Army Officer Refuses Deployment to Iraq

[Kat Kanning]

Army Officer Refuses Deployment to Iraq

AP | June 8 2006

An Army lieutenant based at Fort Lewis, Wash. has such grave objections to the war in Iraq that he's refusing to deploy, the soldier's lawyer said Tuesday.

First Lt. Ehren Watada submitted a letter to his command in January stating that he had serious reservations about the Iraq war and felt he could not participate in it, Watada's lawyer, Eric Seitz, said.

A couple of months later, at the Army's suggestion, Watada resubmitted his request to resign, Seitz said.

"They took their time but then they informed him in early May that they were not going to let him resign," Seitz said in a phone interview from his office in Honolulu.

Joe Hitt, a civilian spokesman at Fort Lewis, confirmed that Watada is a member of the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, the Army's first Stryker Brigade Combat Team.

The unit held a deployment ceremony Friday and will begin leaving later this month for its second mission in Iraq.

Hitt said the Army is aware of Watada's plans but had no comment.

"We have nothing to say about it because nothing has happened, and we're not going to speculate on anything," Hitt said.

Watada, a native of Honolulu, enlisted in the Army in 2003 after graduating from Hawaii Pacific University. He reported for boot camp in June of that year and began officer candidate school two months later.

Watada's commission required that he serve as an active-duty Army officer for a three-year term ending Dec. 3, 2006, Seitz said.

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

Watada could be court-martialed if he refuses to serve as ordered, unless the Army allows him to resign his commission or assigns him to duties that are not directly connected to the Iraq war, Seitz said.

[aries]

Well it was a bad idea to join the army.

[KBCraig]

I knew and served with some conscientious objectors who were outstanding soldiers. They were in the business of saving lives (or souls), and would refuse to use force even in self defense. They had my utmost respect.

I can't say that I have any respect for 1LT Watada, who wants to pick and choose which wars he'll fight. No matter how strongly he opposes this war, it is not illegal, and his orders to go there are lawful, and he agreed to go when he joined the army over three years ago.

I will grant him some respect if he refuses to go, and accepts whatever punishment the Army doles out, without fighting it or complaining about it. But by trying to resign without any consequences.... naw.

Kevin

[Dreepa]

it is not illegal, and his orders to go there are lawful, and he agreed to go when he joined the army over three years ago.

Couldn't he argue that according to the US Constitution that he swore to uphold and protect that Congress has the right to declare  war and since they didn't going to Iraq is un-Constitutional?

[KBCraig]

it is not illegal, and his orders to go there are lawful, and he agreed to go when he joined the army over three years ago.

Couldn't he argue that according to the US Constitution that he swore to uphold and protect that Congress has the right to declare  war and since they didn't going to Iraq is un-Constitutional?

The Constitution doesn't say how Congress has to go about declaring war. When they authorized and funded the current actions in Iraq, they declared war.

[slim]

I think he made a correct decision. Someone might want to get a hold of him and let him know about the FSP and what we believe in Freedom

[Russell Kanning]

they used to declare war.....

[KBCraig]

they used to declare war.....

And just as often, they didn't.

I'm sitting at a campground in Louisiana at 2:37 am, so don't ask me for cites... but, I believe that the majority of U.S. foreign military engagements, even those before GWB, have not involved explicit declarations of war. WWI and WWII are usually our big points of reference, but they were anomalies.

If I get a chance during this hectic week of packing for ShortyFest, I'll check that claim. If anyone else wades in with the data, great!

Kevin

[AlanM]

To me, the idea of NOT actually making a formal declaration of war is a big cop-out by Congress. A dereliction of duty. The Constitution gives them the power to declare war, yet they play games with it. It is just another sign of the meaninglessness of the Constitution. Why make the claim of living under the rule of Constitutional Law, if it is abrogated, or ignored, by those empowered by the Document to protect and defend it. It is a nefarious shame being perpetrated on the people of this land. In a word, it DISGUSTS me.

[Dreepa]

they used to declare war.....

And just as often, they didn't.

You are right Kevin but that doesn't mean that Congress failed in their duty.

Off the top of my head:

Iraq
Afghanistan
Iraq 91
Grenada
Haiti (several times)
Nicaragua
Vietnam
Korea -- (although there was some 'resolution' I think)
Honduras

I am sure there are dozens of others.

[Rocketman]

I can't say that I have any respect for 1LT Watada, who wants to pick and choose which wars he'll fight. No matter how strongly he opposes this war, it is not illegal, and his orders to go there are lawful, and he agreed to go when he joined the army over three years ago.

I say the second you realize you've been tricked by your country's rogue government into becoming a mercenary in an imperialistic War of Aggression, you have a moral obligation to stop murdering people.

[Rocketman]

Okay, here's the assertion nobody else will likely make on this board: The Iraq War is illegal because it is a War of Aggression, and Wars of Aggression are illegal under international law.

OMG!  INTERNATIONAL LAW?!?!?!  HAS ROCKETMAN GONE OFF AND JOINED THE NWO?!?!?! 

Nope, just observing that at least conceptually, the rule of law applies to interactions between sovereign nations.  In fact, the Bush administration's argument for war was that Hussein had violated international law.  The U.S. has become, in essence, a rogue nation in that it refuses to be bound by international law, yet threatens and even invades other countries for violating U.N. resolutions.  Of course that is never the real motive for an attack, but international media have long been correctly observing the hypocrisy of U.S. foreign policy.  And it really is embarassingly hypocritical.  We ought to be ashamed.

On top of all the bad policy which predates the Bush administration, our nation's current leaders have lied, lied, and lied some more because they wanted to fight an illegal, immoral, and otherwise despicable War of Aggression, destroying cities and killing tens of thousands.  Three cheers to Lt. Watada and any other soldier with the courage to hold this commander-in-chief accountable for his evil and/or foolish decision to manufacture this war and sell it to the American people.

[Russell Kanning]

Okay, here's the assertion nobody else will likely make on this board: The Iraq War is illegal because it is a War of Aggression, and Wars of Aggression are illegal under international law.

I guess you are right ..... I don't think in terms of whether this war is "illegal". It is immoral.
Just because some guys fund a war (make budgets to steal or borrow or print money) .... does not mean you should fight in one.

[JNagyJr]

http://www.tacomapjh.org/petrodollartheories.htm

[AlanM]

http://www.tacomapjh.org/petrodollartheories.htm

Very good links. Thanks.