All very true. I was just saying that in the specific case of Watada, he hadn’t even satisfied his initial obligation, as he joined the Army only in 2003.
Seems pretty cut and dry. The order he is charged with disobeying was not “Iraq war” because there is no such order on the level of a soldier. The order was “board this plane.” There’s no way under the sun that he could argue that boarding a plane is itself an illegal order. Once he was in Iraq and actually ordered on a specific mission he disagreed with, that might be plausible. But the military’s form of justice is very legalistic and literal. The order was getting on the plane. Unless he can show that THAT would would have violated some law, domestic or international, he’s toast.
At the risk of Godwinizing this, Mr Moto, and yielding to your superior knowledge of the circumstances where one is permitted/obliged to refuse an unlawful order, imagine a bizarro world scenario where it’s September 2, 1939, and Lt. Upright gets an order to deploy for Poland, where Roosevelt has concluded a treaty with Hitler that we’ll aid in the invasion. IMUninformedButHO, that surely ranks as an unlawful order. Would it have been? If there are circumstances that would have varied it from lawful to unlawful, what are they? Without putting this in a political-issues context, distinguish between those circumstances and the present War in Iraq. (I am not trying to play a political “gotcha” game here, but to grasp the distinctions being drawn, and asking you for clarification by setting an extreme example and then attempting to grasp the line as you see it.)
I’m not going to answer the hypothetical.
What I will say is that if Lt. Watada values his principles more than his commission, his orders or the law, it puts him in the position of civil disobedience. And that tactic doesn’t work unless those people who practice it are willing or at least able to endure a period of imprisonment or other civil penalty, especially one as light as he will likely get.
Ours is a free society, but also one ruled by law. I won’t compare it to Nazi Germany in your example, Polycarp. Lt. Watada has options Lt. Upright did not have. Nobody is going to shoot him.
I’m a little curious as to why that would be an unlawful order. What law is the lieutenant breaking by obeying it?
Generally, in international law, you keep your troops out of another country without an agreement to be there.
However, going in isn’t necessarily illegal - it is an act of war, which is another thing entirely.
Right. So Roosevelt might be breaking international law in sending troops in, but that doesn’t mean the Lieutenant is breaking the law by following his orders.
And of course, no German soldiers were prosecuted at Nuremberg merely for taking part in the invasion of Poland or France. Now, some of those soldiers did commit war crimes during the war (such as rounding up and murdering Jews), but merely shooting at Polish or French soldiers in a war of aggression was not a war crime.
That doesn’t mean German soldiers were ethically obligated to take part in the invasion of Poland. It would have been moral for them to refuse. Except then Hitler would have had them shot.
Which is why I didn’t consider Polycarp’s analogy very apropos. The most Lt. Watada will have to suffer for his “moral” stance is a couple of years in a stockade and a bad conduct discharge.
Only, there were (and rightly so). The second count of the indictments in the main Nuremberg trial was for planning and waging wars of aggression (the third, separate count was for war crimes committed in the course of these wars), and as you can see from the Wikipedia article not only members of the political Nazi leadership were convicted on that second count but also senior professional soldiers.
Yes, but if you look at the trials of the High Command, you see that one of the charges against them was:
“Crimes against peace by waging aggressive war against other nations and violating international treaties.”
and, as Wikipedia puts it:
I was a bit over-broad. Yes, the very top Generals and Admirals were prosecuted…Raeder, Donitz, Jodl, Keitel. Plus a few hybrids, like Goring. Does the head of the SS count as a soldier?
But only the very tippy-top were ever prosecuted. So if there ever were a Nuremberg style war crimes tribunal (which there won’t be, of course) I suppose the Joint Chiefs and the head of CENTCOM would be analgous.
The contention that the order to get on a plane to Iraq was an order to commit a crime is laughable. It doesn’t matter whether the war was legal or illegal or under what laws it was illegal or legal, the order was a legal order.
I agree with you and I made this same distinction in an earlier thread on Lt Watada. I also made the same point that you seem to be making - that while there is a possible defense to be made in general because of a war’s illegality, it doesn’t apply in this particular case.
Probably nothing. Waging the war itself might be a war crime but a lieutenant will not be held responsible for waging the war. That would be reserved for people like Bush on down to maybe Franks.
As an educated man was Watada under the impression that he had some sort of a vote about which military actions he deigned to take part in?
Maybe he thought he was entitled to special priveleges not granted to the other lesser mortals that are doing the job?
I think his moral dilemma should have been taken in to consideration by the “powers that be” and that he should have been excused service in Iraq on ethical grounds .
And sent instead to the shittiest “hot spot” in Afghanistan or maybe be appointed as an observer on the Somali /kenyan border.
But no doubt they would be considered illegal operations to this paragon of deeply held principles?
Perhaps a nice little posting to Hawaii maybe?
Or maybe he could lay his life on the line for his country defending Florida ?
Some of those theme parks can get PRETTY hairy at times.
I like your line of thinkiing, but the military cannot be in the business of sending people where they want to go. No, this clown needs to not only go to jail, but to be made an example of and be given a much stricter sentence than the four years I’ve been hearing about. I do like the idea of him spending some time helping those who have been severly wounded in Iraq.
As a military Officer myself, I’m offended by his conduct, and I hope they max the guy out. As has been stated before, the war was going on before he joined. The Army had 100K plus boots on the ground. It didn’t occur to him that he might get orders to Iraq? He has every right to protest and say he’s against this war, but we can’t pick and choose what lawful orders we follow. And I don’t believe for a second that he really thinks deploying with his unit is unlawful. But what really angers me is that as a fire control Officer, he would have played a major role in supporting young troops on the ground, and would have played a significant role in helping them come home alive. He has put his safety ahead of this troops - not a good role model as a leader.
He may have a moral objection to the war, but he did join up after the conflict was already in progress. Where was his moral conviction then? Why didn’t he refuse to participate if he thought it was wrong? I think his object in joining was to do something like this.
Legally, I don’t think he’s got much of a chance. Like it or not, it is an authorized conflict at this point. The order was, as far as I can tell, lawful.
He staged his objection in such a way as to draw attention. I think he’s setting himself up as a civil disobedient. When you do that, you’re actually less effective if the charges against you are dropped by the authorities since inducing some kind of debate or controversy is how you get whatever it is that you are protesting against changed. I think he will be convicted and he will be discharged.
No matter what, he has no future in the armed services. From what I understand, even under the most extreme of extenuating circumstances, disobeying an order is viewed with suspicion. The officer giving you an unlawful order could be cashiered, but you will still face a court martial for your conduct, and future commanding officers may look at you as a troublemaker even if the court finds no wrongdoing.
I personally believe he should be discharged. Though I am somewhat sympathetic, I think he joined under false pretenses, and I think he has handled the whole issue badly. I have no strong opinion on his punishment. He could get off or spend the maximum time possible incarcerated and I wouldn’t protest much either way. He knew the possible penalty when he objected to following his orders. There’s no way an officer would not know the penalty for refusing an order.
Charges are being refiled. A new trial should begin sometime soon.
To make a long story short, the government eventually dropped the charges against him. Ehren Watada is a free man, enjoying civilian life. His court marshal ended in a mistrial, due in large part to the reluctance of the court to adjudicate the legality of the war. The Obama administration dropped the appeals process May 6 of last year.
I hate to resurrect a zombie thread, but a brief search of this board showed this to be the last discussion of this issue, so it seems appropriate to post it here.