a "legal command" and is an illegal command then necessarily "manifestly unlawful" and by what standard? 

I'm guessing that "manifestly unlawful" is the threshold point at which an legal command becomes an illegal command. The question is: is the bar for "manifestly unlawful" higher or lower than just "unlawful" - to me they are both illegal commands.   

w601





 
Back
Top