This morning marks the first day of Lt. Watada’s court martial for refusing deployment in Iraq. He refused deployment orders to Iraq because he concluded that the war in Iraq was an illegal war and if he participated in the war, he would be guilty of war crimes. He faces up to 4 year accomodation in a military prison (which is a true sink-hole) if found guilty for conduct unbecoming of an officer, missing troop movements, and contempt toward officials. He did not deploy with his unit last June to Kuwait City.
Although Bush’s war in the middle east was based on unfounded evidence, let’s focus on Watada’s decision. He’s a commissioned officer in the United States Army. He swore an oath to–
“obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.” (http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/faq/oaths.htm)
So do soldiers have a right to refuse to fight if they find the war to be immoral? His lawyer, Seitz believes so. Soldiers are not granted the same rights as civilians, they tell you this before you join. You sign away a lot of your rights to be in the military, and Watada was not conscripted, drafted or gang-pressed into the military. He volunteered like every soldier currently in the US military.
It’s also stated in the uniform military code of justice that a soldier is required to follow “lawful orders” [(UCMJ) 809[890].ART.90 (20)], but it doesnt say whether or not he has a right to refuse immoral orders. The code probably leaves this out on purpose because morality is such a relative term to each soldier. So that leaves the question of whether or not Bush issued a lawful order into Iraq.
(I have this sneaking suspicion that he’s doing all this for the ladies…)
There are some scenarios where a soldier ought to refuse an order. For instance, if the soldier is ordered to torture a prisoner to get information or to throw a grenade into bus full of nuns, he ought to refuse. However, this is an extreme, and the difficulty with these things is the cut off point. It seems to be just as arbitrary as deciding when the cut off point for abortion is legal.
You can’t have a functional and effective army if each soldier reserves the right to refuse to fight whenever they find something immoral; however, you don’t want an army that will blindly go “yippie-kai-yay” and follow orders without restraint. That’s what separates a professional army from gangs of ethnic cleansing in Serbia.
I think Watada knows that he’ll be found guilty, but what I’m wondering is whether or not his act was unbecoming of an officer. Isn’t it an officer’s duty to exercise restraint when he believes that an order is unlawful?
February 7, 2007 at 12:30 am |
Regardless of whether or not the war is illegal, Watada is circumventing the very processes of Democracy which the war, illegal or not, aims to protect in Iraq. He is bound by law to the military, and by not deploying, he is in clear violation of his duty as a human being living in an ordered society to uphold his end of the social contract, which in and of itself is above any notion of law, or legality.
Consider this paradox: as a nation, we are both responsible and at the same time, with the exception of our leadership, unaccountable for our communal actions. There would be civil disorder otherwise. If I knew I would personally be responsible for the atrocities our government commits overseas, I would stop functioning. I would stop working, stop respecting the rule of law, and stop performing any function which aids the government in any way, shape, or form. This is what makes non-Democratic nations weak. In a Democracy, I know that there are civil processes I can undertake to change the direction of national policy while still being a productive member of society, knowing that though I am acting in the interests of the state by going to work and holding up the economy, I can actively work against any decisions I disagree with because there are institutions in place which allow me to do so without tearing the fabric of order.
At this point in the Iraq war, if any war crimes have been committed, they have already been committed and we are in the process of cleaning it up. The army isn’t being sent to invade a nation. We already invaded a nation. What we’re doing is cleaning up our mess by protecting the mess we call a coalition government – hardly illegal, most certainly not immoral. This whole thing stinks of self-interest and cowardice. Though self-interest is the basis of any capitalistic society, it is self-interest within the bounds of the social contract that are desired and necessary, not anarchistic decisions that occur outside process. Watada needs to be made an example of.
February 9, 2007 at 3:26 pm |
If for no other reason, can we please not throw Watada in prison because it would be such a shame to spoil such hot Asian meat? We’ve got a scarcity of good-looking Asian men as it is. It’s like the affirmative preservation measures taken by conservationists to save the koalas because they’re an endangered species. Save the koalas. Save the Watada. So what if he’s a bleeding heart liberal? He’s Asian. His vote won’t matter anyway.
Such a shame he had to be an Asian male. Of course they’re going to make an example of him and chuck him in prison. Now let’s say he was a White woman. I bet they’d show her leniency. “Aw, poor silly little girl who can’t control her emotions and probably ovulating. Just send her home to Mama with a box of Midol.” Or what if he was a Black man? NAACP would have his back. Regardless what the facts were, it’d become a race issue for sure. Do we have an equivalent to the NAACP? No. Of course not. At least he’s not gay. Gay and Asian? Man, would he be screwed. Literally.
I’m pretty sure Watada will be found guilty. He’s not a very sympathetic character. Yellow boy evokes zero pathos from any average American whose opinion would even matter in this country. He simply makes for more interesting news on MTV than, say, Anna Nicole’s death.
February 14, 2007 at 11:02 am |
I’m glad that in the history of mankind, no major decision has never, ever been made as a result of the lusts of someone with an overanxious lidibo. Never. Ever.
February 14, 2007 at 7:46 pm |
Please let the record show that Akrypti does not have an overanxious lidibo. Or libido.
And can you think of a better reason for not throwing him in military prison?
Unless someone can argue that the law is unconstitutional, this man broke the law set by a society he consented to live and participate in. Even in a democratic nation, there are lawful and unlawful ways of protesting government orders. He chose an unlawful way. Consequences shall ensue. Such is life in America.
February 15, 2007 at 3:21 pm |
That’s what I get for typing a response on a cell phone. In the hacker world, I have been “pwnt.”
February 15, 2007 at 7:55 pm |
I had to look up the definition for “pwnt” in the Urban Dictionary. (See http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pwnt)