February 05, 2007

• It's refreshing to see someone stand up for their convictions. It seems those links don't mention that Watada offered to go to Afghanistan instead of Iraq. He's not against war, just the Iraq war. The Army just won't stand for having their grunts deciding for themselves if a particular war is moral or not. I hope Watada gets off lightly, but I expect the Army will want to make an example of him.
• He's taking the king's shilling but wants to decide for himself what chores he will perform to earn it? Where can I go to sign up for some of that?
• Libertarian.. I guess that's really the whole point, isn't it. Bush isn't the "king", and the war is illegal. Watada's pledge was to protect the country and the constitution, and standing up against an illegal war is fulfilling that pledge.
• King George... it does have a certain ring to it.
• Is the war illegal? I thought that Congressional approval made it legal?
• Not US law, International law. Issues like attacking Iraq is contrary to the UN charter, and so forth.
• US military personnel aren't subject to UN charters, or any other international laws.
• Let me add that I admire what he's doing, but he's guilty as hell.
• What rocket88 said. It is admirable that he is standing up for his convictions and opposing what is, in his opinion, an illegal war. Since for better or worse, the law is written by the victors, the legality of this war is in dispute, and I think that there are viable arguments for both sides. That being said, I believe that he is right to stand for his beliefs, and that any true hero would be willing to accept whatever punishment is in store for his actions. Yeah, he's guilty of insubordination, but his conscience will be clear. Whether the war is a violation of the UN charter or not, the UN does not have jurisdiction over his actions, the UCMJ does, and he is in violation of that. And I tip my hat to him.
• I am not sure, when you sign up for this kind of institution, you can say no. Which has always struck me as an excellent reason for avoiding this kind of institution.
• US military personnel aren't subject to UN charters, or any other international laws. Of course. Not unless some stronger power brings the US to a Nuremberg.
• > Not US law, International law. Issues like attacking Iraq is contrary to the UN charter, and so forth. Yes. I'm sorry to say that after five years of this nonsense, I'd completely forgotten about international law.
• Actually, Watada's position is that the war is illegal under US law. The following is from Wikipedia, but pretty clearly lays out the reasoning: "Watada claimed, the war violates the Constitution and War Powers Act which "limits the president in his role as Commander in Chief from using the armed forces in any way he sees fit", as well as the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and the Nuremberg Principles, which "bar wars of aggression." Applying the command responsibility would make him personally responsible and liable for legal challenges for violating International law. Further, he asserted that the war was based on misleading or false premises such as the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq and links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, and that the occupation itself does not follow the Army's own legal rules of conduct for occupying a country. For all of these reasons, says Watada, he cannot morally participate in the war" A time line of events regarding this trial is located here. I met Watada's parents a few months ago, and am convinced that this is an honorable position and worth our support.
• Yes, I do understand that when you sign up for service it's a contract that you have agreed to abide by with regard to your service. That said, the Germans were only following orders, right? Why should this man suffer a court martial for refusing to follow the orders of President Quisling the Thief? This is NOT a war, it's a commercial opportunity.
• Why should this man suffer a court martial for refusing to follow the orders of President Quisling the Thief? I guess for the same reason you'd be jailed for refusing to pay the taxes that fund the war.
• Iraq is Texas; and we are Emersons to Watada's Thoreau.
• If he was Thoreau, he'd be pleading guilty and gladly accepting his punishment.
• I guess for the same reason you'd be jailed for refusing to pay the taxes that fund the war. If I could isolate that money from all the other taxes, I would.
• No one should ever fight a fight they don't feel is just. It's really that simple.
• Is the war illegal? I thought that Congressional approval made it legal? "When the president does it that means that it is not illegal."
• What HuronBob said. The Constitution and the War Powers Act are pretty specific about the circumstances under which the U.S. can go to war, and it's definitely arguable that Iraq doesn't qualify, Congressional OK or no. That said, he's screwed anyway, because they're not letting him argue that point. Which is a whole 'nother miscarriage of justice. Too bad jury nullification's pretty much out of the question.
• I find it amazing that young men and women are not heading out in droves for Canada or spending their time in protest. Guess the baby boomers were the last to speak their minds with their feet.