Army Charges Watada

Discussion in '2006 Archive' started by carpro, Jul 5, 2006.

  1. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,897
    Likes Received:
    294
    http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060706/2006-07-06T002812Z_01_N05368896_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-IRAQ-USA-OFFICER-DC.html


    Army charges officer for refusing to fight in Iraq



    Jul 5, 8:28 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.
     
  2. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    Although I have been against the war in Iraq, the Army is correct in charging this officer. He enlisted knowing full well what serving could entail. He should be charged!
     
  3. Brother James

    Brother James
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Messages:
    660
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good to see a soldier more concerned about the constitution he is sworn to uphold than the illegal orders of superiors. I wish him well.
     
  4. Joseph_Botwinick

    Joseph_Botwinick
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/532.jpg>Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    17,527
    Likes Received:
    0
    I hope they shoot him for desertion.

    Joseph Botwinick
     
  5. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    As usual, you make absurd statements. This soldier did not desert, he refused to serve. He should be dishonorably discharged, and possibly serve some time in the brig.
     
  6. Brother James

    Brother James
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Messages:
    660
    Likes Received:
    0
    :Fish:
    How strange that you'd feel this way brother.
     
  7. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,897
    Likes Received:
    294
    It'd be impossible to make a case for desertion, but they are giving him a break. He could also be charged under
    Article 87 Combat refusal
    Article 90 Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer.
    Article 92 Failure to obey an order or regulation

    It would be difficult, but if a case could be made under Article 87, it carries a possible death penalty.

    He is a coward that deserves to be punished, but he'll only get a slap on the hand, if anything. Most likely, for political reasons, he'll get off scott free.
     
  8. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,423
    Likes Received:
    72
    If you want to make decisions about where you go to war, you run for President or Congress. You don't join the military.
     
  9. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    He was willing to fight in Afghanistan, but not Iraq. Now he is making a public stand that will definitely hurt him.

    "Coward" is not the right word.
     
  10. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,303
    Likes Received:
    784
    When you join the military for the sole purpose of refusing to go to war and protesting then you get to endure the friuts of your labor. In this case he will be disgraced and serve time.

    Dissent is clearly constitutional. But how you dissent shows your heart and maturity. This kind of dissent is irresponsible.
     
  11. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,897
    Likes Received:
    294
    It may be just as well for the soldiers that would be under his command in Iraq. He's the kind of officer that would break their sacred promise to each other of leaving no man behind.
     
  12. emeraldctyangel

    emeraldctyangel
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2005
    Messages:
    737
    Likes Received:
    0
    I heard on a local radio talk show as Senator Hemmings and the radio host discuss this as they took calls.

    One woman from Kaneohe Bay said she was embarrassed that he was from the same state she was born and raised in. I would never want that said about me.

    I told the Senator that there are many channels to use to get out of the military, the best way is to not use the media to force the military's hand. There was a young Sailor about 2 years ago name Pablo Paredes who did something similar. It didnt go so well for him either.

    They wanted to discuss the defense attorney's claim that he is being denied his first amendment right by the military. Im interested to know what you all think of that.

    Be aware that as US service members we are afforded all of the rights of the Constitution, however we are bound by the UCMJ. Which means we can say what we want, we just cant do that in uniform. We are not allowed to speak for or against something as a representative of the US Military. What say you?

    As for what he has done, I feel that his not going to Iraq was the best thing. He seems like person in a leadership position that would get people killed because he has no grasp of what he is doing. I think if he received a scholarship via ROTC or Westpoint that he should be required to pay back the US taxpayer every single dime.
     
    #12 emeraldctyangel, Jul 8, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 8, 2006
  13. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yeah, right. Let's junk discipline. To each his own way. Hail Freedom !
     
  14. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    In what way does his attorney claim his client's 1st amendment rights have been violated? It doesn't seem to be speech, press, or assembly....so is it his right to religion? I'm just not clear about what the issue is.
     

Share This Page

Loading...