Soldier on trial for Iraq refusal

[Liebling:-)))]

Soldier on trial for Iraq refusal

A US army officer who refused an order to deploy to Iraq has pleaded not guilty to several charges at a court-martial that calls into question the right of officers to speak out against the war.

First Lieutenant Ehren Watada has described America's involvement in Iraq as illegal and morally wrong.

Watada's supporters, including actor Sean Penn, gathered outside the army base [AP]

On the first day of the court-martial in Fort Lewis, an army base near Seattle, Watada explained that he saw the order to go to Iraq as illegal because the war itself was illegal.

He said: "I had no other choice but to refuse the order."

'Illegal' war

The 28-year old faces four years in prison if convicted on one count of missing movement and two counts of conduct unbecoming an officer for refusing to go with his unit, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division.

He refused conscientious-objector status, saying he would serve in Afghanistan but not Iraq.

Anti-war activists consider Watada a hero and his supporters say he is the first army officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq.

"As the order to take part in an illegal act is ultimately unlawful as well, I must as an officer of honour and integrity refuse that order"

First Lieutenant Ehren Watada

Watada had hoped to make his case against the war in court, but John Head, the military judge presiding over the case, denied the defence's request to argue the legality of the war, saying the question cannot be answered in a military court.

Head also denied a list of possible defence witnesses and limited what the defence could ask potential members of the military panel that will determine Watada's fate.

Eric Seitz, Watada's lawyer, said: "It has become clear now that there is nothing for us to say in this courtroom."

Seitz called the decisions "comical" and "atrocious".

Watada's supporters and opponents gathered outside the gates of the army base, waving banners and shouting.

'War crime'

The two charges of conduct unbecoming an officer stem from public comments Watada made encouraging soldiers "to throw down their weapons" to resist an authoritarian government at home.

Watada is the first army officer to publicly
refuse to deploy to Iraq [AFP]

Defence lawyers had intended to argue that Watada's comments were free speech protected under the US constitution but Head rejected this.

In a video statement in June, Watada said: "As the order to take part in an illegal act is ultimately unlawful as well, I must as an officer of honour and integrity refuse that order."

Despite having already been charged, he spoke out again in August, at a Veterans for Peace rally in Seattle.

Watada said: "Though the American soldier wants to do right, the illegitimacy of the occupation itself, the policies of this administration, and the rules of engagement of desperate field commanders will ultimately force them to be party to war crime."

Army 'betrayal'

Army prosecutors say Watada's behaviour was dangerous to "the mission" and morale of other soldiers.

Captain Dan Kuecker said at one hearing: "He betrayed his fellow soldiers who are now serving in Iraq."

Colonel Dan Baggio, a US army spokesperson, said: "[It] sets a bad example for the soldiers underneath that person. It sets a bad precedent. At that point in time you've lost good order and discipline. You can't have that in a military organisation."


Al Jazeera English - News - Soldier On Trial For Iraq Refusal

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Army 'betrayal'

Army prosecutors say Watada's behaviour was dangerous to "the mission" and morale of other soldiers.

Captain Dan Kuecker said at one hearing: "He betrayed his fellow soldiers who are now serving in Iraq."

Colonel Dan Baggio, a US army spokesperson, said: "[It] sets a bad example for the soldiers underneath that person. It sets a bad precedent. At that point in time you've lost good order and discipline. You can't have that in a military organisation."

No, what Watada did is not betrayal. He is not only one who said that Iraq war is an illegal war and crime. I Watada for fight his rights and accept to face at court room... Many soliders were being forced to extend their agreement contract and threaten them to face jail or whatever if they refused go to Iraq... They were being forced to sign to extend agreement contract... If they want to quit to be solider then is their decision... Watada said that he like to serve any countries where is legal, not illegal. I don't blame him because I would never do illegal job... it would teach anyone it's okay to do illegal... No Way...

 

[Reba]

... I would never do illegal job... it would teach anyone it's okay to do illegal... No Way...

No, you just work for "illegal" warmongers.

 

[Jiro]

Many soliders were being forced to extend their agreement contract and threaten them to face jail or whatever if they refused go to Iraq... They were being forced to sign to extend agreement contract... If they want to quit to be solider then is their decision...

ever heard of STOP-LOSS POLICY? You're making it sound like they were illegally forced to extend the contract agreement. Soldiers should be aware that they are subjected to Stop-Loss Policy at anytime as long as they're soldiers. They signed the agreement for that so tough luck! President George Bush Senior has used Stop-Loss Order for 1990 Persian Gulf War.

New Army Stop-Loss Policy
Army Public Affairs

No, what Watada did is not betrayal. He is not only one who said that Iraq war is an illegal war and crime. I Watada for fight his rights and accept to face at court room...

Watada said that he like to serve any countries where is legal, not illegal. I don't blame him because I would never do illegal job... it would teach anyone it's okay to do illegal... No Way...

Ordering soldiers to go to war (even if it's illegal) is NOT illegal. BUT ordering soldier to gun down a crowd of civilians IS ILLEGAL. Therefore, that officer IS GUILTY of disobeying the Command in Chief and on all charges. He's lucky not to be charged with MUTINY which is punishable by harsh penalties or possibly death penalty (not always).

The United States’ Uniform Code of Military Justice defines mutiny thus:

Art. 94. (§ 894.) Mutiny or Sedition.
(a) Any person subject to this code (chapter) who—
(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;
(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;
(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.

(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

Uniform Code of Military Justice, Art. 94; 10 U.S.C. § 894 (2004).

 

[Liebling:-)))]

No, you just work for "illegal" warmongers.

If you call US soliders as warmongers then is your opinion.

FYI: We (civillian people) has nothing do with war business but we are here to provide US soliders/civillians and their families with life necessary.

 

[Jiro]

If you call US soliders as warmongers then is your opinion.

FYI: We (civillian people) has nothing do with war business but we are here to provide US soliders/civillians and their families with life necessary.

yes you can do that from many organizations that do same thing. Point is - you're being paid by "warmongers."

 

[Liebling:-)))]

[/COLOR]
ever heard of STOP-LOSS POLICY? You're making it sound like they were illegally forced to extend the contract agreement. Soldiers should be aware that they are subjected to Stop-Loss Policy at anytime as long as they're soldiers. They signed the agreement for that so tough luck! President George Bush Senior has used Stop-Loss Order for 1990 Persian Gulf War.

New Army Stop-Loss Policy
Army Public Affairs


Ordering soldiers to go to war (even if it's illegal) is NOT illegal. BUT ordering soldier to gun down a crowd of civilians IS ILLEGAL. Therefore, that officer IS GUILTY of disobeying the Command in Chief and on all charges. He's lucky not to be charged with MUTINY which is punishable by harsh penalties or possibly death penalty (not always).

The United States’ Uniform Code of Military Justice defines mutiny thus:

Art. 94. (§ 894.) Mutiny or Sedition.
(a) Any person subject to this code (chapter) who—
(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;
(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;
(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.

(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

Uniform Code of Military Justice, Art. 94; 10 U.S.C. § 894 (2004).

No, I never said that it's illegal to force soliders to extend the contract agreement but disagree. Yes, I awared and already said at other threads at few years ago that I advised them to check those agreement contract with lawyer first before they sign.

Many soliders were furious because they decided to resign US Army soon before their contract agreement end... They were being force to sign extend the contract.

Why I disagree on this? Because they told soliders in first place that it's voluntarily... Really truth is it's not voluntarily what soliders thought. It turn into different soon after they signed the agreement contract. They told me that they questioned and make sure before they sign... All what they get positive answers and then sign... and turn into different... which is really sad... I told them that the word out of the mouth doesn't count but best thing is go to lawyer...

I volunteered to help a lot... I can stop what I want to - nobody trap me... because it's voluntarily. They should not say to soliders that it's voluntarliy in first place.

About my younger son, he told me that he want to be solider career and serve the country and defense for country, not attack other countries and remind me that Germany is not America. I told him no matter either Germany is America or not but still check with lawyer to make sure first before he agree and then sign.

 

[Jiro]

No, I never said that it's illegal to force soliders to extend the contract agreement but disagree. Yes, I awared and already said at other threads at few years ago that I advised them to check those agreement contract with lawyer first before they sign.

Many soliders were furious because they decided to resign US Army soon before their contract agreement end... They were being force to sign extend the contract.

Why I disagree on this? Because they told soliders in first place that it's voluntarily... Really truth is it's not voluntarily what soliders thought. It turn into different soon after they signed the agreement contract. They told me that they questioned and make sure before they sign... All what they get positive answers and then sign... and turn into different... which is really sad... I told them that the word out of the mouth doesn't count but best thing is go to lawyer...

I volunteered to help a lot... I can stop what I want to - nobody trap me... because it's voluntarily. They should not say to soliders that it's voluntarliy in first place.

About my younger son, he told me that he want to be solider career and serve the country and defense for country, not attack other countries and remind me that Germany is not America. I told him no matter either Germany is America or not but still check with lawyer to make sure first before he agree and then sign.

That is very difficult... Military does not follow civilian law. The thing about military is even if Stop Loss Policy doesn't exist... you still have to follow the Executive Order. No such thing as labor union in military....

 

[Liebling:-)))]

yes you can do that from many organizations that do same thing. Point is - you're being paid by "warmongers."

This is your opinion.

 

[Reba]

If you call US soliders as warmongers then is your opinion.

I don't consider them as warmongers; you do.

FYI: We (civillian people) has nothing do with war business but we are here to provide US soliders/civillians and their families with life necessary.

The civilians do the work that supports the war. It is very connected to the war effort. Armies can't fight wars without support from the civilians behind them.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

I don't consider them as warmongers; you do.

Are you accuse me for label soliders as a warmongers? Please show me where I call soliders as a warmongers... If you still accuse me for what I didn't then you are a liar. You are the one who brought those word up, not me.

The civilians do the work that supports the war. It is very connected to the war effort. Armies can't fight wars without support from the civilians behind them.

No, I have nothing do with war issues. I only provide the life necassary to support US soliders/civllian and their families. If you can't get it then I can't help you.

 

[Reba]

Signing up for American military service is voluntary; no one is forced to do it.

Every service man and woman knows that no matter how many years the contract states, there is always that clause that says you can be kept in service according to the needs of the service during war. If people don't like that clause, then they shouldn't sign the contract.

How could the military win wars if they allowed people to leave when they wanted? It would be chaos. Do you think that soldiers in the middle of the battles at Normandy, or the Bulge, or Iwo Jima said, "Oh, look at the calendar; my contract time is up--I'm going home. Bye-bye."

No. Soldiers don't leave their buddies behind to do all the fighting without them just because they decide their time is up. Sailors don't tell the captain of the ship to let them off half way thru a cruise.

 

[Reba]

Are you accuse me for label soliders as a warmongers? Please show me where I call soliders as a warmongers...

Accusing Americans of starting and perpetuating "illegal" wars, and "killing innocents" is the same as the word "warmonger".

No, I have nothing do with war issues. I only provide the life necassary to support US soliders/civllian and their families. If you can't get it then I can't help you.

If you can't see the connection then you know nothing about warfare and logistical support.

The support services behind the front lines has always been considered a crucial part of warfare. The armies can't conduct their wars without civilian support.

Therefor, the work of the German civilians supports the war effort. Why do you thing the CO's of bases thank the civilians for their help, and hand out awards to the civilian leaders?

I can't believe that you really don't understand how the work you do helps the Americans continue the war in Iraq. The only thing I can figure is that it is defensive denial.

 

[Byrdie714]

Soldier on trial for Iraq refusal

A US army officer who refused an order to deploy to Iraq has pleaded not guilty to several charges at a court-martial that calls into question the right of officers to speak out against the war.

First Lieutenant Ehren Watada has described America's involvement in Iraq as illegal and morally wrong.

Watada's supporters, including actor Sean Penn, gathered outside the army base [AP]

On the first day of the court-martial in Fort Lewis, an army base near Seattle, Watada explained that he saw the order to go to Iraq as illegal because the war itself was illegal.

He said: "I had no other choice but to refuse the order."

'Illegal' war

The 28-year old faces four years in prison if convicted on one count of missing movement and two counts of conduct unbecoming an officer for refusing to go with his unit, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division.

He refused conscientious-objector status, saying he would serve in Afghanistan but not Iraq.

Anti-war activists consider Watada a hero and his supporters say he is the first army officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq.

"As the order to take part in an illegal act is ultimately unlawful as well, I must as an officer of honour and integrity refuse that order"

First Lieutenant Ehren Watada

Watada had hoped to make his case against the war in court, but John Head, the military judge presiding over the case, denied the defence's request to argue the legality of the war, saying the question cannot be answered in a military court.

Head also denied a list of possible defence witnesses and limited what the defence could ask potential members of the military panel that will determine Watada's fate.

Eric Seitz, Watada's lawyer, said: "It has become clear now that there is nothing for us to say in this courtroom."

Seitz called the decisions "comical" and "atrocious".

Watada's supporters and opponents gathered outside the gates of the army base, waving banners and shouting.

'War crime'

The two charges of conduct unbecoming an officer stem from public comments Watada made encouraging soldiers "to throw down their weapons" to resist an authoritarian government at home.

Watada is the first army officer to publicly
refuse to deploy to Iraq [AFP]

Defence lawyers had intended to argue that Watada's comments were free speech protected under the US constitution but Head rejected this.

In a video statement in June, Watada said: "As the order to take part in an illegal act is ultimately unlawful as well, I must as an officer of honour and integrity refuse that order."

Despite having already been charged, he spoke out again in August, at a Veterans for Peace rally in Seattle.

Watada said: "Though the American soldier wants to do right, the illegitimacy of the occupation itself, the policies of this administration, and the rules of engagement of desperate field commanders will ultimately force them to be party to war crime."

Army 'betrayal'

Army prosecutors say Watada's behaviour was dangerous to "the mission" and morale of other soldiers.

Captain Dan Kuecker said at one hearing: "He betrayed his fellow soldiers who are now serving in Iraq."

Colonel Dan Baggio, a US army spokesperson, said: "[It] sets a bad example for the soldiers underneath that person. It sets a bad precedent. At that point in time you've lost good order and discipline. You can't have that in a military organisation."


Al Jazeera English - News - Soldier On Trial For Iraq Refusal

Watada is a joke. I been reading news on this guy on a daily basis since Ft. Lewis is near Seattle.

When you sign up for service-- you can't pick-n-choose where you want to go. His refusal to go to Iraq is clearly being insubordinate.

I say let's pack him up and ship him to Iraq instead of wasting taxpayer's money on a military trial.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

That is very difficult... Military does not follow civilian law. The thing about military is even if Stop Loss Policy doesn't exist... you still have to follow the Executive Order. No such thing as labor union in military....

Unfortunlately yes, they are being trap after sign the agreement contract. That´s why they were being advised to check with lawyer first before they agree and then sign.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Accusing Americans of starting and perpetuating "illegal" wars, and "killing innocents" is the same as the word "warmonger".

Wars? Do you assumed that I said all wars are an illegal? If you think your assumption is true then you are a liar because I never said all wars are illegal.

I said Iraq war is an illegal war which mean itself, not troops.

I said soliders feel bad for kill inncoents is not a negative.

I never bring those word up or use those word "warmonger" to insult troops but you. You started to use those word to bring up here in my thread. What you use those word is a provoke...

If you can't see the connection then you know nothing about warfare and logistical support.

The support services behind the front lines has always been considered a crucial part of warfare. The armies can't conduct their wars without civilian support.

Therefor, the work of the German civilians supports the war effort. Why do you thing the CO's of bases thank the civilians for their help, and hand out awards to the civilian leaders?

I can't believe that you really don't understand how the work you do helps the Americans continue the war in Iraq. The only thing I can figure is that it is defensive denial.

Whatever :roll: You can assume a lot what you want... and think I know nothing - you are right and I am wrong ...

 

[Jiro]

Unfortunlately yes, they are being trap after sign the agreement contract. That´s why they were being advised to check with lawyer first before they agree and then sign.

no I mean even with lawyer, you're still screwed. it doesn't work like that. I'm pretty sure that the military contract does include something that you're subjected to whatever it is that extends your tour of duty during war time. so lawyer is not really going to help you much - only if your parents are politically well-connected.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Signing up for American military service is voluntary; no one is forced to do it.

Yes, that´s right but really truth after sign the agreement contract. It´s really sad that they lead the people beleive and trust that it´s voluntary...

Every service man and woman knows that no matter how many years the contract states, there is always that clause that says you can be kept in service according to the needs of the service during war. If people don't like that clause, then they shouldn't sign the contract.

Do you want to assume that every people know and can read the clause? Do you mean ALL?

How could the military win wars if they allowed people to leave when they wanted? It would be chaos. Do you think that soldiers in the middle of the battles at Normandy, or the Bulge, or Iwo Jima said, "Oh, look at the calendar; my contract time is up--I'm going home. Bye-bye."

Please re-read my post to Jiro123 carefully and please don´t twist it. I talk about they DECIDED to resign Army service soon before their agreement contract ends. They forced them to sign the extend agreement contract. Get it?

No. Soldiers don't leave their buddies behind to do all the fighting without them just because they decide their time is up. Sailors don't tell the captain of the ship to let them off half way thru a cruise.

Soliders decided to quit Army service and do not want to extend agreement contract but they forced them to sign extend agreement contract and ignore their decision for resign Army service. Get it?


Anyway, accord the article: He can say No to Iraq war when he FELT it´s not necassary war or illegal war. This is his right. Good thing is the court is on his side. Why? because he has no problem to serve at different countries except Iraq.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

no I mean even with lawyer, you're still screwed. it doesn't work like that. I'm pretty sure that the military contract does include something that you're subjected to whatever it is that extends your tour of duty during war time. so lawyer is not really going to help you much - only if your parents are politically well-connected.

We often use lawyer to examine agreement contracts for different reasons... Our lawyer asked us questions with the help from interpreters. What we agree or not... we add something to ask where clause is not written... If our lawyer saw something what he disagree and advised us to not sign unless he got company to agree something differently. They check with §§ and write a letter to company for their agreement and suggestion... until they agree then have me to sign or not... If they do not agree something then I do not sign.

If my younger son do not agree something what the lawyer convince him what agreement contract written or add something... then don´t sign. If he agree then sign.

This is a simple...

About extend accord your post, no that´s not what I talked about... They left Iraq war for go back to America accord the contract agreement... Shock, they forced them to extend the agreement contract, few months later then send them back to Iraq war...

Yes, the lawyer can´t do anything to help them if they already signed the agreement contract which is really sad. That´s why they were being advised to not sign unless they make sure that they understand what agreement contract written.

 

[Jiro]

We often use lawyer to examine agreement contracts for different reasons... Our lawyer asked us questions with the help from interpreters. What we agree or not... we add something to ask where clause is not written... If our lawyer saw something what he disagree and advised us to not sign unless he got company to agree something differently. They check with §§ and write a letter to company for their agreement and suggestion... until they agree then have me to sign or not... If they do not agree something then I do not sign.

If my younger son do not agree something what the lawyer convince him what agreement contract written or add something... then don´t sign. If he agree then sign.

This is a simple...

About extend accord your post, no that´s not what I talked about... They left Iraq war for go back to America accord the contract agreement... Shock, they forced them to extend the agreement contract, few months later then send them back to Iraq war...

Yes, the lawyer can´t do anything to help them if they already signed the agreement contract which is really sad. That´s why they were being advised to not sign unless they make sure that they understand what agreement contract written.

but I told you already.... military does not abide by civilian laws. They are subjected to such cases like this especially during war time. it's pretty much a well-known fact. It does not matter if the lawyer was presented before you sign the contract. He will tell you that he can't help you if Stop Loss Policy is being issued. This Stop-Loss Policy will most likely ends by next year. Normally, this policy extends your service by about 6 months but they're being extended as far as 12 months... which is understandably disastrous.