The case against Lt. Ehren Watada (Shocker: Times sides w/Army)

The Seattle Times ^ | January 9, 2007 | Editorial

[BADROTOFINGER]

WA Ping...JFK

[pinkpanther111]

Exactly, He volunteered, He was not drafted. He has no excuse for what he is doing now.

[lilycicero]

Yikes! Mom and dad sure got that wrong. I believe both his parents are Hawaiian, weird they'd give him that name. I think they meant to name him Osama Bin Runnin. See I said I was done earlier and you made me take the bait.

[lilycicero]

Ya...and even though the uniform was a PROP for him...it didn't even make him look like a hottie.

[Scotsman will be Free]

Can't do an article 15(non judicial punishment) and conduct a court martial on the same charges.
He should be tried, convicted, demoted to E-1 then stood against a wall.

[jazusamo]

HeHeHe! :-)

[lilycicero]

I want to live in your country.

[pinkpanther111]

Not even with that fancy jacket in post #7. :)

[lilycicero]

An Officer and a Gentlewoman.

[secretagent]

Exactly, He volunteered, He was not drafted. He has no excuse for what he is doing now.

Watada does have a reason, or rationalization. I believe it goes like this:

(a) As a soldier, he swore to uphold the Constitution.

(b) The US signed the UN Charter, which has equal weight to the Constitution, as do all treaties, according to the Constitution.

(c) The UN Charter prohibits nations from invading other nations unless (1) The Security Council authorizes the invasion or (2) the invading nation acts in self defense.

(d) The invasion of Iraq failed the UN test in (c), and thus violated the UN Charter.

(e) A violation of the UN Charter violates the US Constitution, as per (b).

(f) Watada had to refuse to participate in violating the Constitution, as per (a).

[lilycicero]

Did anyone order a cup of Koffi?

[smonk]

the larger story here, it seems to me, is the infrequency with which this sort of thing happens. if the war was truly going as badly as it is being reported, and it is so deeply unpopular, you would expect more cases like this one than the occasional one-off.

uh, wouldn't you?

[jazusamo]

Good point, there are very few and he's the only officer I believe.

This smells of a set up anyway. His dad refused service during Vietnam and went in the Peace Corps. He's been an antiwar activist for some time.

His mom has gotten involved with Code Pink but I don't know if she had any dealings with them before he refused the assignment.

It almost looks like he accepted his commission with an agenda in mind.

[jnygrl]

I was speaking of the Specialist from New Jersey...he did, indeed, enlist 3 1/2 years ago (per the article in my post).

But thank you for the attempt at correction. It's good to have a system of checks and balances! ;-)

[pinkpanther111]

Yes I think I read this rationalization in a interview he did.

However; The United States did not abdicate its sovereignty to the United Nations.

He swore an oath to the United States NOT the United Nations.

Thanks for providing that info... Really shows where their heads are at.

[pinkpanther111]

LOL!!!

[secretagent]

The oath of enlistment into the United States Armed Forces is administered by any commissioned officer to any person enlisting or re-enlisting for a term of service into any branch of the military. The officer asks the person, or persons, to raise their right hand and repeat the oath after him. The oath is traditionally performed in front of the United States Flag and other flags, such as the state flag, military branch flag, and unit guidon may be present.

The oath is as follows:

"I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States{{, the governor of the state of _______ (for National Guard enlistees)}} and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_enlistment

Watada swore to "bear true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution, which requires him by extension (he says) to not violate the UN Charter, since the US Constitution gives equal weight to treaties as it does to itself.

I don't know if he would accept the US Supreme Court as final arbiter of Constitutional conflicts.

[secretagent]

"Today, I speak with you about a radical idea," Watada told the gathering. "That to stop an illegal and unjust war, soldiers can choose to stop fighting it... If soldiers realised this war is contrary to what the constitution extols -- if they stood up and threw their weapons down -- no president could ever initiate a war of choice again. When we say, '...Against all enemies foreign and domestic', what if elected leaders became the enemy? Whose orders do we follow? The answer is the conscience that lies in each soldier, each American, and each human being. Our duty to the constitution is an obligation, not a choice."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0109-01.htm

I see a problem with this approach, if affirmed by the SC: soldiers framing convenient interpretations of the Constitution have an easy out.