Lt. Refuses to go to war. Claims he does not need to follow illegal orders.

Asylum Forums : Powered by vBulletin version 2.2.8

Asylum Forums > Políticás der Monde > Lt. Refuses to go to war. Claims he does not need to follow illegal orders.

Pages (4): [1] 2 3 4 »

Last Thread Next Thread

Author

Thread

mudded
Too drunk to fish

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: is futile
Posts: 4983

Lt. Refuses to go to war. Claims he does not need to follow illegal orders.

quote:

..."First Lieut. Ehren Watada has become the Army's first commissioned officer to publicly refuse orders to fight in Iraq on grounds that the war is illegal. The 28-year-old announced his decision not to obey orders to deploy to Iraq in a video press conference June 7, saying, "My participation would make me party to war crimes."
Source

This could be an interesting court marshall, as there no shortage of legal experts to back up his claims.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

A preoccupied vegan named Hugh
picked up the wrong sandwich to chew.
He took a big bite
before spitting, in fright,
"OMG, WTF, BBQ!"

Last edited by mudded on 07-06-2006 at 11:50 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

07-06-2006 11:30 AM

Click here to Send mudded a Private Message

[P]

Smug Git
Arrogance Personified

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35561

They can't let him win, I don't think, even if he presents the best case possible and wins support. If you start letting soldiers judge the legality of a war then you're not going to have any sort of effective military.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

07-06-2006 01:43 PM

Click here to Send Smug Git a Private Message

[P]

mudded
Too drunk to fish

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: is futile
Posts: 4983

quote:
Originally posted by Smug Git
If you start letting soldiers judge the legality of a war then you're not going to have any sort of effective military.

well it is too late for that apparently

quote:
From that same article:
In 2004, Petty Officer Pablo Paredes refused to board his Iraq-bound ship in San Diego Harbor, claiming to be a conscientious objector. At his court-martial, Paredes testified that he was convinced that the Iraq War was illegal. National Lawyers Guild president-elect Marjorie Cohn presented evidence to support his claim. The military judge, Lieut. Cmdr. Robert Klant, accepted Paredes's war-crimes defense and refused to send him to jail

Wiki On Pable Paredes
Wiki On watada

I'm not sure how the cases are different, apart from their rank.

cheers
-m

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

A preoccupied vegan named Hugh
picked up the wrong sandwich to chew.
He took a big bite
before spitting, in fright,
"OMG, WTF, BBQ!"

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

07-06-2006 02:46 PM

[P]

Trenchant_Troll
ad hominid

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24302

He should get a fair trial before they shoot him.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Politicians are like diapers, they should be changed often, and for the same reason.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

07-06-2006 03:01 PM

Click here to Send Trenchant_Troll a Private Message

[P]

mudded
Too drunk to fish

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: is futile
Posts: 4983

His arguments aside, he is no public speaker.

Public Adress

He aparently isn't against war per say, just illegal ones.

Cheers
-m

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

A preoccupied vegan named Hugh
picked up the wrong sandwich to chew.
He took a big bite
before spitting, in fright,
"OMG, WTF, BBQ!"

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

07-06-2006 03:26 PM

[P]

Cruise Director
nobody special

Registered: Jan 2001
Location: Zion
Posts: 4444

I can't wait until the draft is over! Oh, he volunteered for the service? I'm going to bet that somewhere in the fine print of his contract with Uncle Sam, it points out that there might be a chance he'd have to go to war.

But he's right. He shouldn't have to go to war. Uncle Sam should let him out of his contract with a dishonorable discharge. As soon as he pays back every penny he's earned and the money he's cost the government in training.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

07-06-2006 06:16 PM

Click here to Send Cruise Director a Private Message

[P]

Trenchant_Troll
ad hominid

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24302

quote:
Originally posted by mudded
His arguments aside, he is no public speaker.

Public Adress

He aparently isn't against war per say, just illegal ones.

Cheers
-m

After watching that I changed my mind about the trial part.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Politicians are like diapers, they should be changed often, and for the same reason.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

07-06-2006 06:21 PM

[P]

Smug Git
Arrogance Personified

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35561

quote:
Originally posted by Cruise Director
I can't wait until the draft is over! Oh, he volunteered for the service? I'm going to bet that somewhere in the fine print of his contract with Uncle Sam, it points out that there might be a chance he'd have to go to war.

But he's right. He shouldn't have to go to war. Uncle Sam should let him out of his contract with a dishonorable discharge. As soon as he pays back every penny he's earned and the money he's cost the government in training.

Well, he doesn't have to obey illegal orders, however he joined up. I just can't see it being the case that obeying the orders of the President, authorised by Congress, to go to war, is going to be an illegal order. Even if the case was sound legally, they'd still have to find a way to kill it.

This calls for some kneejerk and pointless populist legislation in Congress.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

I want to live and I want to love
I want to catch something that I might be ashamed of

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

07-06-2006 06:35 PM

[P]

SimpleSimon
?

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 15982

quote:
Originally posted by Cruise Director
I can't wait until the draft is over! Oh, he volunteered for the service? I'm going to bet that somewhere in the fine print of his contract with Uncle Sam, it points out that there might be a chance he'd have to go to war.

It isn't in the fine print. What is in the fine print is a requirement to refuse an unlawful order, which most certainly includes an order to participate in an illegal war.

Together, the constitution and various legislative acts pursuant thereto, along with duly ratified treaties to which the US is a party, define what is a legal war. The current conflict is in violation of several treaties, and in direct violation of the constitution.

quote:
But he's right. He shouldn't have to go to war. Uncle Sam should let him out of his contract with a dishonorable discharge. As soon as he pays back every penny he's earned and the money he's cost the government in training.

I see no evidence of a refusal to go to war. I see evidence of a man who, acting upon his convictions and his understanding of his legal obligations as a military officer, is acting courageously at considerable personal risk.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

"...the last thing somebody crippled wants is your pity—and maybe not even your sympathy—he just wants to be normal again, just like everybody else. Every gesture of caring becomes a slap in the face, a reminder that you are not well. So damn your sympathy, damn your caring, how dare you stand over me, perfect and healthy, and offer your help and your secret condescension.

" - John Varley, Steel Beach

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

07-06-2006 06:39 PM

Click here to Send SimpleSimon a Private Message

[P]

Trenchant_Troll
ad hominid

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24302

If you want to characterize the war in Iraq as a policy mistake, that is fine and your prerogative, but to define it as illegal is fantastic hyperbole.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Politicians are like diapers, they should be changed often, and for the same reason.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

07-06-2006 06:46 PM

[P]

SimpleSimon
?

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 15982

It is in fact illegal, in direct violation of committments made by the US when it ratified the UN Treaty, amongst others.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

07-06-2006 06:49 PM

[P]

Trenchant_Troll
ad hominid

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24302

Ah yes, the UN: bastion of commitment and follow-through. Please.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Politicians are like diapers, they should be changed often, and for the same reason.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

07-06-2006 06:53 PM

[P]

SimpleSimon
?

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 15982

They have taken their lessons on treaty violation, political corruption, and consistency well. Much of them from the US, along with others. Nevertheless, the fact of the UN's failures does not in any wise excuse our own.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

07-06-2006 06:57 PM

[P]

Trenchant_Troll
ad hominid

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24302

The President and the military do not swear allegiance to the UN, Simon.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Politicians are like diapers, they should be changed often, and for the same reason.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

07-06-2006 07:00 PM

[P]

Cruise Director
nobody special

Registered: Jan 2001
Location: Zion
Posts: 4444

quote:
Originally posted by SimpleSimon
It is in fact illegal, in direct violation of committments made by the US when it ratified the UN Treaty, amongst others.

Show me.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

07-06-2006 07:03 PM

[P]

SimpleSimon
?

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 15982

quote:
Originally posted by Cruise Director
Show me.

Look it up, lazy man. I did.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

07-06-2006 07:19 PM

[P]

Cruise Director
nobody special

Registered: Jan 2001
Location: Zion
Posts: 4444

I don't want the black sedans and helicopters to show up on my lawn.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

07-06-2006 07:23 PM

[P]

SimpleSimon
?

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 15982

quote:
Originally posted by Cruise Director
I don't want the black sedans and helicopters to show up on my lawn.

I don't have a lawn, the lease is in SLH's name. No worries.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

07-06-2006 07:24 PM

[P]

Paint CHiPs
Viva Le Me

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26383

quote:
Originally posted by Trenchant_Troll
If you want to characterize the war in Iraq as a policy mistake, that is fine and your prerogative, but to define it as illegal is fantastic hyperbole.

According to the US Supreme Court, our policy in a lot of areas of the GWOT (including Iraq) is a war crime. People can gnash their teeth about the connotation of that all they like, but according to the Geneva Conventions (which is law in our country, btw, lest there be any question), international treaties (law as well), as well as US constitutional law, much of what we've been doing is illegal. Of course, at that level, legal questions are impossible to separate in practical terms from political ones, but the legal questions, more and more, are looking to have pretty black and white answers, that we are currently on the wrong side of.

I wonder how that ruling (long overdue) would play into this--I bet it's the primary thing he's basing his case on (hence the timing).

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

07-06-2006 10:38 PM

Click here to Send Paint CHiPs a Private Message

[P]

Paint CHiPs
Viva Le Me

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26383

quote:
Originally posted by Trenchant_Troll
The President and the military do not swear allegiance to the UN, Simon.

No, they swear it to the US constitution, which includes this bit (Article VI):

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Now, that's not as liberally applicable as some would have it, and where treaties and the US constitution conflict, the constitution wins out (treaties do not supplant the constitution). Where they do not, treaties are law, as affirmed by the constitution. And, of course, it's a hard case to make when the president is violating both the applicable treaties and the constitution (most of the relative treaties have already passed judicial muster in the states anyway, long ago, including the UN and Geneva Conventions).

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

07-06-2006 10:43 PM

[P]

Trenchant_Troll
ad hominid

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24302

Yeah and we are supposed to pay our dues to the UN too. And we are supposed to apply our laws (i.e. regarding illegal immigration, etc.) and we don't. There is a distinct difference between what occurs in the real world and what is bantered over lattes by theorists. In the real world the Unithed Nations is an oxymoron, treaties are ignored daily, and if you bring a knife to a gunfight, whether it is on principle or not, you die. It really is that simple. The rest is the claptrap that luxury allows.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Politicians are like diapers, they should be changed often, and for the same reason.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

07-06-2006 10:51 PM

[P]

Talarohk
The Pedanticator

Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 5073

So we should just ignore the Constitution, laws, and treaties whenever the administration decides that obeying them is inconvenient or makes its goals difficult to accomplish?

That seems to throw the idea of a government subject to its own laws out the window. Either we are bound by our own laws, or we aren't.

Of course, we routinely ignore some Constitutional principles, too (all powers not given to the feds are reserved for the states or people), but that doesn't mean we should ignore *everythng*. It means we should quit ignoring the ones we currently ignore, or change them by legal means.

Living by the laws of the country, and demanding that the government do likewise, is NOT a luxury. It is one of our core principles.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

07-06-2006 11:03 PM

Click here to Send Talarohk a Private Message