Military judge: objector can't raise questions about war legality

[sabra]

http://www.kgw.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8MN2KBG0.html

Military judge: objector can't raise questions about war legality
Associated Press

An Army officer cannot try to justify his refusal to report for duty in Iraq by questioning the legality of the war because that is a political issue, a military judge has ruled.

Citing federal court precedents in a ruling issued Tuesday, Lt. Col. John Head also rejected the claims of lawyers for 1st Lt. Ehren Watada who said the his First Amendment rights shielded the 28-year-old native of Hawaii from charges stemming from his criticism of the war.

There are limits to the free-speech rights of military personnel and a military panel should decide in a court-martial set to begin Feb. 5 whether Watada's criticism amounted to officer misconduct that could have endangered the morale, loyalty and discipline of troops, Head ruled.

"We have been stripped of every defense," Eric A. Seitz of Honolulu, Watada's civilian defense lawyer, told The Seattle Times. "This is a disciplinary system, not a justice system. Otherwise, we would have been entitled to defend ourselves."

[baldguy]

1. George Orwell is laughing.

[coalition_unwilling]

39. George Orwell is crying (or laughing to keep from crying) - n/t

[gratuitous]

2. No surprise there

It would sure be nice, though, to see a few more Army officers step up and take a brave stand like Lt. Watada, instead of waiting for their pensions to be safely salted away before voicing the most tepid criticism of an administration and its murderous policies that are getting so many people killed.

[Marnieworld]

3. And that is why military trials are a joke

If that is the very reason why he is objecting then he can't have an adequate defense. In our true court system this would overturned on appeal. Insane.

on edit: how is it just a political issue? It's questioning legality hence legal issue. Invading a country, pre-emptive wars are illegal. It's against the UN charter, the geneva conventions, codified law. It can be proven to be illegal and they can have an honest belief that they are willing to be a soldier in only legal wars. I guess they can't have this get out so they supress. I want justice already dammit!

[sanskritwarrior]

50. It's a

political issue because soldiers do not decide legality. We follow orders that are legal and refuse to follow illegal ones.

It is common sense, asking me a Sergeant First Class to shoot civilians in Cleveland is illegal. Asking me to shoot civilians in Iraq if I feel threatened is legal.

Asking me to remove the President from office with no articles of impeachment is illegal. Asking me to deploy to Iraq in support of a war Congress authorized is quite legal.

Military trials are not a joke, there are rules for us in the service to follow, they are different than civilian rules and there are different punishments. Lt. Watada is obviously guilty of what he is being charged with. His personal feelings on the war are irrelevant, as are mine. Saying the war is illegal without any precedent from a Federal court does not make the war illegal. Without an example of a Federal court or the Congress ruling the war illegal, we as soldiers are obligated to serve in that war irregardless of our personal feelings. I make no bones about it, I don't like the war, but I will serve if deployed because I took an oath. That oath doesn't mean I get to decide what is legal and what isn't. It means I follow orders until the courts or Congress decree that the war is illegal. Then I can refuse all I want to. This isn't an example of just following orders as some on this board have told me. I am no Nazi, I am a Senior Non commissioned Officer in the United States Army and the oath I took says I am not in the decision making process of what is and what is not legal or illegal.

That is why this was ruled a political issue. Lt Watada does not get to decide what orders he will follow or not follow unless they are grossly illegal. There is a precedent for not shooting civilians in cleveland, there is a precedent for not using Chemical weapons, there is no precedent in the federal system saying that the Iraq War is illegal. I sympathize with the LT to a point, but we have our duty to fulfill, and he has dug his own grave and will spend at least 3 years at Fort Leavenworth.

[soothsayer]

4. So Nuremburg was just political fun and games?

[IndianaGreen]

29. Apparently the law only applies to the losers

the winners can murder, rape, and pillage with impunity.

[Doctor_J]

48. So we won?

it must be something else.

[LynnTheDem]

5. Wow! A US military judge who's never read Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice

"Military members are required to obey lawful orders. are not required to obey unlawful orders..."

"lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it."

Well that's a slam dunk.

[Kagemusha]

6. But it's not like this should have been unexpected.

I expected this is how the judge would rule from the first time this case came to my attention. The Lt. may have a point but, he's doomed - he'll never be able to make that argument in a courtroom because "a political dispute" will never be recognized as a reason to disobey a lawful order. Because, to the military, it's only unlawful if a US authority says so, the UN and international law, be damned. And damned, they shall be.

And so to, Lt. Watada.

[LynnTheDem]

7. That bush's invasion of Iraq is without doubt illegal and should not

have been obeyed by the US military will never get a hearing in the US.

Another Nuremburg Tribunal is required for that.

And the way bush is going, that may be a future possibility.

As you say, no one, including the LT, ever had any doubt this would be the response. They are damned indeed (the MFers), but not the LT; he stood up as he should do, as his first sworn oath required of him (to uphold the US Constitution), as all US officers should have done & should do.

[Kagemusha]

8. Yeah, it's really too bad I must say

A deliberate effort's been made to demean the concept of illegal war ever since Desert Storm beause the excuse used to go kick Saddam out of Kuwait was inconvenient for going in to remove Saddam from his home country of Iraq, etc. Just a bunch of arrogant jerks who think the collapse of the USSR means they can do whatever the hell they want with no consequences.

[LynnTheDem]

9. And the US is currently going the route of the USSR,

overextending military and internal collapse.

One thing would cure what ails us and fast; enduring ourselves exactly what we've done the last few decades -and are continuing to do- to other nation's peoples.

We'd sure see the light then, God help us.

[Stanchetalarooni]

10. Kinda helps to understand a terrorist' mindset.

Play by the rules and lose every time to the rulemaker.

[coalition_unwilling]

40. It was not a "lawful order," as the order was involved in the

perpretation of grave international crimes (war of aggression) and crimes against humanity.

[pberq]

15. The judge's decision is political, not the other way around.

This is judge is providing cover for the Bush admin's crimes.

[bonito]

18. .

[slackmaster]

23. What part of the Constitution or US Code prohibits trespassing in another country?

:shrug:

Lt. Watada disobeyed an order to go to Iraq, not an order to start a war there.

[LynnTheDem]

25. The part of the USC that deems all treaties entered into by the US as

THE LAW OF THE LAND.

Such as the UN Treaty; the treaty that allows for only 2 means of legal war; imminent self-defense, or with UN approval.

Guess what.

bush's ILLEGAL war of aggression on Iraq was, plain & simple, ILLEGAL by international law via (for one) the UN Treaty; the LAW OF THE LAND, says the USC.

[slackmaster]

34. Trespassing is a misdemeanor at worst

You are mistaken.

[LynnTheDem]

36. war of aggression is "the supreme crime"

At best.

[slackmaster]

46. Watada was not ordered to prosecute a war of aggression

He was ordered to deploy in, i.e. go to Iraq.

[Mudoria]

38. Yes but the UN and International

Law mean squat here in the US. And rightfully so. Congress gave Shrub the go ahead for this stupid war and that's all the legality that was needed. A bunch of DU'ers crying illegal doesn't make it so. The LT disobeyed a lawful order from his superiors and the political leaders, now he pays the price for not doing his duty. Hope he gets a cell with a view..

[coalition_unwilling]

41. All treaties entered into by the U.S. have the full force and weight

of domestic law, according to the U.S. Constitution. If it was against the U.N. charter and against international law for the U.S. to invade Iraq, then the invasion was ipso facto not just a violation of international law but of U.S. law also.

[LynnTheDem]

45. That isn't what the US Constitution says.

Of course, the USC also means squat here in the USA.

[Thothmes]

32. Unlawful orders

What is considered an un-lawful order was a question asked during a military leadership class I once attended. The answer was that what constitutes an unlawful order will be decided at your General Court Marshal.

[Peace Patriot]

11. I just want to thank Lt. Ehren Watada again, for his bravery and his patriotism.

I'm not surprised that they're denying him his defense, and preparing to throw the book as this fine officer and brave American. And I don't imagine that he is surprised either. It is nevertheless disgusting.

I would like to see a Lt. Watada for President campaign. We should elect him from the Brig! Wouldn't that be beautiful! 70% of the American people want this war ended. He took his personal stance on the matter, at great risk to himself. Who is to say he wouldn't win by a landslide?

[Big_Mike]

13. Frankly, no. Unless a federal judge or the Congress says it is illegal

then the conflict is legal. Under the law written by Congress, he must follow those orders given him, barring a strictly illegal order. As an example, find someone walking down the street and shoot them. That is illegal. So to would be for him to call artillery on a mosque or a hospital. However, if that person walking down the street was trying to emplace an IED, that person would be a legal target. Also, if persons were using the mosque or hospital in waging the fight, then destroying the buildings would be legal.

It comes down to what has been said or done to make an order legal or illegal. Much as I may dislike it, and regardless whether the basis of authorization was real or not, Congress authorized the use of force and invasion. This guy should never have joined, nor should he have sought a commission. He should have protested as any other American citizen.

[Solon]

27. Actually, I don't think that's entirely accurate...

U.S. Constitution

Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Notice the bold sections of this Article, we have entered many treaties limiting what is a legal war under international law, the recent Iraq War does NOT meet the qualifications, so, regardless of what Congress says, it is still an illegal war. We would have to pull out of the U.N., Geneva Conventions, and many other treaties, then it would be legal, at least within the United States, until that happens, its an illegal war.

[Sgent]

44. A signed act

of congress overrides a prior treaty agreement as per SCOTUS.

[coalition_unwilling]

42. Reminiscent of Eugene Debs' run for Prez from a prison cell - n/t

[screembloodymurder]

12. I'm beginning to think Bush was right,

you're either with him or against him.

[Barrett808]

14. Grim, but not unexpected. See Gen. Telford Taylor's book, "Nuremburg and Vietnam"

Nuremburg and Vietnam: An American Tragedy
http://www.amazon.com/Nuremburg-Vietnam-American-Telford-Taylor/dp/B000ITITZG/sr=1-1/qid=1169056511/ref=sr_1_1/103-9899561-6473453?ie=UTF8&s=books

The book Nuremberg and Vietnam: An American Tragedy, published in 1970, is an examination of the United States' conduct of the Vietnam conflict in comparison to the actions taken by Nazi Germany during the Second World War. Its author, Telford Taylor, was once the Chief Counsel Prosecutor at the war crimes trials of Nazi leaders in Nuremburg, Germany from 1946-1949. In that capacity, Taylor helped to establish the laws by which Nazi war criminals would be tried for their crimes. Perhaps most interesting about the book is that it was published in 1970, 3 years before the cease-fire agreement of 1973 and the subsequent withdrawal of United States Troops from Vietnam. For this reason, the release of the book would have appeared premature had Taylor not been particularly suited for the undertaking. Furthermore, Nuremberg and Vietnam: An American Tragedy is not a seething indictment of U.S. policy in Vietnam as the title may suggest, but rather an unbiased perspective of the Vietnam conflict based on international law.

Gen. Taylor's conclusion is that draft resisters had the law on their side -- they would have been party to war crimes if they had gone to war. But Taylor also shows that not a single resister was acquitted. The trials were essentially kangaroo courts, as is Lt. Watada's.

:cry:

[uppityperson]

16. k&r I do not agree with this, with military trials of guilty, must prove innocent and blocked

from your defense.

[EndElectoral]

17. Have there been any civilan cases challenging legality of war?

Byrd said the Iraqi Resolution was illegal becasue it deferred the decision to go to war to the Executive

[krispos42]

19. Randi's gonna shit bricks tonight

I get her on Air America at 9pm.

[midnight]

20. Isn't that the whole point of objecting to this war?

[slackmaster]

24. An individual soldier doesn't have standing to object to a war

Only Congress can do something about it.

[LynnTheDem]

26. Yes they do.

Officers' first sworn oath is to protect and defend the USC from enemies foreign & domestic.

The USC makes the UN Charter the "law of the land".

The UN Charter deemed bush's illegal war of aggression against Iraq ILLEGAL.

Thus bush not only violated the UN Charter, he in fact violated the USC in doing so.

Officers are sworn to defnd the USC.

[slackmaster]

35. Please cite case law

You are blowing smoke.

[pdrichards114]

21. You cannot win in a rigged game.

Even when the rules are fair and just on paper. If they become inconvienent, change the rules. I hate these people so much it's on a genetic level.

[slackmaster]

22. The order for Watada to report for duty was not illegal

The war's legality has nothing to do with anything. A soldier can only refuse an order that is in and of itself illegal.

Trespassing is not a crime under the UCMJ.

[IndianaGreen]

28. The war is illegal, order to go to an illegal war are illegal

The military judge's ruling ignored the Nuremberg precedent, and I question the judge's impartiality.

[Nihil]

30. That is the key. The soldier was upholding "the Constitution" ...

... and not "the will of the president".

As you say, "the Nuremberg precedent" will start to become very important
indeed ...

[slackmaster]

33. Bullshit

The Nuremberg precedent does not require every soldier to refuse every order in an illegal war.

[coalition_unwilling]

43. They did not order Watada to "report for duty". They ordered him

to "deploy to Iraq". QED

[slackmaster]

47. Do you think you could split that hair a little finer for me?

:rofl:

[Springster]

31. This is not the first time a soldier has tried this kind of defense

and lost. In 1995, Specialist Michael New refused to wear the distinctive UN beret and insignia or to serve under a UN Commander. His Court Matrial conviction was upheld by US (civilian) federal courts.

Soldiers who disobey orders and attempt an "illegal orders" defense have a high burden of proof, essentially that the order was "on its face" illegal - something along the lines of "shoot the prisoner, or bomb the hospital" meets the test.

Debating national policies consistently fails to meet the mark. It might have a different outcome had Congress voted to end the authorized use of force (Declared War Lite) and the vote became law.

[WebeBlue]

37. Citizens' Hearing on Legality of US Actions in Iraq - Jan 20-21 - Tacoma, WA

See more at www.wartribunal.org

The Citizens' Hearing on Legality of U.S. Actions in Iraq; the case of Lt. Ehren Watada is an effort to put the Iraq war on trial; anticipating that Lt. Watada's defense would not permit him to bring in the issue of illegality of Iraq war.

The Hearing, open to the public, to take place in Tacoma, WA (Fort Lewis is located in Tacoma, WA) this weekend, Jan 20-21. Experts coming to give testimony over two days include Daniel Ellsberg (Pentagon Papers - Vietnam); Denis Halliday, former UN Asst Secretary General; Richard Falk, Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University, and more - see at the website.

Distribute the press release at the website and help spread the word - thank you.

[Joey Liberal]

49. The Army is out to get Watada

In my opinion, the Army is going to make an example out of Watada. They are going to nail the poor bastard.

[Nevernever]

51. How is questioning the LEGALITY of the war a POLITICAL issue?

[sanskritwarrior]

52. Because

See post # 50