Lieutenant defies US Army over ‘illegal’ war

[Lumber]

Exactly what constitutes a "manifestly unlawful" order and what is a "legal command" and is an illegal command then necessarily "manifestly unlawful" and by what standard? 

I'm guessing that "manifestly unlawful" is the threshold point at which an legal command becomes an illegal command. The question is: is the bar for "manifestly unlawful" higher or lower than just "unlawful" - to me they are both illegal commands.   

[/quote]

Read 19.015 Notes Sections (B) and (C) carefully. http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qr_o/vol1/ch019_e.asp#19.015

Basically it states that if an officer gives you an order that you are not quite sure is lawful, carry it out anyways, you should be protected in court.

If on the otherhand however the order "is one that would appear to a person of ordinary sense and understanding to be clearly illegal" then  you have a duty to disobey.

So for example, if an officer orders you to break into a store to get some medical supplies for someone wounded go ahead and do it. But if he orders you to break into a store to grab him the newest 50" plasma screen tv, say no. Or say, only if I can have one too! lol j.k

 

[big bad john]

From todays Army Times Early Bird:

Army Charges Lieutenant Who Wouldn't Go To Iraq
(Seattle Times, July 6, 2006, Pg. 1)
A Fort Lewis, Wash., Army officer who refused to serve in Iraq could face seven years in prison if convicted of charges filed against him. The Army accused 1st Lt. Ehren Watada of missing his brigade's troop movement to Iraq, twice speaking contemptuously of the president and three acts unbecoming an officer. The charges come about a month after Watada announced his decision not to deploy with the 3rd (Stryker) Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division at a June 7 news conference in Tacoma with opponents of the Iraq war.

 

[tomahawk6]

The Lt see's a future for himself in the democratic party.

 

[big bad john]

People like this "gentleman", disgust me.  Live up to your obligations and your word!

 

[geo]

Once you've agreed to take the King's shiling, it's pert hard to decite to attach some conditions after the fact..... nevertheless, I respect the man for staying there and facing the music VS the scumbags who have run off and crossed the border to avoid facing up to their responsibilities.

 

[vonGarvin]

Once you've agreed to take the King's shiling, it's pert hard to decite to attach some conditions after the fact..... nevertheless, I respect the man for staying there and facing the music VS the scumbags who have run off and crossed the border to avoid facing up to their responsibilities.

I agree.  He's stood up and said "No.  And I'll take the consequences for it."  In my mind, a much better man than those scumbags up here pretending to be heroes.

 

[tomahawk6]

Actually the people that deserve respect are those that deploy to the sand box with their units. The rest are cowards.

 

[big bad john]

Actually the people that deserve respect are those that deploy to the sand box with their units. The rest are cowards.

+2

 

[big bad john]

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1990254.php

Officer refusing to deploy willing to accept reprimand

Associated Press


HONOLULU — An attorney representing Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, who refused last month to deploy to Iraq, says his client is willing to accept other forms of administrative punishment in place of a court-martial.

The 28-year-old Kalani High school graduate decided against going to Iraq after researching the war and determining it is illegal. Watada is a member of the Army’s 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team. His unit deployed for Iraq on June 22.

Watada is willing to accept a reprimand, fine and reduction in rank instead of facing a court-martial for his refusal and made the offer to Army prosecutors this week, said Eric Seitz, Watada’s attorney.

 
However, Watada is not willing to accept any jail time as part of a pretrial agreement, Seitz said.

A pretrial hearing for Watada at Fort Lewis, Wash., is set for Aug. 17.

The Army has refused offers by Watada to step down as an Army officer and to serve in another combat zone, such as Afghanistan.

Watada was charged earlier this month with missing a movement, contempt toward officials and conduct unbecoming an officer.

If convicted, Watada could be imprisoned for more than seven years and dishonorably discharged, Seitz said.

Seitz said he hopes to negotiate a settlement for Watada similar to the one he worked out for Jeffrey Patterson, a Kaneohe Marine who refused to deploy to Kuwait in 1991.

Patterson was imprisoned for his refusal and then later released by a federal judge and administratively separated from the Marines.

Members of about a dozen groups gathered under the Nagasaki Peace Bell in Honolulu to support Watada on Thursday.

His father, Bob Watada, said his son is “only standing up for the Constitution.”

———

Information from: Honolulu Star-Bulletin

 

[big bad john]

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1998191.php

Hearing set for officer who refused to deploy

By Michelle Tan
Staff writer


First Lt. Ehren Watada, who in June refused to deploy to Iraq, will have an Article 32 hearing Aug. 17 at Fort Lewis, Wash., unless the Army accepts a pretrial agreement offered by his attorney.

Watada, 28, has been charged with missing movement, conduct unbecoming an officer and contempt toward officials. His Honolulu-based attorney, Eric Seitz, said his client is willing to accept a reprimand, fine and reduction in rank instead of facing a court-martial.

 
Seitz said Aug. 1 that Army prosecutors had not responded to the proposal. The Fort Lewis Judge Advocate General’s office declined to comment when asked about the proposal.

Watada refused to go to Iraq after he said he researched the war and determined that it is illegal and immoral. His unit, 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, deployed June 22 and is now in Mosul, Iraq.

Watada is now assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, Special Troops Battalion, I Corps, at Fort Lewis. The Army has denied his application to resign.

If convicted, Watada could serve more than seven years in prison.

 

[Devlin]

I'll agree that he is better than those that are heading north of the 49th parallel to avoid service (Side Note: Really not happy that we allow them to seek refuge here in Canada)

That said he signed on the dotted line just like the rest of us, what gives him the right to have a change of heart. What the hell did he think he was getting into? He has an obligation to fulfill

His Honolulu-based attorney, Eric Seitz, said his client is willing to accept a reprimand, fine and reduction in rank instead of facing a court-martial.

Reduction in rank indeed how about the rank of inmate.

 

[tomahawk6]

The Army better reject the offer by Watada's attorney and court martial this guy.

 

[Red 6]

I'll bet anything the Army prosecutors reject the "offer" from Watada's attorney. It would be a bad precedent if they accepted it. Especially for an officer, this sort of behavior is totally unacceptable.

 

[big bad john]

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2014310.php

August 10, 2006

Watada not allowed to resign

Associated Press


HONOLULU — The Army has rejected an offer by 1st Lt. Ehren Watada that would allow him to resign instead of putting him through a court-martial.

Two of his commanders rejected the proposal. And last Friday, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, who now commands Fort Lewis, Wash., also turned down the deal.

The 28-year-old Kalani High school graduate decided against going to Iraq after researching the war and deciding it is illegal. Watada is a member of the Army’s first Stryker Brigade Combat Team. His unit deployed for Iraq on June 22.

 
He is now scheduled for a pretrial hearing at Fort Lewis on Aug. 17.

Eric Seitz, Watada’s attorney, said the Army seems “to want to make a martyr” out of his client.

“If that is the case, then we are certainly eager to join issue with them because I think this whole episode is going to be much more embarrassing to the Army than it is going to be detrimental in the long run to Lieutenant Watada,” he said.

Watada made an offer last month to face a nonjudicial hearing, resign his commission and accept a less-than-honorable discharge has been rejected by his commanders.

The Army appears set to have Watada court-martialed and sent to prison, Seitz said.

Watada has been charged with missing a movement, contempt toward officials and conduct unbecoming an officer.

Watada could face up to 7 1/2 years in prison, forfeiture of all pay and dishonorable discharge, Seitz said.

Based on next week’s pretrial hearing, Dubik will decide whether Watada will face a court-martial.

Watada has been reassigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, I Corps since his refusal to go to Iraq. Already having served on tour in South Korea, Watada has said he would not object to serving in Afghanistan.

 

[jc5778]

+2

]

+3

 

[geo]

well.... of course the military wants to make an example of this guy.... if they allowed him to snub his nose at the system and walk away with any kind of discharge, under his terms, they'd likely have plenty more boys & girls attempting the same stunt.

Do not pass go
Do not collect 200$
go straight to jail!

 

[geo]

(well - with respect to the "coward" label, the man has stayed at his post and is facing the music.  He could just as easily gone off base for the weekend and come up to Vancouver for the duration + )

 

[tomahawk6]

Geo the reson he did not desert is that he hopes to pursue a career in politics like his daddy. Running off to Canada would not have been well received even by the lefties in Hawaii.

 

[Hatdag]

All this talk of whether or not a war is "illegal" drives me nuts.  Since when did war have to be "legal"?  If one country wants to wage war against another, then so be it.  Country A doesn't like Country B, so Country A invades Country B.  If other countries are not impressed with the way Country A has acted, then Country A will get what's coming to them, IF the will is there for a country(s) to deliver it.  End of story.

All this officer needs to concern himself with is the fact that his President ORDERED him to Iraq, so he can lead his men like he was trained to do.  As for 'morality', he's got a JOB to do today.  When his job is COMPLETE, he can look back and debate the morality of his deployment in the presence of his close friends and family.

I hope his government makes a good example of him, if for no other reason than deterrence to any other self-described legal/morality 'experts' out there.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

Hang him.

Simple as that. He is a coward refusing to go to war. He can't claim he was given an illegal order, this would be his only grounds for his actions. The order eh was given was legal, and as a soldier, it is not up to him to decide whether or not the conflict is moral or not, it is to do as he is told and lead his troops.

He should be made an an example of for all future officers, especially ones who come out of university infected with left-wing apologetic ideals.

I wonder what the regulations are? We did used to hang or shoot people who refused orders to deploy or move out in times of war. We are at war....well it's a war on terrorism...and as there is no state to declare war on we are at war with those who threaten our freedoms and our way of life. In times of war it is treason for a soldier to refuse orders to move out...sooooooo....I agree...he should be dealt with harshly. This whole thing by his lawyer is absolute bollocks and posturing...he knows this boy is in deep $hit and the Army doesn't have to do any deal at all. I'd say the Army should push ahead with the full weight of military law.