previous post next post  

Some legal updates.

By The Armorer on February 8, 2007 | | Comments (26)

MajMike and I have both been eagerly awaiting this one...

The only U.S. military officer charged with crimes in the Abu Ghraib prison-abuse scandal would stand trial in July, under a tentative schedule set at a hearing yesterday.

Army Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan, former director of an interrogation center at the prison in Iraq, would be tried from July 9 to July 20 at Fort Meade in Maryland, according to the schedule set by the judge, Army Col. Stephen R Henley. The judge also ordered a pretrial hearing March 12 at Fort McNair in the District.

Col. Jordan, 50, is seeking dismissal of eight charges, which carry up to 22 years in prison. The judge deferred ruling on Col. Jordan's claim that the government had exceeded a 120-day limit between charging him April 28 and arraigning him Jan. 30. The rules allow for exclusions.

Not (in my case) because I want LTC Jordan to fry, but because I want the senior leadership of Abu Ghraib to face the music, and see what a jury of their peers sees in their conduct and performance of duties. I want *more* senior leader scalps. This article is a touch misleading, in that Colonel Pappas did take a whack from the UCMJ - though I think he should have not been offered a Article 15 (which means they felt they had enough to go to trial with, should he have refused). In other words, I think Colonel Pappas should have been treated like LTC Jordan is being treated. Long time readers of this space know my opinion of Colonel Karpinski - and I think what happened to her was essentially appropriate. And General Sanchez had his career short-stopped by his handling of Abu Ghraib, which is probably about the best we could have expected given the overall situation. In other words, while I might (without the benefit (or curse) of the lens the Really Senior Leadership was viewing things through) have de-facto relieved Lieutenant General Sanchez by reassigning him - the fact that he did not get the 4th star he was in line for is, in all probability, about the best we could expect in this situation. I don't think LTG Sanchez had and personal criminal culpability - his was a failure of command, like Colonel Karpinski.

You can read the rest here.

I see Ry already linked this in the H&I Fires today - but I'm going with it regardless.

The three reservists — Col. Curtis G. Whiteford of Utah, Lt. Col. Debra M. Harrison of New Jersey and Lt. Col. Michael B. Wheeler of Wisconsin — were responsible for helping supervise the funding and progress of the CPA contracts in al-Hillah, Iraq, southwest of Baghdad.

In return for steering contracts to Bloom between 2003 and 2005, prosecutors said, the military reservists and their accomplices shared an estimated $1 million in cash, and were showered with Porsche and Nissan sports cars, a Cadillac SUV, real estate, a Breitling watch, business-class plane tickets, computers and other items.

Harrison's husband, William Driver, was charged with helping smuggle over $300,000 into the U.S., part of which was used for home improvements, prosecutors said.

Innocent until proven guilty, let them have their day in court. But if they are guilty - they deserve to get hammered and come join us at Club DB. Why? We won the war, hands down, no questions asked. But we have royally screwed the peace, where it was important to "turn the electricity back on, restore the water, and secure the streets." Basic humanitarian relief stuff that Secretary Rumsfeld's short-sighted obsession for doing things on the cheap to win his little spat with the senior army leadership over the future role and size of the Army helped to blind him and his policy makers to the reality that peacekeeping is a boot-intensive job. But that's a rant for a different time.

These officers, if they are guilty as charged - are part and parcel of the disaster encompassed by Abu Ghraib, and how the actions of a few tar the damn fine efforts of the many - and the many who are dying and being maimed - US *and* Iraqi. Because their singular actions have a disproportionate impact. Innocent until proven guilty - but if found guilty - this panel member would start from the premise that they get the maximum sentence possible, and their defense team can try to convince me why I should vote for a smidgen less.

And if they're guilty, that would be a damn hard sell. Just sayin'. You can read the rest of the referenced story here.

Lastly - let's get this out of the way. Lieutenant Watada. More than ever, I'm convinced that the Lieutenant was hoping for this event, so he could have his John Kerry moment. Too bad, Lieutenant, you chose to showboat your way through this and make your splash on this side of the deployment. That left you vulnerable to the "Missing Movement" charge, which has enabled the trial judge to keep you from making the trial about the legality of the war.

Just remember Lieutenant - you volunteered, and the rules were, and are, clear. Those of us who choose to accept the commission, do not get to pick and choose our wars. I certainly didn't. Nor should I have. And the people who think it's wonderful that an officer is doing this - just don't understand the path down which that leads. It's a short leap from choosing which orders we will follow (outside the clearly delimned rules in the UCMJ, etc) to us choosing which leaders we will serve under. Which is why, when the Framers and early builders of this nation generated the structure and rules under which the officer corps operates, they built in some limitations to the civil rights of people who hold the commission.

Make your case, Lieutenant, but I suspect you'll be enrolling at Club DB, too.

Share This Article:

Categories:

26 Comments

By SangerM on February 8, 2007 10:56 AM
Two things: 1) "Secretary Rumsfeld's short-sighted obsession for doing things on the cheap to win his little spat with the senior army leadership over the future role and size of the Army." Although there's plenty of blame to go around, I say any failure in Iraq will fall SQUARELY on Rumsfeld's shoulders, and he should be called to account for that too. It may be too soon to start looping nooses, but I'd say there ought to be one for him at the head of the line. I'm just glad he resigned so that the Dems at least lost that aiming point. 2) This bears repeating a hundred times a day! "It's a short leap from choosing which orders we will follow to us choosing which leaders we will serve under." This is the key to it all, as I know you know, but which I just can't seem to get some of my school acquaintances to understand. And some of them are the same people who over time have aired negative opinions about the lack of professionalism of most so-called national armies, or who've bemoaned the actions of the Dutch in Kosovo or the French in Rwanda, or who don't understand why coups are so common in so many places. I think the clearest example of how wrong things can be is Turkey, in which the Military--by design--controls who can and cannot be President, and whether or not one party or another can be in charge (or even exist). Certainly, this arrangement is good for the West because "secular" works for us; however, I can imagine a time when the backlash will create another Iran, especially if the EU rejects Turkey as it looks likely to do... dumb. As you say, the military works for the civilians. Not always the best or most able or most honorable civilians, but that's just how it is. Of all the issues you covered above, I get the most incensed about Watada. I know this is not an Officer/NCO divide issue, but it is my NCO core that is most pissed off at his gross betrayal of the soldiers it was his MORAL OBLIGATION to lead. I spit on his false morality and haughty self-righteous narcissistic arrogance. I hope he rots in Leavenworth.
 
By Oldloadr on February 8, 2007 11:32 AM
SangerM is right. When officers make spectacles of themselves, it makes the NCOs’ already challenging job that much harder.
 
By Walker Willingham on February 8, 2007 1:14 PM
I came here specifically to see what you might have to say about the Watada case, because I know you're a thoughtful person generally on the other side of the fence from me. Though I'm pretty much a pacifist, I've got to acknowledge the necessity for nations to have militaries for defense. If you have a military, then I understand the necessity that those who enlist subjugate their opinions to the command structure, otherwise it just wouldn't work. But still there's gotta be a line somewhere. Suppose we attacked Canada over some trivial matter - not that I think that would happen - but at some point a soldier's reason must trump the order he's been given, and if that soldier is showing a willingness to serve jail time over his conscientious objection, then he commands some respect from me, even if I don't agree with his opinion. Where you and I will disagree is about the legality of THIS war, and I don't have the time or background for that argument. Maybe Watada is showboating, but that doesn't mean he's not got genuine convictions behind what he is doing. In your opinion what is the line at which a soldier should follow his conscience if it is obvious to him that a military mission is illegal and/or immoral? Think ANY country's military - not just the US - if that helps you grant the possibility that such a case might come to pass.
 
By JimC on February 8, 2007 1:31 PM
Watada got a mistrial because of a paperwork glitch. Don't ya just luv juris prudence.
 
By J-P on February 8, 2007 2:01 PM
Mr Willingham, I don't think you can argue by hypothesis about something like this - there are too many "what-ifs." The fact is the we did NOT attack Canada, which is a peacable ally and democracy. If Watada had been asked to do so, this would be very different. But he was not asked to do so. He was asked to deploy to Iraq, which was led by a ruthless dictator who we beleived possessed, or shortly would possess WMD. Congress voted in support of the military action against Iraq, no matter how they backpeddle now, and the president used his legally granted powers to order tropps into that country. We performed this action with allies. You might argue that this action was illegal because it was not sanctioned by the U.N., but the simple fact is that no treaties signed by this country have every given away our right to use unilateral military action against another country. We are a sovereign nation, and military action when and where we please (even if hurtful and ill-advised) is one of the perks of such recognition. They do not need to have attacked us first. By this standard, the war isn't illegal, at least not by any standard that we have set by law or treaty, and no one with any authority (congress, the judiciary, etc.) has declared it such, or even attempted to prosecute anyone (in almost 4 years running) for having done so. Congress is thinking about thinking about debating the war, and it's run by anti-war dems, if that says anything. Enter Watada. Though it is clearly not illegal, I respect the man for thinking this is a stupid war. In some ways, I suppose it is. But disobeying something stupid your superiors tell you to do is not a privilege held by any officer in any branch of the military. That is why he is on trial. This is not a matter of conscience, or "what-if" we go too far and invade the land of maple-syrup. This is about a soldier, in a situation we all are familiar with, with no ambiguities, disobeying orders because he didn't agree with the policies behind them. That is darned dangerous water to swim, and I'm really glad he's getting punished for it.
 
By ry on February 8, 2007 2:25 PM
"But still there's gotta be a line somewhere." And there is. by and large, though many in the Services think going to Iraq was a bad move, they do not find it to be an illegal war. Even the legal eagle types in the legal branches. either they are all wrong or the consensus--minus Watada and Pablo Parades--- is right. If the court holds, and it looks like it does, that the war was legal where does that leave Watada and that 'gotta be line'? The line's there. Watada finds himself staring at time in a Federal Pen. In your hypothetical, which leaves a lot to be desired(come on, stealing the plot from Canadian Bacon? Couldn't you at least do Animal Crackers or better still DeNiro's Wag the Dog?), the option of disobeying the blatantly illegal order is there. The JCS can simply quit and inform Congress to impeach----treason and high crimes, that's what involving your nation in an illegal war is. THere's also coscientuous objector. You don't get a veto. The individual soldier gets to vote just like the rest of us. Once the decision is made, justly, they have to live with it just like the rest of us. (and before we start downt he 'WMD being the reason for war' thing again you might want to look at the House Joint Resolution for the authorization of the use of force.)
 
By SangerM on February 8, 2007 2:42 PM
Walker, I suspect I know how some will answer, but for my part, I don't care what Watada's convictions are. He signed up. He is a leader who has life & death control over other men & women. His subordinates (and BTW, people subordinate their opinions, not subjugate--that was the wrong word in this context)--his subordinates have no choice but to obey his lawful, legal orders. Is it for them to decide which of his orders are legal? Not even often, but sometimes, and only in certain obvious cases, but the soldier had better be right or have a damn compelling reason for making that decision. And I lived under those rules so I understand them. If you haven't, then likely you may not. It's really not that hard, though: Do what you are told unless it is something you know to be illegal. OR request clarification, express your concerns to your superior, then unless you are willing to accept the consequences of being wrong, just do it. In this case, I wouldn't have half a problem with Watada if he would have just said "I refuse, here's why, send me to jail. I accept that as the proper consequence of my decision." But he didn't. He is trying to avoid the consequences by claiming the war is illegal and therefore he has no obligation to go. Well, I am not the lawyer, but I know two things for SURE: 1) The US invasion of Iraq was NOT illegal, no matter how people try to reframe the conversation or limit the scope (more about that below), and 2) No military judge is going to rule on the legality of the war in deciding Watada's case, BECAUSE the war is not illegal (by any standard of valid interpretation), and because it is not the role of the military to decide what it will do, as long as what it is ordered to do is legal. In other words, the legality of the war is only an issue in Watada's case insofar as it is legal and that will be the conclusion; no matter how he might try to reframe the issue. The real issue is that he violated legal orders and now he's trying to avoid paying the consequences. Maybe he should talk to Mohammed Ali to see how a real man stands for what he believes in... And as for the legality of the war, here's the real deal. Clearly some people (and Watada is among these) do not really, truly, fully understand the meaning of the word legal, either in a national or an international sense. First of all, legal is not synonymous with just or with appropriate or fair. Legal has a very specific meaning both within states and among them (international states, in this case), and I can assure you that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was indeed legal in both contexts. International LAW did not prohibit the invasion (several chapters of the UN charter can actually be applied here), nor did American LAW, especially considering that Congress voted for it, and no subsequent ruling by any competent justice has declared it otherwise! Certainly there are some who disagree, but they are conflating legal with just or appropriate or fair, as Watada seems to have mistakenly done. In fact, if you really want to get read-on about this, take a look (a hard objective look) at UN Security Council Resolution 1441 (and at all of the Resolutions it references). While R.1441 may not, itself, explicitly authorize the use of military force, I see nothing in it (or in any other R.) that rescinds the authorization to use force granted in the prior resolutions. In fact, I find several items in the 1441 preamble that lead me to conclude 1441 not only tacitly approves the use of force, but that it also suggests force may be forthcoming and appropriate--or at the very least, not disapproved. Specifically: 1) The Security Council (SC) explicitly "recalls" all of "its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President." This re-establishes the validity of those prior resolutions and establishes intent of the SC to link 1441 to them. 2) The SC further distinctly and explicitly singles out resolution 678, by "recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area." To me, this clearly reaffirms the validity and currency of R. 678, given that at no point elsewhere in 1441 is there any mention of a rescission or abeyance of 678. 3) The SC also explicitly restates that "its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area." This is yet another indication (to me at least) that the authorization to use force is still valid. 4) And then it reminds the world that "in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein." By naming the conditions for cease fire in this way, it seems clear to me that the SC feels Iraq has not met its obligations. This proves to be the case in item 1 of the R., wherein the SC "Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991)." 5) And finally, in what clearly authorizes the U.S. and others to attack Iraq once again, the SC reminds the world that the UN is still "determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance." And just in case all of the above wasn't plain enough (which I guess it wasn't), in item 13 of the R., the Security Council reminds the world "that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations." ------- To complete this post, the relevant articles of R. 678: 1. Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and decides, while maintaining all its decisions, to allow Iraq one final opportunity, as a pause of goodwill, to do so; 2. Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq on or before 15 January 1991 fully implements, as set forth in paragraph 1 above, the above-mentioned resolutions, to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area. ------- I know that a lot of smart people disagree with my interpretation (or maybe I disagree with theirs), but to me R.1441 goes a lot further toward signaling an intent to use force than it does an intent to talk a whole lot more. And yes, I realize R.1441 called for at least one more meeting to "consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security," but that just feels like is a political sop for the fearful, tossed in there to give a face-saver to those who agreed (but wanted to be able to claim later that they didn't). Basically, I think R.1441 said all that needed to be said, and the only thing left was for Iraq to comply or be attacked again. And so you see, while it is true that the international community interprets the intent of R. 1441 differently, there was never a question about the legality of the U.S. finishing the job it started in the first Gulf War. Which means the current war in Iraq, while unpleasant and unwanted is not even remotely illegal, either in the U.S or among the nations of the world. I just wish I were working for the prosecution in this case.
 
By SangerM on February 8, 2007 3:08 PM
J-P This is not accurate: "no treaties signed by this country have ever given away our right to use unilateral military action against another country." In fact, our accession to the UN was our agreement--legal, binding, agreement--not to use unilateral military force against another UN member except in very specific circumstances. And one thing it definately rules out is an attack by any country against another without clear justification. And yes they do need to have attacked us first, or an attack has to be imminent. To be fully legal that is... In fact, G.W. Bush's preventive war doctrine is considered by many to be illegal, whereas preemptive war is not, though that depends on imminence. Now the WMD issue has clouded things somewhat, but in fact, the reason our attack on Iraq in Gulf War I was legal by international standards was Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, because of which the U.S. did indeed have UN aithorization to lead a coaltion of the willing on behalf of the international community. Now I know that's all a lot of semantics, but it is precisely upon that foundation that the current war is indeed made legal, because otherwise, it would most likely not be, and the international community could indeed take all sorts of punitive actions againt the U.S. for this. Now here too, I understand how it really is... Just like the 400lb Gorilla who gets to sit wherever he wants, the U.S. gets to do what it wants because it can--but only for a while. Which is why we push hard for other countries to abide by their legal obligations, and it is the framework within which we stay so that we can get other nations to support us by way of sanctions etc. In other words, we are legally in Iraq today, but not because we're sovereign, but because that legality is encoded in the rules of the UN and the resolutions authorizing it. As I wrote above, it may not be a just war (I'm not convinced this is the war we should be fighting right now, but I also don't have the big picture, so I defer to those who have to take the blame if it turns out screwed), but it is certainly legal. But that is true only because the U.S. did indeed give away its right use unjusitifed unilateral military action against another country. Subtle but important difference. V/R SangerM
 
By SangerM on February 8, 2007 4:02 PM
Oh and Walker, Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with the U.S. attacking Canada. I'd love for Banf and Calgary and Neefoundland to belong to the U.S. And it'd mean I could come home on from the war on the weekends... Of course, you all could keep Quebec. :-)
 
By ry on February 8, 2007 5:10 PM
Looks like Sanger's playin' hooky from thesis writing. Shame, shame, shame.
 
By Oldloadr on February 8, 2007 5:31 PM
I thought that was a thesis (LOL)
 
By kat-missouri on February 8, 2007 5:32 PM
Mr. Walker, There is a lot being said about the "line" should a soldier or officer disagree with the acts of a superior officer or the orders he is given. There is a chain of command, there is a chain of complaint, there is at least two processes by which Lt. Watada could have acted without going through this public trial should his acts strictly been the acts of a concientious person that objected to the war. As noted, his first opportunity came when he was given the chance to quit as a concientious objector. Doing so would not tarnish his record, but would put him completely out of the military. If he had any scholarships or other funds paid by the government for him to attend school, he would have had to pay that back. However, Lt Watada did not want to leave the military as a concientious objector. He did not object to war. He objected to the front/theater he was being sent to. He asked to be sent to Afghanistan if I am not mistaken. This certainly implies that he did not object to war over all, thus he probably could not be discharged as an objector. Whichever, his unit was not being sent to Afghanistan, they were going to Iraq. At the point he no longer objects to war, he has no right to choose which battle he will fight. The second "line" is that Lt Watada could have resigned his commission. Straight up, if he really did not believe in the Iraq war and did not wish to serve there, he could resign. no jail, no punishment, just a discharge as "other than honorable" and again he might owe the government for any funds or scholarships used to educate him. He would have to pay that back because the resignation of his commission would mean he broke his contract. The one that said the US Gov would pay for his education in return for four years service. Lt. Watada did not choose that line either. he may feel that he has a reasonable excuse. He may feel that he is being made to choose between his conciense and his desire to serve and that is exactly what happened. He had to choose and he chose very wrong. Lt Watada should have resigned his commission. since he didn't and now is trying to make the "legality" of war a matter for the JAG to decide, I can only presume that this is a political act. On a final note, I wonder if people know how many Nazi German soldiers and lower ranking officers were charged with war crimes at nuremburg? anybody see a Sergeant on the stands? Lower ranking officers, ncos and regular soldiers who did not commit specific war crimes, but did take part in the over all war were not prosecuted or punished. the reason they were not prosecuted or punished was because the Geneva conventions actually protect the actions of two armed forces within certain bounds. These Germans were in uniform. They were attacking uniformed opposition. Both sides may have shot at each other and killed each other, but, as long as the soldiers did not commit certain acts (such as hanging, shooting or beheading a bound enemy soldier or deliberately targeting and killing civilians, etc) they did not commit a "war crime", even if the German war had been declared to be "illegal war of agression". that is because these soldiers acted in good faith, followed legal orders to attack the enemy and applied the law of land war. Lt Watada's problem here is that he, like many others who think they know about Nuremberg, the claims of "just following orders" and the guilty sentences, totally misconstrue what orders and what actions were being tried. They have, frankly, over extended the meanings and findings of that court and the UCMJ to imagine that officers or soldiers have the right to disobey any order to act or perform a soldiers duty if the entire war can be found illegal. That is very wrong. Nice try for publicity, but completely false. Even if you could find some august body to declare the war illegal, Lt Watada's actions would still be, also, illegal, because he was not ordered to do anything contrary to the Geneva convention or the law of land warfare. He was ordered to deploy. he was not ordered to shoot unarmed men, women and children. He was not ordered to take their food. He was not ordered to torture or otherwise injure an enemy combatant who was "hors de combat" (ie, prisoner or surrendering enemy). If a soldier was in barracks during a war that he considered "illegal" and refused to stand guard duty at the gate of the base, he would still have broken the law by not obeying a legal order (yes, even during "illegal war", guarding the barracks is a legal order). If a soldier disagreed with a war then he should act on his concience and resign which he can do as a volunteer. He would still stand duty at the barracks following a legal order, but he could also put in process the paperwork to resign. The proper process to follow when it gets down to the "line". There may be financial penalties including no retirement or other benefits, but we are talking about breaking a contract. You might be confused but this is a volunteer army, not a conscript. He could leave whenever he wanted following proper procedure. he didn't because he thinks he is a political activist in uniform and, as John said and even the good Senators and other Congress people who told Gen. Petraeus to essentially "shut up", military officers in uniform may not take part in a political action or make political speeches since it is the first necessary step towards military coupes and juntas.
 
By John of Argghhh! on February 8, 2007 5:43 PM
I've not the time at the moment (but I'll get to it, I promise) to answer Mr. Willingham (though I'll probably not be a whole lot different than other opinions here expressed - but a small correction for Kat - Lt. Watada has offered, on several occasions, to resign, the most recent I'm aware of in August of last year. But I'll try to address some of that, too.
 
By kat-missouri on February 8, 2007 5:47 PM
I should add, now that I brought up German soldiers and Nuremburg, that Lower ranking officers, NCOs and soldiers were given courts martial during and post WWII by allied forces. Some were even summarily shot. But, again, these were for specific acts that could be deemed "illegal", such as the deliberate murder, injury or torture of civilians (not "incidental" or "collateral" as appropos to war, but ordered and deliberate with malice afore thought) or POWs and other specific acts that are against the Geneva convention and the law of land warfare. But, out of the millions of german soldiers that served, I expect that the number that were actually prosecuted and punished were small in comparison and, again, it was for specific illegal acts. Had Lt Watada been ordered specifically to do one of these acts, acts that are even considered illegal under the US UCMJ, he may have had a fighting chance. He wasn't ordered to do any such thing. Thus, in legal terms, he doesn't have a leg to stand on, regardless of how much he tries to wiggle his acts into trying the legality of war to cover his own illegal actions. Lt Watada should have resigned. Then he could say and do whatever he pleased regarding the war without being prosecuted. That is the "line".
 
By SangerM on February 8, 2007 6:10 PM
Good stuff Kat! And waaaaa, I hates thesises, hates 'em I do... Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
 
By BillT on February 8, 2007 7:51 PM
Innocent until proven guilty - but if found guilty - this panel member would start from the premise that they get the maximum sentence possible, and their defense team can try to convince me why I should vote for a smidgen less. Judgement has, in one circle, been previously rendered. Debbie Harrison donated her uniform to the Militia Museum when she originally returned from the sandbox (she collected a PH for a split lip when an IED busted her Hummer's windshield) and it graced one of the Full-Scale Action Figures on the floor for a year. The morning after the charges were announced, *somebody* put a pair of shackles on the FSAF. The uniform has since been replaced with that of one of the very few current GOs I would willingly follow into combat...
 
By J-P on February 8, 2007 9:18 PM
Sanger - absolutely right about the treaties; caught me with my pants down.
 
By Adjutant on February 9, 2007 12:15 AM
I'm heard that the defense is arguing that jeopardy has attached to Watada on this, and there will not be a new trial. That will pi$$ me off, and I hope it doesn't happen. Anyone remember the timeline? Didn't Watada join after the invasion of Iraq?
 
By Walker Willingham on February 9, 2007 1:16 AM
Commenters, I've been reading with interest what you've said here. John of Argghhh, I'll be interest to see your response in particular. If you can, drop me an email or a comment on my blog so I'll know to return. Generally I'm impressed with the civility of the discussion here - LGF, it's not. John you keep rigorous standards for truthfulness which I appreciate, in spite of the likelihood that we will often disagree. You imply that at least one of the options that kat suggests Watada had was denied him. Personally I'm inclined to honor him all the more for taking a more public and blatantly political option, given my predilection for exposing what I feel were egregiously abhorrent decisions around when to attack Iraq and how this war has been prosecuted. Do not mistake me for someone who sees the Islamists as "freedom fighters" or has anything but the utmost abhorrence for the tyranny of Saddam. Ironically his tyranny held the radicals in check, while the UN inspectors (inadequate as they may have been) in conjunction with our no-fly zone, held the worst of Saddam's abuses in check. I have longed for many years for a way to depose tyrants without creating dangerous power vacuums. It seems to me one of the most important things the world community ought to be interested in solving. Sometimes I'm inclined to think that some Swiss bankers have an awful lot to answer for. But I do digress. In February/March of 2003 "Shock and Awe" struck me as an abhorrent choice. Basically I agreed with Barack Obama's speech of October 2002. Yes I carried signs in my community and was dismayed at my Senators for not crying foul. As a civilian who never had the slightest inclination to become military, truly I'm puzzled by the subjugation of the ego necessary for the soldier to submit to the command structure, even as a recognize its necessity within that context. Bush's choice to invade Iraq when he did and how he did, must certainly have caused personal consternation to many in the military including high ranking folk. That Lt. Watada is the FIRST commissioned officer to take the stand he has in the way that he has, speaks to the power of the military oath which I find quite remarkable. John, I think you understand the line I was talking about in my original comment which was different than the line some of the other commenters here have taken it to be. Canada was intentionally a ridiculous example, but others could be construed between that and the current war in Iraq. The point of choosing Canada was to separate Watada's choice to refuse deployment to a theatre, from the choice of disobeying a more specific illegal order, which IS clearly defined in the the US UMCJ. Again thanks for indulging this liberal American with pacifist leanings, who well understands that it's a darn good thing that not everyone is just like me.
 
By SangerM on February 9, 2007 9:08 AM
Well, I guess I used too many words... Either that or Kat, Ry, J-P, I were taking different lines than he intended. Oh well, if nothing else at least we got that illegal war nonsense off the table, but now we're subjugating egos instead of opinions. Which leads me to ask why it is that almost every person I've ever encountered who's never been in the military (and never gave it a thought) has felt the need to equate Service to slavery. It's almost as if there is a subconscious need for Americans to justify not serving, and that justification comes out as "I would become a mindless drone killing machine, forced to slavishly and blindly obey every trivial and murderous, liberty quashing order issued by people who clearly have no concept of freedom, our the values of a democratic society. And I could never do that...." I guess too much time watching movies like The DI or Full Metal Jacket without the understanding that experience brings. Or too much faith in the words of people like John Kerry and Jane Fonda. And see, what'd I say about Obama. All the right liberal pull-toy boxes checked. Now he's being quoted all out proportion to his standing, his experience, his power, etc. Great.
 
By SangerM on February 9, 2007 9:25 AM
Oh, and J-P, don't sweat it. That particular topic was the focus of a week of my life very recently as part of an 11-week discussion about international organizations, the UN, the nature of legal vs. illegal in an international context, etc. That's why I had that info about R. 1441 to hand, etc. Until a month or so ago, I was pretty sure the U.S. would never have done that either. But of course, as you know, the trick is the justification... And that's why Bush kept going back to the UN, I suspect. To push until something was produced that could reasonably be interpreted by the U.S. to mean "Well, if you insist, but we'd rather talk some more, but if you don't want to, well, we guess, ok, ahead...but be nice, ok" or words to that effect :-) For my part, I am not convinced the word legal applies to a framework of rules all the members of a club agree to, given the members can opt out of the club, and especially considering there is no supra-national sovereign entity that can enforce such laws, but that's how it works for now. And that's why the International Court of Justice concerns me so much. Given too much power, it could start to act as a global supreme court (there've already been "opinions rendered" by some Justices of the ICJ) passing judgment on the actions of the Security Council and the General Assembly. Not a good thing for the U.S. IMO. V/R SangerM
 
By ry on February 9, 2007 3:29 PM
Yes, one option Watada had was denied. They didn't let him just quit---resign his comission. That's where it gets murky. He lodged his protest, and like a prayer, found it unanswered to his satisfaction. There are some around here who might just have similar experiences with other deployments. Watada was told, simply, his reasoning was wrong by those in whom the hands of the decision ultimately lay---and I'm not talking about the civilian gov't. The war was legal. He had a contract. He broke it. Civil disobedience, dating back to Thuraue(I can't spell, so shoot me), means taking a moral stand AND taking the consequences for it. Thuraue went to jail for not paying taxes. Maybe you see Watada as the Soros character from 'The Thin Red Line'. But again, Soros paid for his stand. Maybe you don't want people who take stands to have a price exacted from them, to be 'professionally martyred'. Particularly when they take stands you agree with(I wish that in my little world of academia.). But there's a difference between saying that what one wants is how it should be and proving it should be the moral standard/way it should be. And that's what really steams many of us about Watada. He said, 'War's illegal.' People in better position to know explained that it wasn't---and that's where the story should've ended. Uncomforted by that he decided to stage 'civil disobedience' to make his case more forcefully. He lost that game of chicken. Unlike Pablo Parades he showed that he wanted to put the war on trial, Paredes simply took a quiter in house affair and quietly left the Navy. But Watada made statements, inflammatory statements, that have pushed it this far. In the face of everything he's been shown by those above him, who, if Watada's arguments are correct are war criminals who need to be shipped off to The Hague simply for going along with it in the first place(hence, they would've thought long and hard about the legality of it before going--particularly the flag grade officers since responsibility ends with them), claims he knows better. He decided to play to the media. He didn't do what Jackie Robinson did. He went political and took it out of house. As we saw with Robinson and Paredes---you don't get serious prison time for personal conscience stands so long as you keep it in house. Watada gambled. Watada appears to have lost. I feel for the guy, when I decouple him from everything else, since he's ruined his life over this. He's likely to end up a felon. All because he believed he knew better than professionals with 20+ years of experience with such matters telling him he was wrong. I too have been that stupid(more than once) but have never paid that high a price for it. Sucks to be Watada, but, ultimately, he did it to himself.
 
By Jan on February 9, 2007 6:21 PM
Lt Col Debra Harrison is my sister. I am disappointed that a fellow soldier would do that to my sister's uniform, and I ask that she be given her day, month, year in court - however long it takes to clear her name. I fint it interesting that the day after the CPA gets grilled for waste that indictments are brought against these individuals accused. What a coincidence. I only know two of the people indicted. Lt Col Debra Harrison, and her husband William Driver. She is a decorated officer. She earned her Purple Heart. She was ambushed twice. The second time after her tour in Iraq ended and she extended. I do know that my sister did not know that anything was wrong at CPA-SC. She was only there less that three at the end as the CPA shut down. She made the mistake of extending her service to help with that process. Debra broke inside after her second ambush. She was with strangers. She couldn't sleep. She took every pill, and drank every drop of alcohol she could get. She worked to numb herself. She wanted to die, but not in Iraq. I do know that she was abandoned by the United States when she was told to find her own way home. She received an email telling her there was no room for her on the cargo plane for her return. There was room for every CPA person scheduled to leave from Bagdad, but not my sister and four other soldiers. Yet, part of the indictment against her says she used a plane ticket purchased with CPA money. She did not purchase that ticket, but she did use it. It was her only way out, and she was instructed to use that ticket. It was so dangerous at that time that the Department of Justice Auditors were too afraid to come to Hillah to go through the papers. They told my sister to bring it all to them in the safety of the Green Zone. No one reported to my sister, and she had no one to report to. The Colonel in charge, Michael Whitehead, was gone, the Comptroller, Robert Stein, was gone. How in the world was she to get that huge amount of information to Baghdad from Hillah by herself. She couldn't do it. She suffers from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and receives treatment for that disorder through the VA. Hold off on any criticism of any soldier accused of anything. I know for a fact that the accusations against my sister are false. No matter what the Department of Justice asserts. Keep in mind, they are the same prople who vetted Robert J Stein to be in carge of the CPA-SC operation. My sister certainly didn't know that the man who told her what to do was a convicted felon. These guys in their double breasted suits and shiny black shoes need to get a reality check. What hypocracy!
 
By SangerM on February 9, 2007 7:06 PM
Posted by Jan at February 9, 2007 6:21 PM Jan! I could hardly express MORE STRONGLY that you do NOT EVER AGAIN post anything like that about your sister anywhere in public, unless you are trying to help put her in jail! In fact, you should NOT be speaking about your sister's case or your sister AT ALL (assuming you are real and not a shill for her) in any public forum. Everything you write can and may likely be used against her in court. You must NOT do this again. I understand your concern, but you simply must keep out of the fight, and for God's sake, don't say anything else as stupid as "She couldn't sleep. She took every pill, and drank every drop of alcohol she could get." Again, you could get called in to be a witness for the prosecution (and may well now), and all you'll be able to do is talk about what you've been told, and they'll already know, partly because of stuff like this!!! Think First! Then don't talk anyway! And make sure you tell your sister, 'cause you will not want this to surprise her lawyers. (sheesh, sometimes, I love the internet, other times... well, there you have it.
 
By John of Argghhh! on February 9, 2007 7:30 PM
Jan - First - What Sanger said. Next, just to point out - nothing you say addresses the theft allegations *except* the airplane ticket home. The PTSD, the two ambushes, the Purple Heart - none of those are relevant on the issue of guilt or innocence, they would only play in mitigation and extenuation. As Sanger notes, those revelations hurt more than help if she's truly innocent. I only want justice - if your sister is innocent, I wish her a damn good lawyer and a good day in court. If she's not - well, I've already had my say on that. I hold officers to a high standard, and higher officers to a higher standard. I'm sorry your family finds itself in this situation, there is nothing good in it, even if your sister is exonerated, I know that. Like Reagan's Labor Secretary Ray Donovan asked a congressional committee that had been complicit in a completely false smear of the Secretary, "Where do I go to get my reputation back?" That said - you really should let your sister's lawyer know you posted this. If I were holding comments in moderation, I would not have published it - but since it's out there in public now, it's discoverable.
 
By Jan on February 9, 2007 9:59 PM
Thank you for your suggestions. I wish I read them before I sent this stuff everywhere I could find. I didn't divulge anything new. All of the attorneys know so much more about this than I ever will. I just had to get something out that let people know a tiny part of what happened to my sister. I know this is not a good time for an emptional response, but I responded as best as I could with the limited information I can discuss. It is all just so very wrong.... Thank you Jan