previous post next post  

Lieutenant Watada speaks.

By The Armorer on June 20, 2006 | | Comments (14)

Via Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive, we hear from Lieutenant Watada, himself responding to an email (also posted there, you should read the post).

Dear Sir,

I'm sorry you feel the way you do. But the fact is, I do remember what I swore upon my oath of office: to protect and defend the Consitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. The oath of an officer says nothing of obeying the unlawful orders of the President. Even though your experience was rewarding, it gives no credence to the legality of the war and occupation. Please sir, before you respond read the numerous articles by international and Consitutional law experts regarding the Iraq war. It takes a simple Google search. Read the accounts of Iraqis, vets, andindependent journalists who may not have been in your same AO. The responsibility of an officer is to evaluate the legality and truthfulness behind every order. We cannot blindly accept every order, especially one to go to war, based on faith and what our "political" leaders tell us. Many Germans went along with the Nazi's idea of racial superiority or because they were afraid of prison or execution if they didn't. Real leadership means first realizing what's wrong, finding everything there is to know about it, and finally acting upon it.

Uncle Jimbo slides in for the snap shot, which prompted John Noonan over at Milblogs to opine thusly:

Yeah, and I suspect the Nazis weren't pumping sizable portions of their treasury into rebuilding the Polish ghettos either.

Let's run with John's point, shall we?

The problem for Lieutenant Watada is that no competent authority has ruled the war illegal under US law. And that is the governing law here, and that is what will get him less-than-honorably discharged and possibly sent to live with us here in beautiful uptown Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. The opinions of Constitutional Scholars are just that. Opinions. Did I miss the Security Council resolution calling for the withdrawal of US troops? Oh, I've heard opinions from members about it, just as I have heard opinions of members of Congress on the issue. Yet still, the majority of Members of Congress, and sizeable ones at that, continually vote to reauthorize the expenditure of funds and the deployment of the soldiers. And none of them do it under the duress that may have been experienced by members of the Reichstag in Hitler's Germany. The opinions of individual members are just that, until expressed as law. Ramsay Clark has opinions, too. So do I. Both have equal validity in this issue. I.e., none.

Lieutenant Watada should take a look at *who* went in to the dock at Nuremberg. Nary a Lieutenant among 'em. Or a Captain. Or Colonels. Some Field Marshals, yes.

The only officers of his stripe that found themselves in the dock found themselves there - not for going to war on the orders of competent authority - but for engaging in or allowing specific acts and orders contravening the laws governing warfare. Only for those acts, specific and in context, were they put on trial.

Just as we have tried our own for the same thing in this war. And may yet try some more.

Therein lies the difference, Lieutenant Watada.

If what you provided is going to be your defense, and I'm on the panel, all the prosecution has to do is enter your words into evidence and sit down.

But I'll give you this - you're standing up for your beliefs, and you're going to get run over for them.

And you should.

BECAUSE ABSENT VERY SPECIFIC CONDITIONS, NONE OF WHICH APPLY HERE, WE WHO CONTROL THE INSTRUMENT OF THE STATE'S RIGHT TO LEGITIMATE VIOLENCE DO NOT HAVE THE OPTION OF CHOOSING WHICH ORDERS WE WILL FOLLOW. PERIOD.

Believe it or not, Lieutenant, were you to be upheld in your assertions, it would set exactly the wrong precedent. The one where the soldiers (worse - the Officers) decide what is right and good in their employment. Exactly one of the things the Founders feared, regarding a large standing Army.

At the end of that path, at it's extreme, lies military dictatorship. We can barely manage ourselves. Just *imagine* how badly we'd fark up the nation.

It's not hard - look at Central and South America for lots of examples.

Your actions are unwise and actually dangerous in their ability to set up Unintended Consequences.

Except I know we aren't going have any precedents like that set in this case. Not unless you've got a *lot* better a defense than that.

Therefore, once again, I am forced to smash your guitar against the wall.

Come visit, we can chat about it.

Share This Article:

Share |

Categories:

14 Comments

By Uncle Jimbo on June 20, 2006 8:29 AM
"Therefore once again, I am forced to smash your guitar against the wall." You Mr. Donovan are a national treasure. Cordially, Uncle J
 
By Heartless Libertarian on June 20, 2006 9:17 AM
So John, let me play devil's advocate and give you a hypothetical: say you're a battalion commander at Ft Riley, and you're given an order that, to anyone who slept through high school civics, is plainly in violation of the Constitution-say, to shut down all the Catholic Churches in the county, or to quarter your troops in citizens' homes whether they like it or not, or to search every home and confiscate all firearms you find? (And especially the home of that crazy retired redleg who calls his place Castle Argghhh!) Congress hasn't said boo, and neither have the courts. What do you do? Not that I'm defending LT Watada-I think proving him wrong is quite easy. I'm just being a wise-ass staff CPT.
 
By John of Argghhh! on June 20, 2006 10:14 AM
Ya need to come up with a harder question, Dave, or a helluva lot more context. 1. I doubt I'd ever get the order. 2. If it's as you describe, no other context, I'd be asking my commander to explain the order, one that clearly violates several "competent authorities" such as the Quartering Clause for one. 3. I'd consult my JAG. Gotta line up my ducks, mebbe I missed something. 4. My XO would be on the horn to people at next higher trying to find out if Peter Sellers had been seen in the area. 4. Absent someone being able to explain how your patently illegal orders were, in fact, legal, I would refuse to execute the order, tell my commander, and let him figure out what to do next. But I simply can't imagine finding myself in that situation with no external context to help inform the decision. Howzzat?
 
By fdcol63 on June 20, 2006 10:23 AM
If we want to play extreme hypotheticals, here's one: What would LT Watada, LCpl Magaoay, and their ilk do if the United Nations - the sole arbiter (in their minds) of "just war" - authorized or sanctioned military action against the US? As long as we have permanent UN Security Council "veto" power, this will never happen, of course. But "what if" all countries were "equal" in the UN (and each country's vote measured the same) - as people like Watada and Magaoay really believe?
 
By Draftee on June 20, 2006 10:39 AM
I wonder if Watada has given two seconds thought to how this is going to affect the rest of his life? He better hope one of his lefty lib buddies is going to give him a lifetime job and hope he doesn't reproduce. "What did you do in the war daddy?" Guess he could run for office in San Francisco but then he may be too conservative for them. Gonna be a long unhappy life Watada.
 
By ry on June 20, 2006 12:23 PM
'To the Foodking. Foodking. Foodking.' Not that I want Uncle J to bring Chuck D to my door or anything(ack, no. The SW-1s will stain the carpet!), but there's something I've been hearing in other contexts that might make this Watada win in the court of public opinion. It has to do with how treaties work and become law. Like, for instance, the treaty about not militarizing Antartica. It's law in the US because the treaty was ratified by the Senate. So too was the UN charter. It generates a contradiction as to who actually has the ability to command US forces. Constitutional purists, myself included, point to parts of the Con that forbid any such outside US control explicitly, but sneaky lawyers may be able to play that card. The kid may have a case, I'm sure this will come up in the court case, and it'll play in the press. May even get heard by SCOTUS in my nightmares. Can you imagine the possibility of 4 jurists saying that someone else has the right to control US military? I can. Where's my TUMS?
 
By fdcol63 on June 20, 2006 12:56 PM
ry, What's even worse is that we can name the 4 jurists who star in those nightmares. LOL
 
By John of Argghhh! on June 20, 2006 2:24 PM
Name me the governing treaty that has been violated, Ry. First, read this. Then tell me how the Lieutenant is going to argue the portion of the war, "the occupation," that he was ordered to is not covered by this UN resolution...
Recognizing the request conveyed in the letter of 5 June 2004 from the Prime Minister of the Interim Government of Iraq to the President of the Council, which is annexed to this resolution, to retain the presence of the multinational force, Recognizing also the importance of the consent of the sovereign Government of Iraq for the presence of the multinational force and of close coordination between the multinational force and that government, Welcoming the willingness of the multinational force to continue efforts to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq in support of the political transition, especially for upcoming elections, and to provide security for the United Nations presence in Iraq, as described in the letter of 5 June 2004 from the United States Secretary of State to the President of the Council, which is annexed to this resolution, Noting the commitment of all forces promoting the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq to act in accordance with international law, including obligations under international humanitarian law, and to cooperate with relevant international organizations,... ...Determining that the situation in Iraq continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security,
...Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,... ...9. Notes that the presence of the multinational force in Iraq is at the request of the incoming Interim Government of Iraq and therefore reaffirms the authorization for the multinational force under unified command established under resolution 1511 (2003) having regard to the letters annexed to this resolution; 10. Decides that the multinational force shall have the authority to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq in accordance with the letters annexed to this resolution expressing, inter alia, the Iraqi request for the continued presence of the multinational force and setting out its tasks, including by preventing and deterring terrorism, so that, inter alia, the United Nations can fulfil its role in assisting the Iraqi people as outlined in paragraph seven above and the Iraqi people can implement freely and without intimidation the timetable and program for the political process and benefit from reconstruction and rehabilitation activities;
While we all know the timetables laid out in this directive were not met - nor yet has the UNSC superseded or overturned this resolution. And since the recognized government of Iraq has continued to assert it's desire that the multinational force remain in Iraq, it seems a bit problematical to continue to refer to the presence of US troops in Iraq as illegal - even if one accepts the premise that Operation Cobra II was illegal (itself a difficult proposition to prove) given other UN resolutions. You may argue that any number of actions the Multinational Force has undertaken, individually or collectively may, in fact, be arguable - and those that have resulted in Courts Martial come to mind - that doesn't support the contention that the occupation is illegal and therefore a order that can be honorably refused. Only that individual orders in the context of operations should be examined and possibly refused.
 
By Trias on June 20, 2006 4:16 PM
Dissent and order. I even have misgivings about Iraq but two things spring to mind. 1) Is there a structure in military rules to help deal with the problem of the Nazi example? 2) I think we all know what would have happened to this guy in a Nazi style situation. He's alive, he's well and he's speaking his mind.
 
By John of Argghhh! on June 20, 2006 4:53 PM
Yes, there is. If you order me to kill all the villagers because I took fire from the ville (the German solution to partisans, for example) even though I'm not taking fire now, and they are unarmed, I refuse the order. I refuse the order to kill all villagers even *if* I'm taking fire. I can kill the ones fighting, and I may kill ones accidentally while returning fire, but I can't deliberately target and kill them. I also have to consider proportionate response - if I simply *must* clear that ville in order to accomplish some other mission that can't fail - I can, in fact, bring in the artillery and bombers. However, I can't destroy the village simply to destroy it because I took fire from it. And if I do destroy it because it's a haven for bad guys - I have to assume responsiblity for the villagers and get them someplace safe and with adequate food and shelter. The rules are all there. Part of what is happening here is we are conflating two different issues. Actions in combat vice going to war, and the there isn't a single template that fits both cases. As I said before, Watada *might* be able to muster a defense for refusing to go to Cobra II - though there is enough wiggle room provided in the UN resolutions regarding Desert Storm and it's aftermath to make the case that the US was justified in it's actions under the UN charter. If you reject that premise, you can then argue (as the US Gov did) that self-defense justified the attack, based on the (now known to be flawed) intelligence. Depending on your view of flawed intel (which Clinton believed) or the "Bush lied" side, at the TIME OF COMMITMENT, we had legal orders to conduct the attack, as far as the soldiery is concerned. If you buy the "Bush lied" argument, you can go after him - but that odor does *not* attach to the committed soldiery, nor would it excuse a refusal to obey the orders at that time. At this point - what we are doing in Iraq *is* sanctioned by the UN, regardless of whether anyone likes it or not. So I just don't see any credible defense for Watada. So, if Watada goes, and is then given orders to kill people or break things which are in contravention to his Law of Landwarfare training, he is obligated to refuse the orders and seek clarification - tossing the ball back to his superiors. I just don't see any principled defense - especially *now*. Watada essentially wants to argue that Cobra II was illegal, therefore everything spawned from it must therefore be illegal. Yet there is nothing to support that claim, either. At best, based on what I understand, if you could *prove* malice, you could go after the President, but not got after the soldiery. Not unless you want to take Congress with you. If the soldiers are guitly in this respect, so to, then, is every member of Congress. Therefore - I can only conclude that Watada is deluded, or acting on his politics. Neither of which is a good trait for a serving officer of the Armed Forces.
 
By kat-missouri on June 20, 2006 5:20 PM
Um...I might add that even Cobra II, if referencing the UN, is very unlikely to be considered "illegal" whatever the howling of the left. If I remember correctly, there was a last resolution that did call for something like "severe measures" or some such just prior to the war and everyone knows that it was left deliberately vague as to protect those that would act on it and protect those that would not. thus, no sanctions or censure in the UN and why, when the new in coming Iraq government made such a requrest, is was easily ratified therein. Of course, the vagueness of the earlier resolution does leave openings for such folks to claim illegality, but, just as I doubt that the Supreme Court would uphold any officers claims to be acting legitimately and legally when refusing to deploy to a war that was authorized under specific acts in congress (those acts never being proved illegal and never will be since any such interference on the part of the Supreme Court would violate the separations of power clauses), no international system would find in his favor either since it would undermine many other treaties of the UN that are just as vague and used for any number of activities for the express reason of maintaining order. Some of the UN treaties and charters that would be in danger should Lt. Watada get his wishes would include authorizations for Bosnia, Kosovo, Hiati, Cote d'Ivory, the Sudan and timor, just to name a few. Peace Keepers in the Sinai. Oh, even Rwanda way back when. Ever read those lovely little UN authorizations? they are left vague and open often for a reason the same reason laws in the US are sometimes left open: leverage and leaway. Such as the first amendment. Imagine the pain had the original writers actually sat down and said what forms of "speech" were protected? The internet, the phone, tape recordings, CDs and any other form of communication that did not include books, papers or personal speeches could be outlawed. It's the same basic tenets that are used in creating these laws, mandates and authorizations whether in congress or the UN. This guy really doesn't have a leg to stand on, though, good luck keeping it kicking.
 
By HomefrontSix on June 20, 2006 8:46 PM
Here is the text of my letter (which was too long to submit to my paper, the Honolulu Advertiser): June 20, 2006 1LT Watada, I read your letter in the Honolulu Advertiser and, as a military spouse whose husband is set to deploy in the next few weeks to do the job you so conveniently have chosen not to do, I feel it is my duty to point out a few discrepancies in your arguments. I would not want you to go to trial with such a lacking defense. You might find yourself with a one way ticket to uptown Fort Leavenworth and that would be unfortunate. Your ascertation that your responsibility is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States is correct. However, you cannot pick and choose what articles or amendments you wish to protect and defend. You must protect and defend all of them. And that includes Article I, Section 8 which states that Congress has the power “To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;” At this point in time, United States forces are currently in Iraq according to the mandate set by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1637 which was passed unanimously and considered at the request of the Iraqi government. Our troops are in Iraq in full compliance with both international and domestic law. As an officer in the United States military, you do not have the authority to decide what is legal and what is illegal. And your DUTY, with regard to unlawful or illegal actions or orders is to report up your chain of command or to JAG. Have you done either, sir? Last I checked the media is not in your chain of command. Last I checked the media is not the entity that will decide what is lawful and what is not. Your DUTY was to take your concerns to your chain of command or the JAG. To do otherwise is to shirk your responsibility as an officer of the United States military. You argue that the war in Iraq is “unlawful and immoral” and that there was “never any just cause”. I beg to differ Lieutenant. If you will refer to the Coalition Provisional Authority’s webpage which discusses UNSC Resolution 1546 (http://www.cpa-iraq.org/transcripts/20040609_UNSCR_Text.html) you will read “Following is the text of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546, adopted unanimously June 8, which endorses the new interim government of Iraq, allows the multinational force to provide security in partnership with the new government, sets out a leading role for the U.N. in helping the political process over the next year, and calls upon the international community to aid Iraq in its transition: Recognizing the request conveyed in the letter of 5 June 2004 from the Prime Minister of the Interim Government of Iraq to the President of the Council, which is annexed to this resolution, to retain the presence of the multinational force, Recognizing also the importance of the consent of the sovereign Government of Iraq for the presence of the multinational force and of close coordination between the multinational force and that government, Welcoming the willingness of the multinational force to continue efforts to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq in support of the political transition, especially for upcoming elections, and to provide security for the United Nations presence in Iraq, as described in the letter of 5 June 2004 from the United States Secretary of State to the President of the Council, which is annexed to this resolution, In addition, our current presence in Iraq is legal in international terms based solely on Saddam Hussein’s failure to comply with the armistice agreements made following Desert Storm back in 1991 and his repeated and continued violation of FOURTEEN separate UN resolutions over a twelve year period. Never any “just cause”? I don’t think so. Whatever your argument against our mission in Iraq and its legality, those statements should smooth your moral fiber and allow you to return to work immediately. Otherwise, what you are doing is illegal and my hope is that, while my husband does the duty he was sworn to uphold and that you are refusing to do, you will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Sincerely, HomefrontSix
 
By Justthisguy on June 20, 2006 11:30 PM
Gee, Heartless, I thought that the traditional response in a situation like that is something like "Of course, I would be very happy to obey any order you choose to put in writing, Sir." If soldiers ain't s'posed to be scared of the enemy, they shouldn't be scared of each other, either.
 
By Cricket on June 20, 2006 11:45 PM
John, As usual, I sit here and think, "If I were a young womyn who wanted to serve in the Armed Forces, this is the man I would want to learn the Finer Points of leadership from." HomeFrontSix, He will come home safe and sound. Outstanding response to a moron who is knee jerking cause his time is up in a few months and if he goes to Iraq he will be extended.