U.S. Military Officers violate Lt. Ehren Watada' Freedom of Religion (punishment, reject)

[Booko]

Originally Posted by robtex

So if we could turn this into a more acute debate D.M. would it be fair to say you are advocating that people in the armed services who object to war should be excused from battle due to religious beliefs?

As a footnote, wouldn't the miltary's acknowledgement of religion in choice of duties be a violation of seperation of church and state as unequal treatment by a goverment entitity would be given to one faith over another?

I know Baha'is who join the armed services, but as non-coms, and that's the deal when they sign up. That doesn't mean they won't go into war zones -- if they're medics and such they probably will.

I'm not getting the point of the person in the OP. If you join the armed services, surely you realize you might end up in a war zone, even if your a non-combatant? It seems rather silly (to put it nicely) to then object to being sent into a war zone.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by Pah

Yes. There is a body of law that deals with consciencious objection. which is based on a faith and not necessarily a mainline faith. The petition to the court should have been couched in those terms.

In what ways would that apply to someone who volunteers?

I can see how it would apply to someone who's drafted.

Lt. (an officer!?) Watada should never have joined the military in the first place. As one who has served active duty and reserve terms in the U.S. military myself ,I find this whole situation to be over the top B.S..
I don't know Lt. Watada's situation or how the military is handling it so I will reserve any judgement of her, but the person who penned this letter has no earthly clue what they are talking about. This is what happens when you live in a fairytale.

Thanks for the clarification CX (post#10).
This guy should be jailed IMO.

[Draka]

I'm a bit confused here. Are they saying that they would go to say, Afghanistan, because that is "lawful", but not Iraq because they believe the war itself to be "unlawful"? If that be the case, I agree with the opinion, but that doesn't really matter. You sign the contract and take your oath and that's that. You do what your told. If you are told to go to the war zone, you go to the war zone.

There's a difference between obeying an order to go to your new duty station and obeying an order to torture a prisoner. One is legal and one isn't. You have the right to disobey an order that is illegal to give, and orders to a war zone are not illegal.

[ayani]

ok. i can understand a person freaking out in a war zone and not wanting to kill / hurt anyone. i can.

"**** this, i'm not shooting anyone."

i think i would be inclined to be sympathetic to that person, regardless of military law.

but that wouldn't hold up very well in a court, of course. i would also hope that one's ethical objections to killing would be something the individual would realize before they sign an agreement to go into battle.

at the same time, someone's sense of horror and objection could spring upon them in battle, and not when faced with the mere idea of killing.

[BFD_Zayl]

ok, when you join the military, on your first few days you get a gun, explosives, armor, a knife, camo, ammunition, training on how to kill, and possibly an armoured vehicle to drive in...if you get all this you gotta realize "...holy crap, i think i might have to fight" its sort of obvious isnt it?

[Djamila]

Originally Posted by robtex

Wouldn't the miltary's acknowledgement of religion in choice of duties be a violation of seperation of church and state as unequal treatment by a goverment entitity would be given to one faith over another?

Not really. The American military is fairly religious already. You have the Air Force where Evangelical Christians are apparently very influential. You also have a lot religious, rather than scientific, rules such as the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and so on.

There's the religious...I'll say leaders, I don't know the actual term...for every faith who travel with the soldiers?

[Djamila]

Originally Posted by gracie

At the same time, someone's sense of horror and objection could spring upon them in battle, and not when faced with the mere idea of killing.

That's very true. It's always very different in a war zone than it appears to those outside of it, looking in.

Has he been to Iraq already? If so, I can understand it.

To offer one example... when the Americans took control of Iraq, they largely based their troops at Saddam Hussein's former palace compounds - they're big, lots of open space, relatively easy to defend. So, this is where the checkpoints and US Army roadblocks are.

No one bothered to think about things:

1) The public relations disaster that was in Iraq, for a foreign army to come and visually assume the same role as Saddam Hussein.

2) Iraqis have been trained for decades never to so much as look at these palaces. When they drive past them, they look straight ahead, and speed by - watch aerial footage of Baghdad and just watch how the traffic ZOOMS past castles and then slows down again. This is why so many hundreds of Iraqi civilians have been killed at checkpoints, shot because they didn't "listen", didn't "stop".

Well, if you put a pit under a "welcome mat" and you can't blame those who fall in for the whole thing.

[CaptainXeroid]

For those interested, here's some more information on Lt. Watada.

On Thursday, August 24, Investigating Officer Lieutenant Colonel Mark Keith recommended that the Army pursue its case against First Lieutenant Ehren Watada on all pending charges: missing movement, two counts of contempt toward officials (specifically President G. W. Bush), and three counts of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.

However, Ltc. Keith also stated that he thinks "[Lt.] Watada is sincere in his beliefs," adding that "this is relevant in determining whether this case should go forward to General Court Martial and should mitigate any future punishment." Complete Article 32 report with hearing transcript (PDF). Defense rebuttal to Article 32 report (PDF), August 28, 2006...

Source

As a fellow Christian I commend his beliefs, and I cannot completely disagree with his opinions on the Iraq War. However, I think Draka summed it up best.

Originally Posted by Draka

I'm a bit confused here. Are they saying that they would go to say, Afghanistan, because that is "lawful", but not Iraq because they believe the war itself to be "unlawful"? If that be the case, I agree with the opinion, but that doesn't really matter. You sign the contract and take your oath and that's that. You do what your told. If you are told to go to the war zone, you go to the war zone...

Now that the battle lines have been drawn in the case, I believe he will be convicted and receive a rather harsh sentence.