Soldier on trial for Iraq refusal

Status
Not open for further replies.

Liebling:-)))

Sussi *7.7.86 - 18.6.09*
Premium Member
They are supposed to. It says, "I hereby certify that I have read this agreement carefully; it has been fully explained to me, and I understand it and the conditions under which I am enlisting."

That statement is in the paragraph above the signature.

It's possible that they don't all read it carefully. However, will that excuse stand up in court? If the clause about extended service is in the contract, and the service member signs the contract where it states that the member "read this agreement carefully" and had it "fully explained", then how can the service member argue that he or she didn't know about it? How can the member say that it's "unfair"?


No matter, many people including soliders overlook the clauses when they thought they understood it. We were being advised to leave the contract to lawyer who understand more than us because some word in agreement contract is foreign to us. I will never beleive if you understand everything to 100% what the contract written for a first time... We need to re-read them until we understand or doubt then ask legal adviser or lawyer for the help and deal the business with contracters before I make a decision either I sign or not...
 

Jiro

If You Know What I Mean
Premium Member


1LT Watada's response:

BLACKFIVE: An email from LT Watada

It must be good reason if he felt Iraq war is unlawful and want to stop it. I respect if he want to stand up to Right and Wrong issues. Yes, he has right to refuse to go to iraq because it's not war!

lol... i had a good laugh from that reply email. That Lieutenant wants to interpret the constitutionality differently and he's not even a lawyer! If he wants to question the legality of the order - he should be taking it up to his superior or contacting J.A.G. which he did not. Well - looks like he conveniently choose the interpretation of "illegal order" by calling Iraq War as an illegal war thus any orders relating to Iraq War are illegal. "Illegal Order" - exactly what is illegal order? Well I'm sorry but he made a very poor and illed comparison of Iraq War to Nazi... soldiers blindly obeying orders... No no no no no... Why? because the major differences between Iraq War and Nazi War are -

1. Hitler ordered a mass-scale of genocide aka the Holocaust. President Bush did not.
2. Hitler preached to Germany about Aryan Race and blamed Jews, Gypsies, etc. for the demise of Germany. President Bush did not.
3. Hitler invaded whole Europe because he had a vision as the savior of Aryan Race. President Bush did not.
4. Hitler ordered his soldiers to gun down (aka execution) the civilians and prisoners. President Bush did not.

Lastly.... Lt. Watada stated - "The responsibility of an officer is to evaluate the legality and truthfulness behind every order. We cannot blindly accept every order, especially one to go to war, based on faith and what our "political" leaders tell us." I want to correct him right there:

ONE - he and the soldiers are not following every order from the political leaders - plural word. There is only one political man in charge and that is.. the Command-in-Chief - the President of the United States.

TWO - NO HE DOES NOT HAVE ANY RIGHTS TO REFUSE TO GO IRAQ! Do not confuse military with the way of civilian world. But he does have legal rights to disobey the order that is against the Constitution and Geneva Convention. Ordering him to go to Iraq is not a violation of the Constitution and Geneva Convention. GET IT?

THREE - There is an interesting comment by somebody in the link you gave me about the legality of Iraq War. "US forces are currently in Iraq according to mandate by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1637 passed UNANIMOUISLY and considered at the request of the Iraqi government. Our troops are in Iraq in full compliance with both international and domestic law."


one last thing - a response to all of Liebling's posts. It's getting very tiresome. You need to try very hard to separate your emotion & sympathy away from this issue. You have to look at the situation objectively. You need to understand very hard that the lawyers cannot help you at all with the military contract. I highly suggest that you call your lawyer to ask him about the military contract that all civilians have to sign before joining the military and the Stop Loss Policy. I can guarantee you that it is perfectly legal and it's tough luck. Your lawyer will tell you that military contract is not confusing at all like you see on those confusing fineprints on most of contracts that you signed for loans.
 

Byrdie714

New Member


1LT Watada's response:



BLACKFIVE: An email from LT Watada

It must be good reason if he felt Iraq war is unlawful and want to stop it. I respect if he want to stand up to Right and Wrong issues. Yes, he has right to refuse to go to iraq because it's not war!

It's war because Congress has authorize funding for it.

Secondly Watada signed the contract , aware of the clause, and now he wants to get out of his duty just because he doesn't agree with it.

Doesn't work that way.

He is going to go to jail. Period.
 

Byrdie714

New Member
No matter, many people including soliders overlook the clauses when they thought they understood it. We were being advised to leave the contract to lawyer who understand more than us because some word in agreement contract is foreign to us. I will never beleive if you understand everything to 100% what the contract written for a first time... We need to re-read them until we understand or doubt then ask legal adviser or lawyer for the help and deal the business with contracters before I make a decision either I sign or not...

Whether you understand it or not, you still need to read every clause before you sign your name to it.

Watada signed it and the Army is holding him incontempt for it.

The Army has the right to do that.
 

Byrdie714

New Member
lol... i had a good laugh from that reply email. That Lieutenant wants to interpret the constitutionality differently and he's not even a lawyer! If he wants to question the legality of the order - he should be taking it up to his superior or contacting J.A.G. which he did not. Well - looks like he conveniently choose the interpretation of "illegal order" by calling Iraq War as an illegal war thus any orders relating to Iraq War are illegal. "Illegal Order" - exactly what is illegal order? Well I'm sorry but he made a very poor and illed comparison of Iraq War to Nazi... soldiers blindly obeying orders... No no no no no... Why? because the major differences between Iraq War and Nazi War are -

1. Hitler ordered a mass-scale of genocide aka the Holocaust. President Bush did not.
2. Hitler preached to Germany about Aryan Race and blamed Jews, Gypsies, etc. for the demise of Germany. President Bush did not.
3. Hitler invaded whole Europe because he had a vision as the savior of Aryan Race. President Bush did not.
4. Hitler ordered his soldiers to gun down (aka execution) the civilians and prisoners. President Bush did not.

Lastly.... Lt. Watada stated - "The responsibility of an officer is to evaluate the legality and truthfulness behind every order. We cannot blindly accept every order, especially one to go to war, based on faith and what our "political" leaders tell us." I want to correct him right there:

ONE - he and the soldiers are not following every order from the political leaders - plural word. There is only one political man in charge and that is.. the Command-in-Chief - the President of the United States.

TWO - NO HE DOES NOT HAVE ANY RIGHTS TO REFUSE TO GO IRAQ! Do not confuse military with the way of civilian world. But he does have legal rights to disobey the order that is against the Constitution and Geneva Convention. Ordering him to go to Iraq is not a violation of the Constitution and Geneva Convention. GET IT?

THREE - There is an interesting comment by somebody in the link you gave me about the legality of Iraq War. "US forces are currently in Iraq according to mandate by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1637 passed UNANIMOUISLY and considered at the request of the Iraqi government. Our troops are in Iraq in full compliance with both international and domestic law."


one last thing - a response to all of Liebling's posts. It's getting very tiresome. You need to try very hard to separate your emotion & sympathy away from this issue. You have to look at the situation objectively. You need to understand very hard that the lawyers cannot help you at all with the military contract. I highly suggest that you call your lawyer to ask him about the military contract that all civilians have to sign before joining the military and the Stop Loss Policy. I can guarantee you that it is perfectly legal and it's tough luck. Your lawyer will tell you that military contract is not confusing at all like you see on those confusing fineprints on most of contracts that you signed for loans.

God is it ever?! Continually bashing Americans....:roll:

BTW.....:gpost:
 

Jiro

If You Know What I Mean
Premium Member
From that link of Lt. Watada's emails - if you read the comments by readers... all of them think he is a coward. Lot of these comments are written by both soldiers and veterans.

here are some comments -

What? Comparing our government with the Nazi regime. How pathetic. In my opinion your a traitor and a treasonist and should be put on trial found guilty and thrown in Guantenamo bay where I'm sure you will get better treatment then our soldiers. God Bless our soldiers and God bless the USA.

I'm a former Lt. USN. I remember the lessons based on the Nurenburg trials/My Lai Massacre,
An Officer has a duty to obey lawful orders, an order is assumed to be lawful unless it is clearly an illegal act - ie roundup and kill every person in this village..

The Iraq war has been lawfully authorize by the US Congress...repeatly funded by the US Congress.

Too bad the military can't confine him in a nice prison in Iraq. Guarded by the very soldiers he betrayed.

He planned this. He knew he'd eventually be deployed and have the ability to raise a stink about the war. He also knew that the media would make him their little darling. This whole thing has been carefully orchestrated from the beginning.

He's nothing more than a little POS that I would have scraped off the bottom of my boot.

What burns my ass the most is that I'm sitting here in this F'n wheelchair and I'd gladly change places with him. Not that I have regrets or that I'm bitter about how I became paralyzed, not by a longshot. But damn,... I'd gladly go in his place if I could.

He could sit out his days leisurely protesting the war and I'd gladly take the 120 degree heat with 20 pounds of bullet stopping, body heat building, armor strapped around my chest and a 70 pound ruck on my back.

F'n Bastard! (Sorry for the curse word BlackFive,... but he is.) He just makes me want to puke!

I'd stand for what's right,... if I could stand!

~V5

I'm wondering if he will have to pay back any educational benefits, bonuses he's received -- maybe he was thinking this was a good way to get trained and educated without paying for it; i understand in one interview he said he'd go to Afghanistan -- except he's trained with a unit that has been depending on him to lead them in Iraq. This guys' going down, but at least he's not fleeing to Canada... They say there's at least one in every bunch -- but the caliber of our military is so high, and it would seem that even though there may be more who were not totally behind this war, and might try to get out of their duty, except for the dedication and devotion most combat officers have for their men. This guy just doesn't care about anyone but himself, and i wouldn't want him to lead anyone into battle; You could say he probably just did his men and our country a huge favor by not going with them to Iraq

TO: Michael XXXXXXXXX
RE: The Oath

There IS a difference between the oath that officers and enlisted take.

The latter has a clause about obeying the orders of the president and officers appointed over them. The former has no such clause.

[Note: See this rather scholarly analysis of the oath....The Oath of Office: A Historical Guide to Moral Leadership

Yeah....it's by a wing-wiper, but he taught at USAFA, so he must know SOMETHING.]

It's an interesting omission, if you think about it. And one that puts an important onus on all commissioned officers to think for themselves, on occassion. [Note: Think of LT Calley.]

Personally, I think LT Watada is fouled-up beyond all recognition. And probably a gutless coward to boot. A product of the vaunted American public education system gone awry. Watada could well go and serve in Iraq and never be called upon to become another LT Calley.

Instead, Watada has decided to not serve in Iraq at all. Even if he were never called upon to go forth and lead men in combat. That's a cowardly decision, in my opinion. And he needs to be dealt with accordingly....the long course at Leavenworth.

However, back to the oath.....

....I think it would make an interesting discussion as to why the officers' oath does not have that clause about obeying orders.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Officers are not authorized morale.]

What did Lt. Watada think was going to happen when he joined the military? That he could impress the girls with his snappy uniform and be the hero at various high school assemblies?

He milked the government for his education and when the time came to repay for this, he decides to Google for reasons to avoid being sent to Iraq.

He, at the least, needs to repay the military for all the education he did. I think he needs to spend some time making small rocks out of big ones, but unfortunately, that doesn't seem to happen much anymore.

But, they could send him to Harvard also. I believe there is an open position there also.

Since when has 1LT Watada passed the Bar and become a JAG? I agree with most here: how the hell is the war in Iraq illegal or unlawful? I REALLY want to see him back up that allegation.

I'm the MP CPT who had the email exchange. In my final reply to the LT, I didnt really say much more as talking to these people is like talking to the wall. He has convinced himself of the nobility of his cause. I believe he will tour with Cindy this summer, until his apprehension. It is a shame that a young kid who spent the time in a commisioning program (OCS) would do so only to jack himself up for the rest of his days. Maybe he fancies himself the next John Kerry. At least J Fn K set foot on hostile ground.
 
Last edited:

Jiro

If You Know What I Mean
Premium Member
Whether you understand it or not, you still need to read every clause before you sign your name to it.

Watada signed it and the Army is holding him incontempt for it.

The Army has the right to do that.

EXACTLY! Signing mortgage contract as agreed by both parties to pay back with low interest rate for 20 years. But now with real estate bubble - the mortgage interest rate skyrocketed and you get pissed about it that you have to pay high interest rate and thought it's a violation of the contract. But you failed to see the fineprint saying that you are subjected to slight change of agreement regarding the interest rate. Do you bitch to bank for not telling you about it? NO IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY! The bank has EVERY LEGAL RIGHTS to take your house and remove you from it - TOUGH LUCK.

Lesson of the life? GROW UP and nobody's spoon-feeding you or babying you. You're on your own and it's your responsibility to know everything before you sign the contract. If you got a crappy lawyer, YOUR FAULT. If you misunderstood it, YOUR FAULT. If you don't like such risky obligation - DO NOT SIGN IT!
 

Liebling:-)))

Sussi *7.7.86 - 18.6.09*
Premium Member
one last thing - a response to all of Liebling's posts. It's getting very tiresome. You need to try very hard to separate your emotion & sympathy away from this issue. You have to look at the situation objectively. You need to understand very hard that the lawyers cannot help you at all with the military contract. I highly suggest that you call your lawyer to ask him about the military contract that all civilians have to sign before joining the military and the Stop Loss Policy. I can guarantee you that it is perfectly legal and it's tough luck. Your lawyer will tell you that military contract is not confusing at all like you see on those confusing fineprints on most of contracts that you signed for loans.

*sigh* Why have I repeat to you when you and I have the same meaning way.

I said: Any Agreement contracts including miltary contracts are being recommend to leave lawyer to examine and then explain exact what it is and then leave client decision either they agree or not before sign the contracts. The clients can add something to question contracters... the lawyer can write a letter to the contractors for their clients... until everything goes solved then... Get it?

If they thought they understood it without ask anyone for assistance before they signed then is good for them... but it´s bad if they overlook something... because the lawyer can´t help them... because they already signed the contract.

If they doubt either they understand it or not then ask legal adviser or lawyer to examine and explain exactly. The clients will not sign if they don´t like miltary contract with the help from the lawyer. It´s safety than be sorry later.

I know from my experiences, we were being recommend to leave agreement contracts to the lawyer for examine and explain exact to make sure that we won´t overlook it. This is safety way than be sorry. It does the same with soliders as well... They are also being recommend as well... it will help them to understand more than they thought they understood it.
 

Liebling:-)))

Sussi *7.7.86 - 18.6.09*
Premium Member
EXACTLY! Signing mortgage contract as agreed by both parties to pay back with low interest rate for 20 years. But now with real estate bubble - the mortgage interest rate skyrocketed and you get pissed about it that you have to pay high interest rate and thought it's a violation of the contract. But you failed to see the fineprint saying that you are subjected to slight change of agreement regarding the interest rate. Do you bitch to bank for not telling you about it? NO IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY! The bank has EVERY LEGAL RIGHTS to take your house and remove you from it - TOUGH LUCK.

Lesson of the life? GROW UP and nobody's spoon-feeding you or babying you. You're on your own and it's your responsibility to know everything before you sign the contract. If you got a crappy lawyer, YOUR FAULT. If you misunderstood it, YOUR FAULT. If you don't like such risky obligation - DO NOT SIGN IT!


I know myself because I am a property owner since 1988. We left agreement contract to the lawyer to examine and deal, etc. before we signed the agreement contract with contracter, Bank, etc. Everyone are being recommend to leave their contracts to legal adviser, lawyer or experts. It´s safety than sorry later.

I don´t tell anyone that it´s your fault, etc, ... you baby, etc... because I know everyone are human being who make mistakes...

 

Liebling:-)))

Sussi *7.7.86 - 18.6.09*
Premium Member
From that link of Lt. Watada's emails - if you read the comments by readers... all of them think he is a coward. Lot of these comments are written by both soldiers and veterans.

here are some comments -

Yes, I have read that´s why I posted those link because I want to see your reaction on some comments... I am surprised about your reaction... I say no more further.

To my view to those some comments is an ignorant, closed mind and arrogance because they forget quickly that he served many countries in the past.... I am glad to see some comments support him and his rights.
 

Liebling:-)))

Sussi *7.7.86 - 18.6.09*
Premium Member
Whether you understand it or not, you still need to read every clause before you sign your name to it.

Watada signed it and the Army is holding him incontempt for it.

The Army has the right to do that.

Yes I aware it that´s why I leave contracts to lawyer before I can sign or not.

Good thing is Watada have many supporters and court who are on his side.





 

Byrdie714

New Member
Yes, I have read that´s why I posted those link because I want to see your reaction on some comments... I am surprised about your reaction... I say no more further.

To my view to those some comments is an ignorant, closed mind and arrogance because they forget quickly that he served many countries in the past.... I am glad to see some comments support him and his rights.

No he hasn't. He signed up for the military after 2001 and has been in college since then.

Now that it's time for him to actually serve in combat--he is chickening out!


Yes I aware it that´s why I leave contracts to lawyer before I can sign or not.

Good thing is Watada have many supporters and court who are on his side.

From Jiro's posts......Watada doesn't have that many supporters. :roll:
 

Liebling:-)))

Sussi *7.7.86 - 18.6.09*
Premium Member
No he hasn't. He signed up for the military after 2001 and has been in college since then.

I want to say is he had been served to countries in the past and have no problem for that.

Now that it's time for him to actually serve in combat--he is chickening out!

This is your opinion. I admire him for stood up his right when he knew he would face imprisonment or death penalty. :)

To my view, he doing right thing by stand up to those who abused the Constitution. He do not want to violate the crime against humanity and the interest of Americans and the world because Iraq was not America´s enemy. Iraq did not start a war and did not attack America. It´s false because it written under oath "…I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, …



From Jiro's posts......Watada doesn't have that many supporters. :roll:

Oh yes he does. Check the link of my first thread. I have another link...
Thank You Lt. Watada - Home Page

Ehren Watada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Jiro

If You Know What I Mean
Premium Member
Liebling - read the enlistment contract that all civilians sign before joining military [PDF file]

and then read few links
1. How to Read an Enlistment Contract
Instructions - Difficulty: Moderately Easy

Step 4
Grasp the fact that the contract allows for changes in the length of your enlistment in the case of war. Section 10 covers these changes. During the course of your enlistment, if the country goes to war, the military reserves the right to extend your enlistment for however long it deems appropriate.

Step 5
Realize that the enlistment contract for first-time members of the military actually applies for a period of eight years. Those eight years can be spent on active duty, in the active Reserves or National Guard or in the inactive reserves. You can read this in Paragraph 10(a) of the contract.

2. Understanding Your Enlistment Contract for the Military
Technically, the military owns you for the eight years subsequent to signing your contract, which means that even if you are sent home, you can still be called to active duty. This is to ensure warm bodies are available in a time of crisis, and is something you should consider before you sign this agreement.

If you don't understand any part of your enlistment contract, ask your recruiter to explain it to you in detail. Just because you're signing an agreement with the U.S. government doesn't mean that you should be any less wary than if you were signing up for cell phone service. This is a decision that will impact the next eight years of your life, and is not to be taken lightly.
 

Byrdie714

New Member
I want to say is he had been served to countries in the past and have no problem for that.

No he hasn't. He hasn't served in the military to other countries.

This is your opinion. I admire him for stood up his right when he knew he would face imprisonment or death penalty. :)

To my view, he doing right thing by stand up to those who abused the Constitution. He do not want to violate the crime against humanity and the interest of Americans and the world because Iraq was not America´s enemy. Iraq did not start a war and did not attack America. It´s false because it written under oath "…I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, …


He would never face the death penalty only imprisonment.


Oh yes he does. Check the link of my first thread. I have another link...
Thank You Lt. Watada - Home Page

Just one person's web page. :roll:

Ehren Watada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia? That's a joke! :lol:


All my answers are in red.
 

Jiro

If You Know What I Mean
Premium Member
Check the link of my first thread. I have another link...
Thank You Lt. Watada - Home Page

quote from Lt. Watada email thing -
Did a little research.

Watada's website (thankyoult.org) was registered May31 by Jeff Paterson of Not In Our Name.

The two admit being in touch since at least March. Jeff Paterson, as some of you may recall, pulled the same stunt during the Gulf War (he brags about it at jeff.paterson.net). Not In Our Name were ahead of the game when it came to protesting our liberation of Iraq - remember their bs pledge signed by the A-list of celebrity moonbats?

Well, Not In Our Name organized several coordinated protests before the bombs started to drop - two of the largest were October 26, 2002 and February 15, 2003 on which there were sizeable protests in Honolulu. The Feb. 15 protest (which they boast was "The single biggest day of worldwide protest in history") was held at Pearl Harbor - spitting distance from Hawaii Pacific University, where Watada was going to college.

Hard to believe young Ehren wasn't exposed to even a little bitt of NION propaganda that would have piqued his curiosity about a possible war - what with him being such a relentlessly inquisitive paragon of deep thinking and all.

Liebling - if you want to have a strong support to your view, please use a credible source. not some random links you found in google especially some protester sites. Scholarly sources, info from legal proceedings, testimony of "high-level" officials, and also info from reputable independent investigation authorized by appropriate organization such as UN/Congress/etc. are best used as a support to one's view/belief/argument.

You're clouding the argument with mostly your personal experiences and emotion/sympathy which is usually ignored because it's just :blah:. If you want to call it an Illegal War and Illegal Order... then picture yourself speaking at Supreme Court before 9 honorable judges or at the Congressional Hearing. You need to show substantial, solid, reputable evidence/argument beyond all reasonable doubt to present your case that Iraq War is illegal and that Lt. Watada has legal rights to disobey the order of deployment. If you can do that, then I will support you and denounce this war as illegal.

Until then.... as far as I'm concerned, Lt. Watada is in wrong of disobeying the orders and Iraq War is legal since Congress authorized the funding and it is in full compliance with both international & domestic law and United Nations Security Council Resolution 1637.
 

Jiro

If You Know What I Mean
Premium Member
I strongly considered Watada a coward and traitor to his country, period.

and worse... he's a thief. He used our tax money for his college tuition and he has never served in any combat! I suppose he was not expecting to get involved in any conflict. He even flat-out REFUSED an offer to have a desk job in Iraq! He thinks he can use his college smart to weasel his way out of the binding contract but NOPE NOT GONNA HAPPEN! if there's something he learns in life - it's to pay for consequence of violating the contract.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top