Military attempts to stop Lt. Watada from speaking against illegal war:

Lt. Watada confirmed, “I have a legal and ethical obligation to speak out against, and refuse to fight, this patently illegal war in Iraq. This has not changed.”
http://tinyurl.com/ogefp

Hmmmm, methinks there's more to this than meets the eye. Below is an article from LT Watada's hometown newspaper, the Honolulu Star Bulletin, that gives a little different view of what's goin' on. Followin' that you'll find another story from a major newspaper, the Seattle Times, close to his duty station, eh?

Although I'm a little curious why he apparently chose this way to proceed, methinks I'd refrain from prejudgin' him and his actions, and would ask others here to do him the same courtesy. Methinks there's more to this story than we've seen so far, and also there's the fact he's not been found guilty of anything yet. Heck, from everything I've read I ain't even sure he's actually been charged with anything, eh?

Honolulu man not unique in refusal to deploy

Honolulu native 1st Lt. Ehren K. Watada announced he would not fight in Iraq
By Gregg K. Kakesako
gkakesako@starbulletin.com

Army officials say a Honolulu native is "not the first officer, not the first enlisted, nor the first soldier" to refuse to fight in Iraq.

The Army's comments came after 1st Lt. Ehren K. Watada announced he would not fight in Iraq. Watada is the son of Bob Watada, former executive director of the state Campaign Spending Commission.

art
Paul Boyce, Army spokesman, told the Associated Press in Washington that the Army had approved 87 conscientious objectors' applications and denied 101 since January 2003.

But Eric Seitz, Watada's lawyer, said his client did not apply for conscientious objector status.

"In order to qualify as a conscientious objector, you have to be opposed to war in any form, and he is not. He's just opposed to this war.

"By his refusal to participate in the ongoing war, Lt. Watada joins a growing number of high-ranking military officers, West Point graduates and current and former members of the armed services who have expressed their opposition to the actions of the United States in Iraq," Seitz said yesterday.

The younger Watada was to hold a news conference today in Tacoma, Wash., near where his unit, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, is located at Fort Lewis. Watada also is expected to explain his actions during a teleconference call with the media.

Joe Hitt, a Fort Lewis spokesman, said Watada is assigned to the 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, the Army's first Stryker Brigade Combat Team.

Hitt said the Army is aware of Watada's plans but had no comment. "We have nothing to say about it because nothing has happened, and we're not going to speculate on anything."

The 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team held its deployment ceremony on Friday and is scheduled to replace the 172nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team from Fort Wainwright, Alaska, in Mosul in northern Iraq later this month. This is the 3rd Brigade's second combat tour in Iraq.

Seitz said that Watada, who turns 28 tomorrow, twice asked the Army to reassign him to any unit not scheduled to deploy to Iraq.

In his first request in January, when Watada told the Army he was willing to resign his commission, the 1996 Kalani High School graduate said he is "wholeheartedly opposed to the continued war in Iraq, the deception used to wage this war, and the lawlessness that has pervaded every aspect of our civilian leadership."

Seitz said Watada could be court-martialed if he refuses to go with his unit unless the Army is willing to let him resign his commission.

A court-martial would determine what type of punishment Watada would get.

Watada enlisted in the Army in 2003 after graduating from Hawaii Pacific University and entered Officer Candidate School in August, five months after U.S. troops invaded Iraq. His commission requires him to serve until Dec. 3.

The Army says Watada could be charged with desertion or "missing a movement" if he fails to join the Stryker brigade when it leaves Fort Lewis.

Desertion, which happens when a soldier leaves his unit permanently without permission, is a far more serious offense in the Army, especially during a time of war.

The Associated Press reported that Watada is the second Fort Lewis soldier who has refused to fight in Iraq.

Sgt. Kevin Benderman served in Iraq during the initial invasion in 2003, but refused to return for a second deployment because he concluded war is inhumane. The Army rejected his requests for conscientious objector status. He was sentenced to 15 months for "missing movement" to Iraq and is now detained at Fort Lewis.

Army regulations define conscientious objection as a "firm, fixed and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or the bearing of arms, because of religious training and belief."

Boyce said the Army does not grant conscientious objector status to those who claim political, philosophical or sociological objections.



Officer at Fort Lewis calls Iraq war illegal, refuses order to go

By Hal Bernton
Seattle Times staff reporter

In a rare case of officer dissent, a Fort Lewis Army lieutenant has refused orders to head out to Iraq this month to lead troops in what he believes is an illegal war of occupation.

1st Lt. Ehren Watada was scheduled to make his first deployment to Iraq this month. His refusal to accompany the Stryker brigade troops puts him at risk of court martial and years of prison time.

"I feel that we have been lied to and betrayed by this administration," Watada said Tuesday in a telephone interview from Fort Lewis. "It is the duty, the obligation of every soldier, and specifically the officers, to evaluate the legality, the truth behind every order — including the order to go to war."

In a statement released today, Watada said the "war in Iraq violates our democratic system of checks and balances.

"It usurps international treaties and conventions that by virtue of the Constitution become American law. The wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of the Iraqi people with only limited accountability is not only a terrible moral injustice, but a contradiction to the Army's own Law of Land Warfare. My participation would make me party to war crimes."

In making his decision, Watada has reached out to peace groups, including clergy, students, some veterans opposed to Iraq and others. Some war critics are raising money for his legal defense as they seek to galvanize broader opposition to Bush administration policy in Iraq.

"There has been an outpouring of support in the Puget Sound area," said David Solnit, who works with the anti-war group Courage to Resist. The group and others are helping organize a press conference today in Tacoma to launch the support campaign.

Watada met over the weekend with Olympia peace activists, and had hoped to attend the press conference. But after a Tuesday meeting with an Army colonel, he was given written orders not to attend during duty hours between 6:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. Instead, he expects to offer a video statement.

Watada's actions also may become a lightning rod for others in the debate about the Iraq war.

"He has an obligation to fulfill, and it is not up to the individual officer to decide when he is going to deploy or not deploy," said Jerry Newberry, a Vietnam veteran and director of communications for the Veterans of Foreign Wars. "Some other officer will have to go in his place. He needs to think about that."

Watada, a member of the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, is unsure what charges he might face. But he is concerned that his decision to go public will cause the Army to pile on numerous offenses, such as disobeying an order, missing a troop movement and unauthorized absence.

"I think they will do their best to make an example of me," Watada said.

Though some U.S. commissioned officers refused to deploy in the Vietnam War and the first Gulf War, it is unclear how many — if any — have balked at deployment in the Iraq war. Pentagon officials said they had no such statistics available.

A Fort Lewis spokesman, Joe Hitt, also had no knowledge of any other commissioned officer refusing to deploy. He declined to comment on Watada.

Among the enlisted ranks at Fort Lewis, Sgt. Kevin Benderman is serving a 15-month sentence at a base correctional facility for refusing a second tour of duty in Iraq. Benderman, an Army mechanic for 10 years, served in Iraq in 2003 but refused to board a plane for a return trip in January 2005.

There is also a much broader category of military personnel who for a wide range of reasons have not fulfilled their service obligations.

Since the beginning of the war, more than 7,900 members of the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force have deserted, a small fraction of the hundreds of thousands who have served. Pentagon statistics indicate that desertions have declined as the war has progressed. They dropped from 3,678 in 2003, the first year of the war, to about 2,000 in 2005. The desertions typically involve enlisted personnel, not officers.

Watada has not deserted, since he remains on post in Fort Lewis.

Watada, 28, is a native of Hawaii, and an Eagle Scout who graduated from Hawaii Pacific University with a finance degree.

His father — Robert Watada, a retired Hawaii state official — was opposed to the war in Vietnam, and was able to do alternative service in the Peace Corps in Peru.

And Robert Watada said he laid out the "pros and cons" of military service as his son considered joining the service in the spring of 2003 as the invasion of Iraq was launched.

"He knew very well of my decision not to go to Vietnam, and he had to make his own decision to join the Army," Robert Watada said. "It was very noble. He felt like he wanted to do his part for his country."

After the younger Watada enlisted, he was sent to officer-training school in Georgia. Watada said he supported the war at that time because he believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

"I had my doubts," he said. "But I felt like the president is our leader, and he won't betray our trust, and he would know what he was talking about, and let's give him the benefit of the doubt." Over the past year, his feeling changed as he read up on the war and became convinced that there was "intentional manipulation of intelligence" by the Bush administration.

In January, Watada told his commanders that he believed that the war was unlawful, and therefore, so were his deployment orders. He did not, however, consider himself a conscientious objector, since he was willing to fight in wars that were justified, legal and in defense of the nation.

Watada was told that he could submit his resignation, but that the Army would recommend disapproval. That resignation was rejected in May, he said.

In a court-martial proceeding, Watada, who has retained civilian counsel, said he would try to mount a case about the legality of the war under international law and American law. But he is aware that a military court might not allow him to make that case.

Peace activists say they hope more military personnel will refuse to go war.

"We plan a national campaign to try to make sure that he is not punished for what he is doing," Solnit said.

Hal Bernton: 206-464-2581.

Seattle Times reporter Alex Fryer contributed to this story.

Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company

"He knew very well of my decision not to go to Vietnam, and he had to make his own decision to join the Army," Robert Watada said. "It was very noble. He felt like he wanted to do his part for his country."

After the younger Watada enlisted, he was sent to officer-training school in Georgia. Watada said he supported the war at that time because he believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

"I had my doubts," he said. "But I felt like the president is our leader, and he won't betray our trust, and he would know what he was talking about, and let's give him the benefit of the doubt." Over the past year, his feeling changed as he read up on the war and became convinced that there was "intentional manipulation of intelligence" by the Bush administration.

I don't think there is anything to prejudge here. It is quite obvious Wataba the Eagle Scout innocently believed in the cause until he discovered information we discuss on this forum all the time. I'm sure he now understands his father's decision regarding Vietnam. He just didn't have the information to make the same decision until it was too late. At the point at which he went to OCS it looked like a legitimate war to most of this country.

He's a very courageous man to resist. I wish him well.

Another story of interest in this case is this one from the Honolulu Advertiser, eh? Methinks this one's startin' to look a whole lot like the Pablo Peredes case, don't it?

Read your link Flydangler. As you know my case was not too dissimilar regarding the Veitnam War. While I was not enlisted, I resisted the draft openly and faced the Draft Board Tribunal. I think while this is being used by both sides as Cause celebre' , I think this man is saying what I said; "I will not go 6,000 miles and shoot people who are no threat to us, just because you tell me to."

There methinks I might hafta respectfully disagree a bit. So far 'twould seem the Army ain't sayin' much and's just makin' him toe the line 'bout what he can and can't do on duty and while in uniform. 'Twould seem he, his lawyer and supporters be the ones workin' for the publicity, while the Army sits back quietly and methinks'll take a wait and see attitude.

IMHO the Peredes case turned out to be a big bust for them behind the scenes quietly pullin' his strings, and he ended up payin' a price for nothin' 'tall. Hopefully this fella gets what he's lookin' for, eh?

I hope Wataba gets assigned to other duties to fulfill his contract. No officer should be sent to lead troops when he realizes the war is wrong and a sham. This man had all the background to be a great leader. It is apparent he would have gladly laid down his life in a legitimate war. What is one supposed to do when he discovers he has been duped? Just go along to get along?

Would you want your son to be in the unit Wataba ostensibly would command in Iraq when he himself knows it's an illegal war? If you are going to fight and if you are going to be led by someone, you'd both best believe in your cause.

Could some of the fragging in Vietnam have come from subordinates realizing the OIC doubted the mission?

It is my thought that officers who have fulfilled their contract can resign. Is that true? Would you want to follow someone into Iraq who didn't agree it was a lawful mission?

By both "sides" I meant pro-war and anti-war. I didn't mean the Army.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/061606B.shtml

Troops Refusing Iraq Duty Get a Haven
By Mike Barber
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Thursday 15 June 2006

Prompted by a Fort Lewis Army officer's decision to refuse to fight in Iraq, the First United Methodist Church of Tacoma has declared itself a sanctuary for servicemen and servicewomen who also don't want to go to Iraq.

The 300-member congregation's administrative council voted last weekend to open its doors beginning this Saturday after 1st Lt. Ehren Watada announced that he thinks the war in Iraq is illegal and that he has sought to resign his commission.

A statement from the church on Wednesday said that service members "who are unable to deploy to combat areas for reasons of conscience" can find protection behind its doors.

"Our initiative was because of Lieutenant Watada's gesture and a clear sense that we have, as a reconciling congregation, deeply involved in justice issues throughout the city, that any war, particularly this one, is inconsistent with Christian teachings," the Rev. Monty Smith said Wednesday night.

Smith said the church stands "in solidarity" with others who hold similar social-justice convictions. The church essentially is providing a protective space and resources to those contemplating whether to resist deployment to Iraq, he said.

Smith said the church so far has received no applications for sanctuary from members of the armed forces. It has protocols and precautions to ensure that anyone who seeks sanctuary is doing so for legal and religious reasons.

The decision marks the latest action by peace activists and war resisters in recent weeks in the Tacoma-Olympia corridor near Fort Lewis.

While troop supporters continue their vigils at a bridge near the post's main gate, Tacoma and Olympia seem to have become a new epicenter for an invigorated anti-war movement usually seen in Seattle.

Two weeks ago, demonstrations in Olympia against the movement of military vehicles from Fort Lewis to Iraq via the Port of Olympia resulted in civil disobedience and arrests.

Last week, Watada, a company-grade military officer with the Stryker Brigade about to deploy to Iraq this month, said off-post and after working hours that he does not conscientiously object to war. He would serve in Afghanistan but not in Iraq, which he considers an illegal war.

Watada, who has tried twice before to resign from the Army, continues to work and train as an artillery-targeting officer but is under investigation, his lawyer and military officials said.

Smith said he's a bit surprised that activism is taking root in the area.

"Before, the huge demonstrations and marches were in Seattle," he said.

Spokesmen for the Church Council of Greater Seattle could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

The Seattle council has expressed support for Watada, and urged support for an Interfaith Network of Concern petition to the Seattle City Council for a resolution urging an exit strategy from Iraq.

On its Web site, the Seattle church group said:

"The Church Council appreciates the difficulty for Lt. Watada in making such an important decision, given his military service, and the potential consequences that he likely will face, including a court-martial. Our support and prayers go to Lt. Watada at this time. We continue to pray and call for an expedited end to the war in Iraq and for the preservation of all lives in the areas of conflict."

Smith, joined by other local clergy members, has scheduled a news conference for noon Friday to explain the church's position and to answer questions.

The church, at 423 Martin Luther King Jr. Way in Tacoma's Hilltop neighborhood, has a long history of supporting social justice since opening its doors in 1876.

Yeah, methinks bloggers on the extremes of both the right and left are full of meaningless conjecture on this. Still 'twould seem 'tis all speculation since methinks Watada hasn't yet actually done anything actionable, eh?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062206S.shtml

Lieutenant Watada Refused Iraq Deployment Orders Today
By Sarah Olson
t r u t h o u t | Report
Thursday 22 June 2006

First Lieutenant Ehren Watada became the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse orders to deploy to the Iraq war at 2:30 Thursday morning. Hours before his refusal, Lieutenant Watada confirmed his steadfast opposition to the Iraq war: "I am opposed to this war and the misconduct within this administration. I am willing to sacrifice my freedom and my good name to end this war and save lives: both Iraqi and American."

Georgia Tagaras-Gordon is a public affairs assistant at Ft. Lewis in Washington state. She says: "First Lieutenant Watada remained within his battalion headquarters during manifest this morning. No charges have been brought against him and none will be brought until his commanding officers can review the facts of the case." She says roughly 4,000 soldiers are deploying with the 3-2 Stryker Brigade combat team. Lieutenant Watada is currently confined to base, and restricted to communicating only with his lawyer.

Eric Seitz is Lieutenant Watada's lead defense attorney. He says: "This morning Lieutenant Watada has been restricted to base without any actual charges or proper process. By placing a complete gag order on Lieutenant Watada, the military has again shown that their first concern is silencing Lieutenant Watada's speech in opposition to the illegal war in Iraq." Seitz says he will immediately challenge these restrictions.

Watada's mother, Carolyn Ho, flew to Olympia from her home in Hawaii to support her son in his decision. This morning she says: "My son's decision to refrain from deploying to Iraq is an act of patriotism. It is a statement to all Americans, to men and women in uniform, that they need not remain silent out of fear - that that they have the power to turn the tide of history, to stop the destruction of a country and the killing of untold numbers of innocent men, women and children. It is a message that states unequivocally that blindly following orders is no longer an option."

Bob Watada is Ehren's father, and also joined his son in Olympia to support him in his decision. He said: "He took an oath to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And that's what he's upholding. We have people who have committed very egregious war crimes. My son has been ordered to kill people for no reason, and he has decided he can't be a part of that. I'm very proud of him for that stand."

Retired-Colonel Ann Wright resigned her position as a US diplomat in 2003 to protest the Iraq war. She is in Washington state as well today, and says: "I am very proud of Lieutenant Watada for making his stand of conscience. He is standing up to say this is an illegal war. This is a type of analysis that everyone in the military needs to be looking at. The war in Iraq is, in my opinion, an illegal war of aggression, and a war crime. Ehren has every right to refuse to deploy to Iraq in opposition to this illegal war." Wright says she hopes others will be inspired by Lieutenant Watada's stand.

Lieutenant Watada says he has been receiving support from around the world since his June 7 announcement that he would refuse to deploy to Iraq. He says he has also been receiving support from individuals within the military, at every rank and level. Others have called him a traitor and a coward. To that, he says: "I took an oath to defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies. And that means we have to make our leaders accountable. We have to uphold the laws and the values of democracy - and the elected officials are servants of the people and they must be held accountable to us. We will not tolerate deception or taking us into war based on lies and betrayal."

Lieutenant Watada concludes that: "It's all really about what are you willing to personally sacrifice. If you believe that this war is wrong, that we must end it in the very near future, that you want to support the troops and bring them home alive, it takes people acting on this belief. Can you imagine if there were a million people in Washington every day, what kind of impact this would have in ending this war? If we don't hold our leaders accountable for what they have done, they will continue to violate the law, they will continue this illegal war, sacrifice more American lives and continue with further death and destruction."

Anti-war organizers have called for a solidarity action-set on Tuesday, June 27, in cities around the country. For information on these actions and the latest developments in Lieutenant Watada's case, see http://www.thankyoult.org.

-------

COURAGE TO RESIST is a group of concerned community members, veterans and military families that supports military objectors to illegal war and occupation and the policies of empire. Our People Power strategy weakens the pillars that maintain war and occupation in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere by supporting GI resistance, counter-recruitment and draft resistance, which cuts off the supply of troops.

http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/

Too bad it's not working, eh?

Recruitment is up, retention is up; we are winning the war is why.

I didn't see anywhere on the website you provided the link to that the "heros" they posted stories about warning anyone considering what the folks did will go through the rest of their lives with the equivilancy of a felonly conviction on their record. Just an oversight or do you suppose the people running the web site really don't care if these young people have trashed their lives?

Don't know anything about these people. But I would imagine they know.

Well, I imagine if they didn't know before they figured it out when they are discharge from the brig and given a bad conduct discharge.

I would hope (and expect) that you (and every other American Military Service person) would do the same if you believed that you would be complicit in committing war crimes regardless of a "felony" record by serving in an illegal, undeclared war. Americans are not dumb robots... we Americans (particularly the volunteer kind) have something unheard of in military history... a conscience and a right and responsibility to act on that conscience when it is in conflict with international law and fundamental human decency. It takes guts to stand up to despots and tyrannts... both foreign and DOMESTIC.

ITA! I hope our Military realizes that they took an oath to the Constitution of the United States, not a King.

I agree, the military is not inhabited by dumb robots. If and when your before stated criteria occurs I suspect the military would refuse to participate.

There are better than 1.45 million men and women in the uniformed service of the United States. The website you linked to spotlights five dissenters, I'd be willing to say there are probably at least twice that many who believe the Iraq War is illegal currently in the military. That figures to be less than .0000689655% of the military feel the war in Iraq is illegal.

Not such good odds, eh?

That's why so few adhere to the notion that the Iraq War is illegal.

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002



Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

( obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

( PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or ( is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

© WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --


(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5( of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

( To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

© To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

I do not see a declaration of war in that Joint Resolution.


Odds? Say what? Christ was one man out of billions of people... what are the odds there?

Likewise there is no declaration of War by Congress. We should have learned since Vietnam at least. Also King George violated the U.N. Resolution because he did not return to the U.N. for an Authorization Resolution. So he picks his reasons for invasion citing Saddam's violations of U.N. Resolutions. Furthermore King George is the one who kicked out the Inspectors.

Most damning of all are the lies told to invade Iraq. And doing Osama's bidding.

Whilst methinks there's some here that won't consider AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE to be MSM to the degree they'd consider CounterPunch or truthout.org to be, methinks they still might to want to see "US army officer refuses deployment to Iraq". 'Tis short, sweet, to the point and not filled with editorial comments or hyperbole, but other than that methinks you might like it, eh?

Maybe not illegal, but wrong.

While admitting that the war is long over and we are now an occupation force I firmly believe that the Officer in question should be sent to Afghanestan (sp) and fight against the true villains of 9/11. The occupation and previous war in Iraq is wrong however I'm curious as to when the Officer in question enlisted and was the war going on when he did enlist.

Interesting solution. Glad to see you back khesanhvet.

Your point is very well taken. Re-deployment to Afghanistan would be a viable option to circumvent his objection to the illegal war in Iraq. A refusal to go to Afghanistan would be much more difficult to support his objections.

I too am curious about when he enlisted.

http://www.tompaine.com/print/the_war_over_watada.php




The War Over Watada
Alexandra Walker
June 23, 2006
The smear campaign is in full force against Lt. Ehren Watada, who on Thursday made news for refusing to deploy with his unit to Iraq. Watada is being called a "disgrace to those in uniform" and "publicity hound" by pro-war critics who can't bear the attention that a uniformed officer is bringing to Bush's disaster in Iraq. Friends and family of Lt. Watada are asking for public displays of support. Read an open letter from his mother, Carolyn Ho, after the jump to learn more.

June 22, 2006
Dear Fellow Americans,

I am the mother of Lt. Ehren Watada, an officer stationed at Ft. Lewis. He is part of a Stryker brigade unit that deployed today to Iraq. Despite an unflinching commitment to his men and to democratic ideals, he chose not to accompany his men. His decision came through much soul-searching and through research and consultation with experts across disciplines, inside and outside of the military and the government.

After weighing the evidence, he came to the conclusion that he could no longer be silent while atrocities were committed in the name of democracy. He could no longer be a tool of an administration that used deception and lies to make the case for pre-emptive war.

As a member of the armed forces, sworn to uphold the US Constitution, he refuses to blindly participate in a war of aggression, an illegal war that undermines who we are as a nation and violates international law. Implicit in his oath as an officer is the duty to disobey all unlawful orders for; to carry out these orders renders him an accomplice to a criminal act. Furthermore, to order his men to participate in a war of aggression multiplies his guilt a thousand fold. His conscience will not permit him to do so. He believes that he can best serve them by taking a stand against the war. In so doing, he demonstrates that one does not relinquish the freedom to choose what is right, even in the military, and that the freedom to choose what is right transcends the allegiance to man and institutions.

As a mother, I have evolved from fearing for his safety and for his future to the realization that there is a higher purpose to all that has transpired. My son no longer stands at the crossroads. He has chosen “the road less travelled.” Come what may, he is committed to staying the course.

I invite you to affirm your support of Lt. Ehren Watada on June 27th, National Day of Action. On this day, groups across the country will participate in peaceful demonstrations, prayer services, candle light vigils, parades, leafleting, visitations to recruitment stations to provide counsel to prospective recruits, etc. Please contact your local organization for details.

For updates on news and actions regarding Lt. Watada, please check out:
www.thankyoult.org or www.couragetoresist.org.

My deepest thanks,

Carolyn Ho
Ehren’s Mom

Nice words from a Mother but still doesn't answer the question of "was the war going on when he enlisted" and "would he serve in Afghanistan if ordered to go"
Semper Fi !!.

March 2003 -

Interview with Watada
http://www.leftturn.org/Articles/Viewer.aspx?id=943&type=W

Thank you for posting that cardinal. He makes some very powerful statements. I thought the part about trust was especially so.




This is so true. We are so removed from what is really going on in Iraq.

It's true; King George has broken the bond of trust.

There was never a bond of trust to begin with. He and his goons fabricated the reasons for attacking Iraq, and unlike Afghanistan which is a legitimate target, Iraq was something premeditated and personal.

I was sure the 2000 Election was stolen, and I felt he was a liar from the first. But, when we were attacked, I was willing to put that aside and unite to go after those that attacked us. But Bush let Osama go and lied us into Iraq. That was unforgivable. That's when he broke it for me for all time. And of course, that was only the begining.

Let me try to understand this man. For three years he has served in the Army while the war has been going on and only decided to quit when it was his turn to go to Iraq? Why is it that he feels dishonor only when it's his turn to go into combat? Leading up to the war I recall hearing much discussion that the administration was lying so the reality of it was no shock. Why didn't he question his priorities upon hearing all those reports? Sorry folks I sense that there is more to this story than what I am reading here and I remind you that I'm not and never have been for the war in Iraq.

I know that he doesn't have a choice in the matter... but to avoid the big stink... and to take the wind out of his sails... why didn't the higher ups just deploy him to Afghanistan?

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/zeese.php?articleid=9202

June 26, 2006
Standing With GIs Who Resist

by Kevin B. Zeese
One of the most powerful group of voices in opposition to the occupation of Iraq are U.S. soldiers who come home and speak out. In particular, those who become so disillusioned and disgusted by the Iraq occupation that they refuse to return provide a special power that can help to end the nightmare of the Iraq quagmire. More and more soldiers are reaching that breaking point and saying they refuse to participate. As a result, a support group has developed, Courage to Resist, that is aiding those who refuse to participate. In the interview below with Max Diorio, we examine why the war resisters are important in this debate and what people can do to help them.

Kevin Zeese: What is Courage to Resist?

Max Diorio: Courage to Resist describes itself as "a group of concerned community members, veterans, and military families that supports military objectors to illegal war and occupation and the policies of empire. Our People Power strategy weakens the pillars that maintain war and occupation in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere by supporting GI resistance, counter-recruitment, and draft resistance, which cuts off the supply of troops."

KZ: How do you support resisters? What kind of impact do you hope resistance by military officers will have?

MD: Courage to Resist as a group has the capacity to support resisters in many ways. On a large scale, we are cultivating a National GI Resistance Alert Network, which aims to have groups and individuals around the country "on alert" ready to support those from within the military who step forward to publicly resist war, occupation, and empire. For those who do not wish to be public, we can also offer "lower profile" support, which may come from the local area where the person lives or is stationed.

In this way, much of the strength of Courage to Resist is drawn from its desire to make support of military resistance an integral part of all the work that is being done against the illegal war and occupation in Iraq, and against war in general. We encourage groups and individuals around the nation (and the world!) to take up this support work as a part of the great work they already do.

On a more individual level, we have many ways to support those from within the military who resist. We can offer help in the form of "expert advice" to a man or woman who may be considering speaking out. I say "expert advice" because among our ranks are former GI resisters, vets of many wars who have since spoken out against them, and folks highly educated in the nuances and possibilities that crop up when a person takes such a strong stand within the context of the U.S. military. Also, we can offer help to the individual resister in the form of fundraising and political pressure campaigns intended to minimize negative consequences to the person taking a brave stand against the war.

KZ: Is there a historical precedent for soldiers resisting service? What has been the impact in previous wars?

MD: There is a large historical precedent for soldiers resisting service. The height of this of course came during the Vietnam era, when the outright refusal by so many from within the military and those who were being drafted was a major factor in ending the war in Southeast Asia. An incredible film about the power of the GI resistance movement in Vietnam has been released and is being shown around the country, called Sir! No Sir! We believe that GI resistance can actually stop the war, not only by denying "warm bodies" to the war effort, but by turning the tide of public opinion.

KZ: Describe some of the resisters you are assisting and how you are doing so.

MD: Right now our focus is on Ehren Watada, who is an Army officer stationed in Fort Lewis, Washington. More can be found on Ehren at ThankYouLt.org. Courage to Resist, in conjunction with many many groups and individuals around the country, has formed a working group which operates on two levels. One is the important work of giving Ehren, his family, and community material support in terms of fundraising, advice, media liaisoning, and technical support. The other is preparing to mount an unprecedented political and social campaign which will demand that the military not criminalize Ehren's act, not court-martial him, and give him an honorable discharge from the military. We will accomplish this by doing press work, holding rallies and support actions, and generally making the case that Ehren is a hero, and is doing the right thing by the standards of the Constitution, U.S. law, and international law. Courage to Resist, along with others, has done similar support (though perhaps on a somewhat smaller scale) for resisters like Kevin Benderman and Pablo Paredes.

KZ: What kind of resources do resisters and their families need? How can people get them those resources?

MD: Some of the support needed and given was outlined in previous questions, but again, like anyone, resisters need to feel that they are being upheld and supported by people in their communities. To take such a large step into the unknown, it is invaluable for resisters to feel that they'll have people to rely on when they are being persecuted by the U.S. military.

This support can take the forms of material support and political/social support as I outlined above. These resources can be garnered as long as groups like Courage to Resist know there is a need. I have personally seen amazing and touching outpourings of support for those who refuse to fight in Iraq, or who stand up to the military in resisting war in general.

KZ: What is the national day of action on June 27th? How can people get involved? Are there events all over the country?

MD: June 27th is a date which will likely be very close to the time that Ehren Watada's unit will be ordered to ship to Iraq. At this point, Ehren will officially refuse orders. Courage to Resist and others are calling for actions around the country to stand with Lt. Watada and his conviction that this war is illegal and must end. The Courage to Resist Web site is the best place to find updates on actions on the 27th. We will have national actions listed, as well as downloadable materials that organizers can use in their efforts. If Ehren is court-martialed by the military, which is likely, we will build on the actions of June 27th to create an even bigger national outcry around his court martial.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/06/2...se_to_serve.php
To Refuse To Serve
Ret. Col. Ann Wright
June 27, 2006


Col. Ann Wright served in the U.S. Army for 13 years and in the U.S. Army Reserves for 16 years. She also served for 16 years in the U.S. diplomatic corps, and in that capacity helped reopen the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan in December 2001. She received the State Department’s Award for Heroism as the acting U.S. ambassador during the rebel takeover of Freetown, Sierra Leone in 1997.

Today, is the National Day of Action in support of U.S. Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, who, on June 22, refused an order to deploy with his unit to Iraq.

Watada said he could not participate in an “illegal and immoral war against people who did nothing to deserve our aggression. My oath of office is to protect and defend America’s laws and its people. By refusing unlawful orders for an illegal war, I fulfill that oath.”

Watada’s refusal to deploy to Iraq raises ethical, moral and legal questions, not only for him, but for other military personnel as well as for civilians. He believes the war on Iraq is a violation of international and domestic law and is therefore illegal. Watada says that as a military officer of honor and integrity he must refuse an order to participate in an illegal act.

Watada joins 10 other members of the U.S. military who—as a matter of conscience—have refused to either go to Iraq or to return there and have been court-martialed for their actions. Two are currently in prison for their stands. In addition, over 200 U.S. military personnel have gone to Canada to avoid being sent to Iraq, nine of whom have gone public with their war resistance. There are over 6,400 U.S. military are absent without leave (AWOL), while thousands who have returned from AWOL have been given administrative discharges instead of courts-martial. The military has not provided information on whether those who have turned themselves in were AWOL due to opposition to the war.

For Watada and those other military volunteers who have chosen to go public with their dissent from the war on Iraq, the path of conscience is not easy. By their actions, they challenge an administration whose policy of aggressive, pre-emptive war has placed those volunteers, the institution of the U.S. military and the nation itself in danger.

Refusing to obey an illegal order is a time-honored tradition in the U.S. military, but that refusal carries incredible risk. If the order is found by a military board of inquiry to be lawful, then the soldier is will be brought before a military court for trial.

Watada’s public refusal to deploy to Iraq puts the military panel who will sit in judgment of his actions in a dilemma. The military has extraordinarily talented military lawyers who are well-versed in the laws of land warfare, the Geneva and Hague conventions and the Nuremberg principles. Indeed, military lawyers were the strongest opponents of the decision by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez to throw out internationally agreed to protections for prisoners of war and instead create a new, illegal term called “enemy combatants.” This legally meaningless phrase provides no protections for those detained on the battlefield and jeopardizes U.S. military personnel who end up in the hands of opponents. Now, these military lawyers must decide whether protection of an administration’s illegal war of aggression is more important to the national security of the United States than recognition that, by the Nuremberg principles, military and civilians have a responsibility to stop their governments from committing illegal acts.

As a retired colonel with 29 years in the U.S. Army and Army Reserves, and as a U.S. diplomat for 16 years who resigned in March 2003 from the State Department in opposition to the war in Iraq, I strongly support Watada’s decision to publicly challenge the illegality of the war.

I hope that on June 27, as part of this National Day of Action, Americans will find ways in their communities to “Stand Up with Lt. Watada.” We should discuss the important moral and ethical issues that he and the other brave and courageous men and women have raised in their refusal to participate in the illegal war on Iraq. See www.ThankyouLt.org for a list of communities and activities scheduled for June 27.

As civilians, we also have a moral responsibility when we see an administration committing illegal acts. We cannot be silent and let this illegal war continue. Stand up for Watada and our country.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/38258/

Lt. Watada's War Against the War

By Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith, TheNation.com. Posted June 30, 2006.


First Lt. Ehren Watada has refused orders to go to Iraq. He says the war and the occupation violate the Constitution, international law and Army regulations. Tools

In a remarkable protest from inside the ranks of the military, First Lieut. Ehren Watada has become the Army's first commissioned officer to publicly refuse orders to fight in Iraq on grounds that the war is illegal. The 28-year-old announced his decision not to obey orders to deploy to Iraq in a video press conference June 7, saying, "My participation would make me party to war crimes."

An artillery officer stationed at Fort Lewis, Washington, Watada wore a business suit rather than his military uniform when making his statement. "It is my conclusion as an officer of the armed forces that the war in Iraq is not only morally wrong but a horrible breach of American law," he said. "Although I have tried to resign out of protest, I am forced to participate in a war that is manifestly illegal. As the order to take part in an illegal act is ultimately unlawful as well, I must as an officer of honor and integrity refuse that order."

A native of Hawaii who enlisted in the Army after graduating from college in 2003, Watada differs from other military personnel who have sought conscientious-objector status to avoid deployment to Iraq.

Watada told Truthout's Sarah Olson that at first he gave the Bush Administration the benefit of the doubt as it built the case for war. But when he discovered he was being sent to Iraq, he began reading everything he could, such as James Bamford's Pretext for War. He concluded that the war was based on false pretenses, ranging from the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction to the claim that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda and 9/11 to the idea that the United States is in Iraq to promote democracy.

His investigation led him to question the very legality of the war. In an interview with Democracy Now!, he explained that as he read articles by experts on international and constitutional law, reports from governmental and nongovernmental agencies, revelations from independent journalists, writings by the Iraqi people and the words of soldiers coming home, "I came to the conclusion that the war and what we're doing over there is illegal."

First, he concluded that the war violates the Constitution and War Powers Act, which, he said, "limits the President in his role as commander in chief from using the armed forces in any way he sees fit." Watada also concluded that "my moral and legal obligation is to the Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders."

Second, he claims the war is illegal under international law. He discovered that "the U.N. Charter, the Geneva Convention and the Nuremberg principles all bar wars of aggression." The Constitution makes such treaties part of American law as well.

These are not wild legal claims. Watada's conclusions are supported by mountains of evidence and experts, including the judgment of U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, who in 2004 declared that the U.S. invasion was "not in conformity with the U.N. Charter, and from our point of view ... was illegal."

Watada said he came to recognize that the military conduct of the occupation is also illegal: "If you look at the Army Field Manual, 27-10, which governs the laws of land warfare, it states certain responsibilities for the occupying power. As the occupying power, we have failed to follow a lot of those regulations." He told ABC News that the "wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of the Iraqi people" is "a contradiction to the Army's own law of land warfare."

While ongoing media coverage of the protest debates whether Watada's action is one of cowardice or conscience, so far the seriousness of his legal claims have been largely ignored. Watada's position is different from that of conscientious objectors, who oppose all wars. "I'm not just against bearing arms or fighting people. I am against an unjustified war," he said.

Can such a claim be heard in a military court? In 2004, Petty Officer Pablo Paredes refused to board his Iraq-bound ship in San Diego Harbor, claiming to be a conscientious objector. At his court-martial, Paredes testified that he was convinced that the Iraq war was illegal. National Lawyers Guild president-elect Marjorie Cohn presented evidence to support his claim. The military judge, Lieut. Cmdr. Robert Klant, accepted Paredes's war-crimes defense and refused to send him to jail. The government prosecutor's case was so weak that Cohn, in a report published on Truthout, noted that Klant declared ironically, "I believe the government has just successfully proved that any seaman recruit has reasonable cause to believe that the wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal."

One of Germany's highest courts heard a case last year regarding a German soldier who refused to participate in military activities as part of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq. The Federal Administrative Court issued a long and detailed decision in his favor, saying, "There were and still are serious legal objections to the war against Iraq...relating to the U.N. Charter's prohibition of the use of violence and other provisions of international law."

Watada's case comes amid a growing questioning of the Iraq war in all levels of the military. A February Zogby poll found that 72 percent of American troops serving in Iraq think the United States should leave the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the United States should leave immediately. While the "generals' revolt" against Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld didn't challenge the legality of the war per se, many retired military leaders have strongly condemned the use of torture and other violations of international and military law.

According to USA Today, at least 8,000 service members have deserted since the Iraq War began. The Guardian reports that there are an estimated 400 Iraq War deserters in Canada, of whom at least twenty have applied for asylum. An Army spokesman says that ten other servicemen besides Watada have refused to go to Iraq.

Resistance in the military played a critical role in ending the French war in Algeria, the Israeli occupation of Lebanon and the American war in Vietnam. Such resistance not only undermines the capacity of a government to conduct wars; it also challenges the moral claims that are used to justify them and inspires others to examine their own responsibilities.

Watada's action comes as the issue of U.S. war crimes in Iraq is inexorably creeping into the public spotlight. Senator John Warner has promised to hold hearings on the alleged Haditha massacre. The U.N. Committee Against Torture has declared that the United States is engaging in illegal torture at Guantánamo and elsewhere. An investigation by the European Union has found overwhelming evidence of the rendition of prisoners to other countries for torture.

Watada's highly publicized stand will no doubt lead others to ask what they are doing to halt such crimes. Unless the Army assigns him somewhere besides Iraq or permits him to resign his commission, he will now face court-martial for refusing to serve as ordered and possibly years in prison.

According to an ominous statement released by the Army commanders at Fort Lewis in response to Watada's press conference: "For a commissioned officer to publicly declare an apparent intent to violate military law by refusing to obey orders is a serious matter and could subject him to adverse action."

Watada's decision to hold a press conference and post his statements online puts him at serious risk. In theory, if the Army construes his public statements as an attempt to encourage other soldiers to resist, he could be charged with mutiny under Article 94 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which considers those who act "with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny." The conservative group Military Families Voice of Victory is already "demanding the Army prosecute Lt. Watada to the fullest extent under the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

Watada told Truthout's Olson that when he started to question the war, he he felt, like so many in and out of the military, that "there was nothing to be done, and this administration was just continually violating the law to serve their purpose, and there was nothing to stop them." But he realized that there was something he personally could do: "It is my duty not to follow unlawful orders and not to participate in things I find morally reprehensible."

"The one God-given freedom and right that we really have is freedom of choice," Watada says, echoing the profound message of Mohandas Gandhi. "I just want to tell everybody, especially people who doubt the war, that you do have that one freedom. And that's something that they can never take away. Yes, they will imprison you. They'll throw the book at you. They'll try to make an example out of you, but you do have that choice."

Even facing prison time, Watada is firm. "When you are looking your children in the eye in the future, or when you are at the end of your life, you want to look back on your life and know that at a very important moment, when I had the opportunity to make the right decisions, I did so, even knowing there were negative consequences."

Watada's recognition of his duty provides a challenge not only to those in the military but to all Americans: "We all have a duty as American citizens for civil disobedience, and to do anything we can within the law to stop an illegal war."

I imagine that extremely talented lawyers dilema isn't as bad as the writer of the story would like for it to be.

UMCJ is pretty clear, Lt. Wataba will end up as Mr. Wataba with a criminal record.

Since this discussion got split into three different threads in two subforums and buried in a deluge of other posts methinks it kinda died out, even though the story continued to evolve. Maybe a nice mod could consolidate them all into one single thread so's we'd have some continuity, eh?

If anyone's interested, here's the latest actual news stories I could find. Sorry, but since even Eric Alterman, certainly no darlin' of the rabid right, contends Cockburn's minions at CounterPunch are not trustworthy, you'll not find me postin' any of their trash talk, eh? Here's what I do have in the way of updates:

"The Fallout For Lt. Ehren Watada"

"Journalist concerned Army's case may threaten free press rights"

"Pretrial hearing for Watada set for mid-August"

"Japanese Americans, Latest Group to Criticize Watada"

If anyone else has other recent articles from real news sources (nope, sorry, but methinks Bill O'Reilly don't qualify as a real journalist anymore) I'd sure appreciate seein' it.

Thank you for updating this. Greatly appreciated.

If anyone wants to read the actual formal charges against Army 1stLt Ehren Watada they're available here, eh? Couldn't find the individual specifics for any of these charges, but methinks they're out there someplace and we'll track 'em down yet!

Methinks this one I just found may be of interest too. 'Course it may be the Seattle Post-Intelligencer ain't your cup of tea, but I'll chance it, eh?

Watada lawyer sees slim hopes for acquittal

Tuesday, July 11, 2006
By MIKE BARBER
P-I REPORTER

The lead lawyer for Army Lt. Ehren Watada, the Fort Lewis officer who refused to accompany his unit to Iraq last month, says his client's chances of leaving the Army scot-free are slim.

"Our chances of winning and getting an acquittal are probably not very good," Eric Seitz said at Seattle's University Lutheran Church on Monday. He is in town from Honolulu to work on his client's case.

Seitz is a veteran lawyer who has handled many military cases, including many war resisters, since the Vietnam War in 1968. Instead of winning, the best chances are for reduced charges or a light sentence for Watada, Seitz said.

At Fort Lewis last week, the Army charged Watada, 28, of Hawaii, with one count of missing his unit's movement to Iraq, two counts of speaking contemptuously of President Bush and three counts of conduct unbecoming an officer. They could carry a maximum seven-year prison sentence.

Watada became the first military officer to refuse to go to Iraq on grounds the war there is illegal, saying he was duty-bound to speak up. He declined to declare himself a conscientious objector, saying he would fight in Afghanistan.

He was confined to Fort Lewis for a week after being charged. But Watada now is free to come and go from his home off-post, Seitz said. He also is assigned to a desk job with a headquarters unit while awaiting an Article 32 hearing, the military equivalent of a pretrial hearing, on Aug. 16-17, the lawyer said.

"He's being treated with a great deal of respect," Seitz said. Instead of being shunned, Seitz said, Watada has received handshakes from soldiers who say that although they officially can't support him, they appreciate his courage.

Seitz, who is working with Watada's military defense counsel, Capt. Mark Kim, expected the lieutenant to be charged with "missing movements" by failing two weeks ago to board a bus with his Stryker Brigade, which was on its way to its flight to Iraq.

Seitz said he was surprised at the other charges because they appear to be a tactical blunder by the Army, opening the way for him to address the soldier's freedom of speech.

Meanwhile, the Army's charges also could force the service to get into a legal battle with the media over two reporters, one from California and another from Hawaii, who appear on the Army's witness list.

They are needed to corroborate statements upon which the charges concerning Watada's statements are based, Seitz noted. Information from Web searches alone is not credible evidence, he said.

Seitz said some comments the Army alleges Watada made were misquotes. A sentence that quotes Watada as saying, "How could I wear this horrible uniform now knowing we invaded a country for a lie?" should read, "this honorable uniform," Seitz said.

I think he's a brave American. I'm heartened by the other Soldiers who are supporting him.

That young Sailor Michael Moore talked into doing basically the same thing got off pretty light. Young fellow wasn't thinking and he got talked into a pretty shameful performance by someone instigating trouble.

Lt. Wataba is an officer and won't be afforded that as an excuse. He should have known better.

No, because the fragging in Vietnam was because of a breakdown in discipline.

I knew a Marine engineering officer who was sent down to look at a bridge which needed to be repaired in Vietnam. The dopeheads in an Army unit there figure since he was a Marine officer he deserved fragging. The only thing that saved him was the floor in the hooch they put him up in was so unlevel the grenade rolled behind the water heater tank before it exploded.

Not sure if anyone here's still followin' this case, but these are the latest items with new info I could find, eh?

"Army officer refusing to go to Iraq would accept reprimand" is an AP story from six days ago and "Hearing set for officer who refused to deploy" is from today's Army Times.

If anyone's tryin' to follow this story methinks you'll also wanna look here. There was also a third thread on this subject, but I don't see it anymore. Anyways methinks you need to be able to look at the whole thing to keep it all in context, eh?

The Army is trying to prevent Lt. Watabe from speaking out?

How about that Army, still trying to protect their own, eh? If the Lt. shoots his mouth off it just gives the prosecutors more ammo to lock him up.

Lt. Watabe...
Agree 100% The military, and the officer corps, is not like being a manager at WalMart. If you don't like being shipped to a store in Baffin Bay, you can quit. The military does not allow that option, and hasn't for about 5,000 years or so. The young Lt. shoulda thought about his options before accepting his commission, 'cause speaking your mind and not going where you are told is not among them.

On Edit: That being said, he has more balls than I woulda had...