Lt. Ehren Watada, hero???

"War is too important to be left to the generals."

- Georges Clemenceau

In the below article, Lt. Ehren Watada is attempting to use Just War Theory and personal moral convictions as part of his defense to explain why he failed to deploy to Iraq. He personally refused to go to Iraq because he felt the war was unlawful. It is true, the US went into Iraq without the approval of the UN Security Council, but in my opinion, this does not constitute any grounds for a lieutenant to refuse service.

My Problems with Watada's Defense:

• By joining the Army he made a commitment to serve. By making said commitment he forfeited many of his rights that he would normally be afforded as a regular civilian.
  
• I'm not a military law expert, but it is my understanding that not all court martial settings require a lawyer.
  
• Further, in the long list of possible defenses allowable during a court martial, moral convictions and objection to the legality of operations is not listed. (see Manual for Courts-Martial United States)
  
• He joined the US Army after the US invaded Iraq. Why would he join the Army shortly after the invasion with such legal/moral objections, especially given the likelihood he could be deployed to Iraq?
  
• He is invoking command responsibility as a defense under the Geneva and Hague Conventions which have more to do with the political planning and willful violation of war laws and human rights.
  
• Perhaps if Watada was actually in Abu Ghraib and was given an order to mistreat prisoners and refused, then I could understand his argument.
• Further, in regard to his argument against wars of aggression, the administration was able to frame the Iraq invasion as a preemptive strike. On these grounds, Iraq was seen as an immediate and imminent threat.
  
• America's "aggression" does not fit the definition of "war of aggression" because the invasion was in self-defense. (side note: I do not honestly believe the invasion was necessary for self-defense but that's the way it was justified)
  

The Larger Issues:

• As an officer in the military it is not Watada's decision to decide the overall legality of the war. As harsh as it sounds, the military is a tool of US policy; it does not make policy.
• Watada is charged with behavior unbecoming an officer. The author of the article below seems to think this charge does not fit, but I think "behavior unbecoming an officer" is very obvious for Watada's case given the definition. (see Manual for Courts-Martial United States Part IV, Article 133)
  
• He could also be charged with Effecting Unlawful Enlistment, Appointment, or Separation (Article 84), Desertion (Article 85), and Absence without Leave (Article 86).
  
• While the war in Iraq may be condemned by the UN, it is not illegal for the US military to command its very own officer into the war. The US did not command Watada to do anything illegal in respect to Geneva and Hague Conventions or the Nuremberg Principles.
• While I do not particularly agree with the grounds the US entered Iraq, the fact remains that the Bush Administration pushed its proposal to Congress, Congress approved the use of force, and I don't think we heard a thing out of the Judiciary. In that respect, the war was legal. The grounds Congress approved action have since been proven insufficient but Congress should have acted more responsibly prior to authorization.
  

One young hero versus the mighty military

Bainbridge Buzz by Bobbie Morgan Wednesday, 24 January 2007 http://www.thankyoult.org/content/view/86/23/ Sometimes it takes a travesty to create a hero. We have a hero close by, awaiting a court martial for refusing to participate in the Iraq war because he feels it was never a lawful war. He is 28-year old Ehren Watada, a lieutenant in the US Army. He has a finely tuned sense of right and wrong, and he is quietly, but firmly, standing up to the full force of the United States Army. This, of course, is the same army that went to war without the authorization of the UN Security council, orchestrated Shock and Awe in Fallujah, where more civilians were killed than died in 9-11 attacks. This is the same army that oversaw multiple instances of torture at Abu Ghraib. This is the same army that has been responsible for tens of thousands of civilian deaths. And now, a young man's voice is saying "No." In the world of the military, courage can take many forms. Our culture celebrates war, thrills at battle scenes, boasts of conquest, savors mighty weapons, and expects to be the dominant power of the world, utilizing the full force and destructive power of the military-industrial complex. But only seldom do we see courage take on another form: dissent. Imagine the courage it took for Lt. Watada to make his decision to say "no" to orders to deploy to the Iraq war. He is the very first U.S. military officer to do so. What makes his statement of dissent so honorable, is that it is based upon moral conviction. He is acting on the belief that, not only does he have the right to refuse actions that put him in the position of having to participate in war crimes or "crimes against peace," but that he has an obligation to do so. ehrenwatada Therefore, he stands bravely in dissent, following his conscience. His voice is humble, his demeanor respectful, his logic clear. The young lieutenant stands in opposition, not to all war, but to this war, prosecuted in violation of the United Nations charter, a treaty under which our country is obligated and which forms part of the "supreme law of the land" according to our Constitution. According to this treaty, the use of force is permissible only when armed attack is imminent or when the Security Council authorizes force. Since neither of these requirements was met, the war against Iraq is considered by many to be unlawful. The Geneva Conventions also prohibit wars of aggression. The U. S. is a signer of the Geneva Conventions, and therefore obligated to follow them. This Iraq war is a war of aggression, and therefore illegal under the Geneva Conventions. The violence against Iraq was never a war of self-defense because none of the threats that the president and vice-president used as reasons for war were true. There were no weapons of mass destruction, no imminent threat of biological warfare against the U.S., no delivery of terrorism from that country to this one. So, according to many legal experts, there was no justification for this war. Lt. Watada believes that he has no choice but to uphold our Constitution and refuse to participate in an illegal war. The rationale for this defense comes from the Nuremberg Principles, which established that officers do have the obligation to refuse unlawful orders. To follow such an order, Lt. Watada believes that he himself would be committing a crime. When this Iraq debacle began, where were the leaders who could have honored our government's system of checks and balances, designed to prevent this sort of abuse of power by the executive branch? They were silent. Congress played the game of political expediency in the climate of hyper-fear after 9-11. And now Lt. Watada is left to take his courageous stand, as an individual young man, against the might of the United States military. What makes this court martial a travesty, is not only that this young man is being denied the opportunity to be reassigned to other military duty, including Afghanistan, as he has requested, but that he has also been denied the opportunity to mount his legal defense. The refusal by a military judge, to allow him to use the defense that this war is illegal, serves to silence him and will likely send him to prison for up to six years. It is as harsh as if he had duct tape slapped on his mouth. One might expect this kind of cruel machination to happen in a dictatorship, not in a country where "free speech" and "fair trial" are iconic principles. But it is true. Lt. Watada is being denied his basic right to a fair trial. So, the court martial at Fort Lewis, as it turns out, is not just a case of dissent against the Iraq war, but it is also a case of abrogation of freedom of speech. So, this case has all of the hallmarks of history-making about it: big issues of upholding the highest law of the land, one young hero versus a mighty military institution and a manipulation of justice which threatens the basic tenet of free speech. On Feb. 5, at Fort Lewis, when the United States Army will put Lt. Ehren Watada on trial under rules that prevent him from a fair trial. They will try to paint him as weak and disrespectful, since they have added charges of behavior unbecoming an officer. But Ehren Watada is neither weak nor disrespectful. As a military officer, he is compelled by the highest law of the land to defend the Constitution. He sees that the Unites States Constitution trumps deployment orders to an illegal war. He is sacrificing his personal freedom to protect us from the effects of diminished democracy. The question is, do we let him stand alone? Do we remain aloof while he defends our precious democracy and pays the heavy price? Do we sit quietly while free speech is shut down, knowing that the loss of free speech for one voice is a loss for us all? Do we remain apathetic while Lt. Watada challenges the very legality of this dreadful war that is being waged in our name? Or do we rise up, show solidarity, join with the lieutenant, decry the rules that silence him, collectively spurn the actions that will jail this young hero, unite our voices with his against an unlawful war and show that we cherish our democracy, too? By our presence at the gates of Fort Lewis on the day of the trial, we can stand as witnesses to the travesty that brings courage, and we can say with our voices, with our banners and with our hearts, "Thank you, lieutenant. We salute you."

Last Updated ( Friday, 26 January 2007 )