Capitol Hill Blue Forums Hot Topics & Breaking News News Lieutenant faces court martial for opposing Iraq war

Steve, with respect, please point out where I said either of those two things. I said that the defense would appeal, they did, and the military appeals courts agreed with my analysis. To my knowledge, I never said boo about what Judge Settle would do, because I didn't know about it until after the fact. Further, I never said that the defense requested a mistrial. I said that it was for Watada's benefit. That was, indeed, the point that Judge Head made. Please, stick to the posts, and be careful with aspersions.

I missed this post before I made my last post, so I will provide my response:I don't remember that I deleted any post, but I stand by my previous comments you quoted above. I have no respect for 1LT Watada, and I have made no bones about that. I will iterate, I have no malice toward him.

In context, I think the comments above are not nearly so malicious as you perceive, but I accept that one can take them that way. I spoke about his lack of responsibility as an officer, I spoke about what I believe to be a personality defect - literally - a condition known as " Narcissistic Personality Disorder", and I noted that among my peers, even liberal ones like me, he is reviled. Note, I did not say I reviled him, but my peers do. My feelings, while "deep and visceral" are not personal to him, but to what he has done and the poor example he has set as an officer. When I say he is "a selfish, dishonest, and dishonorable individual who has done incredible disservice to the uniform he wears" I am speaking of his actions. Selfish and dishonorable because he has betrayed the trust of the Soldiers he was appointed over, and dishonest because he has not kept his story straight. I know he is a hero to you, Steve, and I know that because I do not hold him in the same regard that is unpleasant, but I do not personally detest him (like I do Reagan and Bush). I think he is misguided and manipulated and grandiose. I don't think he is evil.

FurtherI think my previous post addressed this, but I will simply ask, as you have done above, to kindly show where I was mistaken.

NWP, I apologize, I know you have laid it all out before, but there has been so much written about this, could you please restate your justification for your statement?

Specifically, if you agree that this is an illegal war, and that an officer has a duty to the Constitution that he is required to disobey the order to deploy, than what is the correct path? And would that include jail time?

At the same time, if the war is illegal, is the order to deploy illegal? Who should be charged, and how should the remedy be carried out?

Good questions, Reality, and I will try to be succinct (although it is something I am sometimes not so good at):

First, I absolutely agree that an individual has the right to make decisions of conscience, and to the extent that is what 1LT Watada has done, I support his ability to do that (even if I suspect his motivations). That being said, sometimes conscience has consequences, and that can include adverse consequences (and I believe should in this instance).

Second, although I agree that this war was instituted without justification (or inadequate ones, anyway), the reality is, we are now there. I'm not sure I would necessarily say it was illegally entered into (in the international law sense), although I might have. It was and is wrong, though, on a policy, moral and pragmatic basis. It was stupid and dishonestly initiated. This is a slightly different premise, then, than what you stated above.

Third, I earlier made a distinction between levels of authority and what the Soldier's individual responsibilities are. 1LT Watada bears no responsibility for the initiation of hostilities as it is beyond his "moral compass" - e.g., within his authority to control. The burden and guilt for that decision is at the "national command authority." Now that we are in hostilities, however, that question is irrelevant to his deployment (which is what Judge Head ruled in the case). I do not believe he has the legal or moral authority to refuse deployment, which is wholly different than actions he might actually take once he is actually on the ground.

One point that I think I have not articulately made before is this, and it is critical to my position: My oath is to obey the Constitution and those appointed over me. Part of that, in my view, is that the military is subordinate to civilian authority, and the President, whether I like him or not or agree with his policy decisions, is the Commander in Chief appointed over me. I cannot, consistent with my responsibilities, simply decide on my own which orders I will obey or disobey unless they are specifically precluded by a higher authority. Specifically, the Constitution itself or the Geneva Conventions as made applicable through it. For example, if I were ordered to execute or torture prisoners, I would have the legal and moral authority to refuse that order, and I would have no defense of "following superior orders" if I did not. That decision would be within my "moral compass," and if I refused it, I would have a legal justification for my action. In my view, the decision to deploy is not one of those instances. Going to Iraq, being in Iraq is neither legally nor morally proscribed. What I do while I am there will be guided by my own conscience.

Now, as to who should be charged and how that should be carried out I cannot express an opinion. It is not that I don't have one, I do, but my current position precludes me from expressing it. I will note, however, that legal precedents regarding those decisions do exist, and include trial before a properly constituted international tribunal (a la Nuremberg), and Impeachment by the Congress or trial by an Article III court constituted under the United States Constitution, or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice as is appropriate to the defendant's status.

Sorry for waxing so philosophic. It is a product of my profession and personality. Was that clearer?

You suspect his motivations? You suspect? I would say that your statements about his motivations are far more than mere suspicions, they are unequivocal. You did not say you suspected he was suffering from a personality disorder. You did not say you suspected his intent was to garner publicity. You did not say you suspected he was trying to avoid combat duty.


Duly noted and corrected.

Yes, I recall that first part now, thanks. Incidentally, does the fact that we are "in hostilities" really make any difference, with respect to his refusal to deploy?

In any event, I see your point - following orders is absolutely essential, as long as they do not violate the oath... and the act of deploying itself is not unconstitutional. For that matter, neither is going out on patrol, or shooting someone in self-defense. I wonder at what point could any soldier's refusal to obey an order be constitutionally (legally) defensible (assuming the hypothetical of an illegal war)?

You gave a good example of an order to torture; but what of an ordinary act of war, such as commandeering a house, or calling in an airstrike perhaps? I don't know where the line is drawn, but I'm trying to think of things that are defensible in war, and indefensible without.

Of course, wouldn't it be a failure of command to send a soldier out whom is known to command to have conflicting ideas over what may be lawful and what may not?


Yes, absolutely. I also appreciate that you know you are walking a careful line and are still willing to go there.

I thought there were some treaties kicking around where it is explicitly stated that unprovoked wars of aggression are in themselves crimes against humanity, or some such pap. If this is the case, would not accepting deployment in such an action be immoral and criminal?

Such is the argument of the Bush-haters and those who wish to see the destruction of all that is America and I sometimes find it difficult to parry these assaults with more than "It was not unprovoked". Though a simple Truth, the haters continue to lay down a barrage of irrelevancies; ignoring the fact that the president, by definition, cannot "break the law" while pursuing his constitutional duty to protect the Homeland.

Though I do not advocate it for myself and clearly understand the position of so many of my political brethren to rather serve the Nation in ways more suitable to their abilities and position, once one signs up for the military, one should assume a "life long" commitment to follow the Commander-in-Chief wherever he should order.

The ultimate consequence is that those who serve will sooner or later encounter a situation - e.g., a deployment - about which we have considerable trepidation. Specialist New encountered such a situation WRT deployment with a UN force; Lieutenant Watada encountered it with a deployment to Iraq.

An example of a convenient sense of ethics was exhibited during the first Iraq war by those members of the Guard/Reserve who discovered that their service was not necessarily about weekend drills and some income or benefits for tuition but actually involved risk to their persons.

I'm learning more and more, and NWP's inferences about Watada's motivation are disturbing. However, because of my lack of detailed familiarity, I'm reserving judgement - giving him the benefit of the doubt - as to the purity of his ethical basis for refusal.

Soldiers are not normally given a choice as to what orders they will or will not accept. Should Specialist New have been offered a chance to serve other than with a UN force? Is/was his crisis of conscience any less worthy of consideration than is that of Lt. Watada?

I'd think that he'd simply resign his commission first, rather than try to bargain, if it was a matter of the utmost moral concern to him. Is/was he still obligated to a term of service?

And Specialist New was equally willing to accept the consequences of his principled refusal, and I don't think he was in much of a position to bargain for a different assignment.

I make no pretense as to understanding the legal matters involved; however, I do hope that the officer in question gets as full a court review as did New.

Of course, there is always the other side of the coin: What about soldiers refusing orders for matters of conscience that you or I might find unconscionable?

Many seem to forget that salient point in the rush to applaud an officer refusing orders in what many consider an unjustified and illegal war...

...However, were this some hawkish senior officer - MacArthur comes to mind - who was, as a matter of conscience, refusing to follow the orders of both his military and civilian superiors and was seeking to broaden a war, would so many be lining up to endorse his moral clarity?

What of an officer who, again as a matter of conscience, refused to enforce the don't-ask-don't-tell rule on homosexuality and actively sought to locate and expunge homosexuals? Or who refused to accept women into his command...?

At what point does a soldier's conscientious objection to an order cease to be a moral action to be appreciated and instead pose a threat to the good order of the service and to its subordination to lawful authority?

Ron, you have asked a very cogent question. I don't want to give a flip response, but I do want to highlight it. I intend to come back to it later.