Lieutenant Ehren Watada is like many other Americans; as the intentions behind invading Iraq have become more obviously spurious, he has reshaped his perceptions of the war. He originally supported the war with so much vigor that he voluntarily enlisted in the Army, but he came to conclude that the Iraq War is both illegal and immoral. Unlike millions of his fellow Americans who have changed their minds he does not have the luxury of simply swapping out bumper stickers on his car. Instead, he faces potentially ruthless consequences.
After refusing to deploy to Iraq and publicly speaking out against the war, Lt. Watada faced up to seven years in a military prison. However, his recent court martial ended in a mistrial, and now it remains unclear whether he can even be tried again.
Looming Deployment
Assigned to Fort Lewis in Washington state, Lt. Watada faced a looming deployment to Iraq. As a leader, he began to educate himself before deploying. Ultimately, his conscience prevented him from partaking in the Iraq War because the hasty invasion four years ago ran counter to international law and was congressionally authorized solely because of misleading intelligence reports. Unqualified for conscientious objector status because he could not honestly claim opposition to all war, he asked for reassignment to a non-deploying unit and even requested to serve in Afghanistan. He then offered to resign his commission, but his inexorable chain of command was unwilling to act on any of his requests. So Lt. Watada took a drastic last step and held a press conference in June 2006, publicly announcing his refusal to fight in Iraq just weeks before his unit deployed.
He immediately became a symbol of courage within the antiwar movement. Drawing widespread support from many antiwar groups and public figures, he awaited the Army’s response. By August 2006, the Army recommended a court martial, based on charges of missing movement, conduct unbecoming of an officer, and contemptuous remarks about President George W. Bush. Shortly before the Army announced the charges, Lt. Watada appeared at the Veterans for Peace annual convention in Seattle. With dozens of members of Iraq Veterans Against the War standing with him in support, he suggested, “a radical idea . . . that to stop an illegal and unjust war, the soldiers can choose to stop fighting it.” Once the Army learned of his statement, it tacked on an additional charge, bringing his maximum sentence to a possible seven years.
Storm of Controversy
His case has created a storm of controversy. As the trial approached, the Army planned to subpoena journalists, hoping to use them to verify Lt. Watada’s supposedly contemptuous statements, thus eliciting questions of freedom of the press and journalists’ roles in military investigations. The Army also moved to block the defense from discussing the war’s illegality, essentially preventing any defense. At the trial, the judge carefully steered the counsels and witnesses from making any mention of the war’s legal status, shielding the war from much needed legal scrutiny and refusing to consider Lt. Watada’s motivations.
Lt. Watada clearly disobeyed orders to deploy—he repetitively informed his chain of command and made a public announcement before carrying out his refusal to deploy. The importance of his bold action—both in terms of his courage and the legal mess in which he his is trapped—lays in why he refused to deploy. The war’s legal and moral implications served as the impetus for his refusal. Accordingly, the Army’s denial of any discussion of the war’s illegality was a denial of a fair defense.
A pretrial agreement solved some of the complications involved in the case. In exchange for dropping two charges, Lt. Watada admitted to making the statements he made in his June 6 press conference and at the Veterans for Peace convention. The Army also agreed to refrain from calling reporters to testify against him. However, leading up to Lt. Watada’s testimony during the trial, confusion surrounding the pretrial agreement resulted in a mistrial. The prosecution viewed the agreement as an admission of guilt, whereas the defense held it as a mere verification of the obvious: Lt. Watada refused to go to Iraq and made various public statements about his refusal.
March 19
A tentative new trial is set to begin on March 19, a symbolically important date as it will be four years from day the U.S. invaded Iraq. However, Lt. Watada’s lawyer is hoping to invoke the principle of double jeopardy to argue that a second trial cannot lawfully take place.
Just as many members of Iraq Veterans Against the War stood by Lt. Watada as he spoke before the Veterans for Peace convention, the organization stands by him now. Even though everyone in uniform is a volunteer, it is absurd to think that a contract can relinquish a human being of the responsibility to act in a just way. It is equally abominable to claim that service members should lack the right to free speech. Those who give up so much—time, energy, blood, sweat, and even their lives—to serve deserve the right to free speech more than anyone; service members have clearly given the most to earn free speech.
Service members of all ranks have the right to contribute to the public debate on any war and to provide a tempering voice when issues of war are discussed. They have perspectives that are vastly more valuable than armchair punditry. And when they are ordered to carry out unjust acts and fight in immoral wars, if they choose to resist, they at the very least have the right to a fair defense.
Yet, the Army is still attempting to prosecute Lt. Watada for speaking out about the Iraq War and for refusing orders. The silent majority of Americans opposed to the Iraq War must stand up and support Lt. Watada. Now is the time to praise the war’s objectors as equally as we have praised the heroes who have fought and died. If we all had Lt. Watada’s courage, we could finally facilitate an end to this war and steer our country toward a foreign policy based on cooperation, diplomacy, and a respect for international law.
posted
i totally know where hes coming from, but i believe he should shut his mouth, and live with the consequences of his descisions...he was the moron that supported the war int he begining (most like me were against it from the start) he deserves to be stuck in iraq...not to mention th e nerve of him publicly displaying his opposition...not good for morale...total azzmunch if you ask me...
Posts: 3086 | From: miami | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He abondoned his men, period. Sometimes you just need to put politics aside and lead your men. He doesn't deserve *hit. And no, he's not a hero Gordon.
-------------------- If it wasn't for bad luck I'd have no luck at all. Posts: 1529 | From: Tacoma WA | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Just Following Orders" is No Excuse If Bush is a War Criminal, Then What About the Troops
by STEPHEN S. PEARCY, CounterPunch
February 24, 2007
In addition to holding George Bush and U.S. Congress accountable for the illegal occupation of Iraq, American troops must also be prepared to accept responsibility, because we're all presumed to know the law. If we accept that fundamental legal presumption, then those of us who claim that the war is illegal must also acknowledge that the troops are unexcused aiders and abettors.
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 crimes charges under a more just administration (which should try George Bush first).
Publicly available information about the Iraq invasion has become plentiful over the last several years. Reasonable people contemplating service in the U.S. military should know that people throughout the world regard participation in the occupation as tantamount to aiding and abetting in mass murder, fraud, human rights violations, and international war crimes. By now, all of the troops should recognize this, and ignorance is no excuse.
The frequency of U.S.-sponsored war crimes in Iraq is such that it has become the norm rather than the exception. U.S. troops have intentionally and recklessly caused the deaths of so many Iraqi civilians, and continue to do so, that we can now properly regard acts in furtherance of the occupation effort generally to be acts substantially likely to facilitate crimes such as those which have already occurred.
From a legal standpoint, obeying Bush's orders is just like when Nazi soldiers obeyed Hitler's orders. And we know from the Nuremberg trials that the "just-following-orders" excuse is invalid. Watada's case suggests that we should question all troops' willingness to follow their illegal orders.
Suggesting troop-responsibility for the illegal war is unpopular, but it would also have been unpopular during WWII for a German citizen to suggest that Nazi troops be held accountable for obeying their illegal orders. At the end of the day, it's really no different.
His men were never without a supperior or a commander. Get over the hype, what he did did not endanger anyone!
I'm not claiming I would have chosen his tact, but to claim he did anything to harm the Nation, the military, or anyone is nonsense.
His was a sstraight foreward request that could have been granted with no harm to anyone and no need to harm anyone.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
His men were never without a supperior or a commander. Get over the hype, what he did did not endanger anyone!
I'm not claiming I would have chosen his tact, but to claim he did anything to harm the Nation, the military, or anyone is nonsense.
His was a sstraight foreward request that could have been granted with no harm to anyone and no need to harm anyone. _________________________________________________
Bdgee,
How do you know how some of his men feel?
It does not harm the military?
I think that everyone in the military should chose their assignments that's what it is all about? In fact if i work for anyone under contract or not, i should be able to chose what i want to do?
The law will decide weather he is right or wrong, "If" Watada and his lawyer really want to pursue it, but if this lawyer is looking out for his best interest, he will get him out if he can. There our others doing time that have pursued these options. I wish him the best of luck, but will be happy to make you or gordon a side bet on interpretation of the law in this case, i will bet you where it will end up if he pursues it and if i lose, which i doubt, it would be fine. Yes, bdgee i did take the bait as you have stated before. I do not have a problem taking the bait when it comes to military personnal, if "you" like to refer to military people as "bait".
Posts: 3875 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's to "win?" He has done nothing wrong and deserves no punishment. He is merely following his conscience, and I only wish more would do the same. The world would undoubtedly be a better place.
-------------------- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin Posts: 3898 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: Quote Bdgee:
"He abondoned his men, period. "
No, that is false on its face.
His men were never without a supperior or a commander. Get over the hype, what he did did not endanger anyone!
I'm not claiming I would have chosen his tact, but to claim he did anything to harm the Nation, the military, or anyone is nonsense.
His was a sstraight foreward request that could have been granted with no harm to anyone and no need to harm anyone. _________________________________________________
Bdgee,
How do you know how some of his men feel?
It does not harm the military?
I think that everyone in the military should chose their assignments that's what it is all about? In fact if i work for anyone under contract or not, i should be able to chose what i want to do?
The law will decide weather he is right or wrong, "If" Watada and his lawyer really want to pursue it, but if this lawyer is looking out for his best interest, he will get him out if he can. There our others doing time that have pursued these options. I wish him the best of luck, but will be happy to make you or gordon a side bet on interpretation of the law in this case, i will bet you where it will end up if he pursues it and if i lose, which i doubt, it would be fine. Yes, bdgee i did take the bait as you have stated before. I do not have a problem taking the bait when it comes to military personnal, if "you" like to refer to military people as "bait".
"How do you know how some of his men feel?"
To ask such a question indicates that you are not considering the facts at all, just your own or someone elses emotion. Justice, based on emotion is the rule of men rather thaan the rule of law.
"I think that everyone in the military should chose their assignments that's what it is all about? In fact if i work for anyone under contract or not, i should be able to chose what i want to do?"
Oh, you do? And with that same effort, you have denied those of religious faith against waging war the right to refuse to serve. Moreover, he hasn't asked to be provided the right to chose whatever work he chooses, as you quite incorrectly declare is the question, but to be awarded the same protection for his faith as a Quaker is granted for his.
It really isn't aquestion of how any or all of his men feel.
Now lets stop misrepresenting thins I have said!!!
I did not ever suggest to you or anyone else that you or they had "....take(n) the bait.." on any subject and most particularly not with respect to anything to do with the military or anything involving the military. Are you confused about this or simply being dishonest in your emotional but illogical effort?
Notice carefully that I have not taken any position for or agaainst what that the man has done or not done and you have absolutely no reason to insult me with your biases. I have only spoken to the attribution of positions of bigottry and emotion being proposed in place of following the law and biased positioning of fanciful claims being publicized in place of fact in order to prejudice the man's position.
I hold no preference for the eventual end of this hyped drama, but I do hold extreme preference for it to be concluded via the law rather than the "codes of men".
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gordon, What's he got to win or what's he got to lose? Those are questions many might ask and find out if he persues it. Has he done nothing wrong? The court will decide that, if it goes on. Again, as i had said before, Watada signed a contract whether it be a military or other contract and the law will make the interpretation of whether he breached his contract. That's the part of winning or losing i am talking about now and the possible punishment. I do not look at him as a hero, but many people have their own hero's. I like to look at those people protecting their buddies as hero's, and of course Bob Hope, and i am not saying whether i feel the war is right or wrong, but that is just my opinion. Again where are your representatives, if this war is so illegal? I thought some have legal backgrounds, should be easy for them?
Posts: 3875 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
The topic i was defending, "Was insulting American Servicemen", and you came back and stated...
Quote bdgee,
"And someone seems more than eager and willing to take the bait and run with it, claiming damage of whatever kind and declaring, from biased and extreme viewpoints, others to be unpatriotic and unworthy of respect". _________________________________________________
As far as knowing how his men felt, i have a better chance at knowing how some of his men felt as you knew that,
quote: Hilander "He abondoned his men, period".
Quote Bdgee: "No, that is false on its face" _________________________________________________
I am assuming that someone in his unit thought he was a good leader and that might be a bad assumption, if i assume that he was a bad leader, then maybe he should not go. But that is not what the case is being challenged on. I am also assuming that he is telling the truth about his reason for not deploying, which also might be a bad assumption, which could also lead to a court marshall. Now that you got off the point of what the Court Marshall is all about.
Posts: 3875 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not think my top statement came out just right, i was defending american serviceman. Oh well, i am sure anyone that wants to know the whole story can dig it up the topic. Writing has never been my strong point, i bet no one knew that. Posts: 3875 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Watada wanted to provide his proof that the war is illegal, and they wouldn't let him. That was the whole basis of his case.
quote:Originally posted by IWISHIHAD: Gordon, What's he got to win or what's he got to lose? Those are questions many might ask and find out if he persues it. Has he done nothing wrong? The court will decide that, if it goes on. ... Again where are your representatives, if this war is so illegal?
-------------------- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin Posts: 3898 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gordon Bennett: What's to "win?" He has done nothing wrong and deserves no punishment. He is merely following his conscience, and I only wish more would do the same. The world would undoubtedly be a better place.
If the soldiers start heading this way a draft would be very easy...thats why this is bad for US moral
Posts: 3086 | From: miami | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
In any case, the same issue would apply to drafted personnel. Whether you are a draftee or a volunteer, it is not wrong to refuse to participate in an illegal act.
-------------------- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin Posts: 3898 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
I have no idea exactly what the case filings say, I assume by what i read, that the basis for this case is a court marshall about disobeying orders. Watada is trying to use the defense that it was an illegal and immoral war. As far as what is allowed and not allowed as evidence we will see, since there is a new trial date set and the military does not want to let this case drop at this point. It appears from the little bit i have read, that Watada's lawyer is going to try and plea bargin. You will get your answer as to the legality of this war if this goes to trial, but it could be at Watada's expense. "If" this was to go in his favor, which i personally doubt, it would be a case with many ramifications, which is another separate topic if it every gets to trial. The part i do not like about all the publicity that these and other cases get these days. The average soldier goes off and does his duty and helps protect his buddies, but very seldom do we hear about them, but that is old boring news, i guess, nothing new about that. One article i did read, said that the judge could rule that this is a political issue and not a military one and send it out of the military court. It really is a political issue, but the soldier is the one that is on trial and that does make it a military issue.
I read this article you posted Gordon and it makes me question this guy. I assume it is the way the article was written. Has Watada been to Iraq before? It does not appear he has by the article.
Posts: 3875 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
LoL the defense will prove that lt. watada did not engage in illegal operations to protect himself from being prosecuted in teh future for war crimes..lmao...riwhatever gordo
Posts: 3086 | From: miami | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
By Melanthia Mitchell - The Associated Press Posted : Thursday Mar 1, 2007 6:26:31 EST
SEATTLE — A second court-martial is scheduled to begin July 16 for an Army lieutenant who refused to go to Iraq with his Fort Lewis, Wash.-based Stryker brigade and spoke out against the Bush administration.
The first military trial for 1st Lt. Ehren Watada ended in mistrial after three days when the judge said he didn’t believe Watada fully understood a pretrial agreement he’d signed and that would have cut his sentence to four years.
On Friday, the Army refiled charges of missing movement and conduct unbecoming an officer — the same charges Watada, 28, had initially faced. If convicted, Watada could be sentenced to six years in prison and be dishonorably discharged.
Pretrial motions have been set for May 20-21, with the court-martial scheduled to begin the week of July 16, according to the office of Eric Seitz, Watada’s Honolulu-based lawyer.
Seitz has said he will seek to have the charges dismissed as a violation of the Constitution’s protection against double jeopardy. On Wednesday, he said he would likely file motions by April.
He said he and Watada still hope to reach some sort of an agreement with the military, but as of yet have had no communication with the Army, other than an e-mail listing the court dates.
“Our understanding is that they want to continue with this and we’re happy to oblige,” Seitz said.
Prosecutors would not comment on the case, Fort Lewis spokesman Joseph Piek said Wednesday. However, last week, he said that double jeopardy was not a factor in the case because Watada’s first trial “had not reached a position of finality.”
“As far as I’m aware, we are moving forward with the charges,” Piek said Wednesday.
Military judge Lt. Col. John Head originally scheduled a new trial for March 19 after Watada’s first court-martial abruptly ended Feb. 7. Seitz had said he likely wouldn’t be able to make that date because of conflicting court schedules.
The conduct unbecoming an officer charge against Watada accuses him in four instances of making public statements criticizing the Iraq war or President Bush.
Watada has acknowledged making the statements and missing a June deployment with the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, which is currently in Baghdad. Just before the mistrial was declared, he had planned to take the witness stand to argue that his motives were to avoid committing war crimes by participating in an illegal war.
Watada is currently assigned to an administrative position at Fort Lewis.
posted
Let's suppose you are a military commander, and have the authority (remember, authority and responsibility are one and the same when it comes to making decisions), have two active wars to man, War A and War B, and have the other attendent non-war efforts that are required for your armies to function.
In choosing which soldiers are sent to War A, War B, or to non-war assignments, you have failed to avail yourself of sufficient knowledge of the individuals to know which are best suited for any one of the particular assignments.
You end up sending soldiers unsuitable to the conditions of War A to that theater, who are well suited for War B. And possilly waste the talent of a particularly good cook or clerk by sending them out to chase and be chased by bad guys. Or some other mis-arrangements of their talents. And the results are negative and costly.
Is the fault thairs?
You could have been concerned enough not to send the fumble fingered but excellent clerk to work as a rifleman, which resulted in him blowing up himself and several other men with a granade.
You could have paid sufficient attention to personalities amd characters to know that the man who broke down completely and presented a danger to his fellows the instant they were attacked was better suited to other duties.
And, knowing that one of your officers had close relatives still living (and possibly fighting for the other side) in the battle ground of War B, you sent him there rather than War A. When it came time to order his unit to fire at the advancing enemy, thinking he recognized his cousin among the attackers, he refused to give the order for his men's defense.
It is clear that if you didn't bother to learn as much as you could of these pecularlarities of the various men under your command, that in itself is failure on your part.
If you did learn of their weaknesses and preferences and sent them into psychological conflict in dedly battle when it could have been done otherwise, are you worse then negligient?
Whose fault is it?
Now before you go to telling me that you don't have time to get to know every one of the soldiers in your command, let me tell you that if you didn't make the most sincere effort to find out every possible detail before committing troops to combat, you have failed completely in leadership.
And I point out that it took no effort on your part to know this man objected to fighting in Iraq. Or that no other assignment was objectionable to him. HE TOLD YOU! First privately and quietly, then, when you refused to listen, he said it aloud and publicly, just as you had been informed would be the case.
Leadership, contrary to what the he-man harmonal set puts out is way more than using muscles and the right to decide and calling that "authority". You certainly have the "jurisdiction" to decide, but "jurisdiction" assumes availing yourself of ALL POSSIBLE input available and not rejection any of it for convienience of yourself. A competent leader does not order his men into impossible situations if there is any possibility of avoiding it, be that situation physical, mental, emotional, or whatever and a "good" leader exaust every chance to know when such may be the case.
(Remember, Washington stayed at Valley Forge that winter, freezing with the men and eating the same rations as they. It worked!)
There clearly was a chance for the military "leaders" in this case to know it wasn't wise to order this man into Iraq, since he had told him that himself.
Certainly too, when refusing to reassign this man to duty not in Iraq, those "leaders" chose to spend many, many, many, or your and my dollars to "make an example of him".
Assigned to Afganistan or other duties and he offered no objection. Ordering him to to Iraq, then, those "leaders", not this man, are throwing my money out the window to protect their egos, while they knew ahead of time there was a costless solution (simply put, it amounts to an improper use of resources).
This was not a case where no other person was available for the assignmentor or where finding a suitable replacement for the assignment presented any particular extra burdon to the military. There was no time restraint on the military to solve this conflict. This was a concious decision to avoid avoiding conflict.
Somerthing is missing in the leadership training at West Point![/b]
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some things make me question the motives of Lt.Watada, from what i have read in some articles like the one Gordon posted. Ryan Elsey who wrote this article stated that Watada supported the war with so much vigor for a period of time. So he enlists and obviously stay's in the miltary for several years before getting orders to Iraq. What happened to those years between when he enlisted and got his orders to deploy? If he had so much vigor to go to Iraq, How does it take him many years to get there? I know that it is common to deploy with your unit, but if he was as motivated to get to Iraq as he is to stay out, i have a tough time believing he would not have been there long before this. It appears to me from what i have read that just prior(faced a looming deployment) to his orders coming, he started to investigate how to stay out of Iraq. If he was so against the war in Iraq, it sure seems like he would have thought about it and stood up prior to Him getting orders to deploy. I do not blame him for not wanting to rush off into combat, but somehow i think the reality(and i do not mean legality) might not have set in till he heard his unit might deploy, which is not uncommon but... When i read this article it reminds me of the movie Private Benjamin.
Posts: 3875 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps, as with the majority in the Nation, he was accepting the lies told by the Administration to convince us that invading Iraq was necessary in order to prevent the imminent attack with WMDs on the U.S. that Saddam had already put into motion.
Then, through those years of "viger(ous)" advocacy for the war, he learned that he had been duped by an Administration with evil and un-American goals, i.e., that the invasion of Iraq was a sham to disguise a purely political advantage at home.
Perhaps he was never an advocate of invading Iraq, but a strong advocate of reprisal toward the terrorist that attacked the U.S. in 9/11 and discovered that the Bush cadre had plotted and lied to blame it on an innocent Nation and its not too likable leader, while failing (or choosing to side-track) to press the war against the actual terrorist.
Perhaps he honestly believes, as do a majority of the American people and an even larger percentage of the World's population, that the invasion of Iraq was carried out on the basis of lies and propaganda, not matched since the invasion of Czechoslovakia by a like minded political party in the 1930s.
".....then, when they came for me, there was no one left to protest."
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like i mentioned before, there are some big gaps of time between 2003-2006 in which he volunteered to join the service and became an officer of the 2nd Infantry Division (Watada supported the war). Maybe he was a slow learner about the war, but he sure was able to learn fast about trying to interpret the laws in his favor when disobeying an order. Again if he was such a slow learner about how he felt aout the war, and he was so gung ho when he entered, how come it took him so long to almost get to Iraq? I have gotten off the subject here, but i read this article and there are to many gaps and unanswered questions for me. But it really does not matter what i think, but it sure matters what the military thinks at this point. Watada has his rear end in big trouble at this point and appears to have gotten it in deeper as time has gone on. He faces a tough task to prove that this war is illegal and immoral under the law, after Watada decided to disobeyed a order in refusing deployment. It appears that since he(Watada) is looking for a plea bargin, that he to feels that he made a mistake in his interpretation of the law. Time will tell if the military accepts any plea bargining or proceed on with this trial.
Posts: 3875 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We were all "slow learners" about the Iraq war because we were fed lies and threats.
He volunteered to fight terrorist, NOT an innocent Nation that was, before he objected to participating in a war there, proved to be so. There were no WMDs, there was no Al Qaeda connection to Iraq and all the rest of the "Iraq threat" propaganda was lies too. But it took years to prove that because the Administration was hiding the facts.
The military, by refusing to take the rational step of sending him to Afganistan, which he said he would accept, chose to squander my and your money for a damned ego trip.
Had they simply sent him to Kabul, we would never have heard of this.
The fault here is an irrational attitude in the military.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fault here is an irrational attitude in the military. i believe Heller would argue that it has nothing to do with rationality or irrationality it's just the nature of the beast..
a prophetic quote? "The Texan turned out to be good-natured, generous and likeable. In three days no one could stand him,"
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
But then, I never meant to suggest that the military was rational.
It is "the nature of the beast" that has reached high command to ignore all but themselves and what they want.
That's my money, not theirs, they are spending when they could have done the cheap and rational thing and sent the guy to Afganistan.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The military is not about anyone telling the military what soldiers want to do, especially after you train and sign to do a particular job. He was paid to train in his unit for a particular job for many years, and probably had a real good chance of being deployed to Iraq. I would guess he knew that under the circumstances. So before he is deployed, he changes his mind after receiving several years of pay to do a job in his unit and lead his men. The military is not about picking and chosing when and where you want to do your job and it is about following orders which is the basis for the military(we have seen nothing that proves that this is anything that Watada say's it is, only his opinion). But this is just my opinion from what i have read, it seems to be what this trial is all about. As far as the right or wrong(opinions) about the war (NOT The Legality) that is another topic.
Posts: 3875 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
