PDA

View Full Version : Court-martial of officer who refused to go to Iraq begins



Pale Rider
02-05-2007, 05:07 PM
Court-martial of officer who refused to go to Iraq begins



Feb 5, 2007, 21:30 GMT


Washington - A court-martial against a US Army officer who refused to go to Iraq began Monday at Fort Lewis, Washington, a military spokesman said.

First Lieutenant Ehren Watada faces charges of failing to deploy, contempt toward officials and conduct unbecoming an officer. He is the first officer in the US military to be tried for refusing service in Iraq.

Watada has vociferously opposed the war, calling it illegal and immoral. He had publicly announced his intention not to travel with his unit before its deployment last summer.

The court-martial began with jury selection on Monday and the entire process is expected to be completed by the end of the week, the spokesman said.

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/news/article_1256012.php/Court-martial_of_officer_who_refused_to_go_to_Iraq_begin s

Pale Rider
02-05-2007, 05:08 PM
It's not mentioned, but what do you want to bet he's a muslim?

I say court martial his ass and dishonorably discharge him, via Fort Levenworth.

Mr. P
02-05-2007, 05:16 PM
It's not mentioned, but what do you want to bet he's a muslim?

I say court martial his ass and dishonorably discharge him, via Fort Levenworth.

dmp works with the guy, maybe he'll tell us.

Pale Rider
02-05-2007, 05:24 PM
dmp works with the guy, maybe he'll tell us.

NO SHIT!

Hearing something about it right now on Fow News. They're interviewing the father, who is spinning some bullshit about the butter bar not wanting to kill innocent men, women and children. He also said that the war was about the oil fields of Iraq.

The father is as fucked up as the kid. Most likely like father, like son.

1. count - missing deployment.
2. counts - conduct unbecoming of an officer.

Grumplestillskin
02-05-2007, 05:42 PM
Hope he gets off. He won't of course...but, such is life..

CockySOB
02-05-2007, 06:03 PM
Toss the cowardly shit in the stockade and let him rot.

Pale Rider
02-05-2007, 06:04 PM
Hope he gets off. He won't of course...but, such is life..

What a list of losers, perverts and traitors you have that you support grump, and you call yourself an American?

Grumplestillskin
02-05-2007, 06:28 PM
What a list of losers, perverts and traitors you have that you support grump

Huh? Who are the perverts? Who are the losers? Who are the traitors? If a man cannot make a decision on a course of action that could cost him his life, then he is not a man. Watada has more nads than most knowing the ridicule he has set himself up for. I doubt he is a coward in that he did go to Afghanistan (if memory serves). Unlike something like WWII, Iraq is not an open and shut case. Like Vietnam, the whys and wherefors are at best, blurry. I wouldn't go either....or I would with conditions - one of Bush's daughters come with me...or any one of those chickenhawk's kids would do..


and you call yourself an American?

Stop with the pretense. You know I'm not....:2up:

stephanie
02-05-2007, 06:29 PM
Toss the cowardly shit in the stockade and let him rot.


hear, hear..

He was trying to make a statement...I guess he thought he was Jon Cary in a past life..
He thought he'd get help from the anti-war crowd...Boy, did he think wrong...

Enjoy your jail time..

:no:

Pale Rider
02-05-2007, 06:40 PM
Huh? Who are the perverts?
Faggots.


Who are the losers?
Faggot supporters.


Who are the traitors?
Military personal that disobey a direct order.


If a man cannot make a decision on a course of action that could cost him his life, then he is not a man. Watada has more nads than most knowing the ridicule he has set himself up for. I doubt he is a coward in that he did go to Afghanistan (if memory serves). Unlike something like WWII, Iraq is not an open and shut case. Like Vietnam, the whys and wherefors are at best, blurry. I wouldn't go either....or I would with conditions - one of Bush's daughters come with me...or any one of those chickenhawk's kids would do..
This pussy knew what he was getting into when he raised his right hand and swore to "honor and obey all orders from superior officers". You DON'T enlist in the United States Military, and then when a set of orders comes down that you don't like just go, "oh gee, I think I'll just tell 'em to stick these orders", it doesn't work that way. If it did, WE WOULDN'T HAVE A MILITARY! You don't "second guess" military orders.




Stop with the pretense. You know I'm not....:2up:
Whatever... :uhoh:

5stringJeff
02-05-2007, 06:48 PM
The fact of the matter is, Watada refused to deploy with his unit. He's admitted to such. That's missing movement, and it's a major violation of the UCMJ. I fully expect him to be found guilty.

And, for what it's worth, the trial is going on literally above my head.

Pale Rider
02-05-2007, 07:08 PM
The fact of the matter is, Watada refused to deploy with his unit. He's admitted to such. That's missing movement, and it's a major violation of the UCMJ. I fully expect him to be found guilty.

And, for what it's worth, the trial is going on literally above my head.

One count "missing deployment", two counts "conduct unbecoming an officer".

His ass is grass, and the UCMJ is the lawn mower.

pegwinn
02-05-2007, 07:10 PM
The premise in America, and even in the Military is "Innocent until proven guilty". I do like the courts martial system better than criminal court ala the civilians.

The jury is literally your peers.
The jury is far better educated on the law than a civilian jury.
The judge is less likely to tolerate bullshit games than a civilian judge.
If the prosecutor steps out of line, he is liable to be prosecuted as well.
Military juries are far less likely to be swayed by emotional arguments.

I didn't look up the max on these offenses at a GCM, but if found guilty I hope he gets life or death. In any event, it will send a message to others who may be inclined to try this.

I hope a transcript of the defense is published. I would like to see how he spins this.

Grumplestillskin
02-05-2007, 07:15 PM
I hope he gets off, but if not, a couple of years at most in the slammer. Giving him the death penalty would be way over the top. Same with life imprisonment. If he gets either of those, I hope it is headline news, which hopefully would mean a sharp drop in folks joining the military.

darin
02-05-2007, 07:24 PM
I hope he gets off, but if not, a couple of years at most in the slammer. Giving him the death penalty would be way over the top. Same with life imprisonment. If he gets either of those, I hope it is headline news, which hopefully would mean a sharp drop in folks joining the military.

How could he NOT be convicted?

He was 'ordered to MOVE with his unit' - He remains here. (shrug).

Yurt
02-05-2007, 08:05 PM
I hope he gets off, but if not, a couple of years at most in the slammer. Giving him the death penalty would be way over the top. Same with life imprisonment. If he gets either of those, I hope it is headline news, which hopefully would mean a sharp drop in folks joining the military.

So then you support the law being ignored? Or is it only when is suits you?

:boom2:


*loves smilies*

pegwinn
02-05-2007, 08:15 PM
I hope he gets off, but if not, a couple of years at most in the slammer. Giving him the death penalty would be way over the top. Same with life imprisonment. If he gets either of those, I hope it is headline news, which hopefully would mean a sharp drop in folks joining the military.

You have the right to be an apologist for the antiwar zealots. Heck, I spent a long time helping to ensure that right. But, a couple of years if found guilty would send the wrong message.

You indicated you were not American. Where are you from?

jillian
02-05-2007, 08:20 PM
The fact of the matter is, Watada refused to deploy with his unit. He's admitted to such. That's missing movement, and it's a major violation of the UCMJ. I fully expect him to be found guilty.

And, for what it's worth, the trial is going on literally above my head.

Just for argument's sake. You know at a war crime trial, the Neuremberg defense of "I was just following orders" doesn't fly. Also, a soldier has an obligation to disobey an illegal order, no? Now this man is willing to put his future on the line because of his beliefs, right or wrong. Isn't that what we wished they did in Nazi Germany? (And, no I'm not comparing this wars to what Germany did. I'm just raising an issue).

Mr. P
02-05-2007, 08:21 PM
I hope he gets off, but if not, a couple of years at most in the slammer. Giving him the death penalty would be way over the top. Same with life imprisonment. If he gets either of those, I hope it is headline news, which hopefully would mean a sharp drop in folks joining the military.

Me too, BIG HEADLINES, then everyone can see that an oath is an oath and duty is duty, and not to be dismissed or taken for ones convenience or used for personal gain.

Knowing that, maybe the enlistment would even rise. After all, integrity and honor are hard to find on the block (or in society, as a civilian would say) these days.

When you accept Duty, Honor, Country, you commit to it.

I hope he gets at least 20.

pegwinn
02-05-2007, 08:32 PM
Just for argument's sake. You know at a war crime trial, the Neuremberg defense of "I was just following orders" doesn't fly. Also, a soldier has an obligation to disobey an illegal order, no? Now this man is willing to put his future on the line because of his beliefs, right or wrong. Isn't that what we wished they did in Nazi Germany? (And, no I'm not comparing this wars to what Germany did. I'm just raising an issue).

When a service member uses that defense it is up to him to prove it. Kind of like the insanity defense in a civil criminal court. Orders are presumed to be lawful and so the prosecution isn't required to prove they were.

That defense will not fly. It's already been tried by other, lesser, types.

jillian
02-05-2007, 08:34 PM
When a service member uses that defense it is up to him to prove it. Kind of like the insanity defense in a civil criminal court. Orders are presumed to be lawful and so the prosecution isn't required to prove they were.

That defense will not fly. It's already been tried by other, lesser, types.

Well, for what it's worth, I think he's going to lose and I think he's going to spend the next 20 years locked up. But I respect his putting his money where mouth is and laying it on the line. I think he took the risk of losing when he made his choice. But part of me hopes he wins because so many young lives would be saved.

darin
02-05-2007, 08:36 PM
Well, for what it's worth, I think he's going to lose and I think he's going to spend the next 20 years locked up.


His max sentence is 4 years.


But I respect his putting his money where mouth is and laying it on the line. I think he took the risk of losing when he made his choice. But part of me hopes he wins because so many young lives would be saved.


Care to explain how him being allowed to refuse a lawful order would save lives?

Grumplestillskin
02-05-2007, 09:02 PM
How could he NOT be convicted?

He was 'ordered to MOVE with his unit' - He remains here. (shrug).

I guess so.

Gunny
02-05-2007, 09:05 PM
I hope he gets off, but if not, a couple of years at most in the slammer. Giving him the death penalty would be way over the top. Same with life imprisonment. If he gets either of those, I hope it is headline news, which hopefully would mean a sharp drop in folks joining the military.

He won't get off, nor will he get the death penalty. Missing movement, even during a time of war does not merit the death penalty. Maximum penalty for

Viol Art 87, Missing movement, is foreiture of all pay and allowances, dishonorable dishcharge and 2 years confinement.

Viol Art 92, Failure to obey an order, max punishment is the same as Art 87.

Viol Art 133, Conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman, Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for a period not in excess of that authorized for the most analogous (similar) offense for which a punishment is prescribed in this Manual (UCMJ), or, if none is prescribed, for 1 year.

Grumplestillskin
02-05-2007, 09:06 PM
So then you support the law being ignored? Or is it only when is suits you?

:boom2:


*loves smilies*

Throughout history there have been bad laws...

Grumplestillskin
02-05-2007, 09:09 PM
You have the right to be an apologist for the antiwar zealots. Heck, I spent a long time helping to ensure that right. But, a couple of years if found guilty would send the wrong message.

I am far from an apologist for antiwar zealots. In some instances I am very much for war. Iraq is not one of these instances. This is not Monday morning quarterbacking from my perspective either. I have said the same well before the invasion, during the invasion, and certainly since the invasion. This was a bad idea from the get go. All the bad stuff that has followed I mentioned (On other boards obviously) would happen, has happened.
I agree re the wrong message - that being, if you live in the land of the free, once you join the military you are not truly free.

Dilloduck
02-05-2007, 09:11 PM
I am far from an apologist for antiwar zealots. In some instances I am very much for war. Iraq is not one of these instances. This is not Monday morning quarterbacking from my perspective either. I have said the same well before the invasion, during the invasion, and certainly since the invasion. This was a bad idea from the get go. All the bad stuff that has followed I mentioned (On other boards obviously) would happen, has happened.
I agree re the wrong message - that being, if you live in the land of the free, once you join the military you are not truly free.

Why would you actually HOPE that enlistment drops ?

Grumplestillskin
02-05-2007, 09:12 PM
Me too, BIG HEADLINES, then everyone can see that an oath is an oath and duty is duty, and not to be dismissed or taken for ones convenience or used for personal gain.

Knowing that, maybe the enlistment would even rise. After all, integrity and honor are hard to find on the block (or in society, as a civilian would say) these days.

When you accept Duty, Honor, Country, you commit to it.

I hope he gets at least 20.

Taking an oath doesn't mean you follow like a lemming an order that you know in your heart is wrong.

As for duty, honour and country, having a CIC dedicated to neither doesn't help the cause IMO...

What personal gain has Watada had due to his stance I'd say, if anything, he has lost, not gained a thing.

darin
02-05-2007, 09:22 PM
Taking an oath doesn't mean you follow like a lemming an order that you know in your heart is wrong.

As for duty, honour and country, having a CIC dedicated to neither doesn't help the cause IMO...

What personal gain has Watada had due to his stance I'd say, if anything, he has lost, not gained a thing.

Guidelines are in place to help soldiers who feel they are following an Illegal order. God help them if they cannot back up their 'heart of hearts'.

What gain? remains to be seen. I just hope when he writes his book, he spells my name correctly. I bet this guy runs for office some day.

Pale Rider
02-05-2007, 09:29 PM
I agree re the wrong message - that being, if you live in the land of the free, once you join the military you are not truly free.

Of course you're not. You're a G.I.. i.e., "government issue", and you carry the designation XB3, which means "throw away", "dispensable". That's the way it is in military. You're expected to lay down your life in battle if called to do so. It's not up to some cocky little lieutenant to tell the entire United States Army to go fuck themselves just because his cushy job state side comes to an end. He KNEW he might have to go, so why did he get himself in that situation? Was he gambling with the possibility that he might not ever have to go? Not smart if true.

In any case, his ass is in a world of trouble now. He should have thought about this BEFORE he got himself into the position where he might be called to war.

jillian
02-05-2007, 09:32 PM
His max sentence is 4 years.

Gunny says 2. I took the 20 from Mr P cause I haven't a clue about the sentence if he's convicted and didn't realize he was engaging in wishful thinking.


Care to explain how him being allowed to refuse a lawful order would save lives?

One, you're presuming it was lawful. Two, if he can prove it isn't a lawful order, you really need to ask how that would save lives?

pegwinn
02-05-2007, 09:34 PM
I am far from an apologist for antiwar zealots. In some instances I am very much for war. Iraq is not one of these instances. This is not Monday morning quarterbacking from my perspective either. I have said the same well before the invasion, during the invasion, and certainly since the invasion. This was a bad idea from the get go. All the bad stuff that has followed I mentioned (On other boards obviously) would happen, has happened.
I agree re the wrong message - that being, if you live in the land of the free, once you join the military you are not truly free.

No, you still have the same rights as others, albeit they are regulated differently. Example: HE was free to join an antiwar protest provided he did not do so as a soldier. IE HE cannot wear his Alphas to the protest, or make antiwar speeches critical of the President. But, I submit that those who sacrifice a portion of thier freedom to defend yours are in measureable fact better than those who don't or didn't.


Taking an oath doesn't mean you follow like a lemming an order that you know in your heart is wrong.

As for duty, honour and country, having a CIC dedicated to neither doesn't help the cause IMO...

What personal gain has Watada had due to his stance I'd say, if anything, he has lost, not gained a thing.

Yes, if you receive an unlawful order then you are obligated to not obey it. You are obligated to take steps to correct it. However AS I mentioned above the orders are presumed lawful. If you disobey due to a belief otherwize, you must prove the case.

The folks we are discussing are accustomed to having to obey orders from CIC's who are not worthy. Take Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter as an example. Your assertion that President Bush is "dedicated to neither" is something you will have to prove. Have fun.

You never did mention where you are from. If I understand your country of origin/residence perhaps I can better educate you.

Gunny
02-05-2007, 09:41 PM
Gunny says 2. I took the 20 from Mr P cause I haven't a clue about the sentence if he's convicted and didn't realize he was engaging in wishful thinking.



One, you're presuming it was lawful. Two, if he can prove it isn't a lawful order, you really need to ask how that would save lives?

Actually, Gunny says five. Two of the articles are two years sentences each, and Article 133 , conduct unbecoming, has a 1 year sentence.

I took all the max punishments and articles from a UCMJ website.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm.htm

darin
02-05-2007, 09:41 PM
Gunny says 2. I took the 20 from Mr P cause I haven't a clue about the sentence if he's convicted and didn't realize he was engaging in wishful thinking.

The article says 4. 2 years for Missing the movement, 1 year each for conduct-unbecoming.



One, you're presuming it was lawful. Two, if he can prove it isn't a lawful order, you really need to ask how that would save lives?

Of course it was lawful. Do you know what defines an unlawful order?

"Hey Lt Watada, you and your entire unit will move from Fort Lewis, WA, to a staging area in Kuwait".

THAT was the order, paraphrased. I doubt the Prosecution would have trouble finding REASONABLE people who cannot see anything unlawful about that.

IF it's found the order to move from one station to another location is ruled Unlawful, the military will be disbanded. I suppose that'd save specific lives - but it'd mean DEATH to our society as we know it.

Mr. P
02-05-2007, 09:41 PM
Taking an oath doesn't mean you follow like a lemming an order that you know in your heart is wrong.

As for duty, honour and country, having a CIC dedicated to neither doesn't help the cause IMO...

What personal gain has Watada had due to his stance I'd say, if anything, he has lost, not gained a thing.

Yes you do follow an orders, your feeling in your heart isn't relevant, unless the order is illegel..This order was 100% legel.

His gain was not to do with his stance, it was due to his enlistment commitment. I believe he was college ROTC. Tuition paid, 4 year degree. With a contract he serve 'x' years. I may be wrong, dmp could say for sure.

darin
02-05-2007, 09:43 PM
I submit that those who sacrifice a portion of thier freedom to defend yours are in measureable fact better than those who don't or didn't.

That's an AWESOME line...Mind if I borrow it for a sig? :)

Gunny
02-05-2007, 09:44 PM
No, you still have the same rights as others, albeit they are regulated differently. Example: HE was free to join an antiwar protest provided he did not do so as a soldier. IE HE cannot wear his Alphas to the protest, or make antiwar speeches critical of the President. But, I submit that those who sacrifice a portion of thier freedom to defend yours are in measureable fact better than those who don't or didn't.



Yes, if you receive an unlawful order then you are obligated to not obey it. You are obligated to take steps to correct it. However AS I mentioned above the orders are presumed lawful. If you disobey due to a belief otherwize, you must prove the case.

The folks we are discussing are accustomed to having to obey orders from CIC's who are not worthy. Take Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter as an example. Your assertion that President Bush is "dedicated to neither" is something you will have to prove. Have fun.

You never did mention where you are from. If I understand your country of origin/residence perhaps I can better educate you.

I completely agree. If one refuses to carry out an unlawful order, one better be able to prove it unlawful.

Being declared unlawful by anti-war protestors isn't going to get it.

Grumplestillskin
02-05-2007, 09:44 PM
Why would you actually HOPE that enlistment drops ?

Sends a message that when you expect people to go to war on your behalf you better be 100% sure they are going for the right reasons. Not 95%, not 98%, not 99.9%. 100%. Nothing less. IMO, it was 50% at best in the case of Iraq. Again, I have to reiterate - because nimrods always bring up the Monday-morning quarterbacking crap - nothing, I repeat NOTHING that has happened before, during or after the invasion is any surprise to me; the lack of WMDs, the different factions fighting; being a lightening rod for every muslim fundie nutter who hates the west and in particular the US;

And my biggest prediction of all - again said pre invasion - the civil war that WILL follow when the US pulls out..

Will answer other posts later. Have to go out for dinner...cheers

Gunny
02-05-2007, 09:46 PM
That's an AWESOME line...Mind if I borrow it for a sig? :)

If you have a request for the MSgt, the Gunny entertains such notions at 1400 on Friday afternoon. (The MSgt's tee-time is 1330.):)

pegwinn
02-05-2007, 09:56 PM
That's an AWESOME line...Mind if I borrow it for a sig? :)

Feel free but it aint cheap. :)

I get the credit, You buy the pizza and beer, and you gotta check out my blog because, well, because....... if you like that line, you'll love the latest entry.

Go for it dude. :beer:

CSM
02-05-2007, 09:57 PM
.....
One, you're presuming it was lawful.....

Why would he not presume the order was and is lawful? Why would you or anyone else presume the order was/is unlawful?

Are we to assume that unpopular orders are necessarily unlawful?

jillian
02-05-2007, 10:01 PM
Why would he not presume the order was and is lawful? Why would you or anyone else presume the order was/is unlawful?

Are we to assume that unpopular orders are necessarily unlawful?

I make no such assumption. I only said he had the courage of his conviction and is prepared to be punished if he's wrong. I think I also said that I expected him to be convicted.

pegwinn
02-05-2007, 10:03 PM
One, you're presuming it was lawful. Two, if he can prove it isn't a lawful order, you really need to ask how that would save lives?

Jillian, I am not trying to tick you off, but all orders are legally presumed to be lawful unless proven otherwise. Your reference for that is the Manual for Courts Martial. The civilian counterpart is that all defendents are presumed to be sane and of sound mind.

Those are the only times I know of when the burden of proof is shared by the prosecution and the defense.

Meaning. The prosecution must only prove that he did as a point of fact disobey a (presumed) lawful movement order. And, the defense is under the burden to prove the order wasn't lawful. Very thin line, and very hard to prove.

Dilloduck
02-05-2007, 10:06 PM
Sends a message that when you expect people to go to war on your behalf you better be 100% sure they are going for the right reasons. Not 95%, not 98%, not 99.9%. 100%. Nothing less. IMO, it was 50% at best in the case of Iraq. Again, I have to reiterate - because nimrods always bring up the Monday-morning quarterbacking crap - nothing, I repeat NOTHING that has happened before, during or after the invasion is any surprise to me; the lack of WMDs, the different factions fighting; being a lightening rod for every muslim fundie nutter who hates the west and in particular the US;

And my biggest prediction of all - again said pre invasion - the civil will that WILL follow when the US pulls out..

Will answer other posts later. Have to go out for dinner...cheers


The "right" reason for war will never be determined and 100% percent of people will never support it. In the mean time you're actually HOPING enlistment drops which will leave us with our pants down. This is the kind of logic that scares the crap out of people when libs run the defense of our country.--Laterz !!!!!:bye1:

CSM
02-05-2007, 10:06 PM
I make no such assumption. I only said he had the courage of his conviction and is prepared to be punished if he's wrong. I think I also said that I expected him to be convicted.

Yes, I understood what you said. I was rather taken by your statement "One, you're presuming it was lawful." which implied (to me at least) that it should NOT be presumed lawful...

jillian
02-05-2007, 10:09 PM
Jillian, I am not trying to tick you off, but all orders are legally presumed to be lawful unless proven otherwise. Your reference for that is the Manual for Courts Martial. The civilian counterpart is that all defendents are presumed to be sane and of sound mind.

Those are the only times I know of when the burden of proof is shared by the prosecution and the defense.

Meaning. The prosecution must only prove that he did as a point of fact disobey a (presumed) lawful movement order. And, the defense is under the burden to prove the order wasn't lawful. Very thin line, and very hard to prove.

You're certainly not ticking me off. And I know the order is presumed lawful. I also understand, under military law, that in a courts martial there is a presumption of guilt and one has to prove their innocence. My understanding might be incorrect on that one. I think the parallel to the insanity defense is a very good one, for what it's worth. In each, one must admit the commission of a crime and then prove they are absolved of guilt. It is a very thin line and a huge risk for the defense since you take away from the prosecution the burden of proving the person charged committed the underlying act.

jillian
02-05-2007, 10:12 PM
Yes, I understood what you said. I was rather taken by your statement "One, you're presuming it was lawful." which implied (to me at least) that it should NOT be presumed lawful...

No. I didn't mean to imply that. On the other hand, I don't know what proof they intend to offer either.

Gunny
02-05-2007, 10:25 PM
I make no such assumption. I only said he had the courage of his conviction and is prepared to be punished if he's wrong. I think I also said that I expected him to be convicted.

You also made comment that it was "presumed," and something to the effect of "What if he could prove it unlawful?"

The odds of proving a movement order unlawful are astronomical. It isn't about his view of the war. It's about not obeying an order to be at a specific place at a specific time for a unit movement.

A court martial isn't like civilian court. The SJA is NOT going to allow the war to be tried in his court. He be will tried on the charges against him, and 12 of his fellow officers, all of whom probably went when they were told, are going to judge him on the charges, not his opinion of the war.

darin
02-05-2007, 10:29 PM
You also made comment that it was "presumed," and something to the effect of "What if he could prove it unlawful?"

The odds of proving a movement order unlawful are astronomical. It isn't about his view of the war. It's about not obeying an order to be at a specific place at a specific time for a unit movement.

A court martial isn't like civilian court. The SJA is NOT going to allow the war to be tried in his court. He be will tried on the charges against him, and 12 of his fellow officers, all of whom probably went when they were told, are going to judge him on the charges, not his opinion of the war.

Bingo - If he belived the war unlawful, he should have refused the moment he was asked to specifically fight.

For the Record - I asked the prosecuting attorney about this same thing. He said the 'resist lawful order' defense can only be made in regards to specific actions taking place WITHIN a war - not as a means to excuse oneself from the war.

Gunny
02-05-2007, 10:33 PM
You're certainly not ticking me off. And I know the order is presumed lawful. I also understand, under military law, that in a courts martial there is a presumption of guilt and one has to prove their innocence. My understanding might be incorrect on that one. I think the parallel to the insanity defense is a very good one, for what it's worth. In each, one must admit the commission of a crime and then prove they are absolved of guilt. It is a very thin line and a huge risk for the defense since you take away from the prosecution the burden of proving the person charged committed the underlying act.

There is not a presumption of guilt. Being presumed innocent until proven guilty is one of the rights of the accused in the military as it is the civil judicial system.



The skinny is that if there isn't a real good chance to convict, charges are dropped. This however, is pretty-much a slam-dunk. He refused to obey and order by missing a movement of troops. That's two counts. The burden of proof is still on the prosecution, but in this case, the proof is obvious.

His taking his case to the media and/or raving against the war in public is conduct unbecoming and officer and gentleman.

He just doesn't have much chance at all except to hope he doesn't get max'd out.

Gunny
02-05-2007, 10:37 PM
Bingo - If he belived the war unlawful, he should have refused the moment he was asked to specifically fight.

For the Record - I asked the prosecuting attorney about this same thing. He said the 'resist lawful order' defense can only be made in regards to specific actions taking place WITHIN a war - not as a means to excuse oneself from the war.

True. There are specific charges for cowardice in front of the enemy, etc. Most of those DO carry the max penalty of death. His violations are administrative, and have nothing to do with a war, nor an enemy.

"Were you, Lt Watada, ordered to be at (place) at (time) on (date)?"

"I was."

"Did you report as ordered?"

"I did not."

"No further questions."

pegwinn
02-05-2007, 11:11 PM
You're certainly not ticking me off. Good

And I know the order is presumed lawful. Good, we are getting somewhere.

I also understand, under military law, that in a courts martial there is a presumption of guilt and one has to prove their innocence. My understanding might be incorrect on that one. I think the parallel to the insanity defense is a very good one, for what it's worth. In each, one must admit the commission of a crime and then prove they are absolved of guilt. Good try but not quite accurate. The presumption of innocence is still there. Again, the source is the manual for courts martial.

It is a very thin line and a huge risk for the defense since you take away from the prosecution the burden of proving the person charged committed the underlying act. Actually you don't. It is a dual track. The prosecution must still prove its' case. The defendants burden of proof is to create mitigating circumstances that will allow the jury to legally overlook a factual violation. Even if the defense attempts to prove an unlawful order fail, the prosecution must still definitively prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty.

Here is a link for the manual for courts martial (http://www.jag.navy.mil/documents/mcm2000.pdf). It is long, but it is searchable. I hope it helps.

Pale Rider
02-06-2007, 12:50 AM
The skinny is....

... he's fucked.

He'll be tried and convicted rather quickly. He'll go away, and we won't hear another word about it.

jillian
02-06-2007, 01:05 AM
Here is a link for the manual for courts martial (http://www.jag.navy.mil/documents/mcm2000.pdf). It is long, but it is searchable. I hope it helps.

Thanks for the reference and the information. Cheers. :beer:

Grumplestillskin
02-06-2007, 03:19 AM
HE was free to join an antiwar protest provided he did not do so as a soldier. IE HE cannot wear his Alphas to the protest, or make antiwar speeches critical of the President.

Generally, I think that is fair enough, too. Unless the war is, IYO, totally illegal. With Iraq it appears far from decided for some. However, what if there was indeed an illegal war. Say Bush decided to invade Mexico, with the support of the Joint Chiefs, because he thought it was a good idea?


But, I submit that those who sacrifice a portion of thier freedom to defend yours are in measureable fact better than those who don't or didn't.

I disagree. I don't measure a person by whether they served in the military or not, but by the man/woman.


Yes, if you receive an unlawful order then you are obligated to not obey it. You are obligated to take steps to correct it. However AS I mentioned above the orders are presumed lawful. If you disobey due to a belief otherwize, you must prove the case.

Fair enough. Maybe Watada will do that. It's about his only chance...


The folks we are discussing are accustomed to having to obey orders from CIC's who are not worthy. Take Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter as an example. Your assertion that President Bush is "dedicated to neither" is something you will have to prove. Have fun.

I disagree re Carter and Clinton. They were worthy. As for Bush, I don't have to prove it, as you don't re Carter or Clinton. They are just opinions. I think Bush has lived his life with silver spoon in mouth and has hardly sacrificed anything in his privileged life. I think he (note I said think) got a cushy number in the National Guard to avoid Vietnam. And every other thing he did since then was with the help of his daddy, and even then he was hardly a raging success. He has done nothing commendable or admirable in his life other than get sober, which is not something with his upbringing and opportunity in life should wear as a badge of honour, rather they should apologise profusely for wasting a few decades in an alcoholic slumber.


You never did mention where you are from. If I understand your country of origin/residence perhaps I can better educate you.

On my opinions on going to war? Doubtful. My opinions are not based on where I am from.

jillian
02-06-2007, 06:26 AM
Here is a link for the manual for courts martial (http://www.jag.navy.mil/documents/mcm2000.pdf). It is long, but it is searchable. I hope it helps.

Just something I wanted to add. When I said the plea took away the need to prove the underlying crime from the prosecution in both the "unlawful order" "insanity defense" types of cases, what I meant was that the defense in both cases contains an admission to the crime.

For example, when one says not guilty by reason of insanity they have admitted the act, only offered a justification that absolves them of mens rea. In the case of saying he disobeyed an unlawful order, he acknowledges that he did not obey the order, by offers a justification that would absolve him, if he were to prove it, under the military law.

Gaffer
02-06-2007, 12:37 PM
First of all I would never want to serve with the SOB. He's not a leader, he's a coward. Orders are to be followed in the military unquestioned. The orders to move are simple orders. If he can't obey the move order what will happen in a combat situation? where the orders have to be followed unquestioned could mean life and death.

In combat when you have to move against an enemy position you do it in leapfrog. Half the unit lays down fire while the other half moves forward. They then lay down fire while the other half moves forward. This continues about 10 to 20 feet at a time until you overrun the position. When the unit commander orders you to move you do it, without question. What you do may save someone elses life on another part of the field. In order for everything to work orders MUST be followed to the letter and immediately. Doing so also presents the fewest casualties.

This guy needs to go to prison and when he gets out he can go be a hippie in san fransissyco. He has no business in the military.

The media wants to make this a circus and play it up as if he's some sort of victim standing up for his rights. He's just a fool.

darin
02-06-2007, 12:40 PM
Sean Penn says he's a HERO!!

:vomit:

Hagbard Celine
02-06-2007, 12:41 PM
It's a "volunteer" military, but voluntarily try to leave and you pay the piper! :)

jillian
02-06-2007, 01:00 PM
Orders are to be followed in the military unquestioned.

A soldier has an obligation to disobey an illegal order. He's going to pay the piper for his decision if he gambled wrong.

krisy
02-06-2007, 01:02 PM
I don't know near as much about the military as many of you,but in my opinion,this guy is wrong. How dare he think he can pick and choose what he gets to do AFTER taking an oath and joining the military? What kind of military would we have if they all acted like this? Men are dying over there because they volunteered to go fight for their country. Did this guy think there was a special clause somewhere saying that if you don't agree with the President's decisions...you can whimp out?

Really,he's very out of line. The military has more right than anyone to have an opinion,but this guy is completely backward.

5stringJeff
02-06-2007, 01:03 PM
A soldier has an obligation to disobey an illegal order. He's going to pay the piper for his decision if he gambled wrong.

And there is nothing illegal about joining your unit on a deployment overseas. No shots will be fired. No hostiles will be engaged. It's just taking a plane trip.

Hobbit
02-06-2007, 01:04 PM
Ok, I've been sidelining, and now I'm weighing in.

1) The war was not illegal. By violating U.N. sanctions, refusing discussion on the matter, and shooting at officially sanctioned aircraft flying through restricted airspace, Saddam Hussein had committed several acts of war and invitations of war. Lets also not forget that a strong majority of Congress authorized the action.

2) If you think the war is illegal or immoral, apply for discharge/concientious objector the second it starts, rather than just going AWOL when you get called up.

3) If you want to 'stand up' for a cause contrary to the law, be prepared to pay the piper. Rosa Parks may have been right (and no, I'm not comparing this yellow scumbag to Rosa Parks), but she still had to go to jail.

darin
02-06-2007, 01:14 PM
A soldier has an obligation to disobey an illegal order. He's going to pay the piper for his decision if he gambled wrong.

As Jeff said, and I've said countless times in this thread - ordering somebody to MOVE is in NO WAY illegal. The Illegal Order defense is NOT a 'general catch all' but it's for SPECIFIC Illegal actions.

stephanie
02-06-2007, 01:18 PM
The only place this war is Illegal, is in a liberals mind...

That's why it's never been proven to be anything other, but LEGAL..

His dad was a war activist during the Vietnam war, so I guess the apple doesn't fall from the tree..

Watada will probably serve his time, then come out and become a Senator for the Democrats...:cow:

Gaffer
02-06-2007, 01:20 PM
An order percieved to be illegal can be questioned, but the one questioning it will be subject to arrest, detainment and trial for doing so.

Once again we have an attempt by the left to derail the military. I don't believe its his personal feelings here. I think its directed by the left with promises of some benefit for him in the future. This whole thing is just too played up in the media.

jillian
02-06-2007, 01:22 PM
Ok, I've been sidelining, and now I'm weighing in.

1) The war was not illegal. By violating U.N. sanctions, refusing discussion on the matter, and shooting at officially sanctioned aircraft flying through restricted airspace, Saddam Hussein had committed several acts of war and invitations of war. Lets also not forget that a strong majority of Congress authorized the action.

2) If you think the war is illegal or immoral, apply for discharge/concientious objector the second it starts, rather than just going AWOL when you get called up.

3) If you want to 'stand up' for a cause contrary to the law, be prepared to pay the piper. Rosa Parks may have been right (and no, I'm not comparing this yellow scumbag to Rosa Parks), but she still had to go to jail.

First. I'm not going to get into the legality of the war. I DO think it will be interesting to see what is offered in his defense.

I actually have a question with regard to conscientious objector status which maybe one of the military guys can answer. I am friends with someone who served in Vietnam. After a point, he asked for, and received, conscientious objector status and was honorably released from the military. Give that the army is now a volunteer military, is it still possible for someone to get conscientious objector status once they're in.

Clearly he'll go to jail if he bet wrong.

Gaffer
02-06-2007, 01:27 PM
First. I'm not going to get into the legality of the war. I DO think it will be interesting to see what is offered in his defense.

I actually have a question with regard to conscientious objector status which maybe one of the military guys can answer. I am friends with someone who served in Vietnam. After a point, he asked for, and received, conscientious objector status and was honorably released from the military. Give that the army is now a volunteer military, is it still possible for someone to get conscientious objector status once they're in.

Clearly he'll go to jail if he bet wrong.

Yes you can request conscientious objector status at any time. You get a general discharge in most cases and go your way. Of course there is a hearing and you must explain why you feel the way you do. ie religious convictions etc.

5stringJeff
02-06-2007, 01:30 PM
First. I'm not going to get into the legality of the war. I DO think it will be interesting to see what is offered in his defense.

I actually have a question with regard to conscientious objector status which maybe one of the military guys can answer. I am friends with someone who served in Vietnam. After a point, he asked for, and received, conscientious objector status and was honorably released from the military. Give that the army is now a volunteer military, is it still possible for someone to get conscientious objector status once they're in.

Clearly he'll go to jail if he bet wrong.

It is absolutely possible to get conscientious objector status. IIRC, Watada was offered that status, and refused. His beef is specifically with the war in Iraq.

Watada's whole case is that the war is illegal, and so any mission completed in support of the war (like moving to Kuwait to stage) is illegal. As has been said before, the duty to disobey an illegal/unethical order applies to specific orders (go torture those POWs), not broad orders (like an entire war).

jillian
02-06-2007, 01:32 PM
Yes you can request conscientious objector status at any time. You get a general discharge in most cases and go your way. Of course there is a hearing and you must explain why you feel the way you do. ie religious convictions etc.

And what if you have no problem with war, so wouldn't qualify for conscientious objector status, but think a particular war is illegal?

Mr. P
02-06-2007, 01:33 PM
First. I'm not going to get into the legality of the war. I DO think it will be interesting to see what is offered in his defense.

I actually have a question with regard to conscientious objector status which maybe one of the military guys can answer. I am friends with someone who served in Vietnam. After a point, he asked for, and received, conscientious objector status and was honorably released from the military. Give that the army is now a volunteer military, is it still possible for someone to get conscientious objector status once they're in.

Clearly he'll go to jail if he bet wrong.

It was when I was active. I was in the first year of the all volunteer military.
Had a flight school classmate do it...long story. It was and involved process but it was granted. We were still in Vietnam, althought it was after the official end.

Norse_soul
02-06-2007, 01:37 PM
As Pale Rider said, the guy's a traitor. He refused a direct order from his superior officers. He should be stripped of his rank to E-1, Fined for the amount of whatever his signing bonus was, and spend the remaining time of his enlistment plus an additional 3 years in a stockade (without pay of course), and finally Dishonorably discharged.
I didn't like every order I recieved in the military, but I followed every single one. And I wasn't involved in a wartime situation...

Mr. P
02-06-2007, 01:38 PM
And what if you have no problem with war, so wouldn't qualify for conscientious objector status, but think a particular war is illegal?

Then ya ain't got a case.

5stringJeff
02-06-2007, 01:43 PM
And what if you have no problem with war, so wouldn't qualify for conscientious objector status, but think a particular war is illegal?

Don't join the military.

Gaffer
02-06-2007, 01:43 PM
And what if you have no problem with war, so wouldn't qualify for conscientious objector status, but think a particular war is illegal?

Thinking a war is illegal has nothing to do with it. He has to think ALL war is wrong based on his belief system. And there are plenty of guys who served in positions such as medics that were conscientious objectors.

This guy is playing politics, nothing more. He has probably been promised a nice fat pay check at the end of things. There is definately an agenda at work here.

jillian
02-06-2007, 01:47 PM
Thinking a war is illegal has nothing to do with it. He has to think ALL war is wrong based on his belief system. And there are plenty of guys who served in positions such as medics that were conscientious objectors.

This guy is playing politics, nothing more. He has probably been promised a nice fat pay check at the end of things. There is definately an agenda at work here.

People have used civil disobedience to make a point many times during our history, stemming back to dumping the tea in Boston Harbor.

darin
02-06-2007, 01:49 PM
People have used civil disobedience to make a point many times during our history, stemming back to dumping the tea in Boston Harbor.

Those guys weren't soldiers. That's apples and oranges.

Mr. P
02-06-2007, 01:49 PM
People have used civil disobedience to make a point many times during our history, stemming back to dumping the tea in Boston Harbor.

This isn't civil..The military is by design different, it must be or the ACLU would run it. Oh GAWD..

jillian
02-06-2007, 01:51 PM
Don't join the military.

A lot of people joined after 9/11 because they wanted to hunt down OBL and fight the Taliban.

That isn't quite what they ended up with, no?

I'm not justifying what the guy did. I figure if he stands trial and loses, then he'll go to jail. But the guy can't be viewed as someone who never wanted to serve. He enlisted, after all.

Mr. P
02-06-2007, 01:53 PM
A lot of people joined after 9/11 because they wanted to hunt down OBL and fight the Taliban.

That isn't quite what they ended up with, no?

I'm not justifying what the guy did. I figure if he stands trial and loses, then he'll go to jail. But the guy can't be viewed as someone who never wanted to serve. He enlisted, after all.

Do you know why he enlisted?

jillian
02-06-2007, 01:54 PM
Do you know why he enlisted?

Nope. No idea.

5stringJeff
02-06-2007, 01:55 PM
People have used civil disobedience to make a point many times during our history, stemming back to dumping the tea in Boston Harbor.

If he wanted to engage in civil disobedience, he shouldn't have joined the military.

5stringJeff
02-06-2007, 01:56 PM
A lot of people joined after 9/11 because they wanted to hunt down OBL and fight the Taliban.

That isn't quite what they ended up with, no?

I'm not justifying what the guy did. I figure if he stands trial and loses, then he'll go to jail. But the guy can't be viewed as someone who never wanted to serve. He enlisted, after all.

Watada joined in 2003. Everyone on earth knew we were headed to Iraq. He had to have at least suspected he might end up there eventually.

Gaffer
02-06-2007, 02:01 PM
I was involved in a real war and in serious combat. Following orders, no matter how trivial, is critical.

What really makes him a shit is that someone else has to go in his place now. If that someone gets killed over there, this guy is responsible for that death because he refused to go. And there's no saying he would have died instead, because he might not have be involved in the same things the other guy was.

jillian
02-06-2007, 02:02 PM
Watada joined in 2003. Everyone on earth knew we were headed to Iraq. He had to have at least suspected he might end up there eventually.

In 2003 we were being told that there were wmd's and that Iraq was buying yellowcake uranium.

Grumplestillskin
02-06-2007, 02:08 PM
Wow, he could have taken the concientious objector route, but didn't? He truly must be a person of conviction. I think all the guys on this board who says he disobeyed the order are correct and what he did does seem to be wrong. He'll do his time.

darin
02-06-2007, 02:09 PM
This thread will very-quickly turn into a thread where people educate others on the FACTS about 'why we went to Iraq'....Sad, because the people needing the MOST education on the subject have closed minds. :(

darin
02-06-2007, 02:10 PM
Wow, he could have taken the concientious objector route, but didn't? He truly must be a person of conviction. I think all the guys on this board who says he disobeyed the order are correct and what he did does seem to be wrong. He'll do his time.

From what he's told me, he tried to resign his commission, but was refused - partly due to Stop-Loss measures, if I recall.

jillian
02-06-2007, 02:16 PM
From what he's told me, he tried to resign his commission, but was refused - partly due to Stop-Loss measures, if I recall.

What's your opinion about that?

Mr. P
02-06-2007, 02:17 PM
From what he's told me, he tried to resign his commission, but was refused - partly due to Stop-Loss measures, if I recall.

Also offered a desk job in Iraq he turned down.

jillian
02-06-2007, 02:19 PM
Also offered a desk job in Iraq he turned down.

Then he's absolutely trying to make a point. I don't disagree. But you have to admit, someone who turns down a desk job, and risks years in jail and having his future ruined, to make that point must believe strongly in what he is doing.... right or wrong.

Mr. P
02-06-2007, 02:20 PM
What's your opinion about that?

It's part of military life, it goes both ways. After Vietnam they tossed hundreds out of the military.

darin
02-06-2007, 02:22 PM
What's your opinion about that?

My opinion he was being honest with me when he said it.

I think the Army made the right choice in refusing his requests. We (the Army) cannot let the inmates run the assylum.

jillian
02-06-2007, 02:23 PM
It's part of military life, it goes both ways. After Vietnam they tossed hundreds out of the military.

Yes, they did, and then granted them amnesty years later. In those days, Canada also accepted draft-dodgers. It's my understanding they don't now which might be the result of it being a volunteer force, so they might have some understanding with the U.S. government about that.

I do think the issues are fascinating, though. And I want to, personally, thank all you military guys for being so respectful in this discussion. It's been enlightening because of that. Cheers to you all.

Mr. P
02-06-2007, 02:23 PM
Then he's absolutely trying to make a point. I don't disagree. But you have to admit, someone who turns down a desk job, and risks years in jail and having his future ruined, to make that point must believe strongly in what he is doing.... right or wrong.

He is wrong and will pay the price, his choice. His ass in jail if that's what it's worth to him.

jillian
02-06-2007, 02:24 PM
He is wrong and will pay the price, his choice. His ass in jail if that's what it's worth to him.

I agree.

Mr. P
02-06-2007, 02:27 PM
Yes, they did, and then granted them amnesty years later. In those days, Canada also accepted draft-dodgers. It's my understanding they don't now which might be the result of it being a volunteer force, so they might have some understanding with the U.S. government about that.

I do think the issues are fascinating, though. And I want to, personally, thank all you military guys for being so respectful in this discussion. It's been enlightening because of that. Cheers to you all.

No there was no charge for these guys..It was called reduction in force (RIF).
Tis the opposite of Stop-Loss.

jillian
02-06-2007, 02:28 PM
No there was no charge for these guys..It was called reduction in force (RIF).
Tis the opposite of Stop-Loss.

Oops. Sorry. Misunderstood. Thanks.

5stringJeff
02-06-2007, 02:32 PM
Wow, he could have taken the concientious objector route, but didn't? He truly must be a person of conviction. I think all the guys on this board who says he disobeyed the order are correct and what he did does seem to be wrong. He'll do his time.

I agree, he's got convictions, and the actions to back them up. Unfortunately for him, the military looks down on missing movement.

And, given that he refused a desk job in Iraq, it almost seems as if he was trying to get court martialed. However, that's only speculation on my part, and seems extremely illogical.

Grumplestillskin
02-06-2007, 02:44 PM
This thread will very-quickly turn into a thread where people educate others on the FACTS about 'why we went to Iraq'....Sad, because the people needing the MOST education on the subject have closed minds. :(

I need no educating to why the US went into Iraq. At its most basic, the US got caught with its pants down re 9-11. There had to be a public display to let the world know they couldn't fuck with the US. Iraq was that public display. However, knowing the lessons of Vietnam and the importance of public opinion, going in under those circumstances would not be worn by the public, so a convoluted excuse had to be found. The Neocons led by Peale, Wolfowitz and Rummy (to a degree), found their excuses, gave 'em to the public - and voila...

Gaffer
02-06-2007, 05:41 PM
I need no educating to why the US went into Iraq. At its most basic, the US got caught with its pants down re 9-11. There had to be a public display to let the world know they couldn't fuck with the US. Iraq was that public display. However, knowing the lessons of Vietnam and the importance of public opinion, going in under those circumstances would not be worn by the public, so a convoluted excuse had to be found. The Neocons led by Peale, Wolfowitz and Rummy (to a degree), found their excuses, gave 'em to the public - and voila...

as he said your too close minded to be educated.

Hagbard Celine
02-06-2007, 05:43 PM
as he said your too close minded to be educated.

And by "educated" you mean "indoctrinated."

Grumplestillskin
02-06-2007, 06:00 PM
as he said your too close minded to be educated.

As are you?

Grumplestillskin
02-06-2007, 06:01 PM
And by "educated" you mean "indoctrinated."

By who? My theory is my theory. I have not heard anybody else give off that theory, although I bet others have thought along the same way.

CockySOB
02-06-2007, 06:40 PM
Don't join the military.

But then you hear the librull whining about how the military only recruits poor, dumb slobs who as snookered by the wily recruiters who'll say anything, do anything to get the poor bloke to sign his life away.

Fact of the matter is this: if you sign for the military, expect the you will probably have to enter a combat situation and that means fighting, killing and dying. If you ain't down with those possibilities, don't sign up.

Gunny
02-06-2007, 06:54 PM
I need no educating to why the US went into Iraq. At its most basic, the US got caught with its pants down re 9-11. There had to be a public display to let the world know they couldn't fuck with the US. Iraq was that public display. However, knowing the lessons of Vietnam and the importance of public opinion, going in under those circumstances would not be worn by the public, so a convoluted excuse had to be found. The Neocons led by Peale, Wolfowitz and Rummy (to a degree), found their excuses, gave 'em to the public - and voila...

The real point here is that is doesn't matter whether or not you think you need educating on Iraq. That is a different subject and irrelevant to the charges.

A good judge is not going to allow Watada to put the Iraq War on trial in his courtroom. He will be tried on the charges against him. He's not being tried for personally disagreeing with the Iraq War.

Military courts aren't three-ring circuses run by justices with political ambitions/agendas. In this case, a smart judge and a smart prosecutor is going to cut short ANY attempt to deflect from answering the specific charges against Watada, and in my experience, most of them are smart. They're certainly smart enough to not allow Watada to politicize the trial.

OCA
02-06-2007, 07:11 PM
Huh? Who are the perverts? Who are the losers? Who are the traitors? If a man cannot make a decision on a course of action that could cost him his life, then he is not a man. Watada has more nads than most knowing the ridicule he has set himself up for. I doubt he is a coward in that he did go to Afghanistan (if memory serves). Unlike something like WWII, Iraq is not an open and shut case. Like Vietnam, the whys and wherefors are at best, blurry. I wouldn't go either....or I would with conditions - one of Bush's daughters come with me...or any one of those chickenhawk's kids would do..



Stop with the pretense. You know I'm not....:2up:

Why don't we ask the other guys in his unit if he has nads.

This piece of shit is a fucking traitor.

OCA
02-06-2007, 07:18 PM
I hope he gets off, but if not, a couple of years at most in the slammer. Giving him the death penalty would be way over the top. Same with life imprisonment. If he gets either of those, I hope it is headline news, which hopefully would mean a sharp drop in folks joining the military.


Why do you always root for that which normal Americans KNOW is wrong?

jillian
02-06-2007, 07:25 PM
Why do you always root for that which normal Americans KNOW is wrong?

First, he isn't American. You know that.

Second.... you sure about what "normal" Americans know?


(CBS) Public support for U.S. involvement in Iraq continues to fall. By two to one, Americans reject financing the war through an increased federal deficit, and 62% would finance paying for the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast by cutting spending in Iraq.

More than half of Americans think Iraq is not secure enough to hold its constitutional referendum in just under a week, and many doubt that country will ever become a stable democracy.


U.S. INVOLVEMENT IN IRAQ

Public opinion is now fairly solidly against the war in Iraq. More than half of Americans 55% - think the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraq (the highest figure to date), while 41% think taking military action there was the right thing to do. As the war began, Americans overwhelmingly approved of U.S. action against Iraq; 69% said the U.S. did the right thing in taking military action (the highest level of support in our polls for the war). Support for the war waned in 2004.

(MORE)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/10/opinion/polls/main930772.shtml

trobinett
02-06-2007, 07:59 PM
When all the BS goes to sleep, at the end of the day, as an officer in the UNITED STATES MILITARY you can not pick and choose what war, what issue, what side, what belief, you think, that you will support by your participation.

I've seen this shit before, in Vietnam we had those, that felt their religion, or their beliefs, or their upbringing didn't allow participation in the war. All we are seeing now is a repeat of the same shit. I'm discussed, and these fucks should be taken to the Matt, bitch slapped, and left for dead.

Make any statement you want, BEFORE you put you signature on the line. After that, your ass is Uncle Sam's.

Got it?

Dilloduck
02-06-2007, 07:59 PM
First, he isn't American. You know that.

Second.... you sure about what "normal" Americans know?



(MORE)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/10/opinion/polls/main930772.shtml

Poll#s----:wank2: ---worthless.

OCA
02-06-2007, 08:07 PM
Poll#s----:wank2: ---worthless.

Especially a CBS News poll.

Gunny
02-06-2007, 09:22 PM
First, he isn't American. You know that.

Second.... you sure about what "normal" Americans know?



(MORE)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/10/opinion/polls/main930772.shtml

Jillian ...

I'm not picking at you personally, but the problem as I see it, is you cannot divorce the charges against Lt Watada from his opinion of the War in Iraq. Either that or you can and won't.

First off, I'll accept poll results from CBS about like you will Ann Coulter. They probably took it in a welfare check-cashing line, or at Berkley.

The people with military experience here have kept trying to tell you ... Lt Watada's court martial is not about the Iraq War. The charges against him are not about the Iraq War.

They are specific violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Why are they covered by specific Articles within the UCMJ? This has been tried before.

I can certainly attest to the fact that the Marine Corps prosecutes for missing movement and failure to obey an order. There's usually that one knucklehead on evey deployment that thinks he's smarter than the system.

Lt Watada's personal opinion of the war is a non-factor. Personal political beliefs are NOT considered justification to refuse to obey an order in the military. It's as simple as that.

OCA
02-06-2007, 10:55 PM
First, he isn't American. You know that.



What the hell does that have to do with anything? He's wearing the uniform of the U.S. Army, isn't he? He signed the pledge when he entered, didn't he? Nobody held a gun to his head when he signed the pledge, did they?

There is no maybe i'll obey or maybe I won't in the military, you either obey the orders you are given or you get bent. What he thinks about U.S. policy in Iraq, moral or immoral, is absolutely fucking irrelevant.

Gunny
02-06-2007, 10:59 PM
What the hell does that have to do with anything? He's wearing the uniform of the U.S. Army, isn't he? He signed the pledge when he entered, didn't he? Nobody held a gun to his head when he signed the pledge, did they?

There is no maybe i'll obey or maybe I won't in the military, you either obey the orders you are given or you get bent. What he thinks about U.S. policy in Iraq, moral or immoral, is absolutely fucking irrelevant.

I think she's talking about your favorite buddy, grumpystiltskin.:poke:

He's not American.

OCA
02-06-2007, 11:13 PM
I think she's talking about your favorite buddy, grumpystiltskin.:poke:

He's not American.

Which makes all his bitching even more bizarre.

darin
02-07-2007, 05:52 PM
A little bird just walked by...Trial is over - will re-convene in a couple months...

5stringJeff
02-07-2007, 06:07 PM
That bird told me to link to:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/302733_courtmartial07ww.html?source=mypi

Now return the phone.

Mr. P
02-07-2007, 07:22 PM
Very interesting.

Grumplestillskin
02-07-2007, 10:02 PM
First off, I'll accept poll results from CBS about like you will Ann Coulter. They probably took it in a welfare check-cashing line, or at Berkley.

Poll participants are picked randomly. There is no political affiliations (unless it is a political poll and one of the questions ask if they are a member of the DEM/GOP organisations....If Anne does her polls the same way, there won't be a problem...

Yurt
02-07-2007, 10:38 PM
What the hell does that have to do with anything? He's wearing the uniform of the U.S. Army, isn't he? He signed the pledge when he entered, didn't he? Nobody held a gun to his head when he signed the pledge, did they?

There is no maybe i'll obey or maybe I won't in the military, you either obey the orders you are given or you get bent. What he thinks about U.S. policy in Iraq, moral or immoral, is absolutely fucking irrelevant.


What if you are given an order by a superior officer that you believe is unlawful? Do you have choice then?

Gunny
02-07-2007, 11:00 PM
Poll participants are picked randomly. There is no political affiliations (unless it is a political poll and one of the questions ask if they are a member of the DEM/GOP organisations....If Anne does her polls the same way, there won't be a problem...

Questions in polls are gamed to solicit a certain response, and are rarely straight-forward and honest. Pollsters also know where to poll to get the majority they want.

I would not consider a poll conducted by Ann Coulter any more credible than I do CBS, or any other person or organization with a political agenda.

Gunny
02-07-2007, 11:05 PM
What if you are given an order by a superior officer that you believe is unlawful? Do you have choice then?

Been covered, but .....

If you know the order is unlawful -- it is your duty to report it to the next-higher up in the chain of command.

If you believe an order to be unlawful, you better be able to prove it. If you cannot, you're screwed.

In this instance, being ordered to report for a movement of troops is and has been completely legal, and is administrative in nature.

The two charges against Watada are the same two charges that anyone who misses a movement of troops are charged with.

The additional charge of conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman is due to his making political statements against the US government as a member of the US Army.

OCA
02-08-2007, 12:07 AM
What if you are given an order by a superior officer that you believe is unlawful? Do you have choice then?

Military law or civilian law? I think if you were told by your C.O. to drop by this house and whack evryone in it you'd stand a good chance of having zero charges of misconduct brought against you if you disobeyed that one but if your C.O. told you to pick up every single piece of dogshit on base with your bare hands well you'd probably better do it.

Yurt
02-08-2007, 12:21 AM
Been covered, but .....

If you know the order is unlawful -- it is your duty to report it to the next-higher up in the chain of command.

If you believe an order to be unlawful, you better be able to prove it. If you cannot, you're screwed.

In this instance, being ordered to report for a movement of troops is and has been completely legal, and is administrative in nature.

The two charges against Watada are the same two charges that anyone who misses a movement of troops are charged with.

The additional charge of conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman is due to his making political statements against the US government as a member of the US Army.

Thanks, did not know it was cleared up, this was my point. The libs are bashing on this, but fail to realize the law on the matter. All they do is point to the initial reason, not the prongs that must be met in order to meet this exclusion.

Thank you.

Yurt
02-08-2007, 12:24 AM
Sorry:

My main point I was getting at, is what "illegality" is this guy claiming? If so, is the "illegality" an exclusion under military, not civilian, law?

The military code is not the same as civilian, nor should it be.

pegwinn
02-08-2007, 12:51 AM
Sorry:

My main point I was getting at, is what "illegality" is this guy claiming? If so, is the "illegality" an exclusion under military, not civilian, law?

The military code is not the same as civilian, nor should it be.

Bottom line in the UCMJ is the specifics of the order given. He was not ordered to fight by President Bush. He was ordered to be at a certain place and time for movement. His defence is extrapolating that any order to Iraq is fruit of the poisoned tree.

It won't work. Military Juries are far more versed in the law than civilian juries. C follows A and B. Meaning that today or two months from now, he will likely be convicted.

theHawk
02-08-2007, 09:24 AM
Generally, I think that is fair enough, too. Unless the war is, IYO, totally illegal. With Iraq it appears far from decided for some. However, what if there was indeed an illegal war. Say Bush decided to invade Mexico, with the support of the Joint Chiefs, because he thought it was a good idea?

I don't really understand why this term illegal is used with this war, or why it would with any war. The Constitution gives the President the authority to use the military. In the case of the Iraq war, they even had the Congress approve of it. You may not agree with the political goals of the war, but that doesn't make the deployment of troops by orders of the Commander-in-Chief illegal. The term illegal war that has been thrown around in the media and by Democratic leaders is simpleton propaganda talk with no actual meaning to it. And if you start argueing that some international court or the Court of Kalamazoe says the war is illegal, well that really doesn't make a difference within the U.S. courts and is completely irrelavant to this case.
Before anyone enlists they ask you if you are a conscientious objector, which is what this guy is. If he willingly lied then thats his own fault. Otherwise he'd probably have to prove he was too mentaly retarded to understand what they were asking at the time.

darin
02-08-2007, 09:46 AM
I don't really understand why this term illegal is used with this war, or why it would with any war. The Constitution gives the President the authority to use the military. In the case of the Iraq war, they even had the Congress approve of it. You may not agree with the political goals of the war, but that doesn't make the deployment of troops by orders of the Commander-in-Chief illegal. The term illegal war that has been thrown around in the media and by Democratic leaders is simpleton propaganda talk with no actual meaning to it. And if you start argueing that some international court or the Court of Kalamazoe says the war is illegal, well that really doesn't make a difference within the U.S. courts and is completely irrelavant to this case.
Before anyone enlists they ask you if you are a conscientious objector, which is what this guy is. If he willingly lied then thats his own fault. Otherwise he'd probably have to prove he was too mentaly retarded to understand what they were asking at the time.

It's that way so Libs have better slogans.

"The war is ILLEGAL!"

vs.

"The war is LEGAL but we really don't agree with the Legislative and Executive Branches of Government authorizing the movement of forces to prevent further terrorist attacks!"

Hobbit
02-08-2007, 11:54 AM
It's that way so Libs have better slogans.

"The war is ILLEGAL!"

vs.

"The war is LEGAL but we really don't agree with the Legislative and Executive Branches of Government authorizing the movement of forces to prevent further terrorist attacks!"

Why didn't they just stick with calling the war 'immoral?' It has the same ring to it, and morality is ambiguous and subjective enough that they could actually defend it.

Grumplestillskin
02-08-2007, 01:36 PM
Questions in polls are gamed to solicit a certain response, and are rarely straight-forward and honest. Pollsters also know where to poll to get the majority they want.

I would not consider a poll conducted by Ann Coulter any more credible than I do CBS, or any other person or organization with a political agenda.

No they are not. Most of these types of questions rgarding the war in Iraq are pretty straight forward. Like: Do you think the US should pull out of Iraq? Do you think the president has done a good job on the war in Iraq? Nothing ambiguous about it. Pollsters like the CBS one do not poll where they want. The phone numbers are picked randomly. You're way too much of a cynic Gunny...

theHawk
02-08-2007, 02:49 PM
No they are not. Most of these types of questions rgarding the war in Iraq are pretty straight forward. Like: Do you think the US should pull out of Iraq? Do you think the president has done a good job on the war in Iraq? Nothing ambiguous about it. Pollsters like the CBS one do not poll where they want. The phone numbers are picked randomly. You're way too much of a cynic Gunny...

But even the very questions you ask don't really mean anything.
I would answer yes and quite possibly a no to your two questions. That doesn't mean I want an immediate withdraw now. It just means I think we should pull out of Iraq sometime, and that time would be after our objective of sustaining a government there is complete. And I don't think Bush did a good as a job as he could of, he could of used alot more troops and let them kill and rout the enemy. But if I answered the simple 'yes' and 'no' to such a poll question, it would be spun by the media to make it sound as if I think Bush has done a terrible job and we should withdraw troops now.

Hagbard Celine
02-08-2007, 02:52 PM
But even the very questions you ask don't really mean anything.
I would answer yes and quite possibly a no to your two questions. That doesn't mean I want an immediate withdraw now. It just means I think we should pull out of Iraq sometime, and that time would be after our objective of sustaining a government there is complete. And I don't think Bush did a good as a job as he could of, he could of used alot more troops and let them kill and rout the enemy. But if I answered the simple 'yes' and 'no' to such a poll question, it would be spun by the media to make it sound as if I think Bush has done a terrible job and we should withdraw troops now.

You're right! I didn't realize it until now, but the MEDIA is what's wrong with this war. Silly me. :boohoo:

theHawk
02-08-2007, 04:08 PM
You're right! I didn't realize it until now, but the MEDIA is what's wrong with this war. Silly me. :boohoo:

No the media isn't whats wrong with the war. :cuckoo:

darin
02-08-2007, 06:10 PM
Wouldn't it be SOMETHING if this dude got PROMOTED!!???

5stringJeff
02-08-2007, 06:32 PM
Wouldn't it be SOMETHING if this dude got PROMOTED!!???

I'd sack every Colonel on that promotion board.

Gaffer
02-08-2007, 07:17 PM
I'd sack every Colonel on that promotion board.

Colonels come in two catagories. The very competent and the total asswipe. Unfortunately generals are taken from both pools.

trobinett
02-08-2007, 07:54 PM
I'd sack every Colonel on that promotion board.

It ain't happening, the promotion that is!:banana2:

Gunny
02-08-2007, 09:46 PM
Military law or civilian law? I think if you were told by your C.O. to drop by this house and whack evryone in it you'd stand a good chance of having zero charges of misconduct brought against you if you disobeyed that one but if your C.O. told you to pick up every single piece of dogshit on base with your bare hands well you'd probably better do it.

Right and wrong.

Military personnel cannot be compelled to perform personal servitude for people who outrank them. That's not to mention issuing an order to commit murder IS an unlawful order.

On the last one, the person would have to be assigned to base maintenance, at least in the Marines, and that be part of that section's duties. The person would have to be supplied all proper gear to ensure he is not unnecessarily exposed to unsanitary conditions. In short, he'd get some rubber gloves and a pooper scooper.

Gunny
02-08-2007, 09:49 PM
Thanks, did not know it was cleared up, this was my point. The libs are bashing on this, but fail to realize the law on the matter. All they do is point to the initial reason, not the prongs that must be met in order to meet this exclusion.

Thank you.

What the libs keep doing is the same thing Watada keeps doing .... they're trying to put the war itself on trial, and keep ignoring repeated attempts to point out that what he is being charged with has nothing to do with the war.

pegwinn
02-08-2007, 09:52 PM
Right and wrong.

Military personnel cannot be compelled to perform personal servitude for people who outrank them. That's not to mention issuing an order to commit murder IS an unlawful order.

On the last one, the person would have to be assigned to base maintenance, at least in the Marines, and that be part of that section's duties. The person would have to be supplied all proper gear to ensure he is not unnecessarily exposed to unsanitary conditions. In short, he'd get some rubber gloves and a pooper scooper.

I always thought burning shitters was personal servitude but it avoided some real wmd...........:fart:

I forget the MOS number, but there is an enlisted aide MOS. Basically the guy is the butler for a general officer. On the cool side him, and the generals drivers get the FBI personal security training package.

Gunny
02-08-2007, 09:53 PM
No they are not. Most of these types of questions rgarding the war in Iraq are pretty straight forward. Like: Do you think the US should pull out of Iraq? Do you think the president has done a good job on the war in Iraq? Nothing ambiguous about it. Pollsters like the CBS one do not poll where they want. The phone numbers are picked randomly. You're way too much of a cynic Gunny...

And what was the question posted recently? Do you think the US should continue the war in Iraq with an increasing deficit? Loaded question.

I'm a cynic? I believe in the honestly of polls like you believe in God.

stephanie
02-08-2007, 09:54 PM
Wouldn't it be SOMETHING if this dude got PROMOTED!!???

I already predicted dmp...

That he will serve his time, and then become a Senator for the Democrats...:p

Gaffer
02-08-2007, 11:10 PM
I already predicted dmp...

That he will serve his time, and then become a Senator for the Democrats...:p

Yeah seems he will get some benny out of this. Or he's being paid outright. Something still smells fishy about this whole thing.

Gunny
02-08-2007, 11:17 PM
I always thought burning shitters was personal servitude but it avoided some real wmd...........:fart:

I forget the MOS number, but there is an enlisted aide MOS. Basically the guy is the butler for a general officer. On the cool side him, and the generals drivers get the FBI personal security training package.

I thought the Aide was an officer, and the enlisted guy was the driver?

stephanie
02-08-2007, 11:18 PM
Yeah seems he will get some Benny out of this. Or he's being paid outright. Something still smells fishy about this whole thing.

As I said, his dad was a anti-Vietnam activist...Read up on him...
I myself....believe this was planned from the start...

That's why I hope he gets the max in jail time...

This is not a drafted...Vietnam war...

This is an all Volunteer military, he joined in 2003...

He's a traitor.....Thur and Thur..

But hey, maybe he can get Sean Penn on his visitors list...:pee:

Gunny
02-08-2007, 11:24 PM
As I said, his dad was a anti-Vietnam activist...Read up on him...
I myself....believe this was planned from the start...

That's why I hope he gets the max in jail time...

This is not a drafted...Vietnam war...

This is an all Volunteer military, he joined in 2003 when it was pretty much known we were going into Iraq...

He's a traitor.....Thur and Thur..

But hey, maybe he can get Sean Penn on his visitors list...:pee:

If it's a plan, it's dumb one.

manu1959
02-08-2007, 11:30 PM
misstrial..............

Gaffer
02-08-2007, 11:33 PM
mistrial means new trial. It ain't over till the fat lady screams.

stephanie
02-08-2007, 11:33 PM
If it's a plan, it's dumb one.

Not any different than Jon Carys...
Do four months active duty, get out on an injury pass, come back and testify that the WAR IS WRONG...???

Think about it??

You'll never find me saying Jon Cary is INTELLIGENT...;)

But....Watada, I believe, see himself as another Jon Cary...

And I'd take bets.....
That in a few yrs. Watada runs as a Democrat SENATOR....:laugh2:

Gaffer
02-08-2007, 11:53 PM
Not any different than Jon Carys...
Do four months active duty, get out on an injury pass, come back and testify that the WAR IS WRONG...???

Think about it??

You'll never find me saying Jon Cary is INTELLIGENT...;)

But....Watada, I believe, see himself as another Jon Cary...

And I'd take bets.....
That in a few yrs. Watada runs as a Democrat SENATOR....:laugh2:

I think only if the libs turn this into another vietnam as they are trying to do. Otherwise he's fucked. bin kerry at least went in and struted around, gave himself a few cuts and scrapes before taking off. This numbnuts seems to think he can do it all by going to prison. He can't even testify about the terrible war crimes he and his troops would commit.

trobinett
02-10-2007, 02:37 PM
Hard to believe this man is an officer.

Getting through 26 weeks of OCS, ya got to know what's up with your military obligations.

Guy must of fallen, and banged his head.:dunno: