1st Lt Court Marital for refusing to go to Iraq, interesting defense

tbone · 02-07-2007, 02:23 PM

Interesting debate. So, if it is a soldiers duty to refuse unlawful orders (ie rape a woman in vietnam) and he believes the Iraq war is unlawful and is ordered to deploy. What are his options? Obvisouly not requesting a different deployment as this guy did. This is a military court so this will never reach civil courts were they could decide whether the war is illegal. Comments, opinions?

While making public disparaging remarks about a war in progress is deemed to be an actionable offense, Watada argues that "under military law those in the military are allowed to refuse, in fact, have a right to refuse unlawful orders." It is his belief that the U.S. is in Iraq under false pretexts, and illegally; he thinks it is his duty to refuse those orders. It is important to keep in mind that Ehren Watada is not a conscientious objector, not someone opposed to combat; he has said he would be willing to fight in Afghanistan. He is not against war, per se, he is speaking out against this administration's military adventurism, and its activist campaign to deceive the American people, manufacture evidence, and shun diplomacy.

Atlantic Free Press - Hard Truths for Hard Times - Conduct Unbecoming - Ehren Watada

Donkey® · 02-07-2007, 02:31 PM

The war is not illegal though.

7960 · 02-07-2007, 02:32 PM

It is his belief.......

right there, he loses

tbone · 02-07-2007, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

The war is not illegal though.

On what basis? I am aware of P.L. 107-243 but there was no declaration of war, nor are the merits on which the President can activate military force based on provisions in P.L. 107-243 accurate anymore as admitted to by the administation. So are you sure?

tbone · 02-07-2007, 03:02 PM

So if P.L. 107-243 is no longer valid, this would default to the 1973 War Powers Resolution, which states:

Section 3 of the War Powers Resolution requires the President "in every possible instance" to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. armed forces into situations of hostilities and imminent hostilities, and to continue consultations as long as the armed forces remain.

The President is required to consult with Congress not less than every 60 days while U.S. armed forces are in situations of hositilies. Theoretically, but never tested or even assured if legal, Congress could issue a resolution to cease hostilities even if the President "consulted" them every 60 days.

6SpeedTA95 · 02-07-2007, 03:04 PM

The war was legal, completely legal.

Just on the basis that Iraq violated the cease fire 17 times makes the war legal based on the terms of the cease fire.

This guy has no defense and should be dishonorably discharged.

Thorgrim · 02-07-2007, 03:08 PM

Congress does not automatically grant constitutionality

Also, there is a decent case that the law expired...we did basically everything the law wanted...saddam is out of power, WMD issue over, we've "founded" a government and handed over power...mission accomplished

Thorgrim · 02-07-2007, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

The war was legal, completely legal.

Just on the basis that Iraq violated the cease fire 17 times makes the war legal based on the terms of the cease fire.

This guy has no defense and should be dishonorably discharged.

Officers swear an alliegance to the Constitution, not UN resolutions

Diesel66 · 02-07-2007, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by tbone

On what basis? I am aware of P.L. 107-243 but there was no declaration of war, nor are the merits on which the President can activate military force based on provisions in P.L. 107-243 accurate anymore as admitted to by the administation. So are you sure?

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Congress approved it.
Congress funds it.

The war is legal. The order is legal. The Lt is a criminal.

Kytro · 02-07-2007, 07:10 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Congress approved it.
Congress funds it.

The war is legal. The order is legal. The Lt is a criminal.

Agreed, but I would probably have done the same thing from the beginning - the main reason I never considered joining the armed forces is I wouldn't participate in a conflict unless it was defending my nation.

JaJae · 02-07-2007, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Congress approved it.
Congress funds it.

The war is legal. The order is legal. The Lt is a criminal.

Bush/Congress is within their rights to send the military to Iraq. Therefore if you are in the military you don't have the right to refuse if you get called to go.

kinggovernor · 02-07-2007, 07:23 PM

he had no defense after the judge ruled on his legality of war defense:
http://www.thankyoult.org/images/sto..._nuremberg.pdf

however, this trial ended in a mistrial request by the prosecution over disputes regarding the stipulations the defendant signed. Look for this happen all over again, he is going to jail and lucky he isn't executed

kinggovernor · 02-07-2007, 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Congress does not automatically grant constitutionality

Also, there is a decent case that the law expired...we did basically everything the law wanted...saddam is out of power, WMD issue over, we've "founded" a government and handed over power...mission accomplished

you have no right to say no to any location assignment in the military. Secondly no one ordered me to "war" I was deployed to Iraq.

RMNIXON · 02-07-2007, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by tbone

Interesting debate. So, if it is a soldiers duty to refuse unlawful orders (ie rape a woman in vietnam) and he believes the Iraq war is unlawful and is ordered to deploy. What are his options? Obvisouly not requesting a different deployment as this guy did. This is a military court so this will never reach civil courts were they could decide whether the war is illegal. Comments, opinions?

Atlantic Free Press - Hard Truths for Hard Times - Conduct Unbecoming - Ehren Watada

Nice try, be he does not determine what is legal. War Crimes such as rape are very clear. And the incident in Iraq where the officer ordered his men to kill those people. That would be a case in point. Not what you "feel."

This clown simply needs to be removed from the military with a dishonorable discharge and let him go and lead the rest of his miserable existence somewhere else....

RMNIXON · 02-07-2007, 07:53 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

he had no defense after the judge ruled on his legality of war defense:
http://www.thankyoult.org/images/sto..._nuremberg.pdf

however, this trial ended in a mistrial request by the prosecution over disputes regarding the stipulations the defendant signed. Look for this happen all over again, he is going to jail and lucky he isn't executed

What he needs is a good slap!

JSmythe · 02-07-2007, 08:45 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Nice try, be he does not determine what is legal. War Crimes such as rape are very clear. And the incident in Iraq where the officer ordered his men to kill those people. That would be a case in point. Not what you "feel."

Spot on.

JaJae · 02-07-2007, 09:00 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

This clown simply needs to be removed from the military with a dishonorable discharge and let him go and lead the rest of his miserable existence somewhere else....

He should go to military prison until major operations end in Iraq. Then sent home on dishonorable. He can either go to prison or Iraq. I'd make it his choice.

kinggovernor · 02-07-2007, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

He should go to military prison until major operations end in Iraq. Then sent home on dishonorable. He can either go to prison or Iraq. I'd make it his choice.

he already made his choice, he can't be put in charge of anything or anyone

JaJae · 02-07-2007, 10:02 PM

Just read the article. This story is a couple years old. Watada has been protesting for a while. I believe he joined the military after the Iraq invasion and then protested deployment.

Ehren Watada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He joined the US Army after the war in Iraq began, stating that after 9/11 he was motivated "out of a desire to protect our country."

He's a protester, nothing more.

6SpeedTA95 · 02-07-2007, 11:13 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Just read the article. This story is a couple years old. Watada has been protesting for a while. I believe he joined the military after the Iraq invasion and then protested deployment.

Ehren Watada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He joined the US Army after the war in Iraq began, stating that after 9/11 he was motivated "out of a desire to protect our country."

He's a protester, nothing more.