Although both Watada and Lakin both committed the same act (refusal to deploy), they did so for very different reasons. Watada said he believed the war in Iraq to be illegal and that, under the doctrine of command responsibility, it would make him party to war crimes. He probably has some sympathy here for this point of view - although it is not true, it is at least a debatable point, and people can present the pros and cons.
Lakin refused to deploy because he believes that Obama was not born in the USA, and is not president. This is undeniably false, and is not open to argument.
Because finding Iraq to be an illegal war is something that is debatable. Finding that Obama isn’t American isn’t debatable.
Watada asked to be sent to Afghanistan instead (on the idea that the war there isn’t a cowboy-retard’s vanity project). Agree or disagree with him the case that Iraq isn’t a just war is at least not something only a delusional person could believe.
Actually both were wrong. A soldier has no right to refuse a lawful order, if they refuse an order and it is found that the order was lawful (which it will be found, almost always–especially when the order is a deployment order) then they deserve whatever consequences come from that.
You do not get to make your own political judgments about which orders are lawful and which are not. Soldiers certainly have an obligation to refuse an unlawful order, but the entities that decide what orders are lawful and what orders aren’t get more or less final say in that. Anything else is just random opinion that has no meaningful bearing on how the U.S. military actually functions.
Most of the time you refuse an order, you’re going to be punished for it. Most orders are lawful, and the military is volunteer to join but you obeying orders isn’t something that is done on a volunteer basis, once you’re in it is a criminal act to disobey an order.
I will add this though, when the Obama justice department had the case against Watada dropped they pretty much make themselves hypocrites by not doing the same for other lunatics.
(And if the Obama administration agreed with Watada’s claims that the war in Iraq was an unlawful war, then why are we still there? Continuing criminal behavior because someone who was ahead of you in line had already initiated the criminal action doesn’t absolve you of guilt.)
Watada was right about the illegality of the war, I mean. Lakin is objectively wrong about Obama’s birthright citizenship.
As I noted, I don’t think the fact that Watada was right about the war signifies; he should have resigned (or attempted to resign) immediately if he didn’t want to go. Instead, he waited until he received his deployment order, just like the birthers, and by 2006 the Iraq War wasn’t an illegal invasion but a justifiable and necessary police action anyway.
ETA: the current military activity in Iraq is not a continuation of the original invasion; it’s an obligation we created for ourselves when we destroyed the existing power structure.
Actually the legality of the Iraq war currently is not debatable.
For two reasons:
The authority to conduct military operations against Iraq was approved by the United States Congress via the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law No: 107-243).
Doe v. Bush, 323 F.3d 133 (1st Cir. 2003) was a case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, concerning the legality of the invasion of Iraq. Similar cases filed during the First Gulf War and the Vietnam War all came to the same ruling that the First Circuit Court did: that this was not a matter appropriate for judicial review and that it was clearly within the Congress’s authority to grant the President this power, and within the President’s lawful authority to execute said power once granted.
We could then of course expand this argument to international law, and the debate becomes more interesting. However, doing so is pointless for the specifics of the Watada case. Pointless because for the legal rights and responsibilities of a member of the United States military, U.S. law is paramount and is the final say.
It is fairly conclusive and without doubt that under U.S. law, as the law stands now, the invasion of Iraq was done lawfully. Was it wise? Was it moral? Did it comply with international law? We don’t have answers to those, the wisdom/morality of it is more an opinion matter. The ability to rule on the legality (under the most commonly accepted international legal regime) of a war is held by the U.N. Security Council, since the United States and the United Kingdom can veto anything in that body, the reality of the politics means the war will never be declared technically illegal by the U.N. (The base political nature of that process shows that the U.N. isn’t really a very good arbiter of things, and it’s not any sort of independent or supra-national authority on such matters.)
I think a lot of people have a hard time wrapping their head around the fact that bad law, stupid law, dangerous law, immoral law, can be perfectly constitutional i.e. perfectly legal. But that’s our system.
From a legal standpoint there is no basis for Watada’s argument that the war was unlawful. From a military standpoint, I would question the wisdom in vigorously prosecuting the case, primarily because it’s a very complicated issue and from a pragmatic standpoint the easiest thing to do in such case is just usher the person out of the military. Trouble makers are often pushed out of the military without any criminal proceedings because most of the time that is better for all parties involved. Since Watada was one of the few (only?) people to refuse deployment, we weren’t looking at a rampant and deleterious movement that was hurting military readiness. If that had been the case then it would have been prudent to vigorously prosecute at least some of the individuals involved to attempt to set an example.
The Obama administration, however, having chosen a relatively pragmatic approach with Watada has a hard time avoiding looking like hypocrites if they don’t end up doing the same thing in this case. If the birther thing became more widespread, I could see the pragmatism in trying to make an example of someone, though. That’s the only real difference I see between these two cases. Watada was an isolated incident. If this guy is just the tip of the iceberg of birthers refusing to deploy, then it’s a serious problem and you would have to make an example of someone.
Possibly the Obama administration is being hypocritical and possibly they believe the war is unlawful. Or - possibly they agreed with U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle who ruled that Watada couldn’t be tried again because double jeopardy applied. Remember, the Obama administration didn’t drop the original charges. They dropped an appeal of the ruling on double jeopardy.
Both the invasion and the current activities in Iraq are approved via legislation from the United States Congress (the branch of government with declaration of war powers), and the Federal court system ruled during the buildup to the invasion that there was nothing to rule on, and that it was perfectly within the powers of the executive and legislative branches to conduct the war.
How is the invasion any different from the current activities in Iraq? Since from a technical legal perspective, they both operate under the exact same legal mechanism.
Watada’s argument was based primarily on international law, not on domestic law, although his argument that the AUMF was passed due to falsified evidence regarding WMDs has some merit.
From a “technical legal perspective” (thank you counselor) the current activity in Iraq is completely dissociated from the original invasion because the current Iraqi government has authorized it.
The Iraq invasion was unquestionably a war of aggression, which are pretty clearly prohibited by the UN Charter, etc.
In any case, the legal rights and responsibilities of members of the United States military are protected by the Geneva Conventions from violations by their own government as well as foreign ones.
Then I guess I would be perfectly correct in referring to Obama as “President of the Pacific Northwest,” and David Paterson as “Governor of Westchester County.” John Roberts is CJ of the whole country, not just of one part (albeit the pinnacle) of the Federal judiciary.
Unlike your examples, there is essentially no semantic difference between a “chief justice of the United States” and a “chief justice of the Supreme Court” in ordinary speech. The distinction is merely an arbitrary choice regarding an official title. To argue otherwise is not only pedantic quibbling, but it also ignores the commonly accepted meanings of the phrases, which are identical. It’s like insisting that no one should ever refer to Obama as “the U.S. president” because the Constitution refers to the “President of the United States of America.”
And this is especially true since prior to Chase, the official title actually was “of the Supreme Court.” (Note that the Constitution itself refers only to the “chief justice.” The official title is set by statute.) That, plus the fact that the other justices are officially “of the Supreme Court” and not “of the United States” emphasize that the phrases “chief justice of the United States” and “chief justice of the Supreme Court”–not to mention common usage–are equivalent in meaning.
Other than in official ceremonial use, there is absolutely no reason to avoid saying “chief justice of the Supreme Court.”
The legal cover used by the Bush administration was that Iraq was violating the terms of its surrender and that the invasion was warranted. Keep in mind that more than a few countries (including Security Council member UK) declared the invasion to be legal.
To me the only difference between Watada and Lakin is the degree of nuttiness.
None of what you are saying has any basis under the laws of the United States. If you had read my post you would note that in terms of determining disciplinary action, the only law that applies is that of the United States. The Geneva convention is a treaty in which the parties agree to a prohibition of actions, not a criminal code.
Additionally, it is the sole province of the U.N. Security Council to officially declare that a war is illegal (under the international law legal framework), and it never did that in regards to the invasion of Iraq.
The fundamental difference between the two cases is one is a refusal to follow an order because the order is questioned as possibly a war crime. The other is a refusal to follow any order because it denies the authority of the Commander in Chief himself.
That is a difference, and a very important one. Can a soldier decide that he will not follow the Commander in Chief’s orders?
They’re the exact same, disobeying any order is disobeying the authority of the rightful military command structure, which includes the President as the Commander in Chief.
The reason for the disobedience is difference, however in some ways the logic of the actions is similar.
Watada was putting forward his legal opinion that the war against Iraq was illegal, and thus he felt he was absolved of his requirement to obey orders directing him to participate in said war.
The birther is putting forward his legal opinion that Obama is not legally the President.
Both opinions have no basis in U.S. law, and in fact clearly violate clear, obvious principles of U.S. law.
The only difference is this, there are valid arguments that the invasion of Iraq could violate international law. However, until some body with authority rules that it did, this is just parlor talk.
Since the U.N. Security Council has never ruled the invasion illegal, then there has never been any actual legal decision carrying weight indicating the invasion was illegal (opinions of third parties don’t count.)
On the domestic end of things, no U.S. court has ever found the invasion illegal, and since specific legislation authorized it, we can only presume it legal.
Either way you have a member of the military putting their legal judgment above that of judges and legislators.
I don’t think it is as much of a difference as you think. Lt. Watada was charged with missing movement and conduct unbecoming - Lt. Col. Lakin faces essentially identical charges. The difference you see involves only their motive - which matters little here.
In neither case were these men asked to do anything illegal - they were given perfectly legal orders to go somewhere with their troops. The cases are just about identical from the viewpoint of military justice, and ought to be punished similarly.