"if you criticize the war and if you criticize the decisions that were made to bring the United States into this war, that you, too, could be charged with disloyalty, contemptuous remarks and disrespect for higher officers, and in this case, specifically in this charge, the President."

Yes. He is a hero.

Peace Takes Courage:
www.peacetakescourage.com/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If Watada is a hero what are soldiers who volenteer to serve and serve?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From what I've read, his reasoning isn't that the war is "illegal" so much as it would make him "party to war crimes."

The teaser text on the homepage suggests that refusing to participate in war crimes amounts to "making a point." I don't think that characterization does justice to the issue at hand: we're talking about war crimes. Refusing to participate is a big deal, on a tangible level. It isn't merely speaking one's mind.

Just two points to consider.

Also, my respect and support to Watada and his loved ones. Stay strong!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BECAUSE HE IS A HERO. He is doing the right thing... something more of us should do. I wish him all the best and a long, happy, successful life. He is a rare person to stand so strongly behind what he knows is right, honest, and good.
Use his actions as a model for your own.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From Counterpunch, by Stephen Green:
"When War Criminals Retire"

'Heads of State and senior government officials are immune from prosecution, until, that is, they have left office. This process has become known as "the principle of universal jurisdiction". '
--

"Former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson may have best described the concept of universal jurisdiction when she wrote, in 2001:

"The principle of universal jurisdiction is based on the notion that certain crimes are so harmful to internal interests that states are entitled--and even obliged--to bring proceedings against the perpetrator, regardless of the location of the crime or the nationality of the perpetrator or the victim."
--

"(Former President George W. Bush) will not know where and in which of these places charges may have been filed...by family members of people who were flown on un-marked dull, grey-painted planes to remote airports to be tortured or "disappeared"..or family of men, women and children who were summarily executed by soldiers in places like Haditha, Bakuba or Mahmoudia..or relatives of civilians whose bodies were lost in the flattened rubble of downtown Falluja. "

www.counterpunch.org/green07082006.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lt Watada is not alone in his opposition, from within the military, to the admin war policies:

again from Blumenthal:
"Senior leadership in the military has long opposed Bush’s war-paradigm policies. From the start the Judges Advocate General vehemently resisted the abrogation of legal standards. Then Powell, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke for much of the military in his opposition. But they were ignored. Last year, the general counsel of the Navy, Alberto Mora, and Matthew Waxman, deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee policy, strongly argued for adherence to Common Article 3. But Cheney, Rumsfeld and Addington suppressed them."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

from Jeremy Brecher & Brendan Smith, of The Nation

Four points:
1. Lt Watada's Duty
"Under military law, soldiers have the right to refuse to carry out illegal orders; in fact, they have a duty not to commit war crimes."

2. Lt Watada's Rights
"According to Article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Watada retains the right to a preliminary hearing to "present anything he may desire in his own behalf, either in defense or mitigation." Under Article 46 defendants are allowed at trial to "compel witnesses to appear and testify and to compel the production of other evidence."

3. A War Crimes Defense
"On its face the statute appears to allow a war crimes defense. In practice, however, defenses under international law are often denied, based on the military's "fundamental necessity for obedience," a principle affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1974. (Watada maintains he owes obedience to the Constitution--not to officials who are abusing it.)"

4. Precedents
"There are precedents for raising war crimes issues in courts martial. Howard Levy was given a day to present a war crimes defense in 1967. He called three witnesses and provided 4,000 exhibits describing war crimes in Vietnam, but he was ultimately found guilty and sentenced to three years in prison. When Petty Officer Pablo Paredes was court-martialed for refusing to go to Iraq, he was allowed to call an expert witness to make the case that the war was illegal. The military judge who found him guilty gave him a mild sentence with no jail time and astonishingly declared, "Any seaman recruit has a reasonable cause to believe that the wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal."

Brecher and Smith call on "anyone who believes in justice" to demand that Lt Watada has the opportunity to prove his case. They make specific call to "The many retired military officers and government officials who have questioned the legality of Bush Administration policies regarding torture and other criminal acts" to support him in his efforts.

www.thenation.com/doc/20060717/brechersmith

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

www.commonwonders.com/

Robert Koehler, 6th July '06
Hadji Girl. Tribune Media Services

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When you are in the military you are subject to not only civilian law, you are also subject to the UCMJ. It has long been determined that double jeopardy does not apply to many different offenses.
The problem is that under the UCMJ he will be tried not in a civil court by ordinary citizens but by officers of the armed forces in good standing. He will be unable to get an unbiased hearing by virtue of the fact that all of the jurors, judges and prosecutors will be officers of the armed forces. He will obviously be found guilty as he has refused orders from his chain of command.
This is where it will get interesting. After it is appealed into the civil system will the judges side with him as an act of conscience or will they play the trump card of the exceptional needs of the military in time of war? That's where the action will be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

God bless Watada. He definitely is a great example for all soldiers. (The rest of them are simply doing their evil job, whatever you want to make of that moral conundrum.)

As for the coming seven years, if he gets such a sentence, I'd say, tongue-in-cheek of course, that he might be strangely lucky. In the coming years, prison might be one of the few safe places to be, assuming there's a sufficient food supply.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First Lt. Ehren Watada is a brave man to stand up to the American Government alone. I applaud him. It is a shame that he took so long to realize the lies that the American people have been told. Let all his cowardly detractors volunteer to take his place in Iraq.

I hope that the International Criminal Court will soon try Bush and his cronies and that we will all eventually see justice done.
Oanedus Malakh

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]