I became ashamed of wearing the uniform

[TashaN]

​

First Officer Announces Refusal to Deploy to Iraq
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/61/20326

Officer appears over Iraq refusal
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4378572.stm

Does such thing ever happened before?

Do you think he has the right to refuse to fight in Iraq?​

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

He took the oath and joined the forces.
He knew what he was doing.
as he is an officer he is of above average intelligence and can be expected to understand his commitment.

he has no rights that are not included in the articles of service.
These do not include the right to refuse a war posting.

He can refuse to continue his service, and will rightly be found guilty on all charges.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Officer appears over Iraq refusal

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4378572.stm

Does such thing ever happened before?
​

This man has since been found guilty on all charges.

This has indeed happened before, and in the past always led to the guilty party being shot. More recently they are dishonourably discharged and imprisoned with loss of pay and privileges ( pension rights)
​

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It is an offence to attempt to get servicemen to desert or refuse orders.
by any means including propaganda. advertising and writing or the web or public statements.
In the UK this entails a long prison term.
This is applicable to a native or foreign national found. on British soil, before or after the offence

 

[love]

During the Vietnam conflict in the United States millions of people were protesting. Young men were burning their draft cards or leaving for Canada or elsewhere. National Guard troops were being deployed to University campuses to stop demonstrations. Today's military is completely voluntary. They offer education and training to recruits. The very nature of military training is to prepare for war. If someone joined the military in 2003 with troops already in Afghanistan you would think they would have a clue has to where they may be deployed.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

This was discussed in at least one other thread.

This guy enlisted in the military then refused to obey orders. That's bad for a soldier and completely inexcusable for an officer. His court martial began Monday, Feb 5, and I hope he gets the maximum sentence after he is convicted.

Here's an interesting POV from a Seattle Times editor who disagrees with the Iraq War but believes that Watada will and should be found guilty. He makes some excellent points.:yes:
Source.

 

[michel]

This man has since been found guilty on all charges.

This has indeed happened before, and in the past always led to the guilty party being shot. More recently they are dishonourably discharged and imprisoned with loss of pay and privileges ( pension rights)

I agree; there is no way that a soldier can "pick and choose" which actions he will be involved in.

 

[eudaimonia]

I agree; there is no way that a soldier can "pick and choose" which actions he will be involved in.

Still, it makes one wonder how soldiers and officers can be expected to follow their conscience and be moral agents. Consider that Nazi soldiers were told when they were tried at Nurenberg: "I was just following orders is no excuse". There is an enormous tension here.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Still, it makes one wonder how soldiers and officers can be expected to follow their conscience and be moral agents. Consider that Nazi soldiers were told when they were tried at Nurenberg: "I was just following orders is no excuse". There is an enormous tension here.


eudaimonia,

Mark

If the order goes against the Geneva convention, Then you would be court-martialled to find the facts, but would be found not guilty.
The person giving the order would be court-martialled.
A soldier is not free to arrive at his own personal interpretation of morals and conscience.

 

[eudaimonia]

A soldier is not free to arrive at his own personal interpretation of morals and conscience.

That's understandable, since lives may be put at risk if soldiers are allowed to do whatever they may want without consequences. But it seems like a tragic aspect of having militaries if soldiers are expected to act like robots in the face of possibly unforseen orders, or suffer extreme penalties.

It's an imperfect world, I suppose.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Booko]

Do you think he has the right to refuse to fight in Iraq?

Frankly, I'd have more respect for him if he just deserted and went to Canada. :sarcastic (And that's not saying much.)

He volunteered to join the armed forces. At that point, you give up certain rights, like deciding where you're going to be posted.

Last time I checked the Constitution, the Prez was the commander-in-chief and Congress was (in theory) involved in deciding who we declare war on.

Individual soldiers do not have this authority.

 

[Valjean]

Both sides make good points. He swore allegiance to the US military and to obey orders, but was also taught in Basic Training that he need not obey illegal orders. A good case can be made, referecing both US and international law, that the US-Iraq invasion/occupation is illegal and that orders to pursue it are, ipso facto, also illegal.

There is also the issue of conscientious objection. Before the US military became all-volunteer an individual found to have a legitimate consciences objection to military service could opt out of the military. But when may such an objection be legally arrived at? If one becomes a Quaker or Bahai at seventeen s/he is legally insulated from military service. But if one arrives at such a moral position after joining the military is it less legitimate than the same arrived at before taking the oath?

 

[YmirGF]

Frankly, I'd have more respect for him if he just deserted and went to

Canada. (And that's not saying much.)

He volunteered to join the armed forces. At that point, you give up certain rights, like deciding where you're going to be posted.

Last time I checked the Constitution, the Prez was the commander-in-chief and Congress was (in theory) involved in deciding who we declare war on.

Individual soldiers do not have this authority.

Agreed Sharon, Terry and Michel.

Me? I am a bit cynical. I am thinking of the lucrative book and movie deal, tours of duty expounding on moral conscience via the “rubber chicken" circuit followed by perhaps a run at politics. Perhaps he should be made to pay back the Military for all the training he has received.

 

[evearael]

But if one arrives at such a moral position after joining the military is it less legitimate than the same arrived at before taking the oath?

I would argue that it is just as legitimate. However, an oath was sworn and there are consequences for disobeying that oath.

 

[TashaN]

I read in a malaysian local newspaper that his lawyer or who so ever support him in this case claim that he has right to disobey orders if it was an illegal one.

The war against Iraq is illegal.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Both sides make good points. He swore allegiance to the US military and to obey orders, but was also taught in Basic Training that he need not obey illegal orders. A good case can be made, referecing both US and international law, that the US-Iraq invasion/occupation is illegal and that orders to pursue it are, ipso facto, also illegal.

There is also the issue of conscientious objection. Before the US military became all-volunteer an individual found to have a legitimate consciences objection to military service could opt out of the military. But when may such an objection be legally arrived at? If one becomes a Quaker or Bahai at seventeen s/he is legally insulated from military service. But if one arrives at such a moral position after joining the military is it less legitimate than the same arrived at before taking the oath?

If he is found not guilty by the reason that this war is illegal, then we have to see the President Bush, the secretary of defence, etc (whoever who decided to agree to start the war, all the generals?) all going to jail. Since this is not likely to happen, so whether the truth is that 'this war is illegal' or not, he has no way of using that as no one in US is going to let their President go to jail, no matter how wrong he was and will be.:ignore:

 

[Booko]

If one becomes a Quaker or Bahai at seventeen s/he is legally insulated from military service. But if one arrives at such a moral position after joining the military is it less legitimate than the same arrived at before taking the oath?

Actually, we're not conscientious objectors and don't ask for that status. There's a thread current in the Baha'i area right now that deals a bit with the subject:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41875

And Monat is a recently declared Baha'i, but joined the Navy before, so this is a real concern for him.

For the general moral point you're getting at, if someone decides while they're in the military that they want to become a Quaker, that's a far different thing than deciding an entire war is illegal.

There's the further question: On what basis does a soldier decide whether a war is illegal? Does a U.S. soldier judge which acts are illegal based on U.S. law alone? Or are there considerations in international law as well?

 

[Booko]

If he is found not guilty by the reason that this war is illegal, then we have to see the President Bush, the secretary of defence, etc (whoever who decided to agree to start the war, all the generals?) all going to jail.

Why do you think there's such resistance in our gov't (regardless of party in power) to being part of the International Criminal Court?

They know very well that our servicemen and some politicians could be brought up on charges.

 

[XAAX]

He took the oath and joined the forces.
He knew what he was doing.
as he is an officer he is of above average intelligence and can be expected to understand his commitment.

he has no rights that are not included in the articles of service.
These do not include the right to refuse a war posting.

He can refuse to continue his service, and will rightly be found guilty on all charges.

I served in the Military, and the fact is, once you sign your name, you no longer have the freedom to choose such actions what so ever. Ill give you and example (I didn't do well in the military, to much of a free thinker).

When I was in basic training, I was asked by a drill sergeant in one of my training classes what my response would be if given an order that I did not agree with. The exact order was to shoot a woman holding her baby. Oh course I was horrified at the thought. Being the person I am, I knew what he wanted to hear, but did not want to lie. So I honestly answered.

I told the cadre that under no circumstance could I shoot a woman and child. This was followed by me spending the next 45 minutes in the push up position. The correct answer was I would follow any order given to my by my commanding officer. While I was in this position he explained to the class of a situation where he was in Vietnam and had to give the exact order. The soldier in his squad had a clear shot at a woman coming down a road they were guarding. The drill sergeant had noticed that she had something concealed under the baby. He gave the order and the soldier refused. He had to give up his position to shoot them. She had a grenade under the baby and dropped it when they were shot.

Now, although I agree with the fact that the military will not work if people do not follow orders. But for myself, I would take the court marshal before I lived with the fact that I had killed them...

 

[lilithu]

This man has since been found guilty on all charges.

This has indeed happened before, and in the past always led to the guilty party being shot. More recently they are dishonourably discharged and imprisoned with loss of pay and privileges ( pension rights)
[/left]

Just to be clear, The Truth provided two links to two news stories about two different officers who refused to serve. The person who's picture appears in the OP is Lt. Ehren Watada, and his case has resulted in a mistrial.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003561301_webwatada07.html