Lock Him Up
So an Army LT doesn’t want to go to Iraq because he would be participating in “the wholesale slaughter of the Iraqi people” and thus in war crimes. Huh. He wouldn’t seem to qualify for conscientious objector status, since there are (presumably) some people he’s willing to fight. So I say let him feel the consequences of his “conscience” and court-martial him. Joel, could we send him to Leavenworth?
June 7th, 2006 at 11:30 pm
QD,
He probably would not go to Leavenworth. That is where we send the most egregious criminals that receive exceptionally long confinement sentences, 10 years to life. I don’t think he will receive a sentence that long, although if I had anything to do with it he would. I think he is looking at multiple charges for violations of Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), orders violations and dereliction of duty. There are a few others that I could see applying to his case based on the comments he made in his video statement. Nevertheless, violating an order to deploy with his unit is what immediately stands out.
Let me add that I find this pathetic half-man to be a disgrace to the uniform and a coward. I hope he receives the maximum punishment and struggles with guilt and shame for the rest of his miserable life. However, on one level, I guess it was best that this excremental waste of carbon showed his true colors. I am relieved to know that no Soldier will have to worry about being under his command.
As a former artillerist it disgusts me even more to find out that he served in the King of Battle.
June 8th, 2006 at 12:06 am
QD–Always nice to see the level of charity those of you in the sainted culture of life demonstrate towards your fellow human beings. Good thing you’re no John Derbyshire!
June 8th, 2006 at 1:04 am
Now, if he had retired, and criticized the war, we would have said the honorable thing was to not go along with it.
June 8th, 2006 at 1:06 am
Jay,
I did not say he should die. I do think he should suffer the consequences for his behavior. One of those consequences should be remorse for his actions. As a Marine officer this probably bothers me more than it does you and the rest of your sainted members of the culture of no consequences.
June 8th, 2006 at 1:33 am
At a minimum, after his time served in the stockade, he should get a Bad Chicken Dinner, thus disallowing him to get any benefit from his time in service.
June 8th, 2006 at 3:54 am
There’s a somewhat more nuanced article here:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003044627_nogo7m.html
The Reuter’s article suggests that Watada applied for CO status but several other articles, including the Seattle Times article above, mention that he pointedly did not apply for CO status. He says he’d serve in Afghanistan but that he can not serve in Iraq because it’s not a just war. He also mentions that he shouldn’t serve because to do so is against the army’s Law of Land Warefare manual and because participation might be construded as a war crime.
He says he was encouraged to resign, tried to resign, and then the Army refused his resignation. Regardless, he’s naive if he thinks the Army can’t prosecute him and sentence him to hard time, regardless of the justness of the war. He’s both brave and stupid, IMO. This, for example, is not the kind of thing you want to say to avoid jail time: “”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.” No, you claim that your recent intensive reading of the Gospels and talks with the chaplin have compelled you to lay down your arms and you ask for CO status if you want to go AWOL and avoid jail.
Based on what I’ve read so far about Watada I don’t think he’s a “pathetic half-man”, “a coward” or “excremental waste” but he’s certainly choosen a tough row to hoe. No, of course, no army can tolerate soldiers going AWOL, esp. not officers and, yes, I think he should face a court-martial for both failing to show and for speaking out against the military leadership. However, since reasonable people–certainly a near-majority in the US at this point–are questioning the legal basis for the both the war and the conduct of the war, I think he deserves a fair hearing. And if he can defend his views, well, he should be allowed to resign.
June 8th, 2006 at 8:47 am
Unfortunately, no army can be sustained with this type of action. I think this guy should be punished, if for no other reason than to be an example for others. Choosing which orders to follow is simply not a luxury our soldiers can afford.
June 8th, 2006 at 8:51 am
Ramson’s eyepatch,
This man is a coward and he is devoid of honor. He voluntarily sought a commission as an officer in the Army AFTER the invasion of Iraq. Now, as the troops it is his duty to lead are preparing to deploy to Iraq he abandons them and makes public statements that, in effect, condemn them as war criminals if they deploy to Iraq. As someone who has deployed to Iraq and is getting ready to go back this summer I can appreciate the negative impact this stunt is having on his unit. Aside from every other concern his troops have during this time (making sure wills are up to date, trying to reassure wives, mothers, and children not to worry too much, mental preparation for the long deployment) now they have to deal with this joker turning his back on them and turning it into a media circus.
He will go to a court-martial and he will be convicted. Orders violations in a case like this won’t be hard to prove, you either obeyed the order to deploy or you didn’t. When you throw in his public video statement, well, he is the government’s best witness.
I agree that he is probably naïve as well as devoid of honor. However, if you think that he should be able to publicly disobey an order to deploy, leave his unit in the lurch, and simply get to resign with no punishment if he can make a good argument for his opinion then, you sir, are just about as naïve. The military simply does not work that way.
If the public no longer thinks we should send troops to Iraq then the public can demand that our elected officials change policy. However, until that policy is changed it remains the established policy of our government and the duty of military officers to carry it out. Members of the military do not get to unilaterally decide when they will or won’t follow the legitimate orders of their superiors due to personal feelings about public policy. Consequently, what a “near-majority in the US” may or may not currently think about the legal basis for the war and its conduct is absolutely irrelevant.
June 8th, 2006 at 9:19 am
To my way of thinking, as a veteran, his actions are a violation of the oath he solemnly swore when he was commissioned. The oath entails a vow to support and uphold the constitution and to obey the lawful orders of the commander in chief and his duly appointed chain of command. When you swear in as a soldier or Marine - especially as a re-enlisting non-com or as an officer taking a commmission, you have a full awareness of what that means, and it includes carrying out orders you may disagree with, and sticking to the vow even if it means your life, or enduring horrible pain, suffering and disfigurement. It is a vow before the nation and before one’s god, to give the last full measure of devotion to protecting the constitutional order, which in turn is a defense of the natural law. This is a significant thing.
If honor and oaths mean anything, they *must* be enforced. To fail to punish this insubordination - and his publicity-seeking sedition - would be to dishonor the oaths taken by the other two-point-something million active duty and serving reserve members, not to mention the honor invested in faithful service by all those who have come before and lived up to their oaths. This man, inasmuch as he calls himself that, disgusts me. He is shameful and it is to the everlasting discredit of the anti-warriors that they are making a hero of this cad.
June 8th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
Agreed that it should be enforced. Agreed that he should go to jail. Only agreed that he’s slime *if* he was commisioned after Iraq. There *is* a case for Iraq not being a just war. It is the duty of the individual, soldier or not, to avoid crime and evaluate the causes. This does not protect one from punishment as has been shown time and time again by our Lord.
June 8th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
Nick,
On NO level is serving in Iraq a war crime.
June 8th, 2006 at 2:41 pm
Nick, just war is a catholic theological doctrine. What he alleges is that the war is illegal.
The action is no way illegal, it was authorized by Congress.
And regardless of moral, ethical and philosophical considerations, the oath isn’t to uphold “those orders that the pope would feel are meritorious.” The oath is to carry out the “lawful orders” of the C-in-C, and to uphold the constitution. There’s no conscience clause in the oath, and no subsequent opt-out; and it doesn’t really matter if you have quibbles with the policy. For these reasons St. Paul cautions against taking oaths, because an oath is binding. But then if your conscience is so finely developed that you will evaluate your duty to fight on behalf of your country based on whether you feel the war passes vatican muster, then you probably shouldn’t be in the business of killing people and blowing shit up to begin with.
June 8th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
dishonorable discharge would be good enough. i do not think he is a bad man or even a coward…i just think he does not want to go fight in a war that he thinks is wrong. but when he signed up he knew he had a duty to his country. this is not some case where they asked him to kill prisoners or women and children(like with your own gun you know not dropping bombs or ordering troop movements) or some other such thing that was clearly wrong….they only asked that he do his duty
June 8th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
So, if you swear an oath that tricks you into morally wrong action you are bound by the oath?
“I swear to hold this door open no matter what!”. Then if Granny starts moving in front of a bus I must cling to the door rather than moving her from in front of the bus? Sure, he promised to do something so lock him up. However, we can’t presume that he *is* evil (the name calling). Confused? Maybe. Wrong? Could be. Evil? Not likely. Unless compelling evidence is given that he was a coward we shouldn’t call him a coward. Unless compelling evidence is given that this is some stunt we shouldn’t call him slime.
As for Just War, Ransom up above implies that at least one story presented his position that the war was “unjust” not “illegal” (obviously false). I maintain that a soldier is bound to evaluate whether a war is just. He is not morally excused if he commits an act that is against his conscience. I am not Catholic, I come from a rather pacifistic tradition (even though I am not one myself). I have sympathy for the position, even if I’m not willing to defend him from doing the time. If he’s a true believer he will submit to the time.
June 8th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
I have sympathy for our military commenters here. This is a very difficult issue. The unquestioned obeyance of orders is, except in the most extreme circumstances, critical to battlefield success. (The annals of the Civil War are rife with battles lost because of lax discipline and “independent-minded” subordinates.) If there were a forced draft then CO status is possible but must be carefully vetted. But this man volunteered for service knowing full well that he might be called upon to fight. I can’t muster the fury that a serving man might feel, but I can understand the sense of betrayal.
I consider myself something of a physical coward, which is why you’ll never hear me slight a soldier or a policeman. I have nothing but respect for anyone with the courage to wield a weapon and enter battle knowing his life is at stake–especially if he does it on behalf of weaklings like me. I feel sad for this man’s inner conflict, but I can’t understand joining the armed services unless I knew I was willing to go the full mile. If one wants to serve, there are other ways of doing so that don’t put your fellow soldiers at risk.
June 8th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
I wonder how he can resist the natural urge to go overseas and take care of the men he’s trained with. He doesn’t seem to have the mindset of a successful infantry officer, so maybe this is a blessing.
June 8th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
i almost joined the armed forces in 2000 but my mama would not let me. she did not want me to go and fight (im the only son and the baby to boot) many of my friends did join never thinking that 911 could happen and their mothers cried when they got on those jets to go to afganistan and iraq but those boys went. they might have cussed and cried and hated it but they went because they signed up and as sad as their mamas were to see them go they were proud to have sons who were men that did their duty.
June 8th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
50 years from now if the history books call these wars wrong and evil those mothers will still be proud that their sons did their duty
June 11th, 2006 at 10:30 am
“So, if you swear an oath that tricks you into morally wrong action you are bound by the oath?”
“Tricks you”? He tricked the Army by swearing an oath that he didn’t mean. He silently reserved the right to disobey lawful orders if they conflicted with his finely-tuned and conveniently-timed conscience.
“I The Great Watada, having been appointed a Lt./Commander-in-Chief in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.”
As I look at this oath, I’m having trouble identifying any clause which he did honor. Except for cashing the paychecks, naturally.
Watada is a deserter. He has deserted his country, its Constitution, his oath, his army, his fellow service-members, his subordinates and his God–if he has one besides himself.
A deserter, yes. But not just a deserter. He has also pre-emptively and seditiously accused the troops under his command of being war-criminals–in advance of their deployment! Even John Kerry waited for his fellows to serve before slurring them!
I smell a bid for the Democrat nomination.
“Watada in ‘36!”