Say WA? Evergreen State ping
FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this ping list.
Ping sionnsar if you see a Washington state related thread.
Posted on 07/05/2006 6:02:17 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
Army charges officer for refusing to fight in Iraq Wed Jul 5, 2006 08:28 PM ET
By Daisuke Wakabayashi
SEATTLE (Reuters) - The U.S. Army filed three charges on Wednesday against an officer who refused to fight in Iraq due to objections over the legality of the war.
First Lt. Ehren Watada, who supporters say is the first commissioned U.S. officer to publicly refuse to serve in Iraq and face a military court, remained at Fort Lewis base in Washington state when his unit shipped out to Iraq on June 22.
Watada called the war and U.S. occupation of Iraq "illegal" and said participation would make him a party to war crimes.
In a statement, the Army said it had charged Watada, 28, with missing movement, contempt toward officials and conduct unbecoming an officer.
"Officers are held to a high moral and legal standard. Acts contrary to this standard may be tried by court-martial," said the Army statement.
If found guilty of all charges, Watada could face several years in confinement, dishonorable discharge and forfeiture of pay, according to the Army. The missing movement charge carries the heaviest punishment of confinement of up to two years.
Watada's lawyer said he expected the missing movement charge, but was somewhat surprised by the decision to charge the officer with contempt toward officials and conduct unbecoming an officer, because it raises free speech issues.
"What he said about the war and the way the war began and the misrepresentations by the Bush administration are all true. Not only does he have a right to make those statements, he has an obligation to make those statements," said Eric Seitz, Watada's Honolulu-based attorney.
"The reasons why they are going after him for the things he said is because they want to muzzle him," Seitz said.
(Excerpt) Read more at go.reuters.com ...
With any luck he will crack rocks at Leavenworth for about 2-5 years.
If as you say it comes about that he does 2-5 at Leavenworth it is possible that some of those guarding him will have served in Iraq. In that case his A** will be grass and they will be the ever luvin' lawnmowers.
Apparently, this sorry excuse for an officer failed to learn you don't get to pick and choose in the Army. Good riddance of the likes of him.
"As an officer, he can't be reduced in rank"??? Beg to dif with you, SMSgt. I know of a JAG general officer who was reduced to Col for his behavior and made to retire. This clown can be reduced to 2nd LT and then dismissed.
Signed,
a Lt Col on AD.
And I hope they make him pay every penny of it back, after he does his time. With interest.
I think this guy signed up just to do this and help his political career as soon as he gets back to Hawaii.
Unless he specifically criticized the President, I might have trouble with the contempt towards officials charge. Remember, this charge is double edged sword. How many officers here criticized Clinton?
The conduct unbecoming in a shoo-in. An officer who refuses to deploy with his men? Hammer him.
Article 88—Contempt toward officials
“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.”
Elements.
(1) That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces;
(2) That the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article;
(3) That by an act of the accused these words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused; and
(4) That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used. Note: If the words were against a Governor or legislature, add the following element
(5) That the accused was then present in the State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the Governor or legislature concerned.
Explanation.
The official or legislature against whom the words are used must be occupying one of the offices or be one of the legislatures named in Article 88 at the time of the offense. Neither “Congress” nor “legislature” includes its members individually. “Governor” does not include “lieutenant governor.” It is immaterial whether the words are used against the official in an official or private capacity. If not personally contemptuous, ad-verse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article.
Similarly, expressions of opinion made in a purely private conversation should not rdinarily be charged. Giving broad circulation to a written publication containing contemptuous words of the kind made punishable by this article, or the utterance of contemptuous words of this kind in the presence of military subordinates, aggravates the offense. The truth or falsity of the statements is immaterial.
"No, they are going to nail him, and well they should."
I think they could just release him....via a torpedo tube.
To da max. When he exposed Milton Holt I figured him as a "good guy" but the more I see of Dad, he appears to be more of a publicity hog than the politicians he attacks.
I agree on the first part but I'm not sure how it will help any future political career here. Hawaii seems to be drifting a bit rightward from what I've seen in the last 10 years. There isn't as much "union uber alles" mentality and the Japanese generation who always showed up in force to vote but always pulled the (D) lever, no matter what, is dying off, and their children marry out of their ethnicity more frequently.
In this cowardly punk's case, it was purely to get headlines.
Not in this case. He had a degree before he joined and went to OCS.
Well if he thinks Baghdad is hot, wait'll he gets a load of Leavenworth in July.
(i) A commissioned or warrant officer or a cadet, or midshipman may not be reduced in grade by any court-martial. However, in time of war or national emergency the Secretary concerned, or such Under Secretary or Assistant Secretary as may be designated by the Secretary concerned, may commute a sentence of dismissal to reduction to any enlisted grade.
I thought you were correct until I looked it up.
The situation that you described would probably have been an administrative demotion, not a punitive action. If the General was serving in a temporary grade he could have been demoted administratively.
I think I know of the case you are referring to. The officer was filling a temporary rank as a general. That temporary rank was vacated and the officer was required to retire at his permanent rank of Colonel. So, I guess you are correct but that was not taken as a part of punishment resulting from the courts-martial. I was trying to point out that while a reduction in rank is common in courts-martial for enlisted, a courts-martial cannot reduce the rank of an officer as a form of punishment.
Gentlemen;
Watada's DD 458
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/charge_sheet.pdf
Interesting that the first charge listed is missing a troop movement. I was always told that the military considers missing a troop movement a very serious offense. I expect the fringe left will try and turn this into a First Ammendment issue. The mainstream democrats, while they will agree, will stay away from the whole issue. I see confinement in this young man's future. As an old sergeant once told me, be damn careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
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.