Posted on 07/11/2006 4:39:16 PM PDT by SandRat
FORT LEWIS, Wash. (Army News Service, July 10, 2006) – Charges were preferred July 6 against 1st Lt. Ehren Watada of 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, for his refusal June 22 to accompany his unit to Iraq and for actions related to that refusal. The charges arose from an initial investigation conducted in the two weeks since the incident.
According to Fort Lewis officials, Watada faces charges for three separate violations: missing movement, contempt toward officials and conduct unbecoming an officer.
If found guilty on all charges, Watada faces a maximum sentence of seven years in prison, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a dishonorable discharge.
Fort Lewis officials emphasized that the charges resulted from an initial investigation.
“The next step in the military-justice process,” according to a two-page Fort Lewis press release, “is an Article 32, Uniformed Code of Military Justice, pre-trial investigation ... hearing.”
The Article 32 process will determine whether sufficient grounds exist to warrant a court-martial. It can also delete charges, or add new ones if the investigation finds cause.
Watada reported for duty June 22 but stayed in the 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, headquarters while 3rd Bde. Soldiers boarded buses to McChord Air Force Base for their trip to the Middle East. He refused a final offer by his chain of command to reconsider, comply with movement orders and deploy with the brigade.
“He stuck to his decision not to deploy,” said Tammy Reed, I Corps Public Affairs Office spokesperson.
Watada missed the 3 a.m. weapons draw and a 5-20 Inf. formation at 5 a.m., though he had arrived for duty before the formation. He remained in the battalion headquarters building while the rest of his unit made final preparations for movement. The bus departed at 6:45 a.m. and the plane lifted off without him at 10 a.m.
Following Watada’s refusal to comply with an order to deploy with his unit, his chain of command made an administrative decision to limit his pass privileges. Those restrictions were lifted last week, however, and officials said the lieutenant is now free to travel off post.
He has been reassigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, I Corps.
Antiwar supporters have claimed Watada is the first U.S. Army officer to refuse to serve in Operation Iraqi Freedom. However, Department of the Army spokesman Paul Boyce said last month that Watada “is not the first officer, not the first enlisted, nor the first Soldier” to refuse deployment to Iraq.
By not complying with movement orders, the lieutenant carried out a threat he made June 7 during a press conference held in Tacoma. On that day, he announced that he intended to refuse to deploy with his unit.
A number of online political Web sites sympathetic to Watada’s actions have quoted allegations by his attorney, Eric Seitz, that the Army has attempted “to keep him from speaking out against the war.”
I Corps spokesman Joe Piek said that in addition to his June 7 press conference, Watada “has conducted numerous media interviews and has appeared at multiple public forums. The Army is not hindering or usurping his right to free speech, Piek said.
“However, service members take an oath to support and defend our Constitution,” he said, “which creates a special responsibility to ensure their speech is consistent with good order and discipline.”
Watada joined the Army in March 2003, the month U.S. military and coalition forces deposed Saddam Hussein and his Baathist regime.
(Editor’s note: Don Kramer writes for the Northwest Guardian at Fort Lewis, Wash.)
I absolutely agree. By my post I didn't mean he should not be held accountable. I would volunteer to be in that squad.
Would this be a felony conviction? I don't want to throw up into my mouth a little every time I see the guy strutting around if he gets into politics.
LOL, but come to think of it, if the guy doesn't stick to his oath to protect his country, could be because of this administration's refusal to stick to it's oath to protect this country against illegal invasion. If the officer is guilty, the officer should pay. What about the administration?
I wonder why Lt. Watada isn't being charged with Cowardice here.
His behavior would certainly seem to qualify for the charge, and the traditional punishment for the crime of being hung seems to be truly appropriate.
the missing act for that charge is "in the face of the enemy" IMHO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.