Commander says he felt 'bit betrayed' by Watada (Day 2 court-martial))

seattlepi.com ^ | February 7, 2007 | Mike Barber

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

Those who refuse to support and defend a state have no claim to protection by that state.
Killing an anarchist or a pacifist should not be defined as "murder" in a legalistic sense.
The offense against the state, if any, should be "Using deadly weapons inside city limits," or "Creating a traffic hazard," or "Endangering bystanders," or other misdemeanor.

LAZARUS LONG

[USMCWife6869]

That's a good point. You are probably right.

[jazusamo]

It's been said that science fiction is a look into the future. :-)

[Hot Tabasco]

The only reason my husband is going to war AGAIN is because of a jerk like this.

Jerks like this get the press in this day and time while the true saviors of our country and our way of life (aka your husband) quietly do what they volunteered to do without any fanfare. They are the true heroes of today, not the phony actors in hollywood or the pro athletes and their million dollar contracts.

I noticed you just joined the family here in November, well welcome home! You have family here who you just haven't met but you and your husband and your family are always in our prayers. Thank you for being a soldier's wife.........

[Dr.Deth]

Watada, do the right thing and regain your lost honor.

[Thunder 6]

Bruce Antonia is a square guy who I've served with before. I've no doubt he laid this all out for Watada. You can lead the horse to water... This must have been a distractor to the Battaliion getting ready to deploy. AND, somr poor guy had to take Watada's place. It's just wrong.
Regards,

[jazusamo]

Thanks for the input, Thunder 6. I had a sense that Lt. Col. Antonia is a straight shooter from what I've read regarding this case. It sounds like he did his best to do what was right for the Army and his command as well as try to help Watada at the same time. It's a shame Watada didn't listen.

[Thunder 6]

Rock of the Marne to you!
Regards,

[MHalblaub]

I wish that one of these "illegal war" nitwits would, for once, say in precise terms what law has been broken.

The war is illegal according to the United Nations Charter.
The US signed that treaty.

[MHalblaub]

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.

With that statement several generals try to neglect their liability at the Nuernberg Trials.
Every soldier has his own liability to reject illegal commands. If his opinion is right a judge has to decide. Therefore it's essential for the process to determine if the order was legal.

Has an US soldier no right to deny an order e.g. to kill civilians?

[RedRover]

The war is illegal according to the United Nations Charter.

So you keep saying as if endless repetition will make it so.

Be precise. What exactly is in the UN Charter that makes this war illegal?

[RedRover]

Has an US soldier no right to deny an order e.g. to kill civilians?

Who's being ordered to kill civilians?

[jazusamo]

Has an US soldier no right to deny an order e.g. to kill civilians?

What does that question have to do with this case? Watada was not ordered to kill civilians.

Stop beating around the bush and state your position on this case.

[MHalblaub]

"Be precise. What exactly is in the UN Charter that makes this war illegal?"

United Nations Charter

Article 2:
"...
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
..."

Exceptions are article 39 or 51 of the charter:

Article 39:
"The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security."

Article 41: "The Security Council may decide what measures ..."
Article 42: "Should the Security Council consider that measures ..."

Article 51: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."


For all who start shouting "self-defense" this is limited to the occurrence of an armed attack.

[MHalblaub]

"Watada was not ordered to kill civilians."

My question:

Has an US soldier the right to deny an illegal order or not?

If a soldier has that right then lawsuit has to clarify if the order was illegal or not.

[RedRover]

Nothing you cite makes the war in Iraq illegal. Removing Saddam Hussein was not inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Saddam was in violation of resolution after resolution. He was given a last chance to comply with weapons inspectors and even Hans Blix acknowledged that Saddam was not fully complying.

In addition, Saddam was in violation of the ceasefire agreement he signed following the the first Gulf War.

The war is legal and we will win. Sorry to ruin your day.

[RedRover]

If a soldier has that right then lawsuit has to clarify if the order was illegal or not..

The issue could never be clarified by a court martial. The anti-war crowd will always believe the war is illegal, no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary. If the hearing officer in Watada's court martial ruled that the war was legal, the decision would be appealed...and appealed....

Ultimately, nothing would satisfy people like you until the issue was decided by the Hague that the war is illegal and President Bush is a criminal. Thankfully, that's not going to happen.

[jazusamo]

Don't ask a question, state your position on the case.

[DMZFrank]

Even if you accept the fact that the Iraq war is illegal (which it is not) it is NOT the place of a junior officer to determine a war's legal validity. The requirement not to obey illegal orders only extends to those orders that are INHERENTLY illegal; i.e. murdering POW's and civilians, wanton destruction of private property, looting, etc. The lawful order to deploy to a war that has been affirmatively voted upon by the Congress of the US is beyond the scope of an artillery lieutenant to legally determine.

Even though the German Wehrmacht fought for one of the most evil causes in human history, no German soldier was prosecuted for conducting military operations within the established contemporary norms of the Rules of War and International Treaty Agreements. It was accepted that the defeated German Army had the right to court-martial those of their members who violated German Army regulations.

Lt. Watada should not be exempt from the just application of the Uniform Code of Military Justice as the US Army seeks to maintain morale and discipline in the worthy cause that his noble comrades are engaged in.