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


Conscientious Rejector?

First Lieutenant Ehren Watada still refuses Iraq deployment orders, calling the war illegal. A six-year prison term could result. Preliminary hearings are set for Thursday.

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.
Kevin Sites recently spoke with Lt. Watada about the reasoning behind his decision, the controversy the decision has caused and how he is dealing with the repercussions.

Lt. Watada spoke on the phone from his family's home in Hawaii. Click here (http://javascript%3cb%3e%3c/b%3E:void%28window.open%28%27http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/free?ch=87581&cl=1585703&lang=en%27,%27playerWindow%27,%27width=793,height= 608,scrollbars=no%27%29%29;) to listen to the full audio version of the conversation. A transcript of the interview follows.

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e341/Greene000/watada1.jpg
First Lt. Ehren Watada
Photo courtesy:
Jeff Paterson/thankyoult.org

KEVIN SITES: Now, you joined the Army right after the US was invading Iraq and now you're refusing to go. Some critics might look at this as somewhat disingenuous. You've taken an oath, received training but now you won't fight. Can you explain your rationale behind this?

EHREN WATADA: Sure. I think that in March of 2003 when I joined up, I, like many Americans, believed the administration when they said the threat from Iraq was imminent — that there were weapons of mass destruction all throughout Iraq; that there were stockpiles of it; and because of Saddam Hussein's ties to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorist acts, the threat was imminent and we needed to invade that country immediately in order to neutralize that threat. Since then I think I, as many, many Americans are realizing, that those justifications were intentionally falsified in order to fit a policy established long before 9/11 of just toppling the Saddam Hussein regime and setting up an American presence in Iraq.

SITES: Tell me how those views evolved. How did you come to that conclusion?

WATADA: I think the facts are out there, they're not difficult to find, they just take a little bit of willingness and interest on behalf of anyone who is willing to seek out the truth and find the facts. All of it is in the mainstream media. But it is quickly buried and it is quickly hidden by other events that come and go. And all it takes is a little bit of logical reasoning. The Iraq Survey Group came out and said there were no weapons of mass destruction after 1991 and during 2003. The 9/11 Commission came out and said there were no ties with Iraq to 9/11 or al-Qaeda. The president himself came out and said that nobody in his administration ever suggested that there was a link.

And yet those ties to al-Qaeda and the weapons of mass destruction were strongly suggested. They said there was no doubt there were weapons of mass destruction all throughout 2002, 2003 and even 2004. So, they came out and they say this, and yet they say it was bad intelligence, not manipulated intelligence, that was the problem. And then you have veteran members of the CIA that come out and say, "No. It was manipulated intelligence. We told them there was no WMD. We told them there were no ties to al-Qaeda. And they said that that's not what they wanted to hear."

SITES: Do you think that you could have determined some of this information prior to joining the military — if a lot of it, as you say, was out there? There were questions going into the war whether WMD existed or not, and you seemingly accepted the administration's explanation for that. Why did you do that at that point?

WATADA: Certainly yeah, there was other information out there that I could have sought out. But I put my trust in our leaders in government.

SITES: Was there a turning point for you when you actually decided that this was definitely an illegal war?

WATADA: Certainly. I think that when we take an oath we, as soldiers and officers, swear to protect the constitution — with our lives as necessary — and those constitutional values and laws that make us free and make us a democracy. And when we have one branch of government that intentionally deceives another branch of government in order to authorize war, and intentionally deceives the people in order to gain that public support, that is a grave breach of our constitutional values, our laws, our checks and balances, and separation of power.

SITES: But Lieutenant, was there one specific incident that happened in Iraq or that the administration had said or done at a certain period that [made you say] "I have to examine this more closely"?

WATADA: No, I think that certainly as the war went on, and it was not going well, doubts came up in my mind, but at that point I still was willing to go. At one point I even volunteered to go to Iraq with any unit that was short of junior officers.

SITES: At what point was that?

WATADA: This was in September of 2005. But as soon as I found out, and as I began to read and research more and more that the administration had intentionally deceived the public and Congress over the reasons for going to Iraq, that's when I told myself "there's something wrong here."
"I saw the pain and agony etched upon the faces of all these families of lost soldiers. And I told myself that this needs to stop."— Lt. Ehren Watada

SITES: Was there any kind of personal conviction as well, I mean in terms of exposure to returning soldiers or Marines — the kinds of wounds they suffered, the kinds of stories that they were bringing back with them — did that have any kind of influence or create any factors for you in coming to this decision?

WATADA: Sure, I felt, well, in a general sense I felt that when we put our trust in the government, when we put our lives in their hands, that is a huge responsibility. And we also say that "when we put our lives in your hands, we ask that you not abuse that trust; that you not take us to war over flimsy or false reasons; that you take us to war when it is absolutely necessary." Because we have so much to lose, you know — the soldiers, our lives, our limbs, our minds and our families — that the government and the people owe that to us.

SITES: Was there a fear that played into that? Did you see returning soldiers with lost limbs? Was there a concern for you that you might lose your life going to Iraq?

WATADA: No, that had nothing to do with the issue. The issue here is that we have thousands of soldiers returning. And what is their sacrifice for? For terrorism or establishing democracy or whatever the other reasons are. And I saw the pain and agony etched upon the faces of all these families of lost soldiers. And I told myself that this needs to stop. We cannot have people in power that are irresponsible and corrupt and that keep on going that way because they're not held accountable to the people.

SITES: You know on that note, Lieutenant, let me read you something from a speech that you gave in August to the Veterans for Peace. You had said at one point, "Many have said this about the World Trade Towers: never again. I agree, never again will we allow those who threaten our way of life to reign free. Be they terrorists or elected officials. The time to fight back is now, the time to stand up and be counted is today." Who were you speaking about when you said that?

WATADA: I was speaking about everybody. The American people. That we all have that duty, that obligation, that responsibility to do something when we see our government perpetrating a crime upon the world, or even upon us. And I think that the American people have lost that, that sense of duty. There is no self-interest in this war for the vast majority of the American people. And because of that the American soldiers have suffered.
There really is a detachment from this war, and many of the American people, because there is no draft, or for whatever reason, because taxes haven't been raised, they don't have anything personally to lose or gain with this war, and so they take little interest.

SITES: Do you think President Bush and his advisers are guilty of criminal conduct in the prosecution of this war?

WATADA: That's not something for me to determine. I think it's for the newly-elected congress to determine during the investigations that they should hold over this war, and pre-war intelligence.

SITES: But in some ways you have determined that. You're saying this is an illegal war, and an illegal act usually takes prosecution by someone with criminal intent. Is that correct?

WATADA: Right, and they have taken me to court with that, but they have refused — or it will be very unlikely that the prosecution in the military court will allow me to bring in evidence and witnesses to testify on my behalf that the war is illegal. So therefore it becomes the responsibility of Congress, since the military is refusing to do that. It becomes the responsibility of Congress to hold our elected leaders accountable.

SITES: Now this is the same Congress though that in a lot of ways voted for this war initially. Do you think that they're going to turn around and in some ways say that they were wrong? And hold hearings to determine exactly that, that they made a mistake as well? It seems like a long shot.

WATADA: Right, well I think some in Congress are willing to do that, and some aren't. And that's the struggle, and that's the fight that's going to occur over the next year.

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e341/Greene000/watada2.jpg
Lt. Watada with his mother, Carolyn
Ho, and father, Robert Watada
Photo courtesy:
Jeff Paterson/thankyoult.org

SITES: Let me ask you why you decided to go to the press with this. In this particular case you're the first officer — there may have been other officers that have refused these orders, but you're the first one to really do this publicly. Why did you do that?

WATADA: Because I wanted to explain to the American people why I was taking the stand I was taking — that it wasn't for selfish reasons, it wasn't for cowardly reasons.

You know, I think the most important reason here is to raise awareness among the American people that hey — there's a war going on, and American soldiers are dying every day. Hundreds of Iraqis are dying every day. You need to take interest, and ask yourself where you stand, and what you're willing to do, to end this war, if you do believe that it's wrong — that it's illegal, and immoral. And I think I have accomplished that. Many, many people come up to me and say, "because of you, I have taken an active interest in what's going on over in Iraq."

And also, you know, [I want to] give a little hope and inspiration back to a lot of people. For a long time I was really without hope, thinking that there was nothing I could do about something that I saw, that was so wrong, and so tragic. And I think a lot of people who have been trying to end this war felt the same way — that there was just nothing that they could do. And I think by taking my stand publicly, and stating my beliefs and standing on those beliefs, a lot of people have taken encouragement from that.

SITES: You've said that you had a responsibility to your own conscience in this particular situation. Did you also have a responsibility to your unit as well? I just want to read you a quote from Veterans of Foreign Wars communications director Jerry Newbury. He said "[Lt. Watada] has an obligation to fulfill, and it's not up to the individual officer to decide when he's going to deploy or not deploy. Some other officer will have to go in his place. He needs to think about that." Can you react to that quote?

WATADA: You know, what I'm doing is for the soldiers. I'm trying to end something that is criminal, something that should not have been started in the first place and something that is making America less safe — and that is the Iraq war. By just going there and being willing to participate, and doing my job, or whatever I'm told to do — which actually exacerbates the situation and makes it worse — I would not be serving the best interest of this country, nor the soldiers that I'm serving with. What I'm trying to do is end something, as I said, that's illegal, and immoral, so that all the soldiers can come home and this tragedy can come to an end.
It seems like people and critics make this distinction between an order to deploy and any other order, as if the order to deploy is just something that's beyond any other order. Orders have to be determined on whether they're legal or not. And if the order to deploy to a war that is unlawful, if that is given, then that order itself is unlawful.

SITES: How did your peers and your fellow officers react to your decision?

WATADA: I know that there have been some people within the military who won't agree with my stance, and there have been a lot of members of the Army of all ranks who have agreed with what I've done. And I see it almost every other day, where someone in uniform, or a dependent, approaches me in person, or through correspondence, and thanks me for what I have done, and either supports or respects my stand.

SITES: You've remained on base, and that's been a situation that can't be too comfortable for you. Can you fill us in on what that's been like there?

WATADA: I think that for the most part, people that I interact with closely — I have been moved, I'm no longer in the 3rd Striker Brigade, I'm over in 1st Corps — treat me professionally, politely, but keep their distance. I don't think anybody wants to get involved with the position that I've taken, either way. People approach me in private and give me their support.

SITES: Tell me about the repercussions you face in this court martial.

WATADA: Well I think with the charges that have been applied to me and referred over to a general court martial, I'm facing six years maximum confinement, dishonorable discharge from the army, and loss of all pay and allowances.

STES: Are you ready to deal with all those consequences with this decision?

WATADA: Sure, and I think that's the decision that I made almost a year ago, in January, when I submitted my original letter of resignation. I knew that possibly some of the things that I stated in that letter, including my own beliefs, that there were repercussions from that. Yet I felt it was a sacrifice, and it was a necessary sacrifice, to make. And I feel the same today.

I think that there are many supporters out there who feel that I should not be made an example of, that I'm speaking out for what a lot of Americans are increasingly becoming aware of: that the war is illegal and immoral and it must be stopped. And that the military should not make an example or punish me severely for that.

SITES: Do you think that you made a mistake in joining the military? Your mother and father support you in this decision, and your father during the Vietnam War refused to go to Vietnam as well, but instead joined the Peace Corps. He went to his draft board and said, "let me join the Peace Corps and serve in Peru," which is what he did. Do you think in hindsight that that might have been a better decision for you as well?

WATADA: You know I think that John Murtha came out a few months ago in an interview and he was asked if, with all his experience, in Korea, and Vietnam, volunteering for those wars -- he was asked if he would join the military today. And he said absolutely not. And I think that with the knowledge that I have now, I agree. I would not join the military because I would be forced into a position where I would be ordered to do something that is wrong. It is illegal and immoral. And I would be put into a situation as a soldier to be abused and misused by those in power.

STIES: In your speech in front of the Veterans for Peace you said "the oath we take as soldiers swears allegiance not to one man but to a document of principles and laws designed to protect the people." Can you expand upon that a little bit — what did you mean when you said that?

WATADA: The constitution was established, and our laws are established, to protect human rights, to protect equal rights and constitutional civil liberties. And I think we have people in power who say that those laws, or those principles, do not apply to them — that they are above the law and can do whatever it takes to manipulate or create laws that enable them to do whatever they please. And that is a danger in our country, and I think the war in Iraq is just one symptom of this agenda. And I think as soldiers, as American people, we need to recognize this, and we need to put a stop to it before it's too late.

If I saw that guy I would buy him dinner. I support the troops, but I'm glad someone has the balls to stand up to this crap.

If you protest, everything you have ever said can and will be used against you in a court of law, in the hopes of shutting you up. They want to avoid having the quagmire of having to prove the legality of the war as pertains to marching orders, and are trying to convict on other counts as a consequence. Of course, our current leadership has been really bad at figuring out how to deal with the martyrs. We even managed to turn fucking Saddam Hussein into a martyr. That takes talent. <groan>

If the guy just up and quit that would be bad. But the guy is still serving the military, he just refuses to take orders that he feels are unlawful.

I think he's a puttz. He probably joined JUST SO he could pull this stunt. I'm against this war big time, but this guy signed up for duty AFTER it started. Once you sign on that dotted line, you are COMMITTED, and your job description is to die for your country. That's why it is a VOLUNTEER armed forces.
Ship the bastard over there to serve his time. Fuck him.

The basics of your job are spelled out in the enlistment oath, which goes:


I, (NAME), 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 regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

The bolded parts are key. The Constitution talks about little things like treaties, habeas corpus, etc. The UCMJ uses the qualifiers "lawful" and "unlawful" quite a bit. In fact, the UCMJ says explicitly that members of the military have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders. That doesn't mean they can't be dangerous or lethal. "die for your country" can certainly be a lawful order. But it's rarely that simple. We went to war in Iraq under some false pretenses. It'd be silly for some of our troops to -not- question the lawfulness of orders pertaining to that war.

The basics of your job are spelled out in the enlistment oath, which goes:



The bolded parts are key. The Constitution talks about little things like treaties, habeas corpus, etc. The UCMJ uses the qualifiers "lawful" and "unlawful" quite a bit. In fact, the UCMJ says explicitly that members of the military have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders. That doesn't mean they can't be dangerous or lethal. "die for your country" can certainly be a lawful order. But it's rarely that simple. We went to war in Iraq under some false pretenses. It'd be silly for some of our troops to -not- question the lawfulness of orders pertaining to that war. That's the Oath of Enlistment, he took the Oath of Commisioned Officers (which only differs slightly, but still). Either way this guy is a jerk off, he's putting somebody else in danger because they have to come in and cover for his ass. You took the Oath fuckoff - knowing that after all those benefits, there is probably going to come a time when they call your name for a trip to the sandbox. So shut up and do it.

The article says he requested to go over earlier before he was aware that the pretenses for going to war were fabricated.

The article says he requested to go over earlier before he was aware that the pretenses for going to war were fabricated.Which also happened to be before a civil war erupted and American casualties started to climb. How convenient. Either way, it's not about the reasons for war, it's about the fact that we're already at it. You got kids over there dying everyday, and whenever anybody refuses to go (especially a CO) it doesn't help at all. He put everybody else in his brigade and division in more danger.

Of course, sending more kids over there to die doesn't seem to be helping either. And if this one action hinders sending more kids over there to die, perhaps he's actually saving lives.

I've got no problem with someone honestly standing up for what they believe in and from this article it appears that's what he's doing. He hasn't gone AWOL and he's ready to serve his term prison if that's what comes.

Even if he's wrong, he's doing it the right way IMO.

Which also happened to be before a civil war erupted and American casualties started to climb. How convenient. Either way, it's not about the reasons for war, it's about the fact that we're already at it. You got kids over there dying everyday, and whenever anybody refuses to go (especially a CO) it doesn't help at all. He put everybody else in his brigade and division in more danger.

That's rediculous. Nobody is going to join the military and then refuse to go because it's dangerous. That would be an incredible waste of time to go thru all that training (which I am sure is not fun) and then not want to go into danger. Especially since he joined during war time, and volunteered to go over there. You can't tell me it wasn't dangerous when he wanted to go.

How did he put everyone else in danger? If he went over there and then bailed you put them in danger. He kept himself from going into a war that his heart wasn't in. To me it would be more of a danger to go over there and go thru the motions when you don't believe in the war. That get's people killed.

That's rediculous. Nobody is going to join the military and then refuse to go because it's dangerous. That would be an incredible waste of time to go thru all that training (which I am sure is not fun) and then not want to go into danger. Especially since he joined during war time, and volunteered to go over there. You can't tell me it wasn't dangerous when he wanted to go.

How did he put everyone else in danger? If he went over there and then bailed you put them in danger. He kept himself from going into a war that his heart wasn't in. To me it would be more of a danger to go over there and go thru the motions when you don't believe in the war. That get's people killed.You clearly know jackshit about the military bud. He was trained to do a job with the people around him. By refusing to go, somebody else needs to cover him. That person is often less qualified (if qualified at all) in said field.

I wish we could all just quit when our heart isn't in something, I'm sure the world would be in even more fantastic shape today.

Keep buying dinners for real American heroes like this guy.

Are you trying to say that if he thought the war sucked and he went over there thinking the war was total BS every day that he wouldn't be putting soldiers in danger? Yeah right. He's going to think twice about every order because he thinks the whole war is total BS. People in situations like that have to be totally dedicated to what they are doing because lives are on the line.

How can you equate quitting jobs here to a life and death situation? i can go to work and fudge it all day and it doesn't hurt anyone. Not everyone can pretend to be interested in their work, including soldiers.

Are you trying to say that if he thought the war sucked and he went over there thinking the war was total BS every day that he wouldn't be putting soldiers in danger? Yeah right. He's going to think twice about every order because he thinks the whole war is total BS. People in situations like that have to be totally dedicated to what they are doing because lives are on the line.

How can you equate quitting jobs here to a life and death situation? i can go to work and fudge it all day and it doesn't hurt anyone. Not everyone can pretend to be interested in their work, including soldiers.Still, you know jackshit about the military. What do you think that 9 weeks of BT and however many weeks of AIT is for? You're taught to get the job done, PERIOD. Nobody gives a fuck if you're having a bad day or you don't agree with so-and-so. It doesn't fucking matter. You have your orders, complete them. You took the fucking Oath, shut the fuck up.

So I guess all the soldiers that feel the same way and support him know jackshit about the military too then?

Can you honestly say you'd put your life on the line for someone lying to you?

So I guess all the soldiers that feel the same way and support him know jackshit about the military too then?

Can you honestly say you'd put your life on the line for someone lying to you?LOL. You won't find many allies for this dingleberry in the services. I mean it's not like I'd know, because, well it's not like I'm in the military myself, or neither is my brother, or my dad didn't serve in Vietnam. Oh that's right, I am an Airman, my brother is a Marine, and my dad is a Veteran. 95% of my friends wear a fucking uniform you turd. He's an embarrassment to us all, and while he didn't run to Canada like most of the scum he's still putting his buddies in danger. My brother, my father, and I all put our lives on the line for one thing - the United States of America - and if you think for one minute that there isn't enemies of the United States over there and in Afghanistan, then you're still living in the fantasy land that is college.

That's the Oath of Enlistment, he took the Oath of Commisioned Officers (which only differs slightly, but still).
Hmmm... I thought that as a cadet or trainee, you took the enlistment oath right away, then you took the commissioned officers one upon getting your commission.


Either way this guy is a jerk off, he's putting somebody else in danger because they have to come in and cover for his ass. You took the Oath fuckoff - knowing that after all those benefits, there is probably going to come a time when they call your name for a trip to the sandbox. So shut up and do it.
One of the great things about our country is that we don't have military coups. Unelected Gerald Ford became president and left the presidency without guns blazing and tanks/troops surrounding 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Part of what makes this possible is having a military with a functioning brain obligated to obey the law, not simply the whims of whoever is at the top of the ladder this week. Given the bullshit that's been clearly going on, I'm not at all surprised if some troops question what the fuck is going on. That's especially true of the officers who are taught stuff about how to wage a war (ya gotta have a goal, know what side you're on, etc.) and see that Iraq is nothing like what they've been taught.

I see the military is trying to raise other sorts charges against this guy, in an attempt to get him for something else without really going at the heart of the "lawful orders" matter head-on. If he's disobeying a clearly-lawful order, why isn't he in jail pending all this?

Hmmm... I thought that as a cadet or trainee, you took the enlistment oath right away, then you took the commissioned officers one upon getting your commission.While this is techinically true, the Oath he should be fulfilling is the CO Oath. Edit- after doing some research I found out that he went into the OCS as a civilian. I don't know much about OCS, especially for a civilian, so I can't confirm if he took the Oath of Enlistment first.


One of the great things about our country is that we don't have military coups. Unelected Gerald Ford became president and left the presidency without guns blazing and tanks/troops surrounding 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Part of what makes this possible is having a military with a functioning brain obligated to obey the law, not simply the whims of whoever is at the top of the ladder this week. Given the bullshit that's been clearly going on, I'm not at all surprised if some troops question what the fuck is going on. That's especially true of the officers who are taught stuff about how to wage a war (ya gotta have a goal, know what side you're on, etc.) and see that Iraq is nothing like what they've been taught.And the other part is thate we're taught loyalty to the United States and what it stands for, not to any single man. When we die, our caskets are draped in the flag of the United States of America, not the President's flag. The thought of Gerald Ford (or any US President past and present) asking for military support to hold his position of power and the military actually accepting it is laughable. While we're taught to always obey, it goes against the very grain of what we fight for. There is a limit Mxy, we're obedient but we're not mindless drones.

Part of being in the military is giving up some of your freedoms so that others can have it. He knew that going in. Anybody who has enlisted knows all the sillyass questions they ask you 20 times and then threaten you with death just before you take your Oath.

And it should be pointed out that I don't necessarily support the war in Iraq, and adding more troops isn't the way to go in my opinion. But at the same time, I leave January 30th for my first trip to the sandbox and I'll do it just the same. There are enemies there, and there are people there that need help - both American and Iraqi. Are we truly helping anyone? Fuck if I know, we'll see in a few decades. All I know is that part of the world is teeming with people who not only hate the United States, but would give their lives willingly to see it fall. They were there before we invaded, and they'll be there after we leave - hopefully a lot of less of them though.

In the words of a evil and brutally honest man, "Blood alone moves the wheels of history."

One big reason that area has so many people who hate us is because we're over there under false pretenses, renditioning and|or torturing their people, deploying without a real plan, backing a moron in Maliki. Their next generation of terrorists feels justified because they had electricity, running water, more stability, and less people dying under secular Saddam (a.k.a. the Middle East's newest religious martyr). Bush's decisions has done so much more effective a job of creating terrorists than Osama ever could.

In the words of that same evil and brutally honest man, "The truth is that men are tired of liberty." Mussolini's belief in the inevitability of violence isn't shared by all.

Good luck in the sandbox, dude. You'll need it, and you have my prayers.

Even if he's wrong, he's doing it the right way IMO.

Exactly. I'm willing to bet this guy has a good record of service up to this point.

The problem with this is that when you join the military, you sacrifice many rights. One of those rights you sacrifice is to decide what you deem as a "just war".
You know GOING IN that you may be asked to sling a weapon and shoot people or drop bombs on them. The choice is not yours anymore. You gave that up when you took the oath. It is an example of people who look at the military as a job, or join for their own selfish reasons other than to defend their country. You may join to get training, and to prepare for a better life afterward. However, while in, you make the decision that you are willing to lay down your life for your country, right or wrong, and you know that that decision is not yours anymore.
The time to protest is before you join.
You don't pick the war you fight in. You don't pick your own enemy. You don't decide who to shoot at. It is decided for you, and you accept that when you place your hand over your heart and accept the offer of the United States to sink alot of money into you and to provide you with a livelihood for X amount of years.
It is pure cowardice not to back up your committment, because no one asked you to join. Your time for heroics is to use this as a platform to denounce war afterward, after you have witnessed the evil that men do, and after you have done your part to return the service that many people have supported you with.

"just war" is one thing. Legally, we're not at "war". Bush asked for war, but only "force" was authorized in Iraq, not "war", though it was tied to the War Powers Act. Heaven forbid we legally call it a war. <groan>

"lawful order" is another matter.

My sense is that the orders are lawful, at least by U.S. law. (They're clearly illegal in terms of U.N./international law.) But, the military hasn't acted as if they were lawful orders. They didn't put the fucker in jail pending trial for violating a lawful order. Instead, they've gone to great lengths to charge him with extraneous crap. Why the fear? Hell, one of the judges involved doesn't think he can question the lawfulness of the war...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003510450_watada5m.html


Within the next week, military Judge Lt. Col. John Head is expected to issue a written decision on whether to hold a special hearing on evidence about the U.S. conduct of the war. At Thursday's hearing, he appeared troubled by the prospect of putting the war on trial in his courtroom.

"Where do I have the authority, and where is the case law that gives me the authority to discuss — to consider — whether the war in Iraq, or any war for that matter, is lawful?" Head asked.

...even though the UCMJ specifies that everyone mustn't obey unlawful orders.

Somewhere along the way, someone needs to evaluate what's lawful and what's not. Our courts, including the Supreme Court, have rejected all efforts to evaluate the legality of the war, even though there's some legitimate legal questions (especially because of just how the Iraqi Resolution is tied into the War Powers Act). The most our Supreme Court has said is in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, which isn't enough. It's fucked. Hell, the firmest legal reasoning for our current presence I've read involves treating it as a "continuation" of the Gulf War from 1990.

I want all three branches of our government to buy into what our "war" is or isn't, explicitly, without a whole lot of deflection or other bullshit. Is that unreasonable?

See: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060717/brechersmith

Good luck in the sandbox, dude. You'll need it, and you have my prayers.Thanks man, I appreciate it. But those are better used on my guy's like my brother, who are doing 2+ tours.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1587056,00.html

Thanks for the update Mxy. That's a pretty important case for them to possibly blow like that. Whether you agree with him or not, this case is pretty major because it sets a precident.