|
|
|
|
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/3/2007 11:00:57 PM | ^^^ From my understanding of the situation (and like I said, I don't know all of it, so I could be mistaken), he enlisted with the intention of going to Iraq. Then, like many in the US, he came to the belief that the US invaded on false pretenses, and he believes now that it is an unlawful war.
This all reminds me of the surviving brother of the football player who died in Iraq from friendly fire (there's a thread about him somewhere on this site). They both went into the Army Rangers to fight in Iraq, which they did. The surviving brother now believes he and his brother were conned by the government, and disagrees with it passionately. It seems that the main difference is that this soldier arrived at his conclusions before deployment, rather than after having served in Iraq.
Anyone here seen the movie "Born On The Fourth of July"? It is all about this sort of thing. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/3/2007 11:05:28 PM | Sombient,
When you enlist in the army you are not necessarily enlisting to fight in a particular war. On the basis of what I have read, Watada's decision to enlist wasn't to fight in Iraq per se, but to help protect the U.S. Correct me if I'm wrong. Here's a quote from a Times article:
"The elder Watada said his son joined the Army to help protect the country after 9/11. But when his superiors told him to study up on the Iraq war, Watada concluded that U.S. officials launched it in violation of U.S. and international laws."
Even if he did enlist to fight in Iraq, if he later discovered the war was illegal, he could refuse to participate on those grounds. And any legal contract he has entered into when enlisting does not obligate him to violate U.S. or international law. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/3/2007 11:08:37 PM |
Msg 25 asks about the legal contract document. It can be found here:
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/l/blcontract.htm
Thank you. Based on my understanding of section 9 (a-1), he should not be punished for not going to Iraq.
He joined after the war started. You do not enlist during wartime expecting that you will not be sent to the battle front.
You do not enlist when your country is already engaged in active warfare, in a war with which you have moral or legal question of its validity.
When he joined, he believed Bush's claims about Iraq being a threat, and joined in good faith to serve his country. Later, he realized the threat was a lie. He was still willing to serve, just not in Iraq. Based on this, I hope that there is a trial, but a fair one. If it is fair, it should be realized that the breach of contract lies on the shoulders of the Bush administration, not this officer. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/3/2007 11:22:34 PM | That is a *legal* obligation.
You make a lot of the legal obligations of enlistment but overlook the moral and legal objection to the war itself.
Certainly he joined after the war started but, that was in 2003, the same year he joined and before the full extent of the Whitehouse's deception was understood and accepted by the majority of the US population.
He did not refuse until June 2006, after the fullness of that deception was well known.
It should be remembered that the numbers showed that even after the deception had become obvious a majority of serving soldiers were still under the impression that 9/11 and Iraq were directly connected. That is a condition which ceased to exist by June 2006, by which time even the military were well aware of the extent of the deception.
We may be able to criticize him for not being sharp enough to realize that before he enlisted but not for taking a stand once the reality of it had sunk in. And make no mistake, he is not evading the consequences of that decision but neither is he backing down from it.
edit:
newsocks - He is not refusing to serve his overall obligation, simply refusing to take up arms against those who the US did not have the justification to wage war against. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/3/2007 11:23:00 PM | I joined before the war. I am against war and I got stuck in this war several times. One thing I do believe is that America is more than it's leaders. America is the people and beliefs that we all share. If you decide to serve you're serving more than just the current administration. I joined when Clinton was still president yet I have no problem serving for Bush because I know that he is temporary. What happens if we get a good president and a good administration but everyone has left the military because we didn't believe in the cause Bush had. Like I said America is more than this administration. I think the Lt's cause would have been better served if he waited till his contract was up and then spoke out Vehemently against the war. I think if more officers and enlisted do that then we'll do far more to turn the tide of public opinion. Of course that's just my opinion on the matter.
I think war is and should always be the last resort and as we all know that they had this whole war preplanned. We know this from****Cheney's energy meeting in March of 2001 where they divvied up Iraq in a paper titled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oil Fields." Bush spoke several times about wanting to go to war with Iraq in 1999. He had said he wanted to give Saddam a "message" about WMD and if he dared defy him that he would see the repercussions. It's obvious Iraq was preplanned but 911 gave Bush the perfect catalyst to go through with his plans. This isn't just conspiracy nutball theory stuff, this can all be verified. I think Bush's response to a reporter about his illegal wiretapping says it all, I'm sorry Mr President but the constitution is not just a "piece of paper." Here's the lowdown on that, "Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a godd#@$d piece of paper!"
Anyway my point in all of this is even knowing all of these things that this administration has done I still will fulfill my contract. I do so proudly because I know America is more than this evil leadership we have now. America is a good country with good people and they are who I fight for. Our founding father's deserve that much, the American people deserve that much. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/3/2007 11:25:34 PM | As a former U.S. soldier myself, I can tell you that first and foremost a soldier has a responsibility not to obey what he sees as illegal orders. An order to deploy to a war that is illegal is an illegal order.
For an interview with First Lieutenant Ehren Watada, please see:
http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs19056 | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/3/2007 11:35:18 PM |
I think the Lt's cause would have been better served if he waited till his contract was up and then spoke out Vehemently against the war.
I disagree with this statement, but regardless, your post indicates you are honourable and decent, a credit to the uniform you wear. It is people like you that give hope that the US will get by this terrible series of events that Bush and his ilk have started. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/3/2007 11:42:56 PM | | You may be right, there is some validity to that line of thinking because he is bringing more attention to the cause by this action. It's a tough one to work through but I do believe that when all is said and done and we have better people in the White House that we're still going to need a military, I just hope there's enough people out there left to do it is all. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 12:43:18 AM | Some good points Gents,
Msquared, Even if your perception of the war changes after you join, you still have an obligation to fulfill your contract to the military... regardless of political views etc.
It's essential to view the military as a precision instrument that is used by politicians. My analogies really are weak but...
The military is like that scalpal used by a doctor, the patient is the war and the doctor is the politician. The doctor takes the scalpal to operate on a patient suffering from a gunshot wound to the head (in this case goes to war). The Scalpal agrees after all it's job is to perform surgery right? Halfway through the operation, the scalpal learns that this patient is really a murderer who killed seven children and then turned the gun on himself. Now... is it acceptable for the scalpal to say "no more operating, let the patient die, I was lied to about what I was doing; he's not really worth saving!"?
Point being, the military is that instrument that MUST keep itself above the political rhetoric that goes on, in order to maintain effectiveness, even if this means going against some of the beliefs of individuals... All so long as individual orders are LAWFUL.
That said, next point....
Where this international law issue gets murky is when you try to have it override national laws regarding the military. I agree that in extreme circumstances such as genocide (which are unlawful orders in western militaries anyway) that international law must be recognized... HOWEVER this is very dangerous because it would have the potential to be used in other situations where intervention IS necessary.
Consider a hypothetical, Rwanda Episode II in which mass killings are taking place and an intervention is organized.
A right wing and very outspoken soldier says "I'm sorry, I can't be part of this peace keeping force because we're violating another country's sovereignty in a war of agression when this country posed no threat to us directly" (as is the argument against the Iraq war)
NewWayHome writes:
"An order to deploy to a war that is illegal is an illegal order."
Again, lets apply this to a situation such as Rwanda where intervention is required:
Soldier says: "No I'm not going to Rwanda, I won't step in ,because this is a clear violation of national sovereignty and an illegal act."
As soldiers we have the right to refuse direct and illegal orders such as "Round up and kill all members of xxxxxx ethnicity" or "fire on that marketplace" when clearly there's no threat. But we don't have the right to say "This was is illegal, therefore any further order pertaining to it is also illegal". What if you were ordered as part of a medical unit to ship out to Iraq in order to provide medical treatment to wounded children? Arguments about illegal orders in an illegal war start to break down then!
You can't be selective.
Yes Lt's lack experience and must rely on their Sergeants and Warrants for information (I'm a Canadian Forces dude so our ranks are a little off) yet at the end of the day, the Lt is still the man in charge of the platoon. He's still gotta bark out those orders and plan. Lieutenant up here is pronounced, Left-tenant..
The counter argument for this being an illegal war is that the UN explicitly told Iraq "Comply or face severe/serious consequences". One could argue that soldiers are in fact simply enforcing these severe/serious consequences and therefore ARE within legal limits.
You see these examples illustrate just how MURKY politics are and show why it is so important that the military personel are not to get involved with it.
Back to my scalpal, imagine not only the doctor having to decide what to do in an operation, but at every step having the Scalpal dissent and argue with his decision and then refuse to perform its job because it doesn't agree. The military MUST be that reliable, instrument that is ABOVE all this murky and confusing political rhetoric.
And yes, sometimes the doctor DOES make mistakes with his scalpal and with tragic results. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 12:57:31 AM | Back to my scalpal, imagine not only the doctor having to decide what to do in an operation, but at every step having the Scalpal dissent and argue with his decision and then refuse to perform its job because it doesn't agree. The military MUST be that reliable, instrument that is ABOVE all this murky and confusing political rhetoric.
Consider:
The sugeon is told by an internist that the patient has a life-threatening tumor, the scalpal is told to learn about the tumor. While investigating, the scalpal discovers that the internist and the surgeon have been unnecessarilly cutting open patients, and infecting them, the infections spread to the patients family, the internist and surgeon have been doing this on the directions of the hospital CEO, whose priority is NOT the patient.
The scalpal is told to do what it's told, is it bound by the hierarchy if it has free will, and knowledge of wrong-doing?
Or, should it be bound by the oath that the surgeon and internist have taken:
Never to do deliberate harm to anyone for anyone else's interest.
IF ....it can refuse to "do deliberate harm to anyone for others interest"? | |
|
Chosun
|
Joined: 11/4/2006
Msg: 36 | |
| |
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 1:13:04 AM | | I see one problem with this. Of course it's obvious what I say but I say it anyway. The scalpel has no brain, it has no choice in what it does. Now while the soldier has a brain as far as matters of policy go he is not meant to push his will one way or another. To have an effective army he is to do as he is told. Now of course you have the Nuremberg argument but really that point is moot. The majority of German's were not in the service at that time. If you wanted to change the path that Germany took in the early thirties then having soldiers do what what right and not what was told to them wouldn't have changed the path Germany took. There would be plenty of soldiers to take their place where they came from. The way to change Germany's fate would have been within the will of the people. Hitler captivated his people and they followed him in droves. From day one with the fire in German Parliament building in 1933 Hitler started using fear as a driving force. It was those "communists" that threatened the German "Homeland." Really it was that fire that helped Hitler rise to power. The fire lit by a rogue fanatical, yes communist but not a representation of all communists. This was the catalyst that caused the fear to take hold of the German people. Therefore you had Hitler's rise to power. My point being it's the will of the people that you must really change if you want policy to change. The solder is and should be the tool that the government uses to fulfill needed tasks. We need to change the will of the court of public opinion. This is where true change lies. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 2:16:32 AM | He also could have registered as a "conscientious objector" and went to Iraq and served his time out as a medic or any of a 100 other jobs that wouldn't have required him to kill anyone that wasn't threatening his own life directly.
The thing that bothers me the most about all of this is that he did join after the war and got his bennies and then decided that the war in Iraq was illegal and that he didn't want to go. He knew when he signed the recruitment contract exactly what could happen.
He should have enlisted as a conscientious objector. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 3:49:48 AM | He also could have registered as a "conscientious objector" and went to Iraq and served his time out as a medic or any of a 100 other jobs that wouldn't have required him to kill anyone that wasn't threatening his own life directly.
He's not a conscientious objector because he does not oppose all wars, he is not against killing, in fact he requested deployment to Afghanistan.
As his lawyer noted, Watada repeatedly looked for ways out of this confrontation with the military. When he realized he could not allow himself to deploy to Iraq, Watada asked to be sent to Afghanistan, a war he supports because it has a clear connection to an enemy that attacked the US.
In his own words:
First, the war was based on false pretenses. If the president tells us we are there to destroy Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, and there are none, why are we there? Then the president said Saddam had ties to al-Qaeda and 9/11. That allegation has been proven to be false too. So why are we going there? The president says we're there to promote democracy, and to liberate the Iraqi people. That isn't happening either.
Second, the Iraq war is not legal according to domestic and international law. It violates the Constitution and the War Powers Act, which limits the president in his role as commander in chief from using the armed forces in any way he sees fit. The UN Charter, the Geneva Convention, and the Nuremberg principles all bar wars of aggression.
Finally, the occupation itself is 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. There is no justification for why we are there or what we are doing.
- Ehren Watada | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 4:57:25 AM | I am an officer in the US Army. So here is my two-cents.
The man's actions are deplorable. I fervently hope he spends many years at Leavenworth. I pretty much agree with the sentiments expressed above. Just thought that as an Army officer, I needed to express my disgust at this man, and my embarrassment that he is (or, more likely, was) a fellow officer.
As an aside, *many* soldiers volunteer for Afghanistan and most of the soldiers I know would prefer to go to Afghanistan.
Excuse me, I'm gonna go shine my rank, its a little tarnished from reading about this guy. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 5:13:27 AM | The fact of the matter is that it is an illegal war waged by the rich and powerful in the U.S for oil. The oil belongs to the Iraqi people not the U.S. The decisions by the U.S not to diversify from their dependency on foreign oil has made them prone to stupid errors in foreign policy.
Over 1.5M Iraqis have died since the food for aid programme and the attack of 9/11 was an attack on the IMF and World Bank...now with over 3,000 Americans killed and 25,000 seriously wounded Americans should be marching in the street in protest over an illegal war. Money has no conscience!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 6:36:41 AM | I might agree with certain cases, especially with someone who has served in theatre. If he enlisted when war was declared - lock him up. There's simply no excuse for that breech of contract.
Now, let's say he was in a National Guard outfit, for example. Let's say he had signed up long before the war was even thought to be coming. His contract with the National Guard would be to expect to serve inside his country primarily, and then to only see overseas duty when extreme circumstances (like a world war) might occur.
Looking at the Guard's charter (The Constitution), which is what soldier pledge to uphold, it's very clear that the National Guard is to be used primarily within US borders.
1) Article I, Section 8; Clause 15
The Congress shall have Power ... To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions
4) Article I, Section 10 Clause 3
"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
6) Article IV, Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Guard
Now, had he been deployed to Iraq on an extended tour (and with a bad experience there) - I'd be more inclined to support him.
In the regular armed forces, unless he was directly involved in Iraq and was basing it on first hand knowledge of some incredible wrong that wasn't being addressed - I can't.
He signed, and as an officer his first duty is to his country - and right behind that, to his men.
He's failed both here, from what I understand. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 7:36:52 AM | Just as the US claimed at Nuremberg when executing German war criminals (albeit only certain selected ones with no knowledge of rocket science, nuclear weapons or jet aviation), some "marching orders" take priority over the ones given by the nation one lives in. If he or she sees the nation is fighting a war which conflicts with their moral convictions, they have the duty to resist.
He did the right thing. I hope that regardless of how much others shout in his ear, he does his higher duty.
It takes alot more courage not to kill sometimes than it does to kill.
This nation once had a draft which threatened people with up to five years in prison if they didn't go into the military. Although 591,000 resisted that during the Viet Nam war, there were many others who thought the war was wrong but didn't follow their conscience and did the easy thing; which was to report for duty. There were many others who answered the call of duty because they believed in their country.
Nonetheless, it was a purposeless war, just like Iraq. The same conditions exist today.
Far be it from me to slander anyone who's going to Iraq or is IN Iraq and believes it's the right thing for the US to do; but we know that many don't believe that and are only responding to a threat posed by the US government.
What would you think if these people were German soldiers during WWII? | |
|
e-wok
|
Joined: 9/25/2006
Msg: 44 | |
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 7:38:47 AM | Has this soldier fought yet? Why did he go into the Army in the first place?
At first glance, that might be a very good question in deed and would suggest
something; however, the long answer is that the army EXPLOITS the
poor and the hopeless in America. Sometimes the only means to a
higher education is by enlistment and THIS is the bait. I'm guessing
that the American gov't does not foster higher-learning for those
who do not choose to take the Army route and can't afford university
by other means. And I do see American Army commercials up here
and they certainly peddle the University benifits - ALOT. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 8:12:02 AM | http://thankyoult.live.radicaldesigns.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=41&Itemid=1
Lt. Watada is the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse deployment to the war in Iraq. By refusing to participate in the on-going Iraq war and occupation, Lt. Watada joins a growing number of high ranking military officers, West Point graduates, and current and former members of the armed services who have expressed their opposition to the actions of the United States in Iraq.
Judy Linehan, of Military Families Speak Out said, “As the mother of an officer who deployed to Iraq with Lt Ehren Watada’s Stryker Brigade in their first mission, I know the human cost of war intimately. I stand in solidarity with Lt Watada as he breaks ranks with a Commander-in-Chief who has flouted international law with impunity in the prosecution of this illegal war and occupation of an unarmed country. The lieutenant’s quiet resolve and quest for truth facing into our government’s fabricated deceptions carry hope to a world that trusts in the rule of law. Thank you, Lt Watada, for your courageous stand.”
Lt. Ehren Watada has picked up the public endorsement of a retired Army colonel and diplomat who also contends the war there is illegal.
Speaking at University Lutheran Church in Seattle, retired Col. Ann Wright said Monday night that the artillery-targeting officer has the right to disobey "illegal orders."
Under principles established during the Nuremberg trials after World War II, she noted, people have an obligation to oppose a government that is conducting a war of aggression.
"The country of Iraq did nothing to the United States of America," said Wright, who resigned from the U.S. Foreign Service in 2003 because of the war.
Just as with the IDF (Israel), more and more military personnel are getting a conscience … I admire that.
It's good to know that while the Commander in Chief does not … REPEAT, does not have a conscience, at least the soldiers can be admired for having a conscience about "illegal wars".
 | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 8:50:44 AM | ewok123 says, "At first glance, that might be a very good question in deed and would suggest something; however, the long answer is that the army EXPLOITS the
poor and the hopeless in America. Sometimes the only means to a
higher education is by enlistment and THIS is the bait. I'm guessing
that the American gov't does not foster higher-learning for those
who do not choose to take the Army route and can't afford university
by other means. And I do see American Army commercials up here
and they certainly peddle the University benifits - ALOT."
As a native Hawaiian he was entitled to a basically free education at university. They likely would have paid his living expenses as well. Plus he could have done as everyone else does that really wants to go and applied for the grants and student loans to go to university. That is no excuse for his signing up and then refusing to do the job that he signed a contract to do. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 9:14:09 AM | Links to opinions of legality over the US/UK Iraq War:
http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.htm
Note the article dates. This topic was hotly debated in the press (on TV and in print), domestic and abroad. These were published well before this young man enlisted.
If he claims ignorance of legality of the war, his defense will be shot down. These questions should have been asked before he enlisted and took the enlistment oath.
This military trial will not touch the core legal issues - nor can they, as this is an issue for . Military men of far higher rank (generals) and exemplary career have resigned over these issues.
International Court Findings:
International Criminal Court investigation
Full article: The International Criminal Court and the 2003 invasion of Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Criminal_Court_and_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq
Many parties submitted complaints to the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) alleging that the invasion of Iraq was an act of illegal aggression and that various war crimes had been committed.
In a letter dated February 9, 2006, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Luis Moreno-Ocampo wrote "the International Criminal Court has a mandate to examine the conduct during the conflict, but not whether the decision to engage in armed conflict was legal. As the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, I do not have the mandate to address the arguments on the legality of the use of force or the crime of aggression". — This is because member countries to the ICC cannot be tried for a war of aggression as it was agreed in the Rome Statute that a definition has to be agreed upon first. This is not to be expected before 2009 at the earliest. It would however be possible to obtain an advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice.
As regards the allegations of willful killing or inhuman treatment of civilians, Luis Moreno-Ocampo concluded that there was a reasonable basis to believe that crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court had been committed, namely willful killing and inhuman treatment. He explained that the information available did support a reasonable basis for an estimated 4 to 12 victims of willful killing and a limited number of victims of inhuman treatment, totaling in all less than 20 persons. But the crimes did not have sufficient gravity to come under Article 8.1 and 53.1.a of the Rome Statute.
Luis Moreno-Ocampo also noted that "the available information provided a reasonable basis with respect to a limited number of incidents of war crimes by nationals of States Parties, but not with respect to any particular incidents of indirect participation in war crimes." This means he did not find a reasonable basis to proceed against nationals of States Party to the Rome Statute on the basis of complicity in any war crimes carried out by non state parties (The United States), but it is not, as such, a finding that war crimes were carried out by non state parties. Luis Moreno-Ocampor did not express a conclusion on that matter since that was not within his competence.
Letter, PDF document:
http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/organs/otp/OTP_letter_to_senders_re_Iraq_9_February_2006.pdf | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 9:31:14 AM |
Stand with Lt. Ehren Watada
"My fellow soldiers are fighting and dying in Iraq and their families are suffering because of the lies and deceptions crafted by the Bush Administration. The Iraq war is not only a crime against domestic and international law but [it] is a terrible moral injustice against the Iraqi people." Lt. Ehren Watada
As the first Army officer to publicly speak out against the war and refuse deployment to Iraq, Lt Watada will be punished by the U.S. Army with a maximum six years in prison.
For more information, go to: www.thankyoult.org
Wonder what took em so long. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 9:45:00 AM |
Note the article dates. This topic was hotly debated in the press (on TV and in print), domestic and abroad. These were published well before this young man enlisted.
If he claims ignorance of legality of the war, his defense will be shot down. These questions should have been asked before he enlisted and took the enlistment oath.
You are talking about a 'lag time' of, for the most part, 3 months. For many (even most) Americans these were esoteric issues that seemed to fly in the face of the Whitehouse's justifications and for the most part deal with the matter of UN Resolution 1441 but not the WMD/terrorism/9-11 deception.
Do not forget that, at that time, the majority of Americans, including the majority of Congress, bought into the Whitehouse line and felt the invasion was justified as a reaction to the 9-11 attacks/WMD threat. When faced with the discrepancy between UN inspectors saying "saddam does not have WMDs" and the Whitehouse saying "Saddam does have WMDs and here are the pictures and proof" the majority of Americans accepted the Whitehouse version. It was many months after the invasion that the full extent of the deception became clear and many months after that before the majority view began to change (even today a significant minority do not believe any deception occurred).
So, on this point
If he claims ignorance of legality of the war, his defense will be shot down. These questions should have been asked before he enlisted and took the enlistment oath.
It is a little difficult to fault a young man in his early twenties for not being more astute than the majority of his peers and Americans in general. Believing the Whitehouse's deception merely places him in the company of the majority of Americans at the time. It is most disingenuous, and unreasonable, to expect that he would draw conclusions or ask questions that the majority of the population wasn't drawing or asking.
It could even be argued that, if the Whitehouse's deception played a significant role in his decision to enlist, the government itself voided his contract because it occurred under false pretenses, with deliberate deception and a failure of full disclosure. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/4/2007 9:49:04 AM | As a civilian, a believer of free speech, a believer of democracy, and a believer of freedom of personal choice, I applaud this young Lt. for standing up for himself and against a cause he doesn't believe in.
As former military, I believe he gave up his right to express his personal opinions when he signed up for the army.
The military is not a job. It's a way of life. If you don't follow your orders, people can die. (people die in wars regardless of who's following orders but that's beside the point.)
If his unit was slated to go, he should have gone. Sure, he may not believe in the cause. It's not his job to believe in the cause. It's his job to follow orders. I think executing him would be a little harsh, but prison for 6 years is what the going rate is for what he decided to do.
If I were in his position, I would hope that I would go, regardless of my feelings for this war. If I didn't believe in the cause, I would do my best to fix things while I was there. Try to bring peace to the people in Iraq. Do my best to show the Iraqi people that my country cares for their well being.
Who knows? Maybe their will be more deserters. Maybe even a full scale mutiny. I can't say if that will be a bad thing or a good thing. All I know is that the US Army has a lot of cleaning up to do. I don't envy them.
Besides, at this point, if he gets away with not going to Iraq with no prison sentence, The US might as well pull every single soldier out of Iraq, and put Bush on trial.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!! Like that's ever going to happen! | |
|
|
| Page 2 of 20
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 |
|
Home
login 
