Sound off! Tell us what you think of the Lt. Do you think he is right? or is he trying to get out of his duty to go to Iraq? Personally, while I think his objections may be "founded on good principals" he simply forgot one thing: He is a soldier, and he is required to deploy.... If I believed his opinion, I'd have gone and hired an attorney to fight the "war and the administration" in federal court.. I'd still have deployed, but put "the administration" on notice using the legal system instead of jepordizing my unit by not deploying...He was assigned and trained to be a part of a team, and he let them down.

SSGT Williams, deployed twice to the PG and to Kosovo, and yes, i'd go again

Anyway here is a basic story of the Lt in question: [from MSNBC]

http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs19056


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.


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.


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.

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.

------------------
1988 Fiero Formula T-tops
CJB 143 of 1252 "factory T-top cars"

As a retired Chief Petty Officer, all I have to say is: He knew when he accepted his commission that it could involve deployment to a combat area. I knew that in 1965 when I enlisted, and complied with transfer orders to Southeast Asia, twice. If you don't want to do the duty, don't accept the paycheck. Nuf said.

------------------
86 SE 2.8 4-Speed

He signed up to be a soilder, doesn't matter how he feels, he was not hired for his opnion on the wr, he was hired and accepted a oath to serve his country, and thats what he should do.

quote Originally posted by htexans1: 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.

He's boned. He will be convicted and go to prison. The war is not illegal. People may disagree with the war. They may think Bush lied about it. Hell, even if Bush DID lie, the fact remains that Congress voted to allow him to send troops. The war is legal, even though no official Declaration of War was signed. A DoW hasn't been used in recent history, rather Congress just votes to allow the President to send troops.

Congress could Impeach and convict Bush of lying to start the war, and the war would still be legal.

Hmm. I disagree with title :Traitor or American Hero. Should be titled, ""Conduct Unbecoming an Officer Or a Gentleman" hehe. Bottom line...he signed on the dotted line. That's one of the reason the armed forces recruit the youngin's...they don't read the fine print.

well, he has much against his arguement.

first off - the entity making the rules determines what is illegal. and this entity decided war in iraq is legal. so, he can in no way supersede that.
second - he choose this job. of course he may have not known there would be a war in Iraq - but so what - it is 100% a possibility you will be going to war if you join a miltary. duh.

he is 100% traitor. this is the definition, isnt it?

but, traitors can be hero's too. and, this guy maybe both. George Washington was a traitor to the crown. just because the US has determined the war to be legal - does not make it "right". but - either way - Saddam has been hanged.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: well, he has much against his arguement. first off - the entity making the rules determines what is illegal. and this entity decided war in iraq is legal. so, he can in no way supersede that. second - he choose this job. of course he may have not known there would be a war in Iraq - but so what - it is 100% a possibility you will be going to war if you join a miltary. duh. he is 100% traitor. this is the definition, isnt it? but, traitors can be hero's too. and, this guy maybe both. George Washington was a traitor to the crown. just because the US has determined the war to be legal - does not make it "right". but - either way - Saddam has been hanged.

he signed up after the war in iraq too, so he new what was going o. I think someone hew new got killed in iraq or he see's all threse deaths going on down there and he is honestly afraid for his life. and is trying to use this as in excuse. he figures 6 years jail is better then dying.

if he was in the marine corps I would gladly trade places with him and go.

Coward. Pure and simple. He obviously joined the military thinking it would mean free room and board, 3 squares a day, free training, fun with the guys jumping obstacles and shooting targets, and a great resume to enter the private work force with. He obviously didn't think he would actually have to fight for his country.

What I can't understand is why he went public instead of just running to Canada like all the rest. Perhaps he thought he might actually win some wide-spread support? Nah. He couldn't be THAT dense.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: He obviously joined the military thinking it would mean free room and board, 3 squares a day, free training, fun with the guys jumping obstacles and shooting targets, and a great resume to enter the private work force with.

you mean he actually believed the recruiting ads?

[This message has been edited by Euterpe (edited 01-08-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Coward. Pure and simple. He obviously joined the military thinking it would mean free room and board, 3 squares a day, free training, fun with the guys jumping obstacles and shooting targets, and a great resume to enter the private work force with. He obviously didn't think he would actually have to fight for his country. What I can't understand is why he went public instead of just running to Canada like all the rest. Perhaps he thought he might actually win some wide-spread support? Nah. He couldn't be THAT dense.

You use the word obvious and then the the statement "What I can't understand"
Is it possible he believes what he is doing is the right thing? Maybe not then a coward? Maybe not pure and simple?
Then again maybe you're right.
Either way his logic is flawed as far as basing it on illegal orders.


------------------
Agent 99: Oh, Max, how terrible.
Maxwell Smart: He desereved it, 99. He was a Kaos killer.
Agent 99: Sometimes I wonder if we're any better, Max.
Maxwell Smart: What are you talking about, 99? We have to shoot and kill and destroy. We represent everything that's wholesome and good in the world.

[This message has been edited by pokeyfiero (edited 01-09-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Toddster: Coward. Pure and simple. He obviously joined the military thinking it would mean free room and board, 3 squares a day, free training, fun with the guys jumping obstacles and shooting targets, and a great resume to enter the private work force with. He obviously didn't think he would actually have to fight for his country. What I can't understand is why he went public instead of just running to Canada like all the rest. Perhaps he thought he might actually win some wide-spread support? Nah. He couldn't be THAT dense.

Damn I'm glad your not in charge of anything. You know NOTHING about this guy yet make these statements. You have no military experience, apparently haven't even read the guy's statements about how and why he's come to the conclusion he can't morally or legally obey the order to deploy.

Doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with his position, you don't even give a crap what the position is or what it is based on. He's willing to put his career and life on the line for what he believes, and you call him a coward. He didn't desert to Canada, back to Hawaii, or the likes, he didn't claim conscientious objector status, he claims deploying to Iraq would make him guilty of participating in warcrimes and he has a case. I doubt he stands a chance in hell of winning it, but he does have a case. If he didn't, I think he'd have been tried and convicted long before now. Notice the way I use the words "I think" instead of declaring my view as irrefutable fact just because I've stated it. Try it sometime... if you had started your branding of him with that, it would maybe be palatable.

He enlisted, he doesn't have the opportunity to change his mind.

In 1968 with draft notice in hand, I enlisted, because had I been drafted, I knew where I'd be going and knew what I'd probably be doing. I took my chance or I could have run off to Canada.



What I had hope to avoid, but I went where I was assigned and did what I said I'd do.

This Lt in no hero.

there is one problem he is going to run it to is that by signing those papers to join the military he said he would fight for our goverment and do so with out a question or fight. he is in the military and he is fighting something he can not win, he might get someone else to notice other things going on with the current president, but he will still get in trouble for not following threw on his obligations as a military member. the way i put it if they let this guy get away it will make a window open for every one else that has a second thought about going to the war. they need to use him as an example and put him strait.

He signed up, wasnt forced. You do as your told period................to me hes just trying to look good while being a coward.

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: First, he concluded that the war violates the Constitution and War Powers Act, which, he said, "limits the President in his role as commander in chief from using the armed forces in any way he sees fit." Watada also concluded that "my moral and legal obligation is to the Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders." Second, he claims the war is illegal under international law. He discovered that "the U.N. Charter, the Geneva Convention and the Nuremberg principles all bar wars of aggression." The Constitution makes such treaties part of American law as well. These are not wild legal claims. Watada's conclusions are supported by mountains of evidence and experts, including the judgment of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, who in 2004 declared that the U.S. invasion was "not in conformity with the U.N. Charter, and from our point of view ... was illegal." Watada said he came to recognize that the military conduct of the occupation is also illegal: "If you look at the Army Field Manual, 27-10, which governs the laws of land warfare, it states certain responsibilities for the occupying power. As the occupying power, we have failed to follow a lot of those regulations." He told ABC News that the "wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of the Iraqi people" is "a contradiction to the Army's own law of land warfare." While ongoing media coverage of the protest debates whether Watada's action is one of cowardice or conscience, so far the seriousness of his legal claims have been largely ignored. Watada's position is different from that of conscientious objectors, who oppose all wars. "I'm not just against bearing arms or fighting people. I am against an unjustified war," he said. Above snipped from some website news story that actually reported a bit of the WHY.

good stuff - all may have been valid YEARS ago
to bad the "war" is actually over. US won. Iraq lost. there is no war in Iraq - in fact - there is no Iraq right now.
there is a hunk of land fomerly known as Iraq. people use the name Iraq - so we all know exactly where we are talking about.
if you got the guts - YOU can rule this land. a little bit of patience & alot of aggression, and it'll be all yours. rule with an iron fists & keep them muslims at bay - and you could be next ruler of Iraq. or whatever else you wanna call it. maybe from the movie "Dune" - Irackus - the desert planet. and start harvesting your spice. he who controls the spice....

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: First, he concluded that the war violates the Constitution and War Powers Act, which, he said, "limits the President in his role as commander in chief from using the armed forces in any way he sees fit." Watada also concluded that "my moral and legal obligation is to the Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders." Second, he claims the war is illegal under international law. He discovered that "the U.N. Charter, the Geneva Convention and the Nuremberg principles all bar wars of aggression." The Constitution makes such treaties part of American law as well. These are not wild legal claims. Watada's conclusions are supported by mountains of evidence and experts, including the judgment of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, who in 2004 declared that the U.S. invasion was "not in conformity with the U.N. Charter, and from our point of view ... was illegal." Watada said he came to recognize that the military conduct of the occupation is also illegal: "If you look at the Army Field Manual, 27-10, which governs the laws of land warfare, it states certain responsibilities for the occupying power. As the occupying power, we have failed to follow a lot of those regulations." He told ABC News that the "wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of the Iraqi people" is "a contradiction to the Army's own law of land warfare." While ongoing media coverage of the protest debates whether Watada's action is one of cowardice or conscience, so far the seriousness of his legal claims have been largely ignored. Watada's position is different from that of conscientious objectors, who oppose all wars. "I'm not just against bearing arms or fighting people. I am against an unjustified war," he said. Above snipped from some website news story that actually reported a bit of the WHY.

That sounds like a well thought out argument, except for one problem. In order for him to prevail, he must get the court (i.e. part of the military) to agree that the military is in the wrong in how they are prosecuting the war and that the President is acting unlawfully. That will not happen. His only chance is if Congress impeaches the president and convicts him of overstepping his authority, then that could be used as evidence.

Maybe he knows he can't win and is going through the motions to try to raise awareness. I can respect that, but he's still a deserter. The government will make an example of him to prevent others from getting the idea they can avoid combat service by claiming the war is illegal.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: That sounds like a well thought out argument, except for one problem. In order for him to prevail, he must get the court (i.e. part of the military) to agree that the military is in the wrong in how they are prosecuting the war and that the President is acting unlawfully. That will not happen. His only chance is if Congress impeaches the president and convicts him of overstepping his authority, then that could be used as evidence. Maybe he knows he can't win and is going through the motions to try to raise awareness. I can respect that, but he's still a deserter. The government will make an example of him to prevent others from getting the idea they can avoid combat service by claiming the war is illegal.

I agree, his argument might work if he was being tried by a world court, in this case he is lucky he isn't just being taken out back and shot like a lot of countries would do. Images of the Soviet Union during WW2 sending it's troops into battle without weapons in human waves and shooting anyone that turned back comes to mind. In their case they were making last stands to defend their own country and won, so no trials.

It would seem to me that this person is making more of a political statement with his actions, I wonder if he considered submitting his resignation. There have been officers miss movements before, I remember a Lt (just happens to be female) that just for some reason just couldn't get on the plane to Korea about 15 years ago, though this did not happen during time of war, she was allowed to resign.
This individual is betting the rest of his future for reasons that don't make much sense to me but, I'd already be there if my orders were cut. As an officier, he is under an even greater commitment than any enlisted person ever thought of being, he is supposed to lead. Not retreat. Even if he does have issues with the President. When President Clinton was the Commander and Chief, there were many changes that I didn't personally approve of. But, he was the boss.

------------------
Ron
Land of the Free because of the Brave. Most gave some, some gave all.
My imagination is the only limiting factor to my Fiero. Well, there is that money issue.

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: I agree, his argument might work if he was being tried by a world court, in this case he is lucky he isn't just being taken out back and shot like a lot of countries would do. Images of the Soviet Union during WW2 sending it's troops into battle without weapons in human waves and shooting anyone that turned back comes to mind. In their case they were making last stands to defend their own country and won, so no trials.

Desertion from the Army during a time of war is still punishable by death. Although no one has been executed by our military courts for desertion since 1961.

Who cares what he thinks? He signed up for the job, and his job is to do what the Army tells him to do. End of story. Whether he likes it or not is irrelevant.

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: I agree, his argument might work if he was being tried by a world court, in this case he is lucky he isn't just being taken out back and shot like a lot of countries would do. Images of the Soviet Union during WW2 sending it's troops into battle without weapons in human waves and shooting anyone that turned back comes to mind. In their case they were making last stands to defend their own country and won, so no trials.

If he was an officer in the World Army, then a World Court might have some authorrity, his problem is, he's in the US ARMY. He's taken all the perks, the training, the money, now he doesn't want to fulfil his word, do his part. I'm sure his parents are sooo very proud of their son.

------------------
Ron
Land of the Free because of the Brave. Most gave some, some gave all.
My imagination is the only limiting factor to my Fiero. Well, there is that money issue.

quote Originally posted by blackrams: I'm sure his parents are sooo very proud of their son.

according to most accounts, they are.

quote Originally posted by Euterpe: according to most accounts, they are.

I'm sure.

------------------
Ron
Land of the Free because of the Brave. Most gave some, some gave all.
My imagination is the only limiting factor to my Fiero. Well, there is that money issue.

He's neither a traitor nor a hero. He's a worthless piece of sh!t and is a coward. It doesn't say anything in our contracts that we can pick and choose our wars. It states that we will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Officers appointed above us. It doesn't state that we will obey what we THINK the United Nations believe nor does it state that we will support and defend the UN Charter. In many military regulations and laws, it states that, as Soldiers, we will not publicly state our political views.

BTW.......A Field Manual is NOT REGULATION or DOCTRINE. It's guidance, nothing more.

THIS ISN'T EVEN A WAR!!! A "War" is that little thing that is passed around, approved, and says "this is war". There hasn't been one since, well, what, the 60s?. What this guy IS picking and choosing, however, is being sent to a foreign country to fight something that isn't even approved by anyone other than the president (scoff). If this were a war, where we were attacked somehow by another country, and we fight back, then this guy would be an a$shole. In the meantime he's a goddamn genius.

quote Originally posted by Falcon4: THIS ISN'T EVEN A WAR!!!

Hmmm, tell me that in a year when your worthless ass is sitting in the sandbox and you're picking mortar round fragments out of the sandbags that surround the trailer you live in. Say that to a Vietnam Vet or a Korean Vet. See what they have to say back.

Say that to a Desert Storm Vet. Say that to a Operation Iraqi Freedom Vet. Say that to a family member of a Soldier that was killed in action in Iraq.
<------------ Wait! You already did! You have a lot to learn!

You should be pissed at Bush for sending your friends and family off to die for no cause and no war then... just to fight a bunch of people who aren't hurting us, and just want us to leave...

Not even worth a response.

quote Originally posted by aceman: It doesn't say anything in our contracts that we can pick and choose our wars. It states that we will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Officers appointed above us. It doesn't state that we will obey what we THINK the United Nations believe nor does it state that we will support and defend the UN Charter. In many military regulations and laws, it states that, as Soldiers, we will not publicly state our political views. BTW.......A Field Manual is NOT REGULATION or DOCTRINE. It's guidance, nothing more.

Aceman is correct, those that haven't had the privelige to serve may not understand how it works, you don't have to agree with the President, not all do. I certainly didn't agree with everything President Clinton had us doing. But, you follow the orders of the Chain of Command. That is how and why you are free today, because of the service people that have protected our freedoms. This "gentleman" does not deserve the respect or honor of the uniform and bars he wears or the country that is protecting him and his parents.

------------------
Ron
Land of the Free because of the Brave. Most gave some, some gave all.
My imagination is the only limiting factor to my Fiero. Well, there is that money issue.

quote Originally posted by blackrams: It would seem to me that this person is making more of a political statement with his actions, I wonder if he considered submitting his resignation. There have been officers miss movements before, I remember a Lt (just happens to be female) that just for some reason just couldn't get on the plane to Korea about 15 years ago, though this did not happen during time of war, she was allowed to resign. This individual is betting the rest of his future for reasons that don't make much sense to me but, I'd already be there if my orders were cut. As an officier, he is under an even greater commitment than any enlisted person ever thought of being, he is supposed to lead. Not retreat. Even if he does have issues with the President. When President Clinton was the Commander and Chief, there were many changes that I didn't personally approve of. But, he was the boss.

I believe that he asked to resign and they refused to let him. And it's not about the President.

quote Originally posted by Scott-Wa: I believe that he asked to resign and they refused to let him. And it's not about the President.

I haven't seen or heard of this before you indicating such. Where can this be found? I'd be interested to learn more if that is the case.

------------------
Ron
Land of the Free because of the Brave. Most gave some, some gave all.
My imagination is the only limiting factor to my Fiero. Well, there is that money issue.

Scott,
It is of my viewpoint that he is a coward. This is my viewpoint after watching numerous other use similar actions. "Not a just war." "Illegal". BS words to cover up the......."SH!T, I might get shot at and killed for something I don't believe in!" It's not a Soldier's job to believe in the war.

Now worthless POS comment........He's not helping his fellow Soldiers out in Iraq..........WORTHLESS POS.

Blackrams, unfortunately, Falcon4 is a recruit in the Army. Maybe, just maybe, a Drill Sergeant will pound some sense into him when he goes to Basic Training.

Civilian and military law are not one and some do not realize this if they have not bin in the military. All military members signed away there constitutional rights when they joined and it was in black and white.
The way I put it is he has let down the U.S. citizens by not for filling his duty as a military member. this could be looked at just like the draft was done, many of the people that were drafted into the military did not want to be in the war or the military, but they still stood up and shut there mouth and did there time to keep my a$$ alive today, and now I am just paying it back to them by serving my time and doing what ever the military ask of me, just the same as all the others have done for me.
so why is this guy different from any one else in the military right now or from before.

This is some interesting points being discussed so I thought I would chime in myself, being a military man. First as someone has said but it seemed to get over looked. WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH IRAQ. There has been no active declaration of war by congress to that effect. We are at WAR with terrorism and it is often confused due to the belief that there are many terrorists there. So any and all claims to an illegal war by the LT is essential void, he has no legal ground without a declaration of War by congress.

As far as disobeying an unlawful order he can and must do that. Now who has said his deployment to Iraq is unlawful. There are rules in which to discover whether it is an unlawful order and no court in America is going to say that deploying someone to Iraq for this "conflict" is unlawful because it has been decreed by the commander and chief and supported by congress, all legal.

This talk about UN, Geneva Convention and so forth is frustrating to me. In my opinion the UN is nothing but a political machine with little to not bite or moral compass. They have let more people die just to deliberate if they should do something about it while we go in and kick a$$ to help those less fortunate or stop a genocide. It is insane. The Geneva convention is a good guide to how to conduct war but let me ask you the last time you saw an Iraq living by that standard, a lass you will see us doing it and if we don't you get to see all the trials about it. Haven't seen any trials for Al Sader or the like. Maybe we should ask Daniel Pearls family about the rules. Only when both sides are living by the guide should we bring it into question!! I know my military will still watch for it. Over 200 countries signed it and how many actual live by it.

To cap it all up I would just like to say that it is absurd to believe that a LT has the right to say it is unlawful to deploy him to a conflict. He is in the military, my god, we are trained to kill people in over a thousand different ways, where did you think we would go. In the army they tell you right up front for the first two years maybe more you will be a soldier, whether you are a physics or a architect, doesn't matter you will be a soldier. Most definition state" member of a fighting force, usual on foot. What the heck did he expect? He is just causing a mockery of our armed forces and making an a$$ out of himself. Hopefully they deal with him swiftly and severely.

Grim001,

I applaud you sir.

------------------
Please Visit My Fiero Store Thanks!

Grim001,
Well said and accurate, thanks for posting.

------------------
Ron
Land of the Free because of the Brave. Most gave some, some gave all.
My imagination is the only limiting factor to my Fiero. Well, there is that money issue.