It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US war objector pleads not guilty

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Seeing as things can only get worse,i wonder how many more of these cases we will see.And how isnt the legality of this war allowed to be used?Oh ya,i forgot,the legality of this war no longer matters.


(BBC)-A US army officer who refused orders to deploy to Iraq has pleaded not guilty to several charges at a court martial.

news.bbc.co.uk...


First Lt Ehren Watada is charged with missing movements and two charges of conduct unbecoming an officer.

news.bbc.co.uk...


Lt Watada told the military court at an army base in Washington state that the order to go to Iraq was illegal because the war itself was illegal.

news.bbc.co.uk...


Lt Watada was charged with missing movements after he refused to deploy with his unit to Iraq in June 2006.

news.bbc.co.uk...


The other two charges against Lt Watada stem from statements he has made criticising the war as illegal and immoral.

news.bbc.co.uk...


He has said he would have served in Afghanistan, but not Iraq.

news.bbc.co.uk...


The military judge, Lt Col John Head, has ruled that Lt Watada can not base his defence on the war's legality.

news.bbc.co.uk...


He also ruled that Lt Watada's statements are not protected by the right to free speech under the US constitution.

Lt Watada faces up to four years in prison if he is found guilty on all charges.

news.bbc.co.uk...




posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 07:52 PM
link   
The war wasn't illegal. Soldiers don't get to decide if they are going to fight in a war that was approved by congress. They can't be ordered to committ atrocities by their superiors, but that doesn't mean that they can say 'well this whole war is an atrocity' and not go to it.

Bottom line for me is, if you don't want to fight in the wars that congress orders, don't join the military.

[edit on 5-2-2007 by Nygdan]



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 07:57 PM
link   
So even if a war is wrong,just because the people are in the millitary,they have no choice but to do it?

Sounds more like slavery than service.
It is up to the troops to decide too a degree.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Bottom line for me is, if you don't want to fight in the wars that congress orders, don't join the military.

[edit on 5-2-2007 by Nygdan]


Exactly, I respect his opinion but I dont condone his actions. He joined the military and he made an agreement. If he was ordered to massacre civilians, that would be one thing, but he disobeyed an order. He will be lucky if he isnt dishonorably dismissed along with serving time in prison.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Black_Fox
Sounds more like slavery than service.


In some ways, it is. The government pretty much owns you when you are in the military. Desertion has been frowned upon in the west as far back as the time of the Romans. As I recall, the british and other european powers frowned on desertion as well.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 08:17 PM
link   
The British executed deserters on the spot during the first world war...

I couldnt see this martial court condemning him to Firing Squad

In the worst case scenario he'll do Jail Time


I anyway, like Xphilesphan, I respect his opinion but not his actions... He voluntered to serve the United States Armed Forces... Not the U.N. Chart

They simply Can't allow Desertion like that just because there is a war... It would be different if the US army wasnt a volontary force

"I agree to serve in our European bases but not in the middle east" Yeah sure...



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 08:51 PM
link   
He joined the military end of story. Did he think that there would be some 'special exception' for him, so that he could go to Afghanistan instead of Iraq?

Now I haven't been in the military but from what I've heard you obey orders. Yes he should disagree if he's ordered to pillage, rape, murder etc innocent civilians, but all that's happening is that he's getting sent to Iraq and,as a Lieutenant I don't think he'd see much 'action'.

Heck if this was World War I (as some of you have pointed out) he would have been executed by firing squad.

I thought that you went to whichever location you were ordered to, you didn't get to choose.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 08:57 PM
link   
That story's real cute. He joins the military, and then when the fan is hit, he decides to bail on his fellow soldiers.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Black_Fox
So even if a war is wrong,just because the people are in the millitary,they have no choice but to do it?

Yes. When you join the military, you are going to fight the war's that congress declares.


Sounds more like slavery than service.

Thats a fair assesment.

It is up to the troops to decide too a degree.

Its up to congress.


XphilesPhan
He will be lucky if he isnt dishonorably dismissed along with serving time in prison

He's lucky he doesn't get a bullet to the head.




At the same time, to play devils advocate while risking a Godwin here, if you joined the regular german army, and then hitler told you to go invade poland, would you have an obligation to do it?
At least under german law, I think that you would. If you wanted to appeal to a higher law, whether international law, or religious and ethical law, then you could, but I don't think that you could expect to not be punished at the time.

He is also saying right now that he is 'not guilty' of conduct unbecoming an officer, this charge stems from him saying that the war is illegal. Clearly, he is guilty of the charge. If he wants to take the high ground here, then fine, but at least admit guilt.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Well Nydgan is right, a solider as to do what his commander in chief tells him to do . . . like Nydan said he can deny doing something that is not moraly right in the soldiers believes.

If the soldiers believe that killing is morally wrong he can deny killing another human being.

Nydgan he did not committed treason so is not need for bullets in the head.


He has not case, he will be judge in a military court and a military jury of his peers he will be found guilty.

Under the military conduct he is guilty as charge.

And yes once you become a soldier you are the property of the government and yes is like slavery but with a pay check


[edit on 5-2-2007 by marg6043]



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by CanadianGlasnost
The British executed deserters on the spot during the first world war...


Exactly why the british controlled a vast empire and maintained that position of power for a long time. I am not advocating harsh punishments like executions, but discipline should always be maintained in the armed forces. The west has traditionally always believed that.



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
he did not committed treason so is not need for bullets in the head.

Its debateable if its treason or not, but I wouldn't seriously recommend that he be shot. Even if a person just flat out refuses to go to iraq, regardless of whether he is saying its illegal, just boot him out of the military and get on with things.


XphilesPhan
Exactly why the british controlled a vast empire and maintained that position of power for a long time.

Lots of militaries executed soldiers for 'cowardice' and didn't have a global empire. The british maintained their colonial empire for so long because they brought liberal, democratic rule to the colonies, knew how to respect other cultures, and actually supported the colonies.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 12:07 AM
link   
My son is in the Australian Army and will be in Baghdad this year as part of troop rotation.

He did not enlist to fight the US President's bogus WOT. He joined up to defend Australia...we were not at war but are in danger because of our allegiance to the US...It sucks but he is proud and will do what he is told.

I wish he was an anarchist like me and could find it in his heart to rebel against the orders he will be given.

Whether we agree or not about these guys deserting or refusing...I feel for them all and their families.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistancia
I wish he was an anarchist like me and could find it in his heart to rebel against the orders he will be given.

Why the hell would an anarchist join the army in the first place???



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 12:26 AM
link   
To bring it all down from the inside.

Does anyone know if he gets to defend his position of the war in Iraq being illegal? Granted I'm not sure if he would have a solid case but it could be possible he put a lot of thought into it.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 01:12 AM
link   
Watada will be looked at as a patriot later in history.


As for dodging service, that's what Bush did with his champagne unit for a lost year. It's funny how people obey the fraudlent hypocrite.

Cheney was going to go to Vietnam but he said he had other priorities. Finally he didn't go with 5 deferments.
Rush had a cyst on his ass. Oh the hypocrisy it's so astounding. And yet people stand up for these cowardice fascist hyenas.


As far as im concerned, all bets are off of the soliders in military what this administration has done to our military. I support every one dissenting a genocidal occupation. Because this war is just a transparent lie.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 02:33 AM
link   
This war is not illegal? Sure, but what would have made it legal and who upholds that legality or would have the authority to punish those experting it ? Nobody really. The Hague has been rejected by the U.S as they believe themselves to be immune to international law; a U.S soldier cannot be tried for war crimes, or a general, or President bush, but Watada can be tried for his refusal to take part in an obvious war based upon lies and conjecture? Amazing.

Luxifero



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 02:56 AM
link   
While i certainly dont,and never have agreed with this war,technically its not "illegal". Congress gave him the authority to use military force. As a young person in the u.s (20),i've been actively deciding if im goin to join or not. I can understand why he's doing what he's doing,but on the other hand i can't. I've actually lost friends in this war,and when you're in country you are not fighting for political reasons. Your main concern is keeping yourself,and your friends alive.

That said,this guy isn't a private,he's a LT.,an officer. He should know better. He volunteered for service. IMO,he should have done his tour,and wait to bring up any political issues he had afterwards. Even though military personnel are restricted on what they can and can't say while a member.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
The war wasn't illegal. Soldiers don't get to decide if they are going to fight in a war that was approved by congress. They can't be ordered to committ atrocities by their superiors, but that doesn't mean that they can say 'well this whole war is an atrocity' and not go to it.

Bottom line for me is, if you don't want to fight in the wars that congress orders, don't join the military.

[edit on 5-2-2007 by Nygdan]



WRONG, the war is illegial under international law.
Just because the US Congress said 'lets go to war' does not mean that over-rules world LAW!

Get your brain in tact before you spew the same rhetorical bs that has led your country into this mess.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 06:30 AM
link   
The soldier voluntered to serve under the United States Armed Forces...

Not under some Chart abiding army

Is it right or wrong? No idea, I'll leave that to you

It does mean that it over-rules World Law because the US doesnt recognise an higher autority apart from God maybe



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join