Replies

Lt. Ehren Watada’s case is a good example. Watada’s position is that he has a duty to refuse orders to deploy to Iraq because those orders effectively command him to pursue an illegal war. Watada correctly understands that obeying those orders could subject him to war-crime charges under a more just administration (which should try George W. Bush first).

What was incredible was that Watada was charged with 2 counts under UCMJ Articles 133 (Conduct Unbecoming an Officer), 1 under 87 (Missing Movement) and 1 under 88, Contempt toward Officials. The count of Contempt toward Officials was dismissed, and he was tried on the other three, but a mistrial was declared after the judge threw out the prosecution's key evidence that showed he was not a conscientious objector.

What's amazing here is that his defense was not that he was a conscientious objector, but that he was refusing to obey an unlawful order. That argument is clearly out of touch with reality, as Congress itself gave the President the authority to conduct operations in Iraq. What's also amazing is that he wasn't charged under several other Articles, such as 85 (Desertion), 82 (Solicitation), and 94 (Solicitation or Mutiny). The latter two are due to the fact that he publicly called on his fellow soldiers to follow his example and refuse to deploy. If it can be demonstrated that he said the same to men under his command (his reported unit is an HHC, so it's unclear if there were any), he is guilty of Mutiny and Solicitation of Desertion in a time of war.

Stephen Pearce should have the right to say what he wishes, so long as he's powerless to act on it, though I think the crime of a veteran beating eight tons of crap out of him should carry a punishment no more than a fine of 1 cent. Lt. Watada, on the other hand, should be tried by a court martial and hanged for mutiny and desertion in a time of war.