|
|
|
|
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/6/2007 10:38:39 AM |
The last time I checked, the Supreme Court, which is the FINAL authority on the interpretation of law and the ONLY authority on the interpretation of constitutionality...
The only real direct participation that you, as a citizen, are entitled to, is the right to vote for your congressional representatives.
Your interpretation is so narrow as to be wrong. In fact the Constitution grants to the people the right to determine law and interperet the Constitution. This is the main reason the Constitution preserves the right of the people to do so through both election and popular petition. The point of Congress is to ensure that the will of the people is laid out in law and under the Constitution and the point of the Supreme Court is to ensure that the laws of the land are consistent with the will of the people as contained in the Constitution. It can be argued, and has been by no less than Justices of the Supreme Court, that the Constitution goes so far as to grant the people the authority to remove the government by force of arms should they (the people) determine it necessary due to the actions of the government (as in the people determine the government is acting illegally or unconstitutionally). | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/6/2007 11:41:36 AM | | usma, you are right the supreme court has not done a damn thing about this administrations "policies", however in an overwhelming defeat of YOUR sorry ass do nothing congress the American people have spoken... let the investigations begin.... I have a feeling the shit is going to hit the fan. Also, being stationed in Iraq gives you absolutely no insight into the geopolitical processes at work in Iraq, an education gives you that something neither you nor Bush have. Furthermore, I love all of these forty something women who have never served and never will throwing around the nomenclature of coward having never fired an m-16 themselves, hilarious. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/6/2007 12:42:42 PM |
Although, I assure you that even if, through some process, the war in iraq was found to be illegal, watada would STILL stand trial for his actions.
I'm certain he will. I am also certain that he fully expected to from the beginning and I don't see anything to show he didn't.
One man's voice in the wilderness.
However, if you think that the people don't have the right to petition for impeachment you would be wrong.
p.s. by the way, if you ever have a chance to make small-talk with Fil while you're at Hood, tell him "hi" for me and that I said "Silver Lions!". | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/6/2007 6:00:01 PM |
No... it's too simple. HE says he's doing what he's doing because his country has become a tyranny and is fighting an immoral and illegal war.
YOU say he wants to cherry pick his military deployment.
Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaida was located in Afghanistan. That's why we attacked. Iraq did not attack us.
I believe he's right and I believe he's telling the truth.
I believe you misunderstand.
He says it sure... But I think he is lying. As I have already said, he joined after the war was already controversal. I seriously doubt that he suddenly learned that the war war immoral. I think what he suddenly learned was that he would be deployed there. He says that he originally volunteered to go to Iraq... and I call BS on that too, without some documentation. It fits his story and no one has evidence to confirm or dispute it... so he just added it.
As for Afghan vs Iraq... I agree with you that fighting Afghan makes more sense. What I don't agree with, is that the LT gives a crap about Iraq, Afghanistan, or the US really. I think he wanted the money and the benefits of the service, without having to pay the price for it...
I believe that you believe that. :) I also believe that you misunderstand. However, I believe that your heart's in the right place... along with probably everyone here. My only complaint is that some people want back up for their position so much they will take anyone into their team. ;) This guy is no friend to you. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/6/2007 6:04:07 PM | @anticon
My good man, at least for now we will assume you are one ... a war of words is nothing more than that. A jumble of sounds or letters put together to try and communicate a desire of something from someone else. You appear to want everyone to agree with you.
Did you read my first post in this forum?
I truly do "listen", a lost art sadly to say. In the forums rather you read, which requires going back to original posts, questions, and sifting through the rubbish in between.
But all I am reading here from several individuals in fact, is alot quoting and spouting statistics, and IMO's etc.
BTW ... Did I specifically quote you or mention you in any way ? Or do you just take everything personally in general. lol ... I read your profile (in whole) and took note of forums you recently posted in and it appears you like to delve into subjects that require arguing.
Political, me? I vote... And not straight ticket either *gasp* so call the Secret Service and have them hunt me down and torture me and eventually kill me as I will not change my original point of view on this particular subject. EVER.
You were saying?
 | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/6/2007 6:15:58 PM | Ok people join the Forces and that is what they are for...To Fight Wars, having said that I would expect if they are going to be sent to war, that they be given the right training and equipment and support to do their job properly without Political Hinderance or Penny Pinching just trying to save money in the process, Give them exactly what is needed to get the job done....These are real lives on the line here, if the Government wants to save money don't send the troops in the first place.
This is a Big row in the UK now about soldiers being sent into combat and being denied Body Armour (Because of Government penny pinching) and being killed as a result. We have a Law here called the Health and Safety At Work Act 1974, which also includes members of the Forces...ok War is Hazardous but employers are still legally obliged to ensure that their staff have all the proper protection and kit to do their job safely and effectively.
Hence Big Lawsuit against the UK MOD pending for robbing those soldiers who got killed of their Body Armour.
Send those same Politicians to Iraq / Afghanistan with no kit and see what happens !!! and take plenty of nosepegs too coz you will need it when they cr@p themselves !!!
At the end of the day, No matter how much you oppose the War, Support the troops that are fighting it...They Deserve that at least ..!! Remember, they would rather just as much be at home as you are !!! | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/6/2007 8:48:35 PM | Has Lt. Watada the right to conscientious objections after he voluntarily signed up?
For me the answer is very obvious and very affirmative.
Citizens have such rights. Soldiers do not. Citizens have a right to resist their induction into the military during wars that they consider illegal, immoral, unjust. Watada signed up for his entry in the military. He chose it.
There is a clear divide line between these two roles within a society. It is useless to proceed with the discussion without recognizing the division between civilian and military. Soldiers, good ones, understand that the dictates of duty supersede the pull of individual conscience.
I'm not an uber-patriot, ex-military, or member of any right-wing organization. I have voted Democratic or Green or independent in all elections since 1976. I mistrust hostile foreign powers, as I do not fully trust human nature within our own citizenry. I think being prepared for aggression prevents it, but of course it was the adventuring Mr. Bush who deployed our defense forces aggressively, and recklessly.
Thus the question of conscience here is far from simple for the reflective solder such as Watada; however, the soldier's role remains unchanged regardless of whether the conflict represents no bar to clear conscience or entirely muddies it. That is what all the service and ex-service personnel, and others such, have argued here.
Within all the moral cloudiness, there is can be found one clear and abiding certainty, that soldiers have a duty to follow their lawful orders in time of war. Lt. Watada received a lawful order to deploy, which he refused. To claim that the war itself is illegal represents a politician’s, or a historian’s, or even the future’s, perspective, but just to decide this on an individual basis and refuse one’s duty is not honorable choice for a soldier. Watada must stand the consequences of refusal; by his actions, implicitly, he has chosen to do so. So, let him. It’s honorable to serve the truth as one sees it in jail, rather than be free and serve evil, again as one defines it.
However, if public pressure can be brought to bear upon the military court to strike two of the three charges against Watada, I would support that since I don't think the interest of the nation is served when young men are imprisoned for ten years or more for refusing lawful service. I want to believe my country is wiser than that. The charge of failing to board the bus was Watada's, and it was deliberate. But I believe the other two charges are punitive, levied by the high command for Watada's comments on the war, designed to discourage future Lt. Watadas from exercising his choices. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/6/2007 9:26:48 PM | My first day in basic training, after the oath of service where you swear to follow any and all orders given, my drill sargeant said:"Your heart may belong to God, but your a*s belongs to Uncle Sam".
Did this mean that I had to follow any and all orders that I agreed with?
NOT.
This LT. is a disgrace to ALL the fine young men and women who have given their all in the past and are doing so today.
As a soldier, you don't have the option to choose where you are sent. You can have a preference, but it's up to Uncle Sam where you go.
Whether these laws (UCMJ) are fair or not is another issue. They are the law. As in other laws, by following the proper proceedures, laws can be changed. But untill the law is changed, you're stuck with it. Breaking the law is just that, BREAKING THE LAW. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/6/2007 10:06:29 PM | Citizens have such rights. Soldiers do not. Citizens have a right to resist their induction into the military during wars that they consider illegal, immoral, unjust. Watada signed up for his entry in the military. He chose it.
Actually soldiers do have that right. It is covered under AR 600-43 (recently amended).
However, as stated before, Watada had no chance of obtaining that status because the criteria for active duty soldiers is generally absolute opposition to all wars and often absolute opposition to killing, even for self-defence. | |
|
| |
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/6/2007 11:36:19 PM | the criteria for active duty soldiers is generally absolute opposition to all wars and often absolute opposition to killing, even for self-defence.
So, this amounts to a quibble, particularly inappropriate to the case of a duty officer who applies the right of conscientious objection only immediately prior to deployment, and evidently after the notice of mobilization, and clearly with one who is on record stating that that he would accept assignment to an alternate combat war, Afghanistan.
Thank you, mungojoe, for doing my homework for me. Sorry for such a long post.
Here is an excerpt from Army Regulation 600-43. I've bolded the passages which, in militarese, argue against the case of Lt. Watada, as I understand it. I hope the military provides him with a great lawyer.
"However, requests by personnel for qualification as a conscientious objector after entering military service will not be favorably considered when these requests are—
(1) Based on a claim of conscientious objection that existed and satisfied the requirements for classification as a conscientious objector according to section 6(j) of the Military Selective Service Act, as amended (50 USC App 456(j)), and other provisions of law when such a claim was not presented before dispatch of the notice of induction, enlistment, or appointment. Claims based on conscientious objection growing out of experiences before entering military service, however, which did not become fixed until after the person’s entry into the service, will be considered.
(2) Based solely on conscientious objection claimed and denied on their merits by the Selective Service System before induction when application under this regulation is based on substantially the same grounds, or supported by substantially the same evidence, as the request that was denied under the Selective Service System. Refusal to reopen a person’s classification, under the Selective Service System, after his or her entry into service does not have any significance on the merits of a registrant’s claim. If views are expressed under the Selective Service System concerning the merits of the claim of a registrant whose beliefs have crystallized after dispatch of his or her induction notice, in connection with a refusal to reopen his or her classification, such expressions must be given no consideration.
(3) Based solely upon policy, pragmatism, or expediency. Applicants who are otherwise eligible for conscientious objector status may not be denied that status simply because of their views on the nation’s domestic or foreign policies.
(4) Based on objection to a certain war.
(5) Based upon insincerity.
(a) The most important consideration is not whether applicants are sincere in wanting to be designated as a conscientious objector, but whether their asserted convictions are sincerely held. Sincerity is determined by an impartial evaluation of each person’s thinking and living in totality, past and present. The conduct of persons, in particular their outward manifestation of the beliefs asserted, will be carefully examined and given substantial weight in evaluating their application.
(b) Relevant factors that should be considered in determining a person’s claim of conscientious objection include training in the home and church; general demeanor and pattern of conduct; participation in religious activities; whether ethical or moral convictions were gained through training, study, contemplation, or other activity comparable in rigor and dedication to the processes by which traditional religious convictions are formulated; credibility of persons supporting the claim.
(c) Applicants may have sought release from the Army through several means simultaneously, or in rapid succession AR 600–43 • 21 August 2006 1 (medical or hardship discharge, and so forth). They may have some major commitments during the time heir beliefs were developing that are inconsistent with their claim. They may have applied for conscientious objector status shortly after becoming aware of the prospect of undesirable or hazardous duty or having been rejected for a special program. The timing of their application alone, however, is never enough to furnish a basis in fact to support a disapproval.
These examples serve merely as indicators that further inquiry as to the person’s sincerity is warranted. Recommendations for disapproval should be supported by additional evidence beyond these indicators.
b. Care must be exercised not to deny the existence of beliefs simply because those beliefs are incompatible with one’s own. Church membership or adherence to certain theological tenets are not required to warrant separation or assignment to noncombatant training and service. Mere affiliation with a church or other group that advocates conscientious objection as a tenet of its creed does not necessarily determine a person’s position or belief. Conversely, affiliation with a church group that does not teach conscientious objection does not necessarily rule out adherence to conscientious objection beliefs. Applicants may be or may have been a member of a church, religious organization, or religious sect; and the claim of conscientious objection may be related to such membership. If so, inquiry may be made as to their membership, the teaching of their church, religious organization or sect, as well as their religious activity.
However, the fact that these persons may disagree with, or not subscribe to, some of the tenets of their church does not necessarily discredit their claim. The personal convictions of each person will dominate so long as they derive from the person’s moral, ethical, or religious beliefs. The task is to decide whether the beliefs professed are sincerely held and whether they govern the claimant’s actions in word and deed.
c. The burden of establishing a claim of conscientious objection as grounds for separation or assignment to
noncombatant training and service is on the applicant. To this end, applicants must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the nature or basis of the claim comes within the definition of criteria prescribed in this regulation for conscientious objection and that their beliefs are sincere. Applicants have the burden of determining and setting forth the exact nature of the request; that is, whether they request separation based on conscientious objection (1–0) or reassignment to noncombatant training and service based on conscientious objection (1–A–0).
d. An applicant claiming (1–0) status will not be granted (1–A–0) status as a compromise. Similarly, discharge will not be recommended for those who apply for classification as a noncombatant.
e. This regulation will not be used to effect the administrative separation of persons who do not qualify as
conscientious objectors. Nor will it be used instead of administrative separation procedures such as those provided for unsatisfactory performance, substandard performance of duty, or misconduct, or as otherwise set forth in other Army regulations (AR 600–8–24 or AR 635–200). Under no circumstances will administrative separation of these persons be effected according to this regulation.
f. This regulation does not prevent the administrative elimination, according to law and Army regulations, of any person whose performance of duty after reclassification as a (1–A–0) conscientious objector is substandard or who exhibits another basis for elimination.
1–6. Noncombatant 1–A–0 inductees or enlistees
Persons who were classified (1–A–0) by Selective Service before induction and whose DD Form 47 (Record of Induction) indicates that they are conscientious objectors or who enlisted as (1–A–0) noncombatants for the medical career management field will, upon completion of processing at the U.S. Army Military Entrance Processing Command (MEPCOM), be reassigned to a U.S. Army training center for modified basic training (MBT). These persons must sign and date a counseling statement as set forth in figure 2–1, which will be placed in the person’s Military Personnel Records Jacket, (MPRJ, U.S. Army). Upon completion of reception station processing, these persons will be assigned to a basic training company for MBT, which excludes training in the study, use, or handling of arms or weapons as
stated in paragraph 2–10a. Upon successful completion of MBT, a (1–A–0) classified person will be reassigned to training in the medical career management field. The reporting date to the new unit of assignment will be determined and entered in assignment orders as prescribed in AR 600–8–105. Such persons will not be allowed to avoid the important or hazardous duties that are part of the responsibility of all members of the medical organization. A person who does not meet the requirements for this training, who fails to complete the prescribed course of instruction, or who otherwise cannot be assigned to this duty, will be assigned to other noncombatant duties. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/6/2007 11:51:43 PM |
Thank you, mungojoe, for doing my homework for me. Sorry for such a long post.
Thats nice but, it was already stated that Watada had no chance of CO status.
Thanks for making the obvious even more obvious.
The big problem though, Watada did not claim CO status, he claimed the war was illegal, a big difference.
The question arose as a "could an active duty soldier claim CO status" question.
The real question is, can he refuse deployment on the questionable moral and legal status of the invasion of Iraq. The answer to that is "sure he can, just be prepared for trial under one or more of articles 87, 88, 90, 92, 133 and 134 for starters". | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/7/2007 7:28:59 PM | it was already stated that Watada had no chance of CO status.
Excuse me, I missed this.
Watada did not claim CO status
And this.
In my ignorance, I assumed Watada was rational. I did not know he had not appealed to be released from duty in Iraq by the sole means available to him as a soldier in the uniform of a country at war.
The matter will be resolved in a military court, which is going to slaughter his arguments if it even agrees to hear them. This was a foregone conclusion from the outset. To think that the military will accept his appeal to be released from his sworn duty because he has privately concluded that the war is illegal is fantastic, almost magical thinking. Only in the Hollywood version of the story would we ever see such a happy ending.
If this is painfully obvious to some, then it is so much so that it is being denied by others.
I really don't understand what good "Support[ing the] 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War" would ever do him, except of course offer moral support and express outrage against the war, but all the support in America and Canada combined cannot save Watada now.
He's chosen his own fate, which makes him courageous and moral, if he truly has rejected service on the basis of the illegality of the war. But I've already said this. If he choses prison over service, fine, that's an honorable choice.
| |
|
bobby7
|
Joined: 3/22/2006
Msg: 214 | |
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/7/2007 7:37:53 PM | "This LT. is a disgrace to ALL the fine young men and women who have given their all in the past and are doing so today."
As a soldier..You have the right to choose between "killing" and "murder"..
This officer chose not to "murder" for profit..
My hat is off to him, and, to anyone who is intelligent and moral enough to make this
distinction!!! | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/7/2007 7:52:43 PM |
Let's not bash Bush too much here. He was a trained fighter pilot and was probably going to go over to Vietnam,
Take off the rose colored glasses and read the book about his life that he didn't refute.
He lied on national TV saying he was in the Air Force when actually he was in the National Guard. I heard him myself. He went in the N.G. in May and in July he was a Lt., bought by dear old pop. Wasn't there half the time,spent 30 days in Fa. when he was supposed to be as the base. Conviently most of his records are lost, just like the 3 DUI's, and a lot of other stuff eraced from Texas records. He went into the N.G. to get out of going to war period. That is a fact. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/7/2007 7:56:42 PM |
I did not know he had not appealed to be released from duty in Iraq by the sole means available to him as a soldier in the uniform of a country at war.
It is not his sole means but making his stand and going to prison is certainly less painful an option than shooting himself in the foot and then going to prison.
I agree, if he has made his stand and is prepared to accept the outcome then I can't fault him for his principles. However, there will always be those who call him a coward because he chooses not to go and "get some". | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/7/2007 9:19:01 PM |
As a soldier.. You have the right to choose between "killing" and "murder"..
Spoken like one who truly knows. NOT! You've, like so many others on this thread, mistaken civilian laws and rights as applicable to military personel. He signed away most of his rights when he swore to serve. The UCMJ rules his rights and as a soldier, he does'nt have a leg to stand on.
Sorry | |
|
| |
e-wok
|
Joined: 9/25/2006
Msg: 219 | |
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/7/2007 9:27:33 PM | He signed away most of his rights when he swore to serve.
Actually, many soldiers that have gone AWOL are getting court-marshaled
but the sentences are light. So, soldiers do have a choice......either you
want to live with the nightmare of doing wrong and be sentenced to
a life term of mental anguish, or serve a few months in military jail.
...so, indeed there is a choice....I prefer the honour of knowing I did
right than one where I'd have to chose a cowardly way out and blame it on
the chain of command. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/7/2007 9:33:23 PM |
As a soldier.. You have the right to choose between "killing" and "murder"..
Spoken like one who truly knows. NOT!
Apparently he (Watada) does have the right to make that choice. The fact that he has is all that is required for proof of that.
There may be other things he has to deal with because of it but he has still exercised his right to make the choice. Choice is the one thing that even the UCMJ can't take from you.
Seems to me that he chose to refuse to go to Iraq and last time I checked he still was not in Iraq. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/8/2007 7:30:20 AM |
... he has a right to his opinion, and by what he says is that this is a misalocation of the use of US forces.
This was discussed on "Face the Nation" on 01/07/07 and Speaker Pelosi has joined with Rep. Murtha in calling for the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq to "make our country safer, our military stronger, and the region more stable". If I'm not mistaken, they are calling for a redeployment of our troops ... a phased withdrawal plan within 4 - 6 months.
I doubt that Lt. Watada's effort had any real influence on that request, however, I think I'm safe in saying that related to the recent election here, Watada's stand does represent the general consensus of the American people.
I admire him for taking such a stand and knowing full well what he would be facing ... I consider him quite courageous for doing so. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/8/2007 9:58:05 AM | I feel it incumbent upon me to share some information I read in a recent issue of the Army Times.
The combined operations in the Iraqi and Afghani theaters have now lasted longer than the United States' involvement in WW2.
42% of troops in Federal service have said we are "somewhat likely to succeed" in the war in Iraq
48% said that troops are stretched too thin to be an effective deterrent.
I have always been of the view that I would fight regardless of my political stance or views. I still feel that way. I fight because they pay me pretty good and feed me three times a day...but do not crucify this man for standing up for what he believes to be the right choice.
For 230 years, we've been fighting for an ideal. To villify this man for his beliefs makes you no better than the people we fight. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/8/2007 10:22:21 AM | There are many "courts"
1) supreme
2) civil
3) military
4) international
5) tribunals
6) Pulic opinion
to name but a few....
While many contrasting views in this forum are accurate under the various interpretations of the policies and statutes what matters in the case of Watada is the result of his actions.
It matters not that people choose to malign him and only do so to affect the court's ruling in the court of public opinion.
It matters not that Watada chose to violate some of the policy stated here with respect to personal decision making around the "legality" of warfare by disregarding the CO avenue in favour of a route less traveled. It does matter that this may become precedent.
It matters not that the military will make every effort to make an example of Watada and, given the current status of the USA, it will cost him dearly. It does matter that the domestic and international communities will view this case in a dim light much like most of the military related issues spawned in the USA these days.
Watada's actions are results based and I would suggest his focus is on the court of public opinion which often is the most significant, albeit with great personal sacrafice. This is where any suggestion that he is a coward is patently false.
Watada is not currently a hero, but someday in the future, people may look back at his effort and decide differently.
Cheers
Eihwaz | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/8/2007 10:36:46 AM | I've been in the military but it was during peacetime. I'd rather have a military that has soldiers/airman/seaman/marines that can think for themselves instead of following orders blindly the way German soldiers did during WWII. Many of those German soldiers were criticized for following orders from their commanding officers during the holocaust and causing such atrocities against mankind.
I was against the Iraq war even before it began. If I had been in the military at the time, I would've had a hard time accepting the war and would've had internal conflicts on whether I was doing the right thing if they sent me. I know today that I would refuse to take part in this war but it's easy to make that decision in hindsight.
The Bush administration lead us into this war based on lies and no clear cut plan. I personally was outraged before the war began that the Bush administration was taking us away from our original objective of securing Afghanistan and finding Osama Bin Laden. So in light of this, I commend this officer for speaking out against the war. Cowards are those that are too afraid to speak up for what they believe in. | |
|
| Support 1st U.S. Army Officer to Speak Out Against Iraq War
Posted: 1/8/2007 11:31:30 AM |
A 22 year old lieutenant is not trained in, nor entrusted by the American people with, the ability to pass judgements on legality and foreign policy.
Perhaps he conducted research beyond his pay grade?
Clearly, there are higher principles involved here than just the oath of allegiance to one's military. This is about humanity and right and wrong. He's willing to pay the price. I respect that.
This about sums up the situation for me as well, anticon. Whether he goes to jail or not, he is still worthy of my respect. The arguments that he should be punished have been well supported. The arguments that he is doing the right thing have been well supported. The arguments that he is a coward have not. The arguments that he is merely milking the Army for its fringe benefits are downright laughable.
I think it was Thoreau who said that sometimes a man must go to jail to serve his conscience, because the law would require him to do something he deems unconscionable. If Watada goes to jail (it seems likely, and he knows it), he will be one of the few who has done so with a clear conscience.
Edit: One thing about all the idealism of following orders that no one has brought up yet: if Watada's father were a general or similar person of influence, none of this would have become an issue. I'm almost positive that some "fortunate sons" in the service have been legally and quietly steered clear of the Iraq quagmire. It's called nepotism, and it is still alive and well...
| |
|
|
| Page 9 of 20
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 |
|
Home
login 
