Posted on 02/07/2007 9:24:26 AM PST by jazusamo
FORT LEWIS -- A day after barring defense witnesses who could have put the war in Iraq on trial in the court-martial of 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, the military judge and prosecutor heard how dicey it can be to keep the issue out.
On Tuesday, the judge, Lt. Col. John Head, riding herd to keep the focus of the trial upon the legality of Watada's conduct and not the legality of the war, at one point cautioned a prosecutor to rephrase a question that strayed close to that prohibited subject, ordering "move on!"
Lt. Col. Bruce Antonia, Watada's battalion commander, summoned home from Iraq to testify, was asked by a prosecutor about his reaction when Watada first voiced his beliefs publicly in June.
"My reaction to that was I was dismayed," Antonia said, "probably a little bit betrayed. ... Lt. Watada and I had some conversation about his opinions of the war. He said he would rather go to jail than go to what he considered an illegal war ... ," Antonia said before Head cut him off.
"Please members," Head said to the jury of military officers, "disregard that last statement." Watada's defense team was mum.
The exchange took place as a jury of Army officers -- five men and two women -- began hearing testimony Tuesday.
Watada, who served with the 3rd Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division that deployed to Iraq last summer, is the first commissioned U.S. officer to refuse to serve in Iraq. He has said the war is illegal and he is duty-bound to refuse illegal orders.
Watada is charged with missing movement to Iraq with his unit June 28 and two counts of conduct unbecoming an officer for public statements he made in June and August. If convicted, he faces a maximum of four years in prison and dismissal from the service.
The second day of the court-martial began with opening statements.
By refusing to serve in Iraq the way he did, Watada "brought shame and disgrace to himself, his unit and the officer corps of the Army," prosecutor Capt. Scott Van Sweringen said.
Instead of living up to his duty to lead soldiers who had trained with him, Watada sat in his office as his unit departed, "absent a leader they trusted," Van Sweringen said.
But Watada explained his actions this way in a video released to the media on June 7, when he went public with his decision not to go to Iraq.
"The wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of Iraqis is not only a terrible and moral injustice, but it's a contradiction to the Army's own law of land warfare," Watada said. "My participation would make me a party to war crimes. I appeal to my commanders to see the larger issues of their actions, but justice has not been forthcoming."
The June 7 video is the source of one of the counts of conduct unbecoming an officer. The other count stems from an address Watada made to a Veterans for Peace convention in Seattle in August.
Eric Seitz, Watada's civilian defense lawyer, urged the jurors to listen to Watada for themselves when he testifies today.
"He did not attack the president, the command or fellow soldiers. He simply explained that he was upset about this war and that it was illegal and morally wrong," Seitz said.
"At most, he engaged in an act or form of civil disobedience," Seitz said. "No way does that add up to conduct unbecoming an officer."
No one disagreed that Watada was an exemplary, highly motivated and hard-working officer before he emerged publicly with his concerns last summer.
Watada turned against the war after studying all he could about Iraq in 2005, when his unit learned it would deploy in June 2006.
By January 2006, Watada had shared his doubts with his commanders, seeking to resign, or even to serve in Afghanistan.
Seitz portrayed Watada as being painted into a corner by months of foot-dragging from commanders, then being forced out of frustration to go public just before his unit left for Iraq.
"I felt strongly I was not being taken seriously. It was something I felt would make me a criminal in my own eyes," Watada told Head when questioned out of earshot of the jury to clarify a statement he had signed.
Watada said he wanted the issue resolved at Fort Lewis, rather than later in Iraq.
But Antonia, who commands the 5th Battalion, 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division in Iraq, said he felt betrayed because Watada ensured him he would not go public, creating a "big media event" as his troops were readying for Iraq.
"My opinion of him fell because I told him I did not want this to be public on the forefront of my soldiers minds on the eve of deployment, but he did it anyway," Antonia said.
"Everything you put on a soldier's plate prior to deployment is magnified. What should be on their minds is getting their weapons zeroed, making final preparations, kissing their wives and children goodbye, not what Lt. Watada is going to say next," Antonia said.
Antonia's comments drew murmurs from among 30 spectators, most Watada supporters, in a court overflow room when he told the court soldiers are obligated to determine for themselves whether they are given an illegal order.
"I would expect him not to obey if the order was illegal," Antonia said.
But he quickly added that the responsibility falls with the chain of command to determine legality. If the chain says, "No, this is not illegal, then I would expect that officer to obey," Antonia said.
Antonia said he was dismayed with Watada's comments. "I believe what he said was that the commander in chief made decisions based on lies, that he specifically deceived the American people. That is nowhere in the realm of a lieutenant in the United States Army."
The Left's Definition Of A 'Hero'
By Michelle Malkin
February 7, 2007
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/mmalkin/2007/mm_02071.shtml
Some of Watada's hometown neighbors are sick of his intellectual disingenuousness. Writing in Watada's hometown newspaper, the Honolulu Advertiser, retired Col. Thomas D. Farrell, who served as an Army intelligence officer in Iraq in 2005-2006, retorted:
"How can anyone seriously claim that our military involvement in Iraq is illegal when both Congress and the U.N. have taken the steps to authorize it, and allow it to continue to this day? Lt. Watada argues that he has the right to make his own personal assessment, notwithstanding whatever Congress and the U.N. may do. If he's right, why not make our personal assessments about how fast is safe to drive, or how much tax is our fair share? The answer is obvious: Anarchy would prevail, and the rule of law -- the basis of all real freedom -- would cease to exist."
The only thing illegal here is Watada's willful refusal to obey orders. Watada is just the latest in a line of losers abandoning their men, their mission and the rule of law. The left calls this "dissent." The rest of us call it what it is: Desertion.
Our soldiers are not in Iraq whole sale slaughtering Iraqi civilians. To say such paints Wataba for what he is, an individual taken in by the most anti-American left-leaning, enemy abetting moon-bats possible. Such an individual has no place commanding any of our soldiers...anywhere. Drum him out hard, make an example of him.
Truth is, things would have been much better for the soldiers going into harms way, and for Watada, if he had not gone public in such a way. But, he felt compelled to do so and now he has to live with consequences of those actions.
Sounds like a clear cut Article 87 and 88:
87: Any person subject to this chapter who through neglect or design misses the movement of a ship, aircraft, or unit with which he is required in the course of duty to move shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
88: Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Thanks for your post, Michelle Malkin nailed it.
Huh?
Call me crazy, but couldn't the Army have saved itself a lot of grief, and sent him to Afghanistan?
It's not as if there isn't very hot war still simmering there. So it's not as if he's "getting out of combat".
Agreed...I personally believe he had an antiwar agenda when he accepted his commission, there's no evidence to that, JMO.
No, that would have created a dangerous precedent. Officers don't get to pick where they're assigned. Look, Watada may well have sincere beliefs about Iraq. If he does, then he needs to pay the penalty for holding those beliefs. This is open and shut and I can't imagine Watada didn't know what the likely punishment would be when he went down this path.
That would open up "Pandora's Box," if soldiers felt that they could demand to go where they wanted to.
The MSM desperately wants this to be about the war and not about military discipline.
I hate to admit it, but even though I still think this guy is a total dirtbag, the Army, and Watada's men, would have probably better off had he gone to Afghanistan.
Part of my husband's job in the Marine Corps is re-enlisting Marines. I have seen them bend to the wishes of Marines for much less than what this guy was complaining about. I do hate the guys that get away with not following orders just because they complain the loudest, but it does happen. It seems to me that this would never have been public had they just sent him to Afghanistan. Therefore, it would have been better for morale, but then again, this is just my own opinion.
Hindsight is always 20/20. Who's to say he wouldn't have still caused a fuss. And the military doesn't ask people where they want to be assigned in times of war, they tell them where they will be assigned.
I hate to disillusion you, but it happens all the time.
I just think Watada has an agenda. He wants to become a Democrat politician.
Call me crazy, but if the Army is allowing me to choose my vacation destination, I'll take the Kunia Field Station in Hawaii ... oh, wait, you mean I have to follow orders and go where you tell me ...crap.
"This guy graduated from college and then joined the Army, going to Officer Candidate school, after we had already started the Iraq campaign just to claim it was an 'illegal' war when his unit is called to go. Smells funny to me. In my mind, either the Army gave a commission to an idiot not aware of current events or he planned this all along."
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/mmalkin/2007/mm_02072.shtml
I agree with you. I also think Watada is a complete and total loser, and I feel the same way about the guys I hear about frequently that make all the noise.
The only reason my husband is going to war AGAIN is because of a jerk like this. The guy complained and bi***ed and moaned so much they finally just gave in to shut him up, and my husband volunteered to go instead.
One of my closest friends had to watch her husband go a third time for the same reason. I hate that they give in to these jerks, but to make an example out of him, IMO, just played into exactly what he wanted. Had he just gone to Afghanistan, he wouldn't have gotten the publicity he so clearly desired. And deep in my heart, I know that is why the USMC does it too. They don't want it to be public. It still sucks though.
Civil disobedience?
How the hell can the behavior of a member of the Armed Services, who is subject to the UCMJ, be described as civil disobedience?
He's a LT in the Army, Once you take the oath you go where you are needed not where you would rather be.
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.