View Full Version : Army officer says won't fight in "unlawful" Iraq war
Monsoon65
06-07-2006, 19:30
Just saw this on Yahoo. Hope the link works.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2628&ncid=2628&e=2&u=/nm/20060607/us_nm/iraq_usa_officer_dc
Bill Harsey
06-07-2006, 20:43
That's been in the regional news around here all day.
Yeah, I've been watching this on local news. Had to stop and puke on a number of ocassions. I forgot we are not a culture of warriors anymore and that we join the military to get a free ride to college. In case you haven't guessed I'm from Washington State. We join here to be an Army of One. Since when? My daughter-in-Law is a friggin' truck driver going back on her second tour. She is a little Phillipino girl that can handle a 50 cal on top of a deuce. She told my son (who put his 6 years in) she loved it and was going back. Of course being an upstanding American Male (bred on Oprah) he puked his brains out and checked his balls because his wife may have stolen them. Guys, I'm going back to Mexico.......no explanation needed. Love "Q".
incommin
06-08-2006, 05:26
Where ever you walk you will find crap. He is just another pile!
Slantwire
06-08-2006, 06:06
From Hawaii, apparently ethnic Japanese (probably has no familial / historical ties to the theater in question). Served one tour in Korea, and is announcing his refusal to go for his FIRST tour in Iraq.... in other words, he's never been.
And yet he "knows" that there is "...wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of the Iraqi people" and "[his] participation would make [him] party to war crimes."
Well, if he participated in wholesale slaughter and mistreatment, it would make him party to war crimes. How can he claim that such would happen? Is he so out of control that if he goes, he'll perform wholesale slaughter? Don't think that's what he's saying.
The guy's almost certainly younger than me, how is he such an expert? What does he know, how can he claim to know what's going on over there? And why does he feel the need to hold a ****ing PRESS CONFERENCE??
:mad:
Shutting up.
uboat509
06-08-2006, 06:29
This just kills me. I can't get sent to Iraq to save my life but this asshat is refusing to go? My gut is telling me that this guy is full of crap. He is an artillery officer and now all of a sudden he has strong convictions against the war? I wouldn't be a bit suprised to find that he just discovered that he would actually have to do a dangerous assignment and this is his way of avoiding it.
SFC W
A little fantasy........I would bust him to E-1 and send him over as a chaplins assistant. Once his 12 month tour is over...off to prison with him.
aestreet
06-08-2006, 07:41
This story kinda reminds me of all my friends who had joined the national guard and reserves to avoid going to war and go to school instead, boy weren't they surprised? Its sad to see a person who is supposed to be in a leadership position crap all over his guys in an attempt to make an "ethical protest".
CPTAUSRET
06-08-2006, 07:49
I understand that there are a great many who are AWOL from their units, some missing shipment to a war zone. We can't just single this one glaring a$$hole out, we need to apprehend each one of them and utilize the UCMJ.
Then, you can Court Martial this Lt, reduce him, give him hard time, and a DD...There go his political aspirations!
Terry
I hope he's tried to the fullest extent of the UCMJ and ends up in Leavenworth for the rest of his miserable life making small rocks outta big rocks.
x SF med
06-08-2006, 08:44
Why the hell did this wimp ever join the military? How the hell could he have taken the oath if he was planning on reneging on his promise at the first possible instant. Shoot him and get it over with, this is the kind of puke that would get his men killed because he'd question the authority of those appointed over him - I'll stop now before I get myself in trouble.
edit (ok had to get this out of my system) If he's worried about being associated with wholesale slaughter and war crimes - why did he join the military? If he's a 2LT, this war was in progress when he took his commission, and if he was an ROTC scholarship student, he just did it for the $$ - honor and integrity demand that he fulfill his commitments.
Team Sergeant
06-08-2006, 09:36
Why the hell did this wimp ever join the military?
My guess would be to make a statement. He joined the military when we were fighting hard in Iraq. I'm betting he was just waiting for orders to Iraq so he could "refuse" to go and make headlines.
TS
Slantwire
06-08-2006, 09:53
If he's a 2LT, this war was in progress when he took his commission, and if he was an ROTC scholarship student, he just did it for the $$ - honor and integrity demand that he fulfill his commitments.
He's a 1LT, I think. The article says he joined the army in 2003. Probably started ROTC in fall 1998 assuming he could get a free degree, do four years and get out.
9/11 must have been a terrible shock for the poor boy. But not so bad that he refused a tour in Korea with soju and hazard pay. Betcha he wouldn't refuse an assignment to Germany, either.
I'm torn between saying he should be forced to go and see what the real world can be like, or saying he should be tossed in the stockade so he doesn't get anyone else killed.
Airbornelawyer
06-08-2006, 10:45
He's a 1LT, I think. The article says he joined the army in 2003. Probably started ROTC in fall 1998 assuming he could get a free degree, do four years and get out.
9/11 must have been a terrible shock for the poor boy. But not so bad that he refused a tour in Korea with soju and hazard pay. Betcha he wouldn't refuse an assignment to Germany, either.
I'm torn between saying he should be forced to go and see what the real world can be like, or saying he should be tossed in the stockade so he doesn't get anyone else killed.
He was commissioned through OCS. There is no reason to suppose that his motives in seeking a commission in 2003 weren't noble and that he simple had a change of heart, or more appropriately a loss of heart, subsequently.
Notwithstanding that, I disagree with Terry and sdiver. Imprisonment or dishonorable discharge? I would proffer charges under Article 85 and Article 99, with notice to seek the death penalty. The punk thinks a simple AWOL charge would be the bad-old Army "piling on"? The soldiers under his command who go to Iraq do it knowing they are risking their lives to do their duty; if he thinks his judgment is so much better and his principles so much stronger than his superiors, he should be ready to risk his life on his little gamble as well.
CPTAUSRET
06-08-2006, 10:52
He was commissioned through OCS. There is no reason to suppose that his motives in seeking a commission in 2003 weren't noble and that he simple had a change of heart, or more appropriately a loss of heart, subsequently.
Notwithstanding that, I disagree with Terry and sdiver. Imprisonment or dishonorable discharge? I would proffer charges under Article 85 and Article 99, with notice to seek the death penalty. The punk thinks a simple AWOL charge would be the bad-old Army "piling on"? The soldiers under his command who go to Iraq do it knowing they are risking their lives to do their duty; if he thinks his judgment is so much better and his principles so much stronger than his superiors, he should be ready to risk his life on his little gamble as well.
I have np problems with seeking the death penalty in this case, just don't think it will fly! Also don't think you can single him out, when MANY are AWOL, having missed shipment, and they have not even been apprehended. I say we go after all of them, males, females, every last one of them.
x SF med
06-08-2006, 11:00
AL-
I think he could probably get hit with disobeying a lawful order, I'd love to see him also get hit with treason in a time of war - which still does hold the death penalty. I think he should be horsewhipped, put in stocks for 30 days and then see if he'll fulfill his sworn duty. If he won't, then go for the Court Martial, seeking the maximum penalty - and hopefully it'll go to the rope. Honor and integrity above all set the truly professional soldier above the poseurs and politically minded, he fits the latter categories to a tee.
aestreet
06-08-2006, 11:20
I agree with tracking down our AWOLs, if you have lost all of your morals, and have gone off the deep-end enough to abandon your country and your duty, than its time you stop enjoying its freedoms.
Airbornelawyer
06-08-2006, 11:55
I have np problems with seeking the death penalty in this case, just don't think it will fly! Also don't think you can single him out, when MANY are AWOL, having missed shipment, and they have not even been apprehended. I say we go after all of them, males, females, every last one of them.
He is not merely AWOL. Articles 86, 87 and 92 are just the lesser included offenses. He has publicly stated that he will not fulfill his oath, that his morality and judgment are superior to that of his commanders, and that his country is engaging in "[t]he wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of the Iraqi people."
"Any member of the armed forces who ... quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service.... is guilty of desertion. Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently is guilty of desertion. Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct... ."
"Any person subject to this chapter who before or in the presence of the enemy ... through disobedience, neglect, or intentional misconduct endangers the safety of any such command, unit, place, or military property; ... is guilty of cowardly conduct; [or] ... willfully fails to do his utmost to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy any enemy troops, combatants, vessels, aircraft, or any other thing, which it is his duty so to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy; ... shall be punished by death or such punishment as a court-martial may direct."
"Any person subject to this chapter who ... willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct... ."
CPTAUSRET
06-08-2006, 11:59
So, would it have to be a declared "war" ratified by both houses, to qualify him?
Airbornelawyer
06-08-2006, 12:24
No. I don't have time to pull it up, but there has been extensive discussion over the past few years on the net regarding whether we are "at war" as a legal matter. I believe there is also case law, evolving out of some of the terror and detention cases. The consensus is that we are.
My Constitutional Law professor says we are at war, based on the theory of "constitutional gloss."
By authorizing the President to act via the Authorization for Use of Military Force (http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html), and appropriating the necessary funds, Congress has in effect waived its power to declare war. The Supreme Court, in the recent Gitmo cases, has held that the President is authorized to wage the GWOT. Thus, the three branches have interpreted congressional authorization coupled with the funding to mean the President is authorized to carry out the GWOT.
incommin
06-08-2006, 14:14
Does it have to be a declared war? As the Commander in Chief, if he has the authority to dispatch troops, isn't that enough? Does that not make it legal? If Congress says "We give you the authority to do what is necessary to combat terriorism"; isn't that a blank check to act?
Don't forget he could also be guilty of sedition and mutiny via his statement that "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."
So he is essentially encouraging mutiny which according to UCMJ art. 94 (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;
(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.
Another reason to put him to death.
I understand that there are a great many who are AWOL from their units, some missing shipment to a war zone. We can't just single this one glaring a$$hole out, we need to apprehend each one of them and utilize the UCMJ.
I've heard that AWOL instances have actually dropped since the war began. Maybe I'm misinformed.
CPTAUSRET
06-08-2006, 17:15
I've heard that AWOL instances have actually dropped since the war began. Maybe I'm misinformed.
Maybe.
Maybe the rate has dropped, and there are still a hell of a lot of AWOLs.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-07-deserters_x.htm
Monsoon65
06-08-2006, 18:32
This loser does piss me off. As the story said, he's NEVER even been there! He gets orders, and suddenly he's applying for CO.
Someone senior needs to break their foot off in his ass.
Warrior-Mentor
06-08-2006, 20:28
Time to make big rocks into little ones....who is he to pontificate with a press conference the way he did? He smells like a liberal opportunist. He had no problem taking a pay check until the deployment orders arrived. Did he not understand his oath?
Tangodown_inc
06-08-2006, 21:15
This guy must make the Officer Corps proud. I wonder how much tough guy talk he spouted in Korea? Of course he wasn't staring across the DMZ every morning from Camp Greaves. On top of that all the moral issues he just created in a group of soldiers he was supposed to lead in combat.
Kingfisher
06-09-2006, 05:45
A little time in Kansas to reflect on his decision is in order.
x SF med
06-09-2006, 07:20
What Branch is this guy? I don't think it says - if he's not CA he's doubly a wimp, if he is CA he's an honorless, self serving, loser. The SOB VOLUNTEERED to join the ARMY as an officer, to protect and defend the Constitution, and more importantly to protect and defend the men under his command while making sure the mission is accomplished. This puke has no excuse, and no moral or ethical ground to stand on in my book. You do not have to believe in every policy to do your sworn duty, honor demands that you follow through on an oath, they are not mutually exclusive - I think most of us here on the board do not agree with every policy in this administration, but if asked to do a job in the purview of our chosen profession (or in some cases former profession) we would do it, and question it later - our Team depends on our skills, and our country depends on the Team doing its job.
sorry 'bout the rant all - this guy just makes me want to break out the Rem 700, 36" barrel, w/ a Zeiss 40x400 - and practice harrassing fire, one limb at a time.
Simple Simon
06-09-2006, 08:11
It amazes me at all those who joined before Sept. 11, 2001 for a free ride, money, college, etc and now that there is a war on all the sudden some feel that deploying is not in their job description. Do your damn duty, in some countries military service is mandatory, what would these pukes do then.
Whatever happened to the saying "Don't think just react" quit analyzing the war and using it to make a statement. It is not your job to analyze what is right and wrong in the war on terror, you have duty to you country, do it and get out if you disagree with the administration. Take your freakin' orders and move out. He took the oath, in peace and war. Well the war is on LT suck it up, do your job and shut the hell up. By the way he disgraces the officer corps, who are supposed to be leaders, what kind of example does this set for all those soldiers on the fence. "Well if the LT is applying for CO status so am I"
Life at Leavenworth for being among other things a coward.
I'm disgusted by this fellow officer.
Sorry for the rant.
Airbornelawyer
06-09-2006, 08:33
What Branch is this guy? I don't think it says - if he's not CA he's doubly a wimp, if he is CA he's an honorless, self serving, loser. The SOB VOLUNTEERED to join the ARMY as an officer, to protect and defend the Constitution, and more importantly to protect and defend the men under his command while making sure the mission is accomplished. This puke has no excuse, and no moral or ethical ground to stand on in my book. You do not have to believe in every policy to do your sworn duty, honor demands that you follow through on an oath, they are not mutually exclusive - I think most of us here on the board do not agree with every policy in this administration, but if asked to do a job in the purview of our chosen profession (or in some cases former profession) we would do it, and question it later - our Team depends on our skills, and our country depends on the Team doing its job.
sorry 'bout the rant all - this guy just makes me want to break out the Rem 700, 36" barrel, w/ a Zeiss 40x400 - and practice harrassing fire, one limb at a time.
Field Artillery
I signed onto his web-site and signed his petition of support...as Abu musab al-Zaqhari and thanked him for his support of al-qaeda.
Team Sergeant
06-11-2006, 15:07
I signed onto his web-site and signed his petition of support...as Abu musab al-Zaqhari and thanked him for his support of al-qaeda.
LOL, why did I think of that!
Warrior-Mentor
06-11-2006, 19:44
I signed onto his web-site and signed his petition of support...as Abu musab al-Zaqhari and thanked him for his support of al-qaeda.
I'm sure we could find a couple other knuckle heads to sign the petition...
UBL
al-Iraqi
Khomeni
Che
Mickey Mouse
Anything to undermine their efforts...
Proof yet again that's it's far better to have a p***y than to be one. I'd give my right arm (literally) to be back in the game, and this fool pisses it away..no doubt with these intentions the entire time.
I'd give my right arm (literally) to be back in the game...
Not your left nut? :p
CPTAUSRET
06-11-2006, 21:27
Not your left nut? :p
I bet she'd offer up yours!:D
Go For Broke
06-13-2006, 12:59
And this is the legacy he is descended from...Whatever happened to the concept of On and Giri?
NISEI LEGACY
“As sons set off to war, so many mothers and fathers told them, live if you can, die if you must, but fight always with honor, and never ever bring shame on your family or your country. Rarely has a nation been so well served by a people it so ill-treated.”
- President William Clinton
On May 8, 1945 Germany surrendered. Five months later Japan surrendered. The war was over. The men in the 100th Infantry Battalion, 442nd Regimental Combat Team and the Military Intelligence Service had fought the enemy in Europe and in the Pacific. But there was another enemy to fight - prejudice.
During basic training in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, the Japanese American soldiers were bewildered and angered by the segregated buses and bathrooms. They were neither black nor white. America’s naturalization laws put them in the same racial limbo. Immigrants of Caucasian or African ancestry could become citizens, but nothing was spelled out for Asians until 1882, when the Exclusion Act barred citizenship to the Chinese.
There were more than 500 federal, state and local laws and ordinances aimed at “persons ineligible for citizenship.” Racists claimed that because “Orientals” couldn’t be American citizens, they were entitled to fewer rights than other immigrants. They were denied the right to own land or buy homes. Some states even barred interracial marriages. Other barriers prevented the Japanese from engaging in a variety of businesses from hairdressing to law.
In spring 1942, America committed one of the worst crimes against human rights in its history. The government rounded up more than 110,000 persons of Japanese ancestry who were living in West Coast communities and forced them into U.S. concentration camps. Meanwhile, in Hawaii, 2,500 miles closer to the enemy, the Japanese were not incarcerated. Why? In Hawaii 38 percent of the population was Japanese, while only 25 percent was Caucasian. Hawaii couldn’t afford to lose 40 percent of its workforce - especially in wartime. Plus, Hawaii didn’t have the ships to transport 160,000 resident Japanese. In addition, many powerful leaders in the military, government and community urged tolerance. As a result roughly 1,000 high-risk Japanese from Hawaii were interned.
Despite the Nisei’s stupendous war record, anti-Japanese sentiment remained strong - especially on the West Coast. In spring 1945, Americans of Japanese ancestry started to leave the barbed wire camps located in desolate areas of the U.S. to return to their homes and businesses - those few who still had them. Anti-evacuee elements used practically every weapon short of lynching and murder to keep the Japanese from returning. Near Sacramento, California, the house belonging to the family of a Nisei soldier was set afire. Near Santa Ana, California, the Masuda family received death threats while the local police did nothing.
General Joseph Stillwell was outraged. He personally presented the Distinguished Service Cross medal to Mary Masuda. Mary’s brother Kazuo was killed in action, and he earned the medal for his courageous fighting at “Little Cassino” in Italy. Stillwell said, “They bought an awful hunk of America with their blood. . . You’re damn right those Nisei boys have a place in the American heart, now and forever. We cannot allow a single injustice to be done to the Nisei without defeating the purposes for which we fought.” Fortunately, many other Caucasian soldiers protested loudly about the ill treatment of the Nisei and their families.
But they had their work cut out for them. After all, in 1943 the Commander of the Western Defense, Lt. General John DeWitt, had said “A Jap’s a Jap. . . They are a dangerous element. . . There is no way to determine their loyalty.” Mainland newspapers published a steady stream of inflammatory lies about alleged acts of sabotage and espionage. One report implied that the Japanese had deviously marked crop fields to point toward an aircraft plant in California and toward the city of Seattle. Another said that 20 Japanese possessed 100 Nazi swastika pins. Other Japanese farmers were accused of sabotage when they were found with explosives - something commonly used to blow up the tree stumps when clearing vegetable fields. The logical explanations were never quiet as exciting as the original alarms. None of these claims of treason were ever proven.
The rumors of treasonous activity in Hawaii were also wrong. This point bears repeating, because many Americans have not heard it before. There were no acts of sabotage, espionage, or fifth column activity committed by the Japanese in Hawaii, prior to December 7, on December 7 or subsequent to December 7, 1941. All of the officials who would know, agree on this point - the Secretary of War, the Honolulu Chief of Police, the Chief of Military Intelligence for Hawaii, and the Director of the FBI.
After the war, the Nisei vets returned to Hawaii to much fanfare and celebration. The war, and its numerous sacrifices and injustices certainly accelerated the process of statehood for Hawaii. In 1954, Americans of Japanese ancestry gained political control of the Hawaii territorial legislature. In 1959, the territory of Hawaii became a state.
Throughout the islands and the mainland, the walls of racial discrimination began to crumble. In 1952, the Nisei’s parents finally won the right to be naturalized U.S. citizens. It was their sons’ sacrifices to save the “Lost Battalion” that helped convince Congress to change the law.
In 1988 President Ronald Reagan signed one of the most important pieces of legislation to Japanese Americans, the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. The act ordered the U.S. government to provide reparations of up to $20,000 - and most importantly - an apology to those incarcerated in America’s concentration camps.
From 1996 to 2000 , the Army reviewed the records of the Nisei who won Distinguished Service Crosses and determined that 20 deserved to be upgraded to the U.S. Army’s highest military honor. In 2000, President William Clinton awarded 20 Medals of Honor to Japanese American soldiers (19 DSC upgrades and 1 Silver Star upgrade) - many were awarded posthumously.
More than 650 men from the 100th Battalion and 442nd Regimental Combat Team never came home. They died in hospitals or on battlefields. Another 3,500 were wounded.
As 442nd Veteran Rudy Tokiwa said:
“There’s a lot of us that never came home. But I think in thought they are home. The guys went overseas and gave their lives to prove that we are Americans. And we’ve all got to be thankful.”
Like many Nisei, 442nd veteran Frank Shimada doesn’t like to speak about the war:
“I’m not too keen. . . talking about these things. But I owe it to those guys who didn’t come back. Because in telling my story, I could be telling some of their stories too. Their stories need to be told. Some of the guys don’t want to talk to other people about it. I tell them you know when you die, what you know goes with you, and its gone forever. At least if you tell somebody, it will be here for the next generation.
Today, many Asian Americans take their rights for granted. They did not live under the discriminatory laws barring immigration, naturalization, land ownership and inter-racial marriages.
Recently, Arab Americans were treated with suspicion after the terrorist attacks in 2001. Japanese Americans were the first to protest when government officials discussed discriminatory treatment. They knew that when the rights of one minority are threatened, the rights of all are threatened.
These quiet, humble American heroes taught a country about patriotism, honor and tolerance. We must not ever, ever forget that lesson.
Goggles Pizano
06-13-2006, 14:04
This guy is a turd. Flush him. A sentance of "death by firing squad" is appropriate adjudication. F-ing coward!:mad:
x SF med
06-13-2006, 14:46
Razor - that wasn't nice - and if I wasn't trying to stay alive, I could make a comment about a leftmost part of XX anatomy that is generally frozen off by broom riders..... easier for Blue to give up I presume. (ok, how forfeit is my life? goodbye all, it's been fun)
Can't wait to see what happens to him. I'm guessing not much, since there is such a large group of supporters: http://www.thankyoult.org/
Wonder if there is any truth to this. Still irrelevant if you ask me:
The REAL reason he refused to go...? (http://honolulu.craigslist.org/rnr/169551605.html)
A little video clip:
Anti-American Idol (http://hotair.com/archives/vent/2006/06/08/anti-american-idol-ehren-watada/)
http://www.khnl.com/Global/story.asp?S=5117494
Army Charges Lt. Watada
July 6, 2006 03:13 AM CDT
HONOLULU (KHNL)- Hawaii residents react to what's shaping up to be a controversial international case, centered around a Hawaii-born soldier.
The Army filed three charges today against First Lieutenant Ehren Watada who refused to deploy to Iraq last month because he believes the war is illegal. The charges are conduct unbecoming an officer, missing movement and contempt toward officials.
Defense attorney Eric Seitz says military lawyers calculated 28-year-old Watada could face seven and a half years in prison and a dishonorable discharge if convicted.
Watada is reportedly in good spirits tonight, just hours after the army read the charges against him. His father Bob Watada says, "I'm very concerned for my son but when you do the right thing you feel ok, you feel good. He did the right thing and I'm very proud of him."
Seitz is not surprised Watada is charged with missing movement but-- "we were flabbergasted the army made charges that he was disrespectful in some of the statements he's made to the media."
Seitz expects a battle about first amendment rights. "Obviously those charges are being used to muzzle opposition in a way that I think is very unprincipled."
Opponents, like veteran Jack Schneider, say Watada deserves prison time. "I don't think it's enough. Being a veteran I know what it's like to be in a combat zone where people are saying things that are detrimental to the mission."
Watada's father says his son is ready to pay for his beliefs. "If that's the price to pay for him standing up then he's going to go to jail. He's prepared for it."
Seitz expects Watada's first military hearing - called an Article 32 - at the end of this month, and his court marital to start in the fall.
Watada is a member of the Army's first Stryker Brigade Combat Team. He refused to go to Iraq after researching the war and determining it to be illegal. He said he would be willing to serve in Afghanistan or elsewhere.
The Army refused to allow him to resign his commission because his unit is covered by a stop-loss policy and he has not fulfilled his service obligation, which ends in December.
The Reaper
07-06-2006, 18:23
I don't care where he is from or who his lawyer is.
He needs to go to jail and be an example to others. As an officer and a leader, he has violated his oath, as well as the trust, confidence, and loyalty of his soldiers and superiors alike.
I vote for the GCM and hard time. The Federal felony conviction will follow him and will make him wish he had chosen another path for the rest of his life.
The deployment orders are from competent authority and are not illegal.
He must follow them, or pay the piper.
TR
Monsoon65
07-07-2006, 00:37
"Watada is a member of the Army's first Stryker Brigade Combat Team. He refused to go to Iraq after researching the war and determining it to be illegal. He said he would be willing to serve in Afghanistan or elsewhere."
Since when can someone pick and choose their fights? He'll fight in Afghanistan, but not Iraq? If that's the case, I don't want to fight in either anymore. I'll save myself for when we decide to go to war against Bermuda or New Zealand.
Give him the GCM and some jail time. Let him stew over his decision when he's working at the car wash with that loser from the Coast Guard Academy.
The nicest way I can put it on this site is that I agree with TR. Let him go through the system, serve his whatever time and live with it. I just hope his time in prison , is hand digging canals or smashing granite boulders into sand for 30 years. he should feel lucky if that were the case. Even if he got Afghanistan, I doubt the puke would have lasted long.
Ghostrider
07-07-2006, 11:29
GCM and time.
(rant on)What in the heck can a FA 1LT actually "know", given the fact he hasn't even been there? A large group of my unit just came off 20+ months at NTC and volunteered for a trip to the box to make a more "real" contribution to the effort and this clown "feels" it wouldn't be right. :mad: (rant off)
Airbornelawyer
07-07-2006, 12:10
I don't care where he is from or who his lawyer is.
He needs to go to jail and be an example to others. As an officer and a leader, he has violated his oath, as well as the trust, confidence, and loyalty of his soldiers and superiors alike.
I vote for the GCM and hard time. The Federal felony conviction will follow him and will make him wish he had chosen another path for the rest of his life.
The deployment orders are from competent authority and are not illegal.
He must follow them, or pay the piper.
TR
As I noted a few pages back, The soldiers under his command who go to Iraq do it knowing they are risking their lives to do their duty; if he thinks his judgment is so much better and his principles so much stronger than his superiors, he should be ready to risk his life on his little gamble as well.
The Army in my opinion has dropped the ball and dare I say betrayed the trust of the soldiers who do their duty without fail. Rather than charge under Article 85, or even Article 86, they went with Article 87. Rather than charge under Article 90(2), they went with Article 88, which will allow him to play up the political martyr angle. I know Article 99 would have been a stretch, because they would claim it was not "before or in the presence of the enemy," but as far as I am concerned it is more than valid.
All he faces now is a lot of adoring publicity from leftists looking for a martyr and who don't know cowardice from courage, a few years in jail while the troops of his battery risk death, and a book/movie deal. And the Federal conviction will follow him just long enough for President Gore/Kerry/Clinton/Obama/Dean/Moulitsas to pardon him.
Monsoon65
07-07-2006, 14:51
All he faces now is a lot of adoring publicity from leftists looking for a martyr and who don't know cowardice from courage, a few years in jail while the troops of his battery risk death, and a book/movie deal. And the Federal conviction will follow him just long enough for President Gore/Kerry/Clinton/Obama/Dean/Moulitsas to pardon him.
That's a depressing thought to start the weekend off.