A DESERTER, OR A "DISSENTER"

[Jolie Rouge]

A DESERTER, OR A "DISSENTER"

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/deserter.jpg

The Seattle Times heralds the moonbat left's new hero: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003044627_nogo7m.html


In a rare case of officer dissent, a Fort Lewis Army lieutenant has refused orders to head out to Iraq this month to lead troops in what he believes is an illegal war of occupation.

"Dissent?!" He's defying his orders.


1st Lt. Ehren Watada's Stryker brigade is scheduled to make its first deployment to Iraq this month. His refusal to accompany these troops puts him at risk of court-martial and years of prison time. "I feel that we have been lied to and betrayed by this administration," Watada said Tuesday in a telephone interview from Fort Lewis. "It is the duty, the obligation of every soldier, and specifically the officers, to evaluate the legality, the truth behind every order — including the order to go to war."

In making his decision, Watada has reached out to peace groups, including clergy, students, some veterans opposed to Iraq and others. Some war critics are raising money for his legal defense as they seek to galvanize broader opposition to Bush administration policy in Iraq. "There has been an outpouring of support in the Puget Sound area," said David Solnit, who works with the anti-war group Courage to Resist. The group and others are helping organize a press conference today in Tacoma to launch the support campaign.


A military reader e-mails:


This guy graduated from college and then joined the Army, going to Officer Candidate school, AFTER we had already started the Iraq campaign just to claim it was an "illegal" war when his unit is called to go. Smells funny to me. In my mind either the Army gave a commission to an idiot not aware of current events or he planned this all along.

And another retired military reader adds:


I don't think that this lieutenant knows how much trouble he could be in. First, he stated, "It is the duty, the obligation of every soldier, and specifically the officers, to evaluate the legality, the truth behind every order — including the order to go to war." This is wrong It is not the duty of every soldier to evaluate the legality of every order. It is the duty of every soldier is to follow all LAWFUL orders.

It sounds as if he has been planning this. If it can be proven that he is doing this to encourage other soldiers to do this, he would be guilty of formenting a mutiny - a capital offense. This is Article 94 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice:

ART. 94. MUTINY OR SEDITION
(a) Any person subject to this 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 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.

Steven Burt
1LT, FA, USAR (ret)


Milblogger Bubblehead adds: http://bubbleheads.blogspot.com/2006/06/how-not-to-refuse-unlawful-orders.html


Expect the evening news tomorrow night to be filled with stories of a "brave" Army Lieutenant. The actions he'll be lauded for don't fit the traditional definition of bravery, but you'll see pundits far and wide hailing his actions. Here's what he'll be celebrated for: refusing to deploy with his unit to Iraq.

1st Lt. Ehren K. Watada says, through his lawyer, that he cannot "participate in a war that he cannot justify or support legally and morally".

Many of us have probably thought about what we'd do if given what we felt was an illegal order -- we all got training when we first came into the military that we weren't obligated to follow such an order. I always figured I'd explain to the person who gave me the order why I felt it was illegal, and then take it up the chain of command if that was available. If worse came to worse, I'd probably get my Congressman involved. One action I wouldn't take, though, was holding a "coordinated news conference". His parents apparently support his decision; his father is fairly well-known in Hawaiian political circles.

Watada claims that the current war is illegal. Interestingly, he joined the Army in June 2003, after we had invaded Iraq (so the concept that he might have to go there shouldn't have come as a surprise to him); his obligation ends in December of this year. I'm interested to know where he gets the idea that our current occupation of Iraq is illegal; not only has Congress supported the continued action through appropriations, the United Nations Security Council specifically authorized (unanimously) the current coalition military operations in Iraq.


Kim at Wizbang has extensive coverage: http://wizbangblog.com/2006/06/07/fort-lewis-officer-says-he-will-refuse-to-go-to-iraq.php


This is more than just one man refusing to deploy. It's a coordinated effort by the anti-war left to undermine our troops, our war effort, and President Bush, and Lt. Watada is its pawn.


More on the media circus from the Army Times.
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1851191.php


And John Stephenson.
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2006/06/06/fort-lewis-officer-says-hell-refuse-to-deploy/

[Jolie Rouge]

Here's left-wing Alternet extolling Watada's "courage."
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/37246/


Watada's website crashed earlier today. Here's what's posted there now from his donation-seeking supporters: http://www.thankyoult.org/


Our primary website is currently offline. We are working very hard to bring it back.

June 7, 2006
FAMILY & FRIENDS OF LT.
www.ThankYouLt.org

Press Advisory

FIRST U.S. MILITARY COMMISSIONED OFFICER TO REFUSE DEPLOYMENT TO UNLAWFUL IRAQ WAR TODAY

Today U.S. Army First Lieutenant Ehren Watada will become the first commissioned officer to refuse deployment to the unlawful Iraq war and occupation. The lieutenant will announce the intention to disobey the illegal order to deploy to Iraq in coordinated press conferences in Tacoma, Washington and Honolulu, Hawaii. Veterans, religious leaders, military families, students, faculty, peace and justice organizations and community members will announce a national public campaign of support for the Lieutenant.

12:00pm, Wednesday, June 7th
Associated Ministries
1224 South I Street
Tacoma, Washington
(at the intersection of 12th & I)

11:00am, Wednesday, June 7th
Hawaii State Capitol
Senate Conference Room 224
Honolulu, Hawii

DONATE to Lt. Watada's Legal Defense Fund

KOMO TV Seattle coverage.
http://www.komotv.com/stories/43774.htm

KHNL coverage - interview with Watada's father, Bob, a Vietnam War protester who supports his son.
http://www.khnl.com/Global/story.asp?S=4998081

Nathan Goulding at The Media Blog has more on Bob Watada--a Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferer: http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTU3Y2MxODdlZWQ2MWNhODNkYzVmNjY3ZjQ2NjJkZmI=


I decided to find out if Lt. Watada or his father have had any associations with anti-war groups or anti-war movements. After a short time on Google, this turned up—a posting on a forum at the University of Hawaii:

During the past year, [Bob Watada] confided to me his opposition to the War in Iraq.

He likened Bush Two to be equal to Adolf Hitler.

Although I don’t have any strong feelings about the subject, I generally side with the national political establishment.

In recent years, I’ve been mildly criticizing the truth about how Europe began conquering the Planet starting in the 15th Century.

Of course, America’s empire is just an extension of Europe’s exploits.

When I was just out of high school, Robert taught me frosh college economics at Kapiolani Community College on Pensacola Street.

This appears to have been posted by someone named Mike G. H. Chun. Sadly, it seems you can't trust anyone these days. If Mr. Watada's Bush/Hitler sentiments are accurate, this could help illuminate why he's so proud of his son for opposing the war.


***

Update (via Kristinn T): Military families speak out...


MILITARY FAMILIES REBUKE ARMY LT. WATADA FOR REFUSAL TO SERVE AND ALLIANCE WITH ANTI-AMERICAN GROUPS

(Washington) Rebecca Davis, Cofounder of Military Families Voice of
Victory (www.mfvov.org), issued the following statement today on the announced plans by Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada to disobey orders to serve in Iraq:

“On behalf of the members of Military Families Voice of Victory, and as a mother of three sons who have served honorably in Iraq and Afghanistan, I am demanding the Army prosecute Lt. Watada to the fullest extent under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

“The refusal by Lt. Watada to obey lawful orders to serve in Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom will surely encourage al Qaeda in Iraq to continue terrorizing the Iraqi people and attacking U.S. and coalition forces, and encourage al Qaeda and allied terrorist forces around the globe to wage war against America and Western civilization.

“Lt. Watada has chosen to ally himself and accept financial aid from Not in Our Name, a front group for the Revolutionary Communist Party. He has also accepted aid from other anti-American organizations that have expressed support and/or given material aid to terrorists in Iraq.

“Lt. Watada is not standing on principle, nor is his stand valiant. He is a coward and a traitor. His actions will only serve to get his fellow soldiers killed so that he can save himself and become famous.”

[JKATHERINE]

Good for him! I applaud his 'dissent' and his effort and the fact that he is bravely facing jail time instead of just doing what he's told.

And, as far as this comment goes:


This guy graduated from college and then joined the Army, going to Officer Candidate school, AFTER we had already started the Iraq campaign just to claim it was an "illegal" war when his unit is called to go. Smells funny to me. In my mind either the Army gave a commission to an idiot not aware of current events or he planned this all along.

Perhaps he is one of the MANY MANY people who were mislead and lied to at the beginning of this war and who mistakenly thought we were justified in being in Iraq. I know there are a LOT of people who once agreed with this war who now, after being better educated, do not.

[Vee030473]

Well all I have to say is Good for him! Along with his decision he knows there is a price for it. He does not want objector status because he does not oppose all wars. To morally object,I support him 100% but to object on legality of the war,that one I'm not too sure on. As Retired Navy Cmdr. Jack Miller stated, you dont want/need someone in Iraq that is not going to follow orders,thats dangerous. JMHO... :o

“Lt. Watada has chosen to ally himself and accept financial aid from Not in Our Name, a front group for the Revolutionary Communist Party. He has also accepted aid from other anti-American organizations that have expressed support and/or given material aid to terrorists in Iraq."

Now,that part.... what does he need financial aid for? And accepting aid from groups such as those.... I dont agree with. To accept aid from groups that aid terrorists,I liken that to being on the terrorist side,which in effect means he supports the war from the "other" side.

[Jolie Rouge]

John Donovan http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/005888.html



Note that Watada is not seeking conscientious objector status, because he does not oppose all wars, only this particular one.

Which puts Lieutenant Watada on the horns of a dilemma.

Let us assume that Lieutenant Watada is sincere. We owe him that much.

If so, he is taking the high road. His sole defense of his actions is going to be "Refusing an illegal order." Absent a *stunning* action on the part of a Courts Martial panel, he's going to get convicted. His defense team is going to have to be miracle workers to successfully assert that the war in Iraq is illegal in terms by which it will excuse his actions - and, by extension, condemn every other serving officer as a war criminal for not having refused. Oh, there's room to maneuver in there, but when you strip it down to the essentials - that's it.

[Jolie Rouge]

Remember Pablo Paredes - convicted for refusing to deploy ?

December 08, 2004
An Open Letter to Pablo Paredes


Pablo,

I hope you don’t mind if I dispense with the military BS and address you informally. After all, you just took off your uniform and refused to go on deployment, so I doubt that military courtesy would make much of an impression on you.

You’ve just made a very critical decision, possibly the most important one of your young life. You decided to abandon a commitment that you made four and a half years ago by refusing to go on a six-month deployment to the Arabian Gulf on the amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard. In doing so, you claim that you’re taking a stand against a war you believe to be unjustified. I’m sure that making such a statement makes you feel like a man.

OK then, let’s talk – man to man.

In the big scheme of things, your action will have no impact on the war. The Bonhomme Richard sailed out of San Diego on Monday, along with her entire battle group. Your attempted desertion may have caused a media stir, but you did not delay the battle group’s departure by so much as a minute. The embarked Marines are on their way to the Sandbox, to perform the mission that they were trained to do.

You did, however, manage to :censored: up your own future.

As I’m sure you’re aware, the Navy isn’t just going to let you go easily. They’re going to put you on trial for desertion. You will probably end up spending a year or longer in military prison, doing hard labor. And how do you think your fellow prisoners will respond to you? Do you think they’ll respect your decision to shirk your duty? Of course, you will also be reduced in rank to E-1, forfeit all of your pay, be dishonorably discharged, and lose eligibility for the GI bill and any veteran’s benefits you might have otherwise claimed.

To your credit, you’ve stood up before the cameras and said that you are prepared to accept the consequences for your actions. We’ll see about that.

Did your new friends at Veterans for Peace and the (deceptively named) San Diego Military Counseling Project tell you the rest of the story? Did they mention that even after you are released from the brig, you would have a permanent federal criminal record as a convicted felon? How do you think that will look when you try to apply for work? What employer would want to hire someone who refuses to honor his commitments? You also told the reporters that your wife is behind you "1,000 percent." How long do you think she will stick around, when you can’t get a decent job?

A man’s word is his bond, Pablo – and yours just dropped to junk status.

And for what? We still haven’t heard what this dramatic statement is that you are trying to make. “War is bad?” I’m a veteran – tell me something I didn’t already know. Enlighten the rest of us: what is so gawdawful important, that it’s worth screwing up your life like this?

But let’s put your personal considerations aside for the moment. After all, a martyr cares nothing for his own life. That is how you see yourself, isn’t it?

When you were planning your dramatic “statement,” did you think for a minute about how this would affect your shipmates? You are a fire control technician on the Sea Sparrow surface-to-air missile system. The Navy doesn’t have a bunch of spare FCs sitting in cold storage. Your ship is going to the Arabian Gulf, and will have to pass through the “threat arcs” of Iran’s Silkworm anti-ship missiles – and in case you haven’t noticed, we’re not exactly buddy-buddy with the mullahs these days. The Sea Sparrow is a critical point-defense system for your ship. So your job isn’t one that the Navy can afford to shrug off – somebody else is going to have to do it.

One of two things is going to happen. Either your shipmates are going to have to pull extra shifts to cover for your absence, or – more likely – somebody from another ship is going to get emergency orders to take your place in the coming days. Maybe that person is married; maybe he even has kids.

And you pulled this little stunt just in time for Christmas.

No man is an island, Pablo. Your actions will have consequences far beyond what you intended. Did you think about that? Is all of this really worth screwing over your fellow sailors? Are you really so self-absorbed? What part of "One Team, One Fight" did you not understand?

The best that you can hope to achieve by continuing along the course you have chosen is for your life to become a cautionary tale – a warning to others to avoid the siren call of blind self-righteousness.

But it’s not too late for you to end this nightmare.

Kick your new buddies out of the apartment. Shave your stubble. Put your uniform back on. Grab your ID out of the sock drawer. Call the duty officer. Turn yourself in. Take your lumps at Captain’s Mast. Serve out the rest of your enlistment. After that, you can protest the war to your heart’s content, with a clear conscience.

A real man keeps his commitments, Pablo.

Be a man and do your duty.

Regards,
SMASH

http://www.indepundit.com/sdpw-org/archives/2004/12/an_open_letter.html

[Jolie Rouge]

The MSM isn't biased -- no, of course not....


Army officer says won't fight in "unlawful" Iraq war
By Akiko Fujita
Wed Jun 7, 7:31 PM ET

TACOMA, Washington (Reuters) - A U.S. Army officer said on Wednesday that fighting in the war in Iraq would make him "party to war crimes" and he would not go.

First Lt. Ehren Watada's supporters -- including clergy and a military family group -- said he is the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse to serve in Iraq and risked being court-martialed.

The Pentagon said Watada was among a number of officers and enlisted personnel who have applied for conscientious objector status.

"The wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of the Iraqi people is not only a terrible moral injustice but a contradiction of the Army's own law of land warfare. My participation would make me party to war crimes," said Watada in a taped statement played at a Tacoma news conference.

His superiors at the nearby Fort Lewis military base would not let Watada leave the base to attend the press conference. Another news conference took place in Watada's native Hawaii.

Watada, 28, had been scheduled to be deployed to Iraq for his first tour later this month. He joined the Army in 2003, and has served in Korea.

Watada said his moral and legal obligations were to the U.S. Constitution "not those who would issue unlawful orders."

Nearly 2,500 U.S. soldiers and an estimated 40,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

In recent weeks, Marines have been accused of killing 24 Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha, raising concerns about abuse of force.

Paul Boyce, Army spokesman at the Pentagon, said Watada's case was being reviewed, adding it "is not the first case, nor is his case particularly unique."

Joe Colgan, whose son Benjamin was killed in Iraq, said sending sons and daughters to Iraq was "unpatriotic."

"I ask that we all think about our moral conscience and what we have done in God's name," said Colgan.

(Additional reporting by Will Dunham in Washington D.C.)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060607/us_nm/iraq_usa_officer_dc;_ylt=At.xEsdb4dRVoDvoWphpeJCs0 NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-



Who the heck is "Joe Colgan" ??

[tngirl]

I agree that "soldiers" like him are not needed in our military, but, it pi$$es me off that he had no problem using the military's money to get his education. Why the hell does anyone join the military and then when they have to do their "job", they start crying foul? I think he is just a pathetic person. He is afraid to go to war and has no problem with letting others die for his freedom. Deserter or Dissenter? Deserter.

[JKATHERINE]

According to part of what Jolie pasted in her first post, he went to college first, and then joined the military, so I don't think they paid for his education...

[Chiizii]

According to part of what Jolie pasted in her first post, he went to college first, and then joined the military, so I don't think they paid for his education...

Doesn't matter, he still will have benefits to further his education and several others that other Vet's have to use after his military commitment.

He signed on the little dotted line, he gave his oath to the Constitution, to honor and to his country/countrymen. If he objected that much he could of put into process paperwork to be a conscious objector.

I agree with SMASH in his letter. A real man or woman finishes their commitments. They give their word or take a oath and keep it.

[Jolie Rouge]

Opponents of Iraq war rally around Lt. Watada
By Alex Fryer
Seattle Times staff reporter

Lt. Ehren Watada couldn't be called a media figure, but the Hawaii-born officer who refused to deploy with his Fort Lewis unit on Thursday has done his bit to court the press.

Part of the public exposure is designed to protect Watada from potentially harsh military justice. But Watada also has become the latest public face for a peace movement that has produced few leaders able to marshal public opinion, even though polls show the majority of Americans believe the Iraq war was a costly mistake.

Just as Cindy Sheehan, whose soldier son was killed in 2004, captured public attention last year with her vigil outside President Bush's Texas ranch, calls and e-mails have spiked in recent weeks to groups such as Veterans for Peace in St. Louis.

"When you have a person like Lt. Watada or Cindy Sheehan, I think that's more real," said executive director Michael McPhearson, whose son serves in Iraq. "And Americans react to sincere people expressing themselves."

In recent weeks, Watada held two news conferences, and supporters are organizing a national vigil for him on Tuesday.

This comes about a month after the same group orchestrating media coverage of Watada put together a similar event for two other soldiers facing discipline for refusing to fight.

Recently founded in Oakland, Calif., Courage to Resist is one of several organizations around the country trying to stop the Iraq war by focusing on those ordered to wage it.

Army resisters make a difference, the group claimed in a news release, because "the Bush administration can't fight war or maintain an occupation without obedient troops."

But some military experts say the anti-war movement has taken a wrong approach and that Watada and other resisters have little impact on morale.

An Army spokesman at Fort Lewis said Watada's refusal to leave for Iraq on Thursday was a non-event on the base, as soldiers and families prepared for the deployment of 4,000 troops to Iraq.

On Tuesday, Watada's actions will be heralded by small groups across the country.

Atlanta peace activists plan a vigil for him at the Georgia state Capitol. In Charlotte, N.C., an anti-war group will show a film and hold a lecture at the public library. In Cleveland, Ohio, there will be a rally at the federal building. And in New York, protesters will converge at an Army recruiting station, an event billed to "support Lt. Ehren Watada and other resisters of the war in Iraq."

Last month, a similar national day of action focused on two men denied conscientious-objector status: Navy Petty Officer Pablo Paredes and U.S. Army Sgt. Kevin Benderman, who is currently in jail at Fort Lewis.

In a Courage to Resist news release, Paredes vowed "to put the war on trial. After all, it's the real crime here."

The release also mentioned the Nuremberg trials in Germany after World War II, which declared that soldiers were culpable of war crimes if they failed to stop illegal activities.

Grass-roots movement

Some of the same themes echo in the Watada case.

Earlier this month, Watada revealed that he intended to refuse orders to head out to Iraq in what he believes is an illegal war of occupation.

Watada said he, too, would try to mount a case about the legality of the war under international law and American law.

And during a news conference for Watada last Monday, retired Army Col. Ann Wright said officers have the right to disobey illegal orders under principles established during the Nuremberg trials.

Besides organizing news conferences, Courage to Resist set up a Web site for Watada where people can donate to his legal defense, which is also paid by the group. "We're trying to build a movement of grass-roots people to oppose the war," said Jeff Paterson, a spokesman for Courage to Resist. "We have a particular niche. When someone [in the military] steps forward and speaks out, we come to the aid of those people."

The publicity surrounding Watada and others trying to get out of the military inoculates them from stiff punishment, said Watada's attorney, Eric Seitz.

After failing to resolve his client's case against the Army quietly, Seitz opted to go to the media. "It's much more difficult for the military to hammer him," said Seitz, a civilian attorney who has handled thousands of courts-martial and considers himself an anti-war activist. "If they do, they will feed into public sentiment about the war. If they want to make a martyr of him, that will happen."

The day after Watada held a news conference at University Lutheran Church in Seattle last week, some of the same anti-war activists gathered there to publicize the cause of another Fort Lewis soldier, Suzanne Swift, who was arrested earlier this month in Eugene, Ore., for deserting her post.

Swift served in Iraq for a year but said she won't go back because she feels the war lacks purpose and because she alleges her superiors sexually harassed her.

Her attorney, Larry Hildes, said Courage to Resist has been supportive, but Swift's case is more focused on sexual assault in the ranks than her opposition to the war.

Unmoved by dissent

According to the Pentagon, the number of soldiers absent without leave is less than 1 percent of the total force. In 2005, 2,011 soldiers were reported AWOL, down from 4,483 in 2002.

But Hildes, who has handled military-justice cases for about four years, said those numbers are far too low.

The National Lawyers Guild, a New York-based human-rights group, hosts a hotline for military personnel who are absent without leave and want legal advice.

The call center receives about 3,000 inquiries monthly, Hildes said.

Punishment for desertion can range from a reprimand to a court-martial and five-year prison sentence.

While peace groups want to spread dissent in the ranks, most soldiers are unmoved by deserters and objectors, said Michael O'Hanlon, a military expert at the Brookings Institution, a Washington, D.C., think tank. "Most would agree that military ethics don't give a choice about the mission," he said. "There are those who have mixed views about the mission, but there aren't a lot of people who feel soldiers have the right to refuse service."

O'Hanlon said the Army could create a morale problem if Watada were allowed to resign without facing discipline. But if Watada serves even a brief time in confinement, most will forget about him, O'Hanlon said.

And if they want to affect military personnel, peace activists would be better off not focusing on the alleged immorality and illegality of war, he said. "People in the U.S. military may not all believe the war was smart or necessary, but they don't believe it was immoral."

The Army's response

Joe Piek, spokesman for Fort Lewis, said the Army was not planning to organize a media campaign to counter the publicity generated by the Watada case.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, about 50,000 active-duty, reserve and National Guard troops have passed through the gates of Fort Lewis, the vast majority without a hitch. "That's the best campaign that the Army can do — our soldiers honoring their responsibility to deploy and defend the nation," Piek said. "The larger issue of people across America who are opposed to the war in Iraq, that is an issue for our politicians to work with. Our Army is focused on our men and women."

In the coming weeks, as Watada heads for a court-martial, Courage to Resist will step up its campaign to generate public support for him and its call for other soldiers to disobey orders.

Meanwhile, Watada and his allies wait for the Army to review the facts and decide how this case will proceed. "I don't expect them to drop charges against Lt. Watada," said Seitz, his attorney. "They will be very aggressive in pursuing it."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003085977_warprotests26m.html


I think the key thing to remember is that Watada joined the military AFTER the invasion of Iraq. If he didn’t agree with the war, he never should have signed up. So, what was he thinking : sign up for the pay checks and all the benefits…get the good training…and when it comes to the time to serve..see ya Jose! Liberals are good weather patriots. May be he was hoping to serve at Guam, Okinawa, Hawaii, or Indian Ocean. Ooops…he rolled a bad number..not 7/11…time to get out?

Did he honestly think that the Army would train him, and let him walk away when he said he didn’t want to serve? Or more likely, did he plan to do this from the beginning as a form of protest?

If you accept government pay and training with no intent to serve, isn’t that fraud?

Or could this be a ploy, from the very beginning, to enter politics like his father? Like John Kerry? Get face time and/or name recognition?

[Jolie Rouge]

Conscientious rejector?
Why this soldier refuses his deployment orders to Iraq.

http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/20070102/hz_specialfeatures_1/blogs19056

[MIKAER]

Opponents of Iraq war rally around Lt. Watada
By Alex Fryer
Seattle Times staff reporter[...]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003085977_warprotests26m.html[...]

Did he honestly think that the Army would train him, and let him walk away when he said he didn’t want to serve? Or more likely, did he plan to do this from the beginning as a form of protest?

If you accept government pay and training with no intent to serve, isn’t that fraud?

Or could this be a ploy, from the very beginning, to enter politics like his father? Like John Kerry? Get face time and/or name recognition? [/color]

Or maybe he modeled himself after our president

[MIKAER]

The Seattle Times Herald
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...27_nogo7m.html
"I feel that we have been lied to and betrayed by this administration," Watada said Tuesday in a telephone interview from Fort Lewis. "It is the duty, the obligation of every soldier, and specifically the officers, to evaluate the legality, the truth behind every order — including the order to go to war."
In a statement released today, Watada said the "war in Iraq violates our democratic system of checks and balances.
"It usurps international treaties and conventions that by virtue of the Constitution become American law. The wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of the Iraqi people with only limited accountability is not only a terrible moral injustice, but a contradiction to the Army's own Law of Land Warfare. My participation would make me party to war crimes."

[MIKAER]

The Seattle Times Herald
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...27_nogo7m.html
"I feel that we have been lied to and betrayed by this administration," Watada said Tuesday in a telephone interview from Fort Lewis. "It is the duty, the obligation of every soldier, and specifically the officers, to evaluate the legality, the truth behind every order — including the order to go to war."
In a statement released today, Watada said the "war in Iraq violates our democratic system of checks and balances.
"It usurps international treaties and conventions that by virtue of the Constitution become American law. The wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of the Iraqi people with only limited accountability is not only a terrible moral injustice, but a contradiction to the Army's own Law of Land Warfare. My participation would make me party to war crimes."

My participation would make me party to war crimesis a very interesting argument. What constitutes war crimes? I suspect this man is about to get a great deal of publicity and support regarding his position. It certainly forces us all to take yet another look at this war.....

[MIKAER]

War crime

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] International Criminal Court

On July 1, 2002, the International Criminal Court, a treaty based court located in The Hague, came into being for the prosecution of war crimes committed on or after that date. However, several nations, most notably the United States, China, and Israel, have criticized the court, refused to participate in it or permit the court to have jurisdiction over their citizens. Note, however, that a citizen of one of the 'objector nations' could still find himself before the Court if he were accused of committing war crimes in a country that was a state party, regardless of the fact that their country of origin was not a signatory.

[edit] Definition


War crimes are defined in the statute that established the International Criminal Court, which includes:
1. Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, such as:
1. Willful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
2. Torture or inhumane treatment
3. Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property
4. Forcing a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power
5. Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial
6. Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer
7. Taking hostages
2. The following acts as part of an international conflict:
1. Directing attacks against civilians
2. Directing attacks against humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
3. Killing a surrendered combatant
4. Misusing a flag of truce
5. Settlement of occupied territory
6. Deportation of inhabitants of occupied territory
7. Using poison weapons
8. Using civilian shields
9. Using child soldiers
3. The following acts as part of a non-international conflict:
1. Murder, cruel or degrading treatment and torture
2. Directing attacks against civilians, humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
3. Taking hostages
4. Summary execution
5. Pillage
6. Rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution or forced pregnancy

However the court only has jurisdiction over these crimes where they are "part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes" [1]

[MIKAER]

Perhaps Mr.Watada has a point:


WAR CRIMES
A Report on United States War Crimes Against Iraq to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal

by Ramsey Clark and Others




Incinerated body of an Iraqi soldier on the "Highway of Death," a name the press has given to the road from Mutlaa, Kuwait, to Basra, Iraq. U.S. planes immobilized the convoy by disabling vehicles at its front and rear, then bombing and straffing the resulting traffic jam for hours. More than 2,000 vehicles and tens of thousands of charred and dismembered bodies littered the sixty miles of highway. The clear rapid incineration of the human being [pictured above] suggests the use of napalm, phosphorus, or other incindiary bombs. These are anti-personnel weapons outlawed under the 1977 Geneva Protocols. This massive attack occurred after Saddam Hussein announced a complete troop withdrawl from Kuwait in compliance with UN Resolution 660. Such a massacre of withdrawing Iraqi soldiers violates the Geneva Convention of 1949, common article 3, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who "are out of combat." There are, in addition, strong indications that many of those killed were Palestinian and Kuwaiti civilians trying to escape the impending seige of Kuwait City and the return of Kuwaiti armed forces. No attempt was made by U.S. military command to distinguish between military personnel and civilians on the "highway of death." The whole intent of international law with regard to war is to prevent just this sort of indescriminate and excessive use of force.
(Photo Credit: © 1991 Kenneth Jarecke / Contact Press Images)
"It has never happened in history that a nation that has won a war has been held accountable for atrocities committed in preparing for and waging that war. We intend to make this one different. What took place was the use of technological material to destroy a defenseless country. From 125,000 to 300,000 people were killed... We recognize our role in history is to bring the transgressors to justice." Ramsey Clark
Next » Preface

Ramsey Clark served as U.S. Attorney General in the administration of Lyndon Johnson. He is the convener of the Commission of Inquiry and a human rights lawyer of world-wide respect. This report was given in New York, May 11, 1991.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Index
WWW URL: http://deoxy.org/warcrime.htm
Copyright © 1992 by The Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal

[MIKAER]

My participation would make me party to war crimes...
My 2nd set of questions, can a solder be forced to participate in War Crimes?
Is that soldier with in his legal rights refuse? What or whom is to protect him?

[MIKAER]

Published on Tuesday, January 25, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
Resist U.S. War Crimes
by Jeremy Brecher

Most Americans hold these truths to be self-evident: Torture is wrong; attacking another country that hasn't attacked you is wrong; occupying another country with your army and imposing your will on its people is wrong. These policies are not only immoral. They are illegal.

Most Americans believe that even the highest government officials are bound by law. They reject Attorney General-designate Alberto Gonzales' view that the law is whatever the President says it is - that if the President says something isn't torture, then it's O.K. to order it.

Most Americans don't agree that their president can unilaterally annul treaties like the Geneva conventions. They don't accept, as Gonzales put it in a 2002 legal memo, that if the President simply declares there's a "new paradigm" he can thereby "render obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners."

Aggression, military occupation, and torture were the war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity for which the Axis leaders were prosecuted at the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials after World War II. The U.S. has supported similar charges against Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein.

But what about the U.S. attack on Iraq, which Kofi Annan has bluntly called "illegal"? What about the leveling of Fallujah and the targeting of hospitals and urban neighborhoods? What about torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo? If a single standard is applied, these too are crimes of war. And as the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal stated, "Anyone with knowledge of illegal activity and an opportunity to do something is a potential criminal under international law unless the person takes affirmative measures to prevent the commission of the crimes." How many Americans can honestly claim to know nothing about this "illegal activity"? It's reported in detail in the daily newspapers and shown in full color on the nightly news, from the phony reports of Iraq's "yellowcake" uranium to the shooting of ambulances to the horrors of Abu Ghraib.

In 1967, faced with evidence of the napalming of villages and massacring of civilians in Vietnam, a distinguished group of Americans signed a "Call to Resist Illegitimate Authority." They declared the Vietnam War illegal under U.S. and international law and pledged to support young people who were resisting the draft.

When the Johnson administration charged world famous pediatrician Dr. Benjamin Spock, Yale Chaplain William Sloan Coffin, and others with conspiracy to "aid, counsel, and abet" resistance to the draft, it identified the "Call" as their first overt act.

There's no draft yet, but there's plenty of resistance. The Pentagon acknowledges 5,500 desertions since the Iraq war began. Army Reserve and National Guard recruitment is plummeting. Many in the military are deciding not to reenlist.
"60 Minutes" recently interviewed U.S. resisters in Canada and reported that "conscience, not cowardice, made them American deserters." One of them, Specialist Jeremy Hinzman of Rapid City, South Dakota joined the 82nd Airborne as a paratrooper in 2001 and served in Afghanistan. But when he was ordered to Iraq, he went to Canada instead. He explained to "60 Minutes," "I was told in basic training that, if I'm given an illegal or immoral order, it is my duty to disobey it. And I feel that invading and occupying Iraq is an illegal and immoral thing to do."
Senior officials like Alberto Gonzales set the policies that led to Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Nearly 140 low-level military service members have been disciplined or face courts-martial for abusing detainees. Instead of being punished, Gonzales is being rewarded with the job of U.S. Attorney General. It's time for all Americans to face our responsibility to halt Bush administration war crimes. It's time to give our support to those who are refusing to participate in those crimes. It's time for a new "Call to Resist Illegitimate Authority."

I for one will say right now that I support those who refuse illegal orders to participate in this illegal war. I know there are many who will join me.

To Alberto Gonzales, I would like to say that I encourage all Americans, military and civilian, to disobey orders based on your memos justifying torture. I say it's their legal right, indeed their legal and moral duty, to disobey such illegal orders.

Gonzales may disagree. In the era of the misleadingly named PATRIOT Act, he may follow the example of the Johnson administration and bring charges against those who encourage resistance to military authority. If he does, he will test whether a jury of American citizens will agree that the law is whatever the President says it is -- even if that includes torture and an illegal war.

Jeremy Brecher, a historian and author, is editing a book on the resistance to U.S. war crimes. A Foreign Policy In Focus analyst, he lives in Connecticut. For proposals related to a new "Call to Resist Illegitimate Authority" visit: http://internationallaw.pro-se-institute.org

###

[MIKAER]

delete

[MIKAER]

"60 Minutes" recently interviewed U.S. resisters in Canada and reported that "conscience, not cowardice, made them American deserters." One of them, Specialist Jeremy Hinzman of Rapid City, South Dakota joined the 82nd Airborne as a paratrooper in 2001 and served in Afghanistan. But when he was ordered to Iraq, he went to Canada instead. He explained to "60 Minutes," "I was told in basic training that, if I'm given an illegal or immoral order, it is my duty to disobey it. And I feel that invading and occupying Iraq is an illegal and immoral thing to do."
Senior officials like Alberto Gonzales set the policies that led to Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Nearly 140 low-level military service members have been disciplined or face courts-martial for abusing detainees. Instead of being punished, Gonzales is being rewarded with the job of U.S. Attorney General.

It sounds like Mr W. may be with in his rights to refuse to PWC perhaps he will be rewarded with a job the U.S. Attorney General also... Sounds like a hero's job to me!

[pepperpot]

Remember Pablo Paredes - convicted for refusing to deploy ?

........ Put your uniform back on. Grab your ID out of the sock drawer. Call the duty officer. Turn yourself in. Take your lumps at Captain’s Mast. Serve out the rest of your enlistment. After that, you can protest the war to your heart’s content, with a clear conscience.



Bottom line....he signed up and made a commitment and he should carry it out. He is NOT the top commanding officer and is NOT privy to every piece of information therefore based on his opinions he is choosing not to carry out a binding commitment.

What if everyone of our service people turned around one day and said, "I don't want to do this anymore, I think it's pointless/inhumane/war crime/or just silly"? Where would our country be?

He can always have others 'protest'/appeal/speak out on his behalf (as long as it does not undermined the security of our country..i.e. 'sensitive information'). When he finishes his commitment, then he can join in the protest....until then either do your commitment or go to jail/suffer the consequences of his choice. He is putting this country and the others in the service at risk with his actions.

Just another HO.

If it were a feasible option, I think all of us would like this over and our troops home safely a while ago, there's no confusion there, or better yet, not even having to entertain any of our troops there in the first place.

[Jolie Rouge]

The Baltimore Sun publishes a deeply inspiring story about a young college football player who puts service first. Wow

Service in front of the line
Terps guard Woods puts defending his country ahead of a chance to play football in his final season of eligibility
By Heather A. Dinich -- Sun Reporter
Originally published December 27, 2006

COLLEGE PARK // There were signs. They were small signs, but they were there, and they suggested that Maryland guard Donnie Woods was serious about quitting football to defend his country.

An American flag hung from his locker, and he kept another in his room. Favorite movies? United 93 and World Trade Center. The hunter green camouflage Terps football hat he always wore. His criminal justice major.

Nobody, though - not even his parents - expected Woods to forgo his senior season of football to join the military or pursue a career in a police department with the hopes of eventually landing a job with the FBI or CIA. "He sort of threw the idea out and we said, 'Yeah, OK, sure Donnie, whatever,' " said his father, Don.

Said Terps center Edwin Williams: "He talked about it during the season, but nobody really listened to it."

They're listening now.

Woods, one of the Terps' top offensive linemen, has contacted military recruiters, and the Montgomery County Police Department has contacted Woods. He will play the last football game of his college career Friday against Purdue in the Champs Sports Bowl in Orlando, Fla. It was a decision he secretly made before the start of the season - while daydreaming one day in a summer class - and one he said he will not regret.

"I always wanted to serve my country," said Woods, who will turn 23 on Jan. 27. "I think freedom is an amazing thing. I love what this country stands for. I want to give back for what we have. There's no other high for me."

Maryland coach Ralph Friedgen said he has mixed feelings about his left guard's decision. Woods was his highest-rated offensive lineman in 2005 and was having another successful season before he suffered a serious neck injury Nov. 11 against Miami. He started the first 10 games of the season, but did not play at Boston College and was in on only three plays in the season finale against Wake Forest. "The shame of it is - and I told this to Donnie - next year would probably be his best year of ever playing football and he's not going to experience it," Friedgen said. " ... I don't know how much fun it is to have a bullet in you. I worry about that, I really do. I admire him for his patriotism and what he wants to do, but I don't necessarily agree with his decision. But I respect his decision. If that's what he wants to do, that's what he wants to do."

It's what Woods' older brother, Sean, chose to do, and something his parents aren't thrilled about experiencing again. Sean Woods was supposed to be in Iraq for a year, but his stay was extended one or two months.

"That was a pretty tough, especially for my wife and I," Don Woods said. "Anytime your son is in a combat situation, you never really feel at ease. "We told Donnie how we feel about it," he said. "He's the kind of kid who's going to make his own decisions. We just said, 'Look before you make this decision. Talk to Sean about this whole situation.' We've had some other people who are career military say this could be a mistake for him at this day and time. We're going to encourage him to talk to other people before you put your name on the dotted line."

Woods said the ROTC program at Maryland eventually will schedule a physical for him so he can be cleared for Officer Cadet School, though he might need to take a summer class first. He said he plans to enter the program, though, immediately after he graduates.

It's a sharp turn away from the path he has always known.

Woods was highly recruited from Thomas Jefferson High School in Tampa, Fla., a magnet school that he drove 45 miles to every day from his home in Dade City. He had to wake up about 5:30 a.m., but the attention he garnered there paid off. Tennessee, Oklahoma, LSU, Southern California - they were all interested. During the spring of his junior year, Woods turned down Maryland.

He tore his anterior cruciate ligament his senior year, though, and most of those other schools backed off.

"I tell you what: As a high school senior, you learn real quick - especially when you get hurt like I did - that it's a business," Woods said. "I still feel strongly about that. You go from having phone calls every night and people sending you private jets to take you on visits to one or two phone calls a night and everyone saying they can't take you anymore. "You learn real quick and grow up fast from the whole situation. I was very thankful for the University of Maryland [for the opportunity] to come to a big-time program and play."

Woods said he has about 20 tickets for Friday's game, but, as one of 10 children, he is looking for more. His family's five-bedroom home is just about an hour's drive from Orlando, and his mother, Donna, cooked for her 289-pound son and several of his teammates on Christmas. "I've had a great time since I've been here," Woods said. "I learned a lot about myself, I've made some great friends. I have no regrets about leaving a year early."

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/college/football/bal-sp.terpsfoot27dec27,0,6793131.story?coll=bal-sports-headlines

[MIKAER]

Bottom line....What if everyone of our service people turned around one day and said, "I don't want to do this anymore, I think it's pointless/inhumane/war crime/or just silly"? Where would our country be?


This iw what Mr. W said:

Originally Posted by MIKAER
The Seattle Times Herald
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...27_nogo7m.html
"I feel that we have been lied to and betrayed by this administration," Watada said Tuesday in a telephone interview from Fort Lewis. "It is the duty, the obligation of every soldier, and specifically the officers, to evaluate the legality, the truth behind every order — including the order to go to war."
In a statement released today, Watada said the "war in Iraq violates our democratic system of checks and balances.
"It usurps international treaties and conventions that by virtue of the Constitution become American law. The wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of the Iraqi people with only limited accountability is not only a terrible moral injustice, but a contradiction to the Army's own Law of Land Warfare. My participation would make me party to war crimes."
He may have a valid argument maybe he in his actions can help end this war. It takes a lot of guts to make an informed decision and say NO!

[PrincessArky]

I can't blame him for not wanting to go but I don't understand why he isn't exactly, I mean he signed up AFTER the war began so did he think he wouldn't have to go?

[tngirl]

I can't blame him for not wanting to go but I don't understand why he isn't exactly, I mean he signed up AFTER the war began so did he think he wouldn't have to go?

That was something that I had pointed out earlier in this thread. Why join the military if you disagree with the war that is raging at the moment? You know your happy arse is going to go.

[PrincessArky]

That was something that I had pointed out earlier in this thread. Why join the military if you disagree with the war that is raging at the moment? You know your happy arse is going to go.

yeah that is the hardest part for me, alot of the people signed up after 9/11 and/or after the war started and now they are not wanting to go. Like I said I can't blame them for not wanting to go (I would be scared to death personally) but at some point didn't they think they would be over there? I just wish this whole mess was over because it is dividing alot of ppl in the entire world :( I believe in the old saying united we stand divided we fall :(

[MIKAER]

He's not refusing to go to war he is refusing to participate in war crimes big difference. War crimes violate the Geneva Convention. He cannot be legally forced to participate in war crimes.

[PrincessArky]

He's not refusing to go to war he is refusing to participate in war crimes big difference. War crimes violate the Geneva Convention. He cannot be legally forced to participate in war crimes.

so he is willing to go over there and just watch???

[pepperpot]

If the government suspects an 'infraction' it would take months, years, and many studies (and yes lots of $$$$ too) to decipher this or come to a conclusion, while providing many witnesses, back up, data, etc.......isn't it amazing that one soldier (technically, even tho he is unwilling to be despite his signed commitment) has the insight, power and right to determine this, at a 'soldier' level, and declare this action a 'war crime', therefore null and voiding his signed commitment???

Think of all the trials where we could save time & money just by having him there :rolleyes: Hey, this is great, now we can just change our mind in the middle of disastrous times (despite our contracts), call it quits, leave everyone else hanging and mosey on home..... I feel real secure having him 'back me up', he's a hero.....:rolleyes:

What if there is 'information' that he is not privy to that 'justifies/explains' what he's interpreting as a war crime? Are we now obligated to halt everything, have a trial, cause mass chaos, unseal sensitive/national security to enlighten him, so he feels more comfortable with the job he signed on to do?

Like I said, he made a commitment that he should stick to, if he feels injustices are happening, he can have friends/family members speak out in the meantime and he can join them after his term is up. There is too much at stake and he should realize it. He has the right to challenge this but not the right to let it interfere with the commitment that he willingly made.

[tngirl]

so he is willing to go over there and just watch???

He is refusing to deploy, this means that he is not willing to go at all.

[PrincessArky]

He is refusing to deploy, this means that he is not willing to go at all.

thats exactly what I thought so NOT willing to go to war

[MIKAER]

Not willing to commit war crimes, this is not a war it is an invasion, that is committing crimes that violate the Geneva Convention

[tngirl]

Not willing to commit war crimes, this is not a war it is an invasion, that is committing crimes that violate the Geneva Convention

Huh? What the http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y233/displacedtngirl/AVATARS/cussing.gif do you think a war is? I love how you like to play with words. So how do you like that top ranking intelligence job that you have? Want to share some of those top secret secrets with us so we can have such a clear cut view and opinion? And you know what? Back when they came up with the Geneva Convention, they NEVER imagined the war of today. I can't even imagine it and I am living in the time. How old are you? I am just curious:confused:

[Jolie Rouge]

The case against Lt. Ehren Watada

First Lt. Ehren Watada of the Stryker Brigade, U.S. Army, Fort Lewis, refused to obey orders to deploy to Iraq, becoming the first commissioned officer to do so. He says he opposes the war — not all wars, but this one. So do we, but we cannot support his request to be excused from a posting to Iraq.

Soldiers have to go where they are ordered. That is the rule here and everywhere, and for reasons of military necessity. Watada was a volunteer, and knew that when he signed up. He knew about the Iraq war, as well: He signed up in 2003, the year of the U.S. invasion. He also should have known that once one joins the military, one loses the freedom to speak in ways that could damage soldiers' morale — a restriction that includes political criticism of the military's mission. We have seen this apply to generals, which is why their criticism of the war has come from retirees. The rule also applies to lieutenants.

Watada will soon face a general court-martial in front of a military judge and jury. The judge is now deciding whether to include four charges of "conduct unbecoming an officer," which rise out of Watada's political statements, or to try him only on the charge of refusing to go to Iraq. The possible sentence for refusing to deploy is two years; for the political statements, another four years.

The Army has to resolve this matter in a way that accurately recognizes what Watada has done and that upholds its institutional interests. In our view, the answer is to convict him of both charges and issue a dishonorable discharge.

The conviction upholds the interests of the Army; the light sentence keeps him from being a martyr. Keep him to the stockade and protesters will demonstrate for him to get out. Besides, this war is not going to last six years.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2003515393_watadaed09.html

[MIKAER]

Huh? What the http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y233/displacedtngirl/AVATARS/cussing.gif Back when they came up with the Geneva Convention, they NEVER imagined the war of today. I can't even imagine it and I am living in the time. How old are you? na I am just curious:confused:

REGARDLESS, This invasion violates the GC under war crimes no one can be forced to participate in war crimes It is not a point of never imagined it is a point of WILL NOT ALLOW.

[tngirl]

REGARDLESS, This invasion violates the GC under war crimes no one can be forced to participate in war crimes It is not a point of never imagined it is a point of WILL NOT ALLOW.

Any war would be considered to be against the GC. I'm sorry, one can't always play by the "rules". Tell me this, do you expect one army/country to abide by the GC when the other side does everything against it?

[PrincessArky]

Any war would be considered to be against the GC. I'm sorry, one can't always play by the "rules". Tell me this, do you expect one army/country to abide by the GC when the other side does everything against it?

ok you guys obviously know more than I do about the Geneva Conventions (something I didn't know is that it is not Geneva Convention as commonly thought of....other than that most everything confused me when trying to research it) so just wondering if one or both of you could point out what we have done against the gc

[tngirl]

ok you guys obviously know more than I do about the Geneva Conventions (something I didn't know is that it is not Geneva Convention as commonly thought of....other than that most everything confused me when trying to research it) so just wondering if one or both of you could point out what we have done against the gc

I personally don't believe that we have violated the GC. The way the GC i written just about anything to do with a war could be considered to be in violation. The GC is basically the "rules of engagement". Let me ask you this, if you go to a knife fight and the other guy brings a gun, are you going to continue to fight by the rules or pick up a gun?

[Jolie Rouge]

Any war would be considered to be against the GC.

I'm sorry, one can't always play by the "rules". Tell me this, do you expect one army/country to abide by the GC when the other side does everything against it?


REFERENCE GUIDE TO THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS

Use the alphabetical index on this site to find out what the Geneva Conventions say about everything from access to grave sites to wounded prisoners of war, fully linked to the original treaties.

You can also read about the history of the Geneva Conventions, see the full texts of the Conventions, or glance at the author's note written by Maria Trombly.

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

International Rules About Soldiers

The Geneva Conventions and supplementary protocols make a distinction between combatants and civilians. The two groups must be treated differently by the warring sides and, therefore, combatants must be clearly distinguishable from civilians. Although this obligation benefits civilians by making it easier for the warring sides to avoid targeting non-combatants, soldiers also benefit because they become immune from prosecution for acts of war.

For example, a civilian who shoots a soldier may be liable for murder while a soldier who shoots an enemy soldier and is captured may not be punished.

In order for the distinction between combatants and civilians to be clear, combatants must wear uniforms and carry their weapons openly during military operations and during preparation for them.

The other exception are mercenaries, who are specifically excluded from protections. Mercenaries are defined as soldiers who are not nationals of any of the parties to the conflict and are paid more than the local soldiers.

Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups — and thus endanger the civilian population — are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention.


[International Rules About Civilians

Both the fourth Geneval Convention and the two Additional Protocols extend protections to civilians during war time.

Civilians are not to be subject to attack. This includes direct attacks on civilians and indiscriminate attacks against areas in which civilians are present.

There is to be no destruction of property unless justified by military necessity.

Individuals or groups must not be deported, regardless of motive.

Civilians must not be used as hostages.

Civilians must not be subject to outrages upon personal dignity.

Civilians must not be tortured, raped or enslaved.

Civilians must not be subject to collective punishment and reprisals.

Civilians must not receive differential treatment based on race, religion, nationality, or political allegiance.

Warring parties must not use or develop biological or chemical weapons and must not allow children under 15 to participate in hostilities or to be recruited into the armed forces.



Who is breaking the GC ?

Who refuses to follow the GC but then demand the protections of the GC ?

[PrincessArky]

Who is breaking the GC ?

Who refuses to follow the GC but then demand the protections of the GC ?[/i]

sounds to me like THEY are not us

[pepperpot]

Who is breaking the GC[insert 'law & order'] ?

Who refuses to follow the GC[insert 'law & order'] but then demand the protections of the GC[insert 'law & order'] ?


That thought can be carried to many of the current threads....:rolleyes:

[tngirl]

International Rules About Soldiers

The Geneva Conventions and supplementary protocols make a distinction between combatants and civilians. The two groups must be treated differently by the warring sides and, therefore, combatants must be clearly distinguishable from civilians. Although this obligation benefits civilians by making it easier for the warring sides to avoid targeting non-combatants, soldiers also benefit because they become immune from prosecution for acts of war.

Considering the "enemies" choice of attire is not uniforms, kind of hard to tell who is friend or foe

For example, a civilian who shoots a soldier may be liable for murder while a soldier who shoots an enemy soldier and is captured may not be punished.

In order for the distinction between combatants and civilians to be clear, combatants must wear uniforms and carry their weapons openly during military operations and during preparation for them.

Once again, the insurgents wear normal clothing to blend in.

The other exception are mercenaries, who are specifically excluded from protections. Mercenaries are defined as soldiers who are not nationals of any of the parties to the conflict and are paid more than the local soldiers.

Does this include insurgents from other countries that are there on their own free will and not being paid by anyone?

Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups — and thus endanger the civilian population — are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention.

Considering so many of our POW's are insurgents and foriegn nationals, they are not covered by the GC.


[International Rules About Civilians

Both the fourth Geneval Convention and the two Additional Protocols extend protections to civilians during war time.

Civilians are not to be subject to attack. This includes direct attacks on civilians and indiscriminate attacks against areas in which civilians are present.

If the insurgents and other fighters did not hide in these areas there would be no need for any military action there.

There is to be no destruction of property unless justified by military necessity.

If you are being attacked or fired upon then you have the right to defend yourself.

Individuals or groups must not be deported, regardless of motive.

Civilians must not be used as hostages.

What do you consider a human sheild to be?

Civilians must not be subject to outrages upon personal dignity.

Civilians must not be tortured, raped or enslaved.

Civilians must not be subject to collective punishment and reprisals.

Civilians must not receive differential treatment based on race, religion, nationality, or political allegiance.

Warring parties must not use or develop biological or chemical weapons and must not allow children under 15 to participate in hostilities or to be recruited into the armed forces.

But, yet they are.


As I said before, are we to be held to the GC when the people we are fighting against do not adhere to it? I think not.

[MIKAER]

Re: A DESERTER, OR A "DISSENTER"
POST#16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

War crime

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] International Criminal Court

On July 1, 2002, the International Criminal Court, a treaty based court located in The Hague, came into being for the prosecution of war crimes committed on or after that date. However, several nations, most notably the United States, China, and Israel, have criticized the court, refused to participate in it or permit the court to have jurisdiction over their citizens. Note, however, that a citizen of one of the 'objector nations' could still find himself before the Court if he were accused of committing war crimes in a country that was a state party, regardless of the fact that their country of origin was not a signatory.

[edit] Definition


War crimes are defined in the statute that established the International Criminal Court, which includes:
1. Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, such as:
1. Willful killing, or causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
2. Torture or inhumane treatment
3. Unlawful wanton destruction or appropriation of property
4. Forcing a prisoner of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power
5. Depriving a prisoner of war of a fair trial
6. Unlawful deportation, confinement or transfer
7. Taking hostages
2. The following acts as part of an international conflict:
1. Directing attacks against civilians
2. Directing attacks against humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
3. Killing a surrendered combatant
4. Misusing a flag of truce
5. Settlement of occupied territory
6. Deportation of inhabitants of occupied territory
7. Using poison weapons
8. Using civilian shields
9. Using child soldiers
3. The following acts as part of a non-international conflict:
1. Murder, cruel or degrading treatment and torture
2. Directing attacks against civilians, humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers
3. Taking hostages
4. Summary execution
5. Pillage
6. Rape, sexual slavery, forced prostitution or forced pregnancy

However the court only has jurisdiction over these crimes where they are "part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes" [1]

[stresseater]

Interesting but irrelevent. Do you (or anyone else) have proof that the US is useing ANY of these tactics as part of our policy over there? How about proof that there is a large scale commission of these crimes? Is this where everyone keeps inserting "ad hominem argument". ;) :D :rolleyes: ;) :rolleyes:

[Jolie Rouge]

2. Directing attacks against civilians, humanitarian workers or UN peacekeepers

Gobs son was on a RED CROSS copter when he was attacked and killed.

Seems like 98% of these violations are on the part of the terrorists. The few ( yes, there are some on incidents on the part of coolition troops - few and far between compared to the daily transgressions of the enemy ) are taken up by our command - trials and investagations going on even now. No one seems to be chasting the terrorists.

[MIKAER]

Interesting but irrelevent. Do you (or anyone else) have proof that the US is useing ANY of these tactics as part of our policy over there? How about proof that there is a large scale commission of these crimes? Is this where everyone keeps inserting "ad hominem argument". ;) :D :rolleyes: ;) :rolleyes:


The proof belongs to Mr.Watada as his argument is based on refusal to participate in war crimes any material relating to war crimes would be relevant to this thread. Regarding your misunderstanding of "ad hominem argument", perhaps you could google it.

[tngirl]

The proof belongs to Mr.Watada as his argument is based on refusal to participate in war crimes any material relating to war crimes would be relevant to this thread. Regarding your misunderstanding of "ad hominem argument", perhaps you could google it.

He can still go and perform his duty and not perform any war crimes. No one is telling him to do any of the things that are listed in the GC. Nobody is telling him to rape, use human sheilds, etc.

You still did not answer my question....how old are you? I am asking because of your arguments I get the idea that you are fairly young. At times what one believes in is totally irrelevant. The needs of the one outweighs the needs of the many.

This "man" (and I use that term lightly) chose to not go to war...a war that had already began when he signed on the dotted line. Because he has made the choice to not go, someone else was sent in his place. He is suppose to be an officer and set an example for his men, be a leader to his men. What message is he handing out? "Oh, I don't like this war...I think I will sit this one out." Talk about a moral buster, this case surely is. I am so glad that this guy thinks so highly of the men that he was commissioned to command.

[MIKAER]

He chose not to particapate in war crimes. This invasion is a war crime.
We are attacking a country that did not attack us us.

[pepperpot]

He chose not to particapate in war crimes. This invasion is a war crime.
We are attacking a country that did not attack us us.

He also chose to willingly sign his soldier's contract. His behavior does not use the proper channels with which to challenge the government. There are other legal methods he can use to express his dissatisfaction and/or opinions, accusations, etc..

[MIKAER]

I say good luck to him!

[tngirl]

He chose not to particapate in war crimes. This invasion is a war crime.
We are attacking a country that did not attack us us.

This is irrelevant. He signed the dotted line after this "illegal" invasion took place. He should have thought of the consequences prior to that. He signed to join an army that had NOT attacked us, so, his show of "conscience" came a bit late.

[MIKAER]

I say good luck to him! this will be interesting.

[pepperpot]

I say good luck to him!


I say good luck to him! this will be interesting.

You already said that, and he's going to need it.....

[MIKAER]

We shall see, either way he makes history for his stand.

[pepperpot]

We shall see, either way he makes history for his stand.

Hitler made history too, but for nothing I'd care to be remembered for.


Hmm...no publicity is bad publicity.....that gives me some insight...:rolleyes:

[MIKAER]

The comparison is more likely between Bush and Hitler. Mr.Watada is AGAINST war crimes.

[Jolie Rouge]

Who is violating the GC here ??

Bombings kill up to 100 people in Iraq
By SINAN SALAHEDDIN, Associated Press Writer
32 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Twin bombings Monday tore through stalls of vendors selling second-hand clothes and DVDs in a busy Baghdad market catering to Shiite Muslims during a religious festival. A market also was attacked north of the capital, and police said as many as 100 people died in the renewed campaign blamed on Sunni Muslim insurgents.

The U.S. military also reported the deaths Sunday of two Marines, raising the two-day death toll to 27 in a particularly bloody weekend for American forces in Iraq. A roadside bomb killed a U.S. soldier and wounded four others Monday in northern Iraq, it said.

Monday's first blast, a parked car bomb, hit shortly after noon in the Bab al-Sharqi market between Tayaran and Tahrir squares — one of the busiest parts of Baghdad. Seconds later, a suicide car bomber drove into the crowd.

Police estimated that each car was loaded with nearly 220 pounds of explosives. Deputy Health Minister Hakim al-Zamili said at least 78 people were killed and 156 were wounded, making it the deadliest attack in two months. Figures provided by police and hospital officials showed that as many as 88 people were killed.

The explosions left body parts strewn on the bloodstained pavement as black smoke rose into the sky. Police sealed off the area as ambulances rushed to the scene.

Survivors were taken to nearby al-Kindi Hospital where emergency personnel worked feverishly over the bloodied and badly wounded. Bodies covered in blue and white cloth littered the outdoor courtyard at the hospital. Family members and friends were at the side of the dead, screaming in grief and crying out oaths.

A suicide bomber killed at least 63 people in the same area last month.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a Shiite, denounced the attack. "We condemn this crime and we promise that the security forces will pursue all those involved in this crime and bring them to justice," he said in a statement.

Hours later, a bomb followed by a mortar attack struck a market in the predominantly Shiite town of Khalis, 50 miles north of Baghdad, killing at least 12 people and wounding 29, police said.

The twin bombing in Baghdad was the single deadliest attack against civilians in Iraq since Nov. 23, when suspected al-Qaida in Iraq fighters attacked Baghdad's Sadr City Shiite slum with a series of car bombs and mortars that struck in quick succession, killing at least 215 people.

In other violence, gunmen killed a teacher as she was on her way to work at a girls' school in the mainly Sunni area of Khadra in western Baghdad, police said, adding that the teacher's driver was wounded in the drive-by shooting.

Two mortar shells also landed on a primary school in the Sunni stronghold neighborhood of Dora in southern Baghdad, killing a woman waiting for her child and wounding eight students, police said.

Police also said that a cell phone company employee and a Sunni tribal chieftain were killed in separate shootings in Baghdad, while the bullet-riddled bodies of three men were found elsewhere in the capital. An oil technician also was shot to death in the northern city of Mosul, police said.

The two U.S. Marines were killed Sunday in separate attacks in the Anbar province, an insurgent stronghold west of Baghdad, the military said. The deaths came a day after 25 U.S. troops were killed Saturday in the third-deadliest day since the war started in March 2003 — eclipsed only by the one-day toll of 37 U.S. fatalities on Jan. 26, 2005, and 28 on the third day of the U.S. invasion.

The heaviest tolls Saturday came from a Black Hawk helicopter crash in which 12 U.S. soldiers were killed northeast of Baghdad as well as an attack on a provincial government building in the Shiite holy city of Karbala that left five U.S. troops dead.

The U.S. military has not ruled out hostile fire. Col. David Sutherland, the commander of U.S. forces in the strife-ridden Iraqi province of Diyala, said the crash was still under investigation.

The violence underscores the challenges faced by U.S. and Iraqi forces as they seek to rein in Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias that have made the capital and surrounding areas a battleground.

Meanwhile, two government officials said Sunday that al-Maliki dropped his protection of an anti-American cleric's militia after being convinced by U.S. intelligence that the group was infiltrated by death squads.

Al-Maliki's turnaround on the Mahdi Army was puzzling because as late as Oct. 31, he had intervened to end a U.S. blockade of Sadr City, the northeast Shiite enclave in Baghdad that is headquarters to the militia.

Shiite militias began taking revenge after more than two years of incessant bomb and shooting attacks by Sunni insurgents.

Sometime between late October and Nov. 30, when the prime minister met President Bush, al-Maliki was convinced of the truth of American intelligence reports that contended, among other things, that his protection of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's militia was isolating him in the Arab world and among moderates at home, two government officials said. "Al-Maliki realized he couldn't keep defending the Mahdi Army because of the information and evidence that the armed group was taking part in the killings, displacing people and violating the state's sovereignty," said one official.

Both he and a second government official who confirmed the account refused to be identified by name because the information was confidential. Both officials are intimately aware of the prime minister's thinking. "The Americans don't act on rumors but on accurate intelligence," said the second official, confirming the Americans gave al-Maliki overwhelming evidence about the Mahdi Army's deep involvement in the sectarian slaughter.

On Friday, in a bid to fend off an all-out American military offensive, al-Sadr ordered 30 lawmakers and six Cabinet ministers under his control to end their nearly two-month boycott of the government. They were back at their jobs Sunday.

Al-Sadr had already ordered his militia fighters not to display their weapons. They have not, however, ceded control of the formerly mixed neighborhoods they have captured, killing Sunnis or forcing them to abandon their homes and businesses.

The first government official said al-Maliki's message to al-Sadr was blunt: "He told the sheik that the activities of both the Sadrist politicians and the militia have inflamed hatred among neighboring Sunni Arab states that have been complaining bitterly to the Americans."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

[Jolie Rouge]

Who is violating the GC here ??

Scores killed in Baghdad market blast
By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 10 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A suicide bomber driving a truck loaded with a ton of explosives hidden beneath cooking oil, canned food and bags of flour obliterated a Baghdad food market on Saturday, killing at least 121 people in one of the most fearsome attacks in the capital since the U.S. invasion in 2003.

It was the fifth major bombing in less than a month targeting predominantly Shiite districts in Baghdad and one provincial city to the south. This one leveled about 30 shops and 40 houses, witnesses said.

The Health Ministry said more than 300 people were injured in the thunderous explosion that sent a column of smoke into the sky on the east bank of the Tigris River. The nearby al-Kindi hospital — quickly overwhelmed — began turning away the wounded and directing ambulances to hospitals in the Shiite Sadr City neighborhood.

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said the bombing was "an example of what the forces of evil will do to intimidate the Iraqi people."

The bombing came just days before American and Iraqi forces were expected to start an all-out assault on Sunni and Shiite gunmen and bombers in the capital.

Only a day earlier, 16 American intelligence agencies made public a National Intelligence Estimate that said conditions in Baghdad were perilous. "Unless efforts to reverse these conditions show measurable progress ... in the coming 12 to 18 months, we assess that the overall security situation will continue to deteriorate," a declassified synopsis of the report declared.

Emergency workers and civilians wheeled scores of bloodied and mangled victims into the hospitals with intravenous drips already in their arms. Doctors and paramedics were in a frantic triage to save the lives of the most seriously wounded. "We don't allow big trucks in the market, but the driver convinced us that he had food to deliver for a shop. Once he got inside, he detonated the bomb," said Kamil Ibrahim, a 36-year-old vegetable vendor at the entrance to the market district. Ibrahim — wounded in his head, chest and abdomen — said two of his workers, young men 18 and 19 years old, were killed instantly. The shopkeeper spoke from a bed in al-Kindi Hospital, where he was rushed in a private car after rescuers wheeled him out of the market on a wooden cart.

Suspicion immediately fell on Sunni insurgents — al-Qaida in Iraq and allied groups in particular. The militant bombers are believed to have stepped up their campaign against Shiites in the final days before the joint U.S.-Iraqi crackdown in Baghdad. Many saw the operation as a last-chance effort to clamp off violence that has turned the capital into a sectarian battleground.
Suspected Sunni attackers have appeared emboldened in recent weeks after radical anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, under pressure from fellow Shiites who dominate the government, ordered the thousands of gunmen in his Mahdi Army militia to avoid American attacks in the coming assault.

In the hours after the explosion, Shiite and Sunni mortar teams traded fire across the darkened city. Two people were killed and 20 wounded in one predominantly Sunni district.

The White House called the bombing an atrocity and said, "Free nations of the world must not stand by while terrorists commit mass murder in an attempt to derail democratic progress in Iraq and throughout the greater Middle East."

Violence shattered the northern city of Kirkuk as well. Eight bombs exploded within two hours, the opening blast a suicide car bomber apparently targeting the offices of the Kurdish Democratic Party of Massoud Barzani, leader of Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region.

Two people were killed in that blast and four nearby homes destroyed. There was no claim of responsibility for the series of bombings in the oil-rich city where Arabs, Kurds and Turkomen all claim ascendance.

Sunni insurgents were seen as likely suspects, however, as many of them have fled to the north of the country in a bid to escape the crackdown in the capital. Further signs the insurgents were migrating north appeared in Mosul, where insurgent forces fought Iraqi police and soldiers. Police said five insurgents were killed. Police spokesman Brig. Abdul Karim al-Jubouri said fighters abandoned their attack when Iraqi security forces moved in backed by U.S. air power.

In the Baghdad blast, Maj. Gen. Jihad al-Jabiri of the Iraqi Interior Ministry said one ton of explosives ripped through the Sadriyah market. "There are still bodies under the rubble," he said. In an outburst of frustration and anger he called for the government to "deport (non-Iraqi) Arabs immediately."

The general's comments reflected growing displeasure inside the government of Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki with neighboring Syria, which Baghdad charges has done too little to close its border to Sunni militants.

In his second heated verbal attack on Damascus in two days, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said "50 percent of terrorism enters Iraq from Syria, and we have evidence" to prove that.

"The Interior Ministry and the Ministry of State for National Security gave them (the Syrians) evidence about those who are conspiring and are sending car bombs. We gave them the numbers of their apartments and the buildings where they live," al-Dabbagh said on Al-Arabiya satellite television.

The Sadriyah market sits on a side street lined with shops and vendors selling produce, meat and other staples. The market is about 500 yards from a Sunni shrine.

The blast was the deadliest attack in the capital since Nov. 23, when suspected al-Qaida in Iraq fighters hit Sadr City with a series of car bombs and mortars that killed at least 215 people.

Not far from the Sadriyah marketplace, a suicide bomber crashed his car into the Bab al-Sharqi market 12 days ago and killed 88 people. South of Baghdad, a pair of suicide bombers detonated explosives Thursday among shoppers in a crowded outdoor market in the Shiite city of Hillah, killing at least 73 people and wounding 163.

An Iraqi militant group tied to al-Qaida in Iraq announced, meanwhile, it had launched its own new strategy to counter the coming U.S.-Iraqi crackdown.

In an audiotape posted on a Web site commonly used by the insurgents, a voice purported to be that of Abu Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi, also known as Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, said the group would "widen the circle of battles" beyond Baghdad to all of Iraq. Al-Baghdadi heads The Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of insurgent groups in Iraq.

The U.S. military reported the deaths of five more soldiers — four in fighting and one of an apparent heart attack. All died Friday.

Iraqi authorities said that 145 people were killed or were found dead Saturday, including those killed in the market bombing. Of the total, 19 were found dumped in the capital, most of the bodies showing signs of torture.

___

Associated Press writers Kim Gamel, Bassem Mroue and Sameer N. Yacoub in Baghdad and Yahya Barzanji in Kirkuk contributed to this story.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070204/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq;_ylt=Ap6nXbNYyNxIvc_ZH.ZmrHus0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMT A2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

[Jolie Rouge]

International Rules About Soldiers

The Geneva Conventions and supplementary protocols make a distinction between combatants and civilians. The two groups must be treated differently by the warring sides and, therefore, combatants must be clearly distinguishable from civilians. Although this obligation benefits civilians by making it easier for the warring sides to avoid targeting non-combatants, soldiers also benefit because they become immune from prosecution for acts of war.

For example, a civilian who shoots a soldier may be liable for murder while a soldier who shoots an enemy soldier and is captured may not be punished.

In order for the distinction between combatants and civilians to be clear, combatants must wear uniforms and carry their weapons openly during military operations and during preparation for them.

The other exception are mercenaries, who are specifically excluded from protections. Mercenaries are defined as soldiers who are not nationals of any of the parties to the conflict and are paid more than the local soldiers.

Combatants who deliberately violate the rules about maintaining a clear separation between combatant and noncombatant groups — and thus endanger the civilian population — are no longer protected by the Geneva Convention.

International Rules About Civilians

Both the fourth Geneval Convention and the two Additional Protocols extend protections to civilians during war time.

Civilians are not to be subject to attack. This includes direct attacks on civilians and indiscriminate attacks against areas in which civilians are present.

There is to be no destruction of property unless justified by military necessity.

Individuals or groups must not be deported, regardless of motive.

Civilians must not be used as hostages.

Civilians must not be subject to outrages upon personal dignity.

Civilians must not be tortured, raped or enslaved.

Civilians must not be subject to collective punishment and reprisals.

Civilians must not receive differential treatment based on race, religion, nationality, or political allegiance.

Warring parties must not use or develop biological or chemical weapons and must not allow children under 15 to participate in hostilities or to be recruited into the armed forces.

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

[Jolie Rouge]

Back to the original topic ....


Court-martial begins for war objector
By MELANTHIA MITCHELL, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 12 minutes ago

FORT LEWIS, Wash. - Anti-war activists consider 1st Lt. Ehren Watada a hero for his refusal to go to Iraq. The Army accuses him of betraying his fellow soldiers.

At a court martial that began Monday at Fort Lewis, south of Seattle, 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 ship out with his unit, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division.

Watada, who joined the military in March 2003, has spoken out against U.S. military involvement in Iraq, calling it morally wrong and a breach of American law. "As the order to take part in an illegal act is ultimately unlawful as well, I must as an officer of honor and integrity refuse that order," Watada said in a video statement released at a June 7 news conference.

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

Watada and his Honolulu attorney, Eric Seitz, contend his comments are protected speech, but Army prosecutors argued his behavior was dangerous to the mission and morale of other soldiers. "He betrayed his fellow soldiers who are now serving in Iraq," Capt. Dan Kuecker said at one hearing. Kuecker has not commented on the case outside of court.

Seitz unsuccessfully sought an opportunity to argue the legality of the war, saying it violated Army regulations that specify wars are to be waged in accordance with the United Nations charter. His final attempt was quashed last month when the military judge, Lt. Col. John Head, ruled Watada cannot base his defense on the war's legality. Head also rejected claims that Watada's statements were protected by the First Amendment.

The Army had subpoenaed two journalists who interviewed Watada, drawing criticism from free-press advocates, but that fell by the wayside as prosecutors dropped two of the four counts of misconduct in exchange for Watada admitting he made statements to freelance journalist Sarah Olson and Greg Kakesako of the Honolulu Star-Bulletin.

Military law experts said that, by confining themselves to the missing movement charge, prosecutors might have saved themselves from arguing some of the legal issues relating to free speech. "It's desirable that they're abandoning the path of using reporters as witnesses," said Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice in Washington, D.C. "It's a very toxic strategy."

Fidell wasn't surprised the government rejected a deal offered by Seitz that would have had Watada serve only three months confinement with a dishonorable discharge. "Why should they? He missed a movement of his unit," he said. "No army can tolerate officers refusing to move with their unit."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070205/ap_on_re_us/war_objector;_ylt=Au7GP9P1NhGqOulInN0CXTys0NUE;_yl u=X3oDMTA3OTB1amhuBHNlYwNtdHM-

[Jolie Rouge]

Watada lawyer rebukes judge
By Hal Bernton - Seattle Times staff reporter

FORT LEWIS — First Lt. Ehren Watada's court-martial verdict could hinge on the Fort Lewis officer's own testimony when he takes the stand later this week to testify about why he refused to go to war.

Defense counsels hope Watada can gain the respect of the seven-officer military panel sworn in Monday and persuade the officers to reject an extended prison sentence of up to four years. "The critical thing is that he be treated as someone who is principled," Eric Seitz, Watada's civilian defense counsel, said late Monday at a news conference. "Someone who is principled and has taken a stand. Not someone who should be treated as a criminal."

Monday, Seitz was a combative, sometimes defiant, presence in the courtroom as he rebuked the military judge, Lt. Col. John Head, for his rulings to restrict the scope of the trial. "I think it is an atrocity that our witnesses are being handled in this manner," Seitz said after Head ruled that most of the proposed defense witnesses were irrelevant to the issues at hand.

In addition to Watada, Seitz said he plans to call only one other defense witness, a Fort Lewis officer who serves in Iraq with the defendant's brigade.

Seitz is a veteran attorney whose defense of war resisters dates back to the Vietnam era, and he has joined with Watada in numerous interviews to help bring national — and international — attention to the first court-martial of an Army officer who refused to go to Iraq.

Head has sought to keep the political backlash against the war from filtering into his courtroom. He refused to allow testimony from prominent critics of the Bush administration whom Seitz had sought to testify on Watada's behalf.

Head also issued an order restricting buttons or other shows of support for Watada from being worn inside the courtroom, according to Seitz. And at one point during the morning session, he called for defense counsel Seitz to "leave the dramatics at the door."

The trial is expected to last less than a week; the facts of the case are not in dispute. Watada has stipulated that he missed his brigade's deployment to Iraq in June, an offense that could bring up to two years in prison.

In court Monday, Watada also agreed to the accuracy of his statements attacking the war as illegal, the Army for committing war crimes, and the Bush administration for deceit. The Army contends these statements represent officer misconduct that could result in an additional two years in prison, while the defense counsel says his remarks represent protected free speech.

There is no minimum sentence, so if Watada is found guilty the officers panel could still opt to have him serve little or even no time.

Defense attorneys said that they had offered in pretrial negotiations to accept a six-month prison sentence to settle the charges but that prosecutors declined in order to seek a longer term.

The seven officers who will determine the sentence were selected from an original pool of 10 officers. Their ranks range from captain to colonel and include two women.

All the officers are from Fort Lewis and had read or talked about the case with other soldiers, and some stated in court that they had served in Iraq.

All the officers on the panel declared they would listen to the case with an open mind.

Some seemed skeptical of any officer who would refuse to serve with his wartime unit, and they also said there were limits to public dissent in the military.

Capt. Nicole White, however, said she was "impressed," when she first heard about Watada's decision. "Basically, it was like he was standing up for what he believes in."

The judge appeared startled by the response.

"Another word for 'impressed' would be 'surprised'?" Head said.

"Yes, sir," White replied.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003558725_watada06m.html

How the case will be decided

How does a court-martial work? A military judge presides and rules on what evidence may be submitted. A panel of seven officers will decide 1st Lt. Ehren Watada's guilt or innocence and determine what — if any — punishment he should receive. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the charges of missing a troop movement and actions unbecoming an officer could bring a maximum of four years.

Who represents Watada? A civilian attorney, Eric Seitz, and a military defense counsel, Mark Kim.

What is the review process? The case automatically will be sent to the Fort Lewis commander and an Army Court of Review. Defense counsel can then petition for the case to be taken up by the Army Court of Appeals, and then seek further review in federal courts.
Watada has drawn strong support from anti-war activists, who marked his trial's opening day with rallies outside Fort Lewis that included an appearance by actor Sean Penn. Also Monday, activists released a letter of support from Desmond Tutu, the South African archbishop and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.

[Jolie Rouge]

Watada wasn't asked to commit unlawful acts
By Col. Thomas D. Farrell (Ret.)
Feb 6, 2007


Volumes have been written about Lt. Ehren Watada, whose court-martial began yesterday. He's been lionized and demonized, and the rhetoric of his supporters and his detractors has reached the outer limits of hyperbole.

What has heretofore escaped rational discussion are his claims that the war in Iraq is unlawful, that his participation in it would violate the principles of personal accountability established at Nuremberg, and that going to Iraq would effectively turn him into a war criminal. Those issues won't be addressed in his court-martial because the military judge has ruled that the legality of the war is a "political question" beyond the purview of the court. That ruling may be technically correct, but it is certainly unsatisfying.

I don't mind all that much if a lieutenant wants to protest the policies of the commander in chief, inappropriate though it is for a serving officer to do so publicly. What irks me is the implication that those of us who deployed were either too dumb to know the score, or too spineless to do the right thing. More than 2,000 citizen-soldiers from Hawai'i deployed to Iraq in 2004 and 2005. I was one of them. Permit me to make the case that those of us who went to Iraq are not war criminals.

As a matter of domestic law, the U.S. Constitution (the preservation of which is the sole reason for the existence of our armed forces) says that Congress shall have the power to declare war. When it enacted the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, Congress made regime change in Baghdad the official policy of the United States. It explicitly authorized the use of American military forces with the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" of October 2002. Lt. Watada may be right in his claim that the Bush administration bamboozled the Congress with phony claims of weapons of mass destruction and insinuations of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, but Congress has not seen fit to repeal its resolution, or to pass new legislation forcing our withdrawal.

As a matter of international law, it may be argued that U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 (which authorized "all means necessary") was not a green light to invade Iraq, but it is important that we note what the U.N. has done since then. Acting under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, the Security Council passed Resolution 1511 in October 2003, authorizing "a multinational force under unified command to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq." Since then, it has repeatedly reauthorized the American-led Multi-National Force Iraq. In its most recent resolution extending the force until Dec. 31, the Security Council acted at the explicit request of the sovereign government of Iraq.

How can anyone seriously claim that our military involvement in Iraq is illegal when both Congress and the U.N. have taken the steps to authorize it, and allow it to continue to this day?

Lt. Watada argues that he has the right to make his own personal assessment, notwithstanding whatever Congress and the U.N. may do. If he's right, why not make our personal assessments about how fast is safe to drive, or how much tax is our fair share? The answer is obvious: Anarchy would prevail, and the rule of law — the basis of all real freedom — would cease to exist.

Lt. Watada asserts that he truly believes that the war is illegal; therefore he has an absolute duty to refuse his orders to deploy. He reminds us that the lesson of Nuremberg is that "following orders" is no excuse for unlawful acts in war.

At the Nuremberg Tribunals, the Allies prosecuted the senior political leaders of the Axis powers for launching an unlawful war under existing legal standards. There was no U.N. Charter when the Nuremberg cases were decided, but it was no stretch to find Hitler's henchmen guilty of violating international law by invading Poland, Czechoslovakia, France and the Soviet Union. However, common soldiers and their officers were never prosecuted for merely participating in the war. They were prosecuted for murdering non-combatants, abusing prisoners and other individual acts that any rational human being knows are criminal.

No one asked Lt. Watada to do any of those things. In fact, the rules of engagement in Iraq clearly prohibit these crimes. Those rules aren't just window dressing. In the rare cases where they've stepped over the line, we've prosecuted our own soldiers and Marines. We'll continue to do so.

Many of us who served in Iraq were under no illusions about the administration's corruption of intelligence to make the case for war. Quite a few of us also believed that the war was a bad idea, made worse by poor execution. We served anyway. We deployed — not out of ignorance or fear — but because we had promised to uphold the Constitution. It never occurred to us to place ourselves above the law.

Retired Col. Thomas D. Farrell, a Honolulu resident, served as an Army intelligence officer in Iraq from June 2005 to May 2006. He wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070206/OPINION03/702060312/1110/OPINION

[Jolie Rouge]

Officer's court-martial ends in mistrial
By MELANTHIA MITCHELL, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 36 minutes ago

FORT LEWIS, Wash. - A judge declared a mistrial Wednesday in the court-martial of an Army lieutenant who refused to deploy to Iraq, saying the soldier did not fully understand a document he signed admitting to elements of the charges.

Prosecutors said 1st Lt. Ehren Watada admitted in the document that he had a duty to go to Iraq with his fellow soldiers. Watada, however, said he admitted only that he did not go to Iraq with his unit, not that he had a duty to go.

Military judge Lt. Col. John Head granted prosecutors' request for a mistrial, which Watada's lawyer opposed. He set a March 12 date for a new trial and dismissed the jurors.

Watada, 28, of Honolulu, had been expected to testify in his own defense Wednesday until Head and attorneys met in a closed meeting for much of the morning.

Watada is the first commissioned officer to be court-martialed for refusing to go to Iraq, said Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice in Washington, D.C.

In the 12-page stipulation of fact he signed last month, Watada acknowledged that he refused to deploy last June with his unit, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, and that he made public statements criticizing the Iraq war. Watada has said he refused to go to Iraq because he believes the war is illegal.

In exchange, prosecutors dropped two charges of conduct unbecoming an officer against him. He remains charged with missing movement — for his refusal to deploy — and two other allegations of conduct unbecoming an officer for comments made about the case. He could receive four years in prison and a dishonorable discharge if convicted.

In their opening statements Tuesday, prosecutors said Watada abandoned his soldiers and brought disgrace upon himself and the service by accusing the Army of war crimes and denouncing the Bush administration.

Watada's attorney, Eric Seitz, countered that Watada acted in good conscience, based on his own convictions.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070207/ap_on_re_us/war_objector;_ylt=AiBLwZINMxxaNg.AwKPbzyCs0NUE



Mistrial ends Watada court-martial
War objector may have to be tried again.
By MIKE BARBER

FORT LEWIS -- The court-martial of 1st Lt. Ehren Watada ended in a mistrial Wednesday. The case's judge, Lt. Col. John Head, declared the trial over after a day of wrangling over a stipulation of facts that Watada had signed before the trial and that would have been part of the instructions to the jury. The judge decided that Watada never intended when he signed the stipulation to mean that he had a duty to go to Iraq with his unit.

Again the issue was Watada's views on the Iraq war -- opinions that kept him from going with his unit to the conflict and that the judge didn't want brought up at the court-martial.

Watada, a Stryker Brigade soldier, is the first commissioned officer to refuse to be deployed to Iraq. Watada's unit left this sprawling base for Iraq in June, but Watada remained behind. He said he believes the war is illegal and that his duty is to not abide by illegal orders.

But Head tried to keep the court-martial from becoming a tribunal on the war and its legality and has ruled that Watada's attorney cannot present witnesses to question the war's legality. Outside the base, that has been the issue as peace activists from across the country have rallied to Watada's side.

Watada is charged with missing movement to Iraq and with two counts of conduct unbecoming an officer. Those last two charges result from statements Watada made against the war in a video tape released to reporters after he made his refusal to go to Iraq public and to a Veterans for Peace convention at the University of Washington.

He had been charged with two other counts of conduct unbecoming for interviews he gave. Prosecutors dropped those charged in return for Watada's signing a stipulation that he had given the interviews. He also acknowledged in the stipulation that he didn't go with his unit to Iraq, though he didn't admit his guilt to the missing movement charge.

With the jury of officers out of the courtroom Wednesday morning, Head wanted to question Watada about the stipulation to make sure that it was accurate and to protect the lieutenant against any mistakes in it.

But Eric Seitz, Watada's attorney, objected to the questioning. He said the stipulation should include Watada's reasons for not going to Iraq: His views that the war is illegal. "It has always been his position that not only would he miss movement but he would not participate in a war he considered illegal" and not participate in war crimes, Seitz said. "His specific intent was of a different character all together" than simply missing his unit's deployment to Iraq, Seitz said.

To prove a charge of missing movement, the prosecutors need to show that Watada did not report when he had a duty to do so. The disagreement that prompted the mistrial was about whether Watada admitted missing troop movement and having a duty to report, or only missing troop movement. "I see there is an inconsistency in the stipulation of fact," the judge said Wednesday. "I don't know how I can accept (it) as we stand here now."

Because much of the Army's evidence was laid out in the document, rejecting it would hurt its case, Head acknowledged. He granted the prosecutors' request for a mistrial, which Watada's lawyer opposed.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/302733_courtmartial07ww.html

[Jolie Rouge]

Where the real heroes are

Angry, left-wing Washington Post blogger William Arkin considers American troops in Iraq who believe in their mission "mercenaries" who are "naive" and should be thankful they haven't been spit upon yet. Curdled Democrat Sen. John Kerry thinks those soldiers, who volunteer for service, didn't "make an effort to be smart" and are "stuck in Iraq" because of their intellectual deficiencies. At the last anti-war spasm in Washington, liberal peace-lovers vandalized a military recruitment office — repeating an act of destruction taken by rock-wielding thugs across college campuses and at ROTC headquarters nationwide.

So, who inspires these troop-bashers? Whose courage do they cheer? Whom do they call "hero"?

Not the American soldier on the battlefield, willingly and freely putting his life on the line for his beliefs, his family, our country, security and freedom.

No, their idea of a military hero is Army Lt. Ehren Watada. Did Watada take a bullet for his comrades? Rescue innocent civilians from insurgent forces? Throw himself on a grenade? Ambush a terrorist sniper nest? No.

Watada's the soldier who went on trial this week for defying orders to be deployed to Iraq — after volunteering for duty. For those deficient in English, here's the meaning of volunteer: "To perform or offer to perform a service of one's own free will." Hundreds of anti-war groupies, including actor Sean Penn, showed up to cheer Watada.

Watada was scheduled to leave Fort Lewis, Wash., for his first tour of duty in Iraq last summer. Instead of getting on the bus with his fellow soldiers, he announced he would not go and denounced the war as "unjust" and "illegal." He was the only military officer to refuse deployment to Iraq with Fort Lewis' 4,000-member Stryker Brigade. The anti-war propaganda machine kicked into full gear for Watada, with coordinated press conferences in Tacoma, Wash., and Honolulu, where Watada grew up.

Some of Watada's hometown neighbors are sick of his intellectual disingenuousness. Writing in Watada's hometown newspaper, the Honolulu Advertiser, retired Col. Thomas D. Farrell, who served as an Army intelligence officer in Iraq in 2005-2006, retorted: "How can anyone seriously claim that our military involvement in Iraq is illegal when both Congress and the U.N. have taken the steps to authorize it, and allow it to continue to this day? Lt. Watada argues that he has the right to make his own personal assessment, notwithstanding whatever Congress and the U.N. may do. If he's right, why not make our personal assessments about how fast is safe to drive, or how much tax is our fair share? The answer is obvious: Anarchy would prevail, and the rule of law — the basis of all real freedom — would cease to exist."

The only thing illegal here is Watada's willful refusal to obey orders. Watada is just the latest in a line of losers abandoning their men, their mission and the rule of law. The left calls this "dissent." The rest of us call it what it is: Desertion.

Many military observers say they smelled a rat when they first heard of Watada's story. Watada graduated from Hawai'i Pacific University in 2003, joined the Army shortly after, went to Officer Candidate School and incurred a three-year obligation. Wrote Navy Officer Robert Webster:


"This guy graduated from college and then joined the Army, going to Officer Candidate school, after we had already started the Iraq campaign just to claim it was an 'illegal' war when his unit is called to go. Smells funny to me. In my mind, either the Army gave a commission to an idiot not aware of current events or he planned this all along."

Soldiers making calculated political statements against their own troops?

Wouldn't be the first time — cough, cough, John Kerry. Idiot or schemer, Watada deserves a stiff, strong penalty for his lawlessness. An excellent proposal put forth at the military blog Op-For:

"Relieve him of operational duties and send him to work at Walter Reed, to handle the in- and out-processing of wounded veterans."

Yes, where the real heroes are.

http://jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin020707.php3

[Jolie Rouge]

Watada's Revolt-ing Mistrial
By Andrew Walden -- FrontPageMagazine.com
February 8, 2007

From the fever swamps of the anti-American-war Left a new cause celebre has emerged: Lt Ehren Watada, a soldier from Hawaii who last year refused orders to deploy to Iraq. Yesterday, the judge declared a mistrial in his court martial proceedings at Ft. Lewis, Washington, claiming Watada did not fully understand a document he signed admitting he had a duty to deploy to Iraq.

But Watada is no fuzzy-minded pacifist conscientious objector. Quite the opposite: If he had any followers, Lt. Watada would be an American caudillo. Watada is on trial effectively for calling for a military coup d’etat to overthrow Congress and the president.

Watada was charged with "missing movement" after refusing to deploy to Iraq with his unit, the United States Army, 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division Stryker Brigade Combat Team in June, 2006. Perhaps dissatisfied with the low-key charges, Watada earned more serious charges after giving a speech on August 12, 2006, at the convention of Veterans for Peace, a group which grew out of the 1970s Vietnam era "Winter Soldier Project" run by John Forbes Kerry and Jane Fonda.

In his carefully worded talk, Watada challenges the legitimacy of civilian elected officials calling them "narrowly and questionably elected." Watada claims that Congress and the president did not have the legal power to authorize the use of force in Iraq saying: "neither Congress nor this administration has the authority to violate the prohibition against pre-emptive war." Watada implicitly questions the supremacy of the Constitution saying, "As strong as the Constitution is, it is not foolproof. It does not fully take into account the frailty of human nature."

Borrowing the language of caudillos everywhere, Watada claims to be fighting "corruption." Watada claims to possess wisdom beyond that of the Founding Fathers arguing: "The founders of the Constitution could not have imagined how money would infect our political system." Watada claims to be acting after civilian leaders have failed saying: "We have all seen this war tear apart our country over the past three years. It seems as though nothing we've done, from vigils to protests to letters to Congress, have had any effect in persuading the powers that be. Tonight I will speak to you on my ideas for a change of strategy."

What is Watada’s "change of strategy"? Watada implicitly calls for the United States Armed Forces to impose its will on the elected civilian leadership of the nation saying, "If soldiers realized this war is contrary to what the Constitution extols – if they stood up and threw their weapons down – no president could ever initiate a war of choice again."

Watada closes by calling on soldiers to stop "allowing" the U.S. government this liberty. "Those who called for war prior to the invasion compared diplomacy with Saddam to the compromises made with Hitler. I say, we compromise now by allowing a government that uses war as the first option instead of the last to act with impunity."

Watada’s attorney, Honolulu based radical lawyer Eric Seitz claims, "these (new) charges (faced by Watada) send out a message to people in the military, that if you criticize the war and if you criticize the decisions that were made to bring the United States into this war, that you, too, could be charged with disloyalty, contemptuous remarks and disrespect for higher officers."

Wrong.

Watada’s speech calling for something approximating a military uprising is not simple criticism. Fortunately this is not a banana republic, and Watada has no support within the military. Watada’s impotent call for a virtual coup d’etat more than earned him charges of "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman" and "contempt for officials."

The latter charge, which has since been dropped, did not refer to the ordinary name-calling typical of the Bush-haters. In fact, President Bush’s name occurs nowhere in Watada’s speech. Watada does not call for the ouster of the president but a transformation (you could perhaps term it "overthrow") of the government.

Watada’s lawyer Seitz also claims, "We did not really anticipate that they would charge him with additional offenses based upon the comments and the remarks that he's made. And that opens up a whole new chapter in this proceeding."

Watada’s speech reads as if it had been written by a lawyer. Delivered just five days before Watada’s "Article 32" hearing, it is carefully crafted, written in the most elliptical possible manner to still be understood.

It is likely the intent of the Watada speech at the Veterans for Peace convention was to "open a new chapter." Rather than have his defendant go down to certain defeat facing simple charges of "missing movement," Seitz could now attempt to open up a military trial of the civilian leadership of the U.S. government. As Watada supporter Paul Rockwell explains, "The U.S. Army is putting the wrong person on trial."

One of the international law "experts" called at Watada’s "Article 32" hearing was University of Illinois Law Professor Frances Boyle. Boyle toured Hawaii in December 2004 speaking to thousands of people at meetings organized by Hawaii secessionist leader Bumpy Kanahele. In his speech, repeated on four Hawaiian islands, Boyle urged Native Hawaiians to emulate the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The speaking tour was co-sponsored by the State of Hawaii Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Boyle has also worked as an attorney for both the PLO and the Chechen rebel "government."

Watada’s speech created legal cause for the new charges which were formally filed on September 15, 2006. The new charges in turn created the excuse to invite the so-called experts to testify about the war’s so-called illegality. Watada’s speech at the convention reads very much like Boyle’s tortured arguments for Hawaiian secession. The court-martial judge has refused to hear arguments questioning the civilian leaderships’ decision to go to war and questioning the "legality" of the war, correctly noting that these considerations are beyond the pervue of a military court.

Also testifying in Watada's defense at the Article 32 hearing was Dennis Halliday a former United Nations official who last served the UN as United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in 1997 in Iraq—in the midst of the Oil for Food payouts. He quit the UN after one year in Baghdad and began working as a full time campaigner against the UN sanctions on Iraq. Another so-called expert is the far-Left Col. Ann Wright, an ex-officer who quit the State Department in March 2003 in protest of the Iraq war. She is now a full time activist who gives interviews to the Maoist Revolution newspaper and coordinated Cindy Sheehan’s media circus in Crawford, Texas.

Watada looks outside the military for support. His father Bob Watada is a figure in the Hawaii Democratic Party who made a name for himself recently as Hawaii Campaign Spending Commissioner, a position he used to root out almost 100 corrupt Democrat politicians and state contractors. In doing so, he made way for younger up-and-coming Kucinich Democrats to take even greater power within the Party at the expense of more mainstream liberal Democrats. The Watada case has been cause for substantial debate within Japanese American groups, preparing the stage for the anti-Americans’ complete takeover of the Hawaii Democratic Party after the eventual passing of Senator Daniel Inouye whose U.S. Senate seniority often helps bring military projects to Hawaii.

In 2004 Dennis Kucinich received about 1/3 of the Hawaii delegates to the Democratic National Convention. William Alia and Earthjustice lawyer David Henkin, the second place primary candidates for the 2006 Democratic Hawaiian gubernatorial and Lt. Governor nominations are deeply involved in lawsuits challenging the U.S. Navy’s use of sonar in the waters off Hawaii and the presence of a Stryker brigade on Oahu with training facilities on the Big Island.

In Honolulu, support for Watada was until recently organized largely by the Maoist front group "Not In Our Name," which is controlled by the Honolulu branch of the Revolutionary Communist Party. Watada support rallies are now controlled by Code Pink, a group co-founded by San Francisco activist Medea Benjamin, a former resident of Castro’s Cuba.

A key figure around the Veterans for Peace and also around Cindy Sheehan’s earlier media circus is Dahr Jamail. Terror cheerleader Jamail joined forces with Sheehan after cheering Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army in Sadr City, Iraq, while reporting from their HQ on the battle in which Spc. Casey Sheehan was killed by Sadr’s forces. Jamail calls Watada a "hero" and posted Watada’s speech on leftist website "Truthout." Jamail recently visited Honolulu to speak with Watada supporters.

Watada also gets support from Muslim Chaplain James Yee, who was ousted from his position at Guantanamo after being accused of spying for the al-Qaeda detainees.

Yee and Jamail are not Watada’s only Islamist supporters. Al-Jazeera writing on June 11, 2006 happily quotes Watada as he implicitly condemns every U.S. soldier in the field of combat: "The wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of the Iraqi people is not only a terrible moral injustice but a contradiction of the army's own law of land warfare. My participation would make me party to war crimes."

Of course the real "wholesale slaughter" is the one carried out daily by al-Jazeera’s terrorist bombers, the comrades of Jamail’s allies in Sadr City, and Yee’s detainees at Guantanamo. Watada and his supporters are facilitating the genuine war crimes they carry out daily against coalition forces and the Iraqi people.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26842

[Jolie Rouge]

Saturday, February 24, 2007
Army refiles Watada charges
By Hal Bernton - Seattle Times staff reporter

Undaunted by an initial mistrial, the Army on Friday refiled charges against 1st. Lt. Ehren Watada, a Fort Lewis officer who faces up to six years in prison for failing to deploy to Iraq and alleged misconduct. "These are serious charges, and the next step will be to set a trial date," said Joe Piek, a spokesman at Fort Lewis, where Watada continues to serve as an active-duty officer.

Watada is the first Army officer to face court-martial for refusing to serve in Iraq, and his case has drawn international attention as the Hawaiian-born officer has allied himself with peace groups and repeatedly attacked the Bush administration's conduct of the war.

Watada's defense counsels are hoping to derail or at least delay a new trial, which they claim constitutes double jeopardy that violates Watada's constitutional rights to only be tried once for a set of crimes.

The defense counsels appeared caught by surprise by Friday's re-filing of charges. "They appear anxious to get him into jail as soon as possible," said Eric Seitz, Watada's civilian defense counsel.

Seitz said he will seek a Fort Lewis hearing to make a case for double jeopardy. If unsuccessful, he will appeal to military courts and then to federal courts.

The first court-martial ended in mistrial Feb. 7 when a judge rejected a pretrial agreement.

In that agreement, Watada said that he had indeed missed his brigade's June deployment to Iraq, and made a series of public statements against the war. In return, Army prosecutors dropped several counts that knocked two years off a maximum six-year sentence.

Three days into the trial, the judge, Lt. Col. John Head, questioned the agreement.
The judge said the agreement was essentially an admission of guilt about missing the troop movement. Watada did not share that view, saying he still had a defense -- that the war was illegal and he was duty-bound by his officer's oath to disobey an illegal order to deploy. "I'm not seeing we have a meeting of the minds here," Head said. "And if there is not a meeting of the minds, there's not a contract."

By the time the judge rejected the agreement, it already had been distributed to a jury panel of officers who were charged with determining Watada's guilt or innocence. So the prosecution, rather than continue the case, asked for a mistrial.

At the time, Head said he wanted to schedule the case for mid-March -- presuming charges were refiled -- and move it to the top of the docket.

Seitz said he had other trial commitments and could not be available that soon.

Friday, Seitz said Watada's military defense counsel, Capt. Mark Kim, also would have a problem making a March trial date. Currently, Kim is not on active duty and has resumed a civilian job.

During the first trial, Seitz repeatedly clashed with Head, at one point balking at the judge's order to sit down.

Piek said Head may preside over a second Watada trial.

If no new pretrial agreements are reached, the prosecution might have to prove in court that Watada actually made all the statements that the Army alleges as officer misconduct. That could involve an Army effort to subpoena journalists who reported Watada's statements.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003586963_watadaretrial24m.html

[pepperpot]

How much is this man costing our country? Court fees, etc and our appearance in this world?