Comments for Watada, con't.

Comments for Watada, con't. We're the Military and Airpower Guys of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online + a stray we found wandering around looking lost. All original material JHD, BHD, JR, WT, and KA 2003-2010 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/watada_cont.html Sat, 24 Mar 2012 15:43:45 Z Movable Type 4.12 en Copyright 2012 http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification Watada, con't. I see that the paperwork for Lieutenant Watada's trial got screwed up. I don't see scheduling a new trial as being double-jeopardy, as Lieutenant Watada's lawyer suggests, but, hey, it's Seitz's job to make the prosecution as miserable as possible. If the Army legal team truly screwed the pooch so badly as to cause this all to fall apart because of government incompetence, one hopes we'll see some resumes going out as soon-to-be-former Army lawyers seek new employment. I suspect it won't go that way. All things considered, however, I wouldn't be shocked to see the convening authority offer the... http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/watada_cont.html http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/watada_cont.html Sat, 10 Feb 2007 09:26:41 -0600 Comment from ry on 2007-02-12 CONSPIRACY! tacked onto it but wasn't one of the reasons checks and balances was employed was to prevent gov't over reach and abuse--and the rise of an Oliver Cromwell? So wouldn't it be more accurate to say 98% crap the way it was used but 2% right(since it is a warping of a basic and true concept)? Or I could just stfu and hide in the corner. That's working pretty good right now too. ]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/watada_cont.html#comment-56530 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/watada_cont.html#comment-56530 Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:45:23 -0600 Comment from SangerM on 2007-02-12 I told you Cliff was not worth arguing with. But nooooooo, you had to try to reason with him.... He uses big words, specious logic, and he squirms like a greased pig in a wrestling match when pinned on some of his more questionable claims. It is just not possible to find common ground with a person who has no moral compass and no interest in learning. Just making claim after claim, tossing out those that don't hold water (lots of cast-offs on his floor) and forgetting he ever said half of what went by the wayside. And clearly, consistency, accuracy, validity, common sense, and just plain decency are irrelevant. And see, even though I think it was him masquerading as William (a lot of the same non-logic), he apparently didn't [want to] see my write up about what constitutes illegal, which the war in Iraq most certainly is not. He pretends at being an intellectual, but he's a charlatan, and if you need any further proof, look no further than this inane tripe: "The rights in the constitution are designed under the assumption that the civil gov't (pres & congress) will use the instrument of law and gov't ESPECIALLY the military wrongly through fraud and secrecy." Gawd, what utter stupid nonsense. This is wrong on so many levels that it pains me to read it. You know, Cliff's musings are the sort of thing that justify Europeans' bad opinions of America: every self-taught outhouse lawyer in the country not only has the right to an opinion, but feels the moral obligation to air it, and has the insufferable arrogance to expect others to accept what he says as gospel--and then gets offended or defensive when called on it. You know, I think I'm going to start saving off Cliff's arguments to use later as examples of how truly little so many supposedly educated Americans know about their own government, the Constitution, or the institutions that make up their country. At the very least, I am going to share some of his stuff with my professors so they can laugh too. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/watada_cont.html#comment-56510 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/watada_cont.html#comment-56510 Mon, 12 Feb 2007 01:37:01 -0600 Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2007-02-11 PS: Yes, I do believe the joint chiefs should speak out and resign. DON'T THINK FOR A SECOND, THEY HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THAT OPTION! Sigh. I've at least met three of these guys. I'm extremely sceptical - and just because you *want* it to be so, you're going to have to do better than simple assertion.]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/watada_cont.html#comment-56502 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/watada_cont.html#comment-56502 Sun, 11 Feb 2007 21:52:15 -0600 Comment from ry on 2007-02-11 HOist. Own. Petard. So, if the gestalt(the general feeling) of the military brass is that it isn't illegal, after much thought, and Watada get's told his reasoning wrong by those in better position to know such consensus no longer applies? The rest of the officer corps is just a bunch of warcriminals then? Since they went along with the 'illegal orders'. Yeah, they're all stupid and unable to think for themselves, particularly those with IQs that are at least 2sigma outside the norm. Watada is NOT in trouble for questioning. He's in trouble for making political decisions when he got answers he didn't like on matters he is not empowered to make those types of decisions on--for good reasons, none of which have anything to do with the individual soldier being empowered to question authority. Be careful throwing that hypocrisy charge around here. It tends to boomerang. Must've been BCR and one of her experiments that she forgot to turn off. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/watada_cont.html#comment-56490 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/watada_cont.html#comment-56490 Sun, 11 Feb 2007 17:49:09 -0600 Comment from cliff on 2007-02-11 "I do trust the gestalt of the whole. While I was not happy the Dems swept to power, because I believe they are inept and hold many ideas inimical to my personal beliefs," The gestalt of the whole would include majority sentiment of the nation. The question I'm guessing you've never asked yourself, is would you rather live in a democracy under majority rule despite your disagreement with it? or do you prefer some other form of gov't in which your personal views are reflected? John, this is a very important question. The former requires far more patience, tolerance, and embraces diversity of opinion. The latter requires an exercise of power by a minority. But your first paragraph makes no sense. In all my years of study of the American political system, I have never come across any suggestion that the will of soldiers is relevant to anything. (THAT is in fact the basis of your thesis) Even if you could prove the surveys on troop sentiment wrong AND ignored the plethora of serving and retired officers, any outcome does not translate into the logic "whoever loses an election should get the office." So either you misunderstood my point, or you are suggesting that the opinion of our volunteer military is somehow relevant to elections. Lastly, this was a nice bit of equivocation which I think is beneath you.

but then when you or those you approve of occupy the White House and Congress, do we soldiers get to say "Nope, ain't gonna do it." then?

This war is not wrong because I do not like Bush et al. This war is wrong because it is wrong, illegal, and the people who got us into it have committed grave offenses against the American people and a sovereign country. Do you think for a second I wasn't against the democrats war in Viet Nam? PS: Yes, I do believe the joint chiefs should speak out and resign. DON'T THINK FOR A SECOND, THEY HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THAT OPTION!]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/watada_cont.html#comment-56487 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/watada_cont.html#comment-56487 Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:51:42 -0600 Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2007-02-11 Of course, Cliff. I should, nay, must, in your view support the thousands of officers and vets who hold a minority opinion, and ignore the millions of those who disagree with them. By this logic, whoever loses an election should get the office. Watada may indeed be a patriot. Regardless, that doesn't make him right. I don't trust any specific single bit. I do trust the gestalt of the whole. While I was not happy the Dems swept to power, because I believe they are inept and hold many ideas inimical to my personal beliefs, the Republicans had obviously been too long in power. The people, in their clumsy way, issued a corrective. I don't accept your premise, therefore I don't have to argue it. But if, for argumentation's sake, I did accept the argument - this isn't a crisis of sufficient severity that the military should start making it's own judgements, except as individuals within the contexts of their contracts. And if that is not sufficient for them, they can take their chances as Watada has. It doesn't make him right. It doesn't make it a good idea. Good grief, Cliff - do you really think the Joint Chiefs should just refuse to send any more soldiers anywhere? Oh, I can see, how in your political worldview you would in fact like that - but then when you or those you approve of occupy the White House and Congress, do we soldiers get to say "Nope, ain't gonna do it." then? You're missing the point. Just because thus far you haven't won your case does not mean that the military should rebel. Just because you don't like the administration and it's policies, and the Congress that has thus far vetted them, does not mean that the military should rebel. Or is that what you want, Cliff? Rebellion? Open defiance of the government? That's the path you set yourself on - and asking the people who have the guns and tanks and know how to use them to openly defy the seated government is just, well, dumb. You may not like how things are going, nor like how fast they are going, but your path in this narrow instance, is the path of ruin. Nothing you have said moves me in the least. At this time and place, even accepting only for argument's sake your proposition, the situation in no way calls for the military to refuse its orders. Therefore, I will not support Lieutenant Watada in his quest. I don't call him traitor, I can see a logic that would call him patriot. But just as I didn't support Specialist New in his crusade against the Blue Beret, I don't support Lieutenant Watada in his assertion that he gets to pick and choose which orders he will obey in this situation. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/watada_cont.html#comment-56482 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/watada_cont.html#comment-56482 Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:15:12 -0600 Comment from Cliff on 2007-02-11 The rights in the constitution are designed under the assumption that the civil gov't (pres & congress) will use the instrument of law and gov't ESPECIALLY the military wrongly through fraud and secrecy. It would be nice if all such threats were thwarted in the halls of congress, but the founding fathers knew this wasn't good enough. Perhaps you're reading of the constitution is through a lens of trust in the system. That certainly wasn't the lends through which it was written. But lets get real, the administration lied repeatedly about Iraq and continues to lie. And there IS discussion of impeachment, but the real power in THIS country lies with the people and that is why you must support Watada. He is a true patriot. But more importantly, you should suppor the thousands of officers and vets who ARE speaking out in ways I assume you prefer. But back to my question. Using this very situation - lies = Iraq = illegal war with compliance of congress - I ask you John, under what circumstance SHOULD a solider ever question civil authority. (if not now) http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/watada_cont.html#comment-56475 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/watada_cont.html#comment-56475 Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:24:05 -0600 Comment from Hawk on 2007-02-11 The UCMJ statute on “Former Jeopardy” “844. ART. 44. FORMER JEOPARDY (a) No person may, without his consent, be tried a second time for the same offense. (b) No proceeding in which the accused has been found guilty by court- martial upon any charge or specification is a trial in the sense of this article until the finding of guilty has become final after review of the case has been fully completed. (c) A proceeding which, after the introduction of evidence but before a finding, is dismissed or terminated by the convening authority or motion of the prosecution for failure of available evidence or witnesses without any fault of the accused is a trial in the sense of this article.” After reading this, I am not sure there will be another trial. It will be interesting to see the defenses motion. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/watada_cont.html#comment-56474 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/watada_cont.html#comment-56474 Sun, 11 Feb 2007 13:54:38 -0600 Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2007-02-11 serving soldiers and the citizenry in general, well, I simply can't believe you actually read what I said - because your comment really doesn't make sense, especially for someone coming from a progressive viewpoint. Did you miss the part where I said the appropriate fora are... the halls of Congress, Federal Judiciary, and Public Opinion (wherein lie the Press)? That's where the discussion should take place. *Not* in company day rooms. I even talked about Watada getting out and standing tall against the war. How does that square with your comment? I don't see the logical or rhetorical connection that leads you from ..."don't want to encourage the military, in general, to openly and defiantly question the civil authority." to this: "According to that logic, no one should ever question civil authority." As for "How do you square that with the entirety of American principles, values and the constitution?" I would answer that that document, and the Congressionally-passed laws and the Executively directed regulations deriving from them covering the military, have by long tradition and with court sanction been accepted as legitimate restrictions placed on the civil rights of the soldiery. And extra restrictions are placed on the officer corps from which the "Men on Horseback" generally have appeared in the history of the world. So that we wouldn't have men on horseback. As I said in the first post on this subject - it's not a long stretch from deciding which orders we will follow to deciding from whom we will take orders. They are flip sides of the same coin. Really, Cliff - I can't believe you meant what you said. Do please explain? ]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/watada_cont.html#comment-56473 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/watada_cont.html#comment-56473 Sun, 11 Feb 2007 13:15:48 -0600 Comment from cliff on 2007-02-11 John, "Why am I not supportive of making Lieutenant Watada a hero?...Because you don't want to encourage the military, in general, to openly and defiantly question the civil authority." According to that logic, no one should ever question civil authority. How do you square that with the entirety of American principles, values and the constitution? http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/watada_cont.html#comment-56471 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/watada_cont.html#comment-56471 Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:51:05 -0600 Comment from J.M. Heinrichs on 2007-02-10 I meant no implication of "squishiness", I would like the Lt stand up and explain, amongst other things, his ethical reasonings. He's passed the age of accountability, he's old enough to vote, he has taken a public stand: let's hear what it is, give him the opportunity to defend himself. Perhaps he has developed an authoritative explication of "just war"; we need to hear it, especially the distinction of Afghanistan vs Iraq. And if this was a set-up from the start, let's hear about that. Give him the rope ... No comments on his MOS, this time. Cheers http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/watada_cont.html#comment-56457 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/watada_cont.html#comment-56457 Sat, 10 Feb 2007 20:25:04 -0600 Comment from ry on 2007-02-10 that's a vile slander. Brevity is for the weak. ;)]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/watada_cont.html#comment-56453 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/watada_cont.html#comment-56453 Sat, 10 Feb 2007 16:39:26 -0600 Comment from kat-missouri on 2007-02-10 Similar to how I see Thomas's retraction as a legal manouver not hoping to get acquital, but hoping to get a lesser sentence, I imagine that Watada's attornies will put him on the stand and,over the objections of the prosecution and orders of the judge to the contrary, will try to get in a few licks about his concience, the legality of the war, etc. Then the attornies can appeal any "guilty" decision by the jury, claiming inappropriate instructions, inability to provide Watada with the proper defense because it was not allowed, the prejudice of the jury (being warmongering soldiers), etc, etc, etc. Until, as John pointed out, either the military gives in and gives him a lesser sentence (ie, not dishonorably discharged) or they have made it a giant mess in the media and forced the appeals all the way to the Supreme court who they hope is still liberal enough to try the legality of the war through a de facto ruling on appeal. Either way, it is completely political in nature, thus I have little sympathy for Watada. In fact, I feel none at all. In fact, I am completely disgusted by him and his cohorts because they are willing to bet the future of our democracy on this one moment. I suppose, like John, I am a little disgusted at the military commanders, too who did not summarily demand his resignation and let the little show boat go on his way. Except, I can understand to some degree that the same thing that drives them to NOT allow the legality of war to be brought within the courts martial regarding obeying an order, would also see them insisting that objecting to being sent to a particular front of the war (when not a concientious objector) is equally heinous and damaging to the order of the military. Thus allowing officers to pick and choose where they will be sent. So, to ameliorate the potential for future pain from military governance and lack of order, we will just have to suck up all this stupidity, wait for Watada to be found guilty and make him the anti-war poster boy from the military (a la Sen. Kerry) in order to protect the future from our wants and desires of the immediate time. Giant sigh. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/watada_cont.html#comment-56451 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/watada_cont.html#comment-56451 Sat, 10 Feb 2007 16:36:29 -0600 Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2007-02-10 Oh, we know me, John. I'm such a middle-of-the-roader squish kinda guy. I'll cut the kid a rhetorical break because he's a kid. If it was you, or me, or Bill or Dusty in the dock - my take would be far sharper. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/watada_cont.html#comment-56449 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/watada_cont.html#comment-56449 Sat, 10 Feb 2007 16:19:15 -0600 Comment from J.M. Heinrichs on 2007-02-10 Some of us are sitting back and waiting in bemusement for the next chapter in the heart warming story. I am interested in how his lawyer will argue the case, based on the legal sources cited in support of the Lt's decision to refuse the order. The laws of war do not state what many people think they do. The second point would be how he defends his willingness to serve in Afstan but not Iraq. Consciencious objection has generally been an all-or-nothing option, so I am interested in the justification and evidence argued to support his decision. Conscience can be a fickle thing, but if one has evidence supporting such a change, I'm ready to hear it. Especially for the amusement factor. As for the "arguably ethical course of action" taken by the Lt, I would like to see the evidence. At the moment, I see a young officer who changed his mind concerning the obigation to serve he agreed to, which poses the question of whether he is equally flexible in fulfilling other commitments: how far can he be trusted. Or, he entered into his commitment to serve his country knowing that he would break that commitment at the first opportunity: can he be trusted at all. Cheers http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/watada_cont.html#comment-56448 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/watada_cont.html#comment-56448 Sat, 10 Feb 2007 16:15:44 -0600 Comment from kat-missouri on 2007-02-10 What you [e.g. commenters at the Post] are asking the courts martial (military court) to do is to decide on the legality of war, any war for that matter. You and Lt. Watada are basically trying to put the military and its code of justice on par (equal to) our elected government. Basically, in the heat of the moment, in your aversion to the Iraq war and this administration, you are willing to throw out the very basis of our government and the checks and balances instituted by the Constitution. You are betraying your liberal principals and demanding that the unelected bueacracy of the military become the fourth "check and balance" against our government. The courts martial rightly, and being more aware of the legal and historical damage to our democracy, refused to hear Lt. Watada's defense on the legality of the war determining the legality of the order to deploy. If they did allow it, whether they found Lt. Watada innocent OR guilty, they would be by default ruling on the legality of the war, thus giving the military the power of the state in determining what war they will or will not fight. And that's BEFORE I read your post. I did add one more point (hyperbolic a bit, but trying to get the point across):

All those who are out picketing and supporting Watada who, after that explanation of the dangers to our democracy, still insist that he should be allowed that defense, are not liberal, democracy minded citizens, but are in fact petty tyrants in disguise rooting for a version of the South American Military Junta.

]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/watada_cont.html#comment-56444 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/watada_cont.html#comment-56444 Sat, 10 Feb 2007 15:35:21 -0600 Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2007-02-10 Heh. Stunned everybody to inchoate melancholia... http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/watada_cont.html#comment-56441 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/02/watada_cont.html#comment-56441 Sat, 10 Feb 2007 13:54:48 -0600