US war objector pleads not guilty

An Anarchist would join the Army were it privatized..

Luxifero

Luxifero, you get my Way Above Top Secret

You have voted Luxifero for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

I don't agree with everything you said, but it is a Clear, Moderate, Point of view, only that made my day (and trust me, it was one of those day that you want to forget)

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
But they have.
The US set up the UN, to uphold world law.
The UN has shown this war to be illegial.
the US ignores it.

the UN, told the US, its claims were unfounded, and further inspections were needed to prove who was lying, and who wasnt.
Well, the US ignored that, and invaded.
When we found NO WMD's it showed who was lying and who wasnt.

Agit8dChop, it is not as simple and just not true that Saddam never had WMDs. He used them on the Kurds. It's also a fact that he was not totally co-operative with inspectors; he actually ejected them in 1998. WMD's weren't found, but that doesn't mean they never existed or that we were lied to.

And it may seem that some here are blind followers and supporters of the war in Iraq. That's also an unfair characterization, imo. I think that everyone would admit that mistakes have been made, and nobody is in love with the current situation. The points where we disagree are 1) whether the war was illegal or not, and 2) what should we do next.

As far as the OP goes, I think Togetic summed it up pretty well:

Originally posted by Togetic
He can't claim conscientious objector status because that requires that you object all wars. He can't pick and choose. Further, if his defense were to be allowed, it would break down the chain of command necessary in all military hierarchies. Lastly, he can't argue that the war is illegal because no court in the United States--or even internationally--has found it illegal.

Watada is a coward and should do time in prison.

quote: geocom
The legality of the war asside you sign the contract you must adhere to it
quote: Nygdan
If congress didn't declare war, and it was just the president going to war, you wouldn't be bound to go, that'd be an illegal war, and it wouldn't matter if there was a 'contract' signed.


The contract signed was not signed on the pretense of legal or illegal war it was signed as an agreement between the soldier and the US Army and in so signing the soldier accepts all commitments to the US Army (or any other branch) the most obvious commitment of course is to follow the orders of your command which comes ultimately from the President whether you agree with his decision or not.

Additionally if you read the laws in place the president does not need the congress to declare war, If indeed he did need the congress don't you think that the democrats would be on him like white on rice kicking his butt all the way down pennsylvania avenue and out of town. There are many many provisions and situation that allow this one of which is the patriot act....

The President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. He has the authority to use the Armed Forces when he deems it necessary, without Congress having to declare War. Here is some info on the differences of declared vs. undeclared wars.

en.wikipedia.org...

There are also diplomatic reasons for a dislike of "declaring war" on a country, as it can often be perceived as holding an entire nation responsible for the actions of a few of its citizens. In the case of the most recent public opposition, those who support such actions have noted that, in the case of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, there was no 'target' for a legal declaration of war, rather political groups or individuals. On the other hand, many argue that since an invading army seeks to, or at least actually does, occupy and cause havoc to an entire target country and its population (as opposed to the target political groups or individuals), the aforementioned justifications are tenuous at best.

Many against formal declarations of war also argue that such declarations "acknowledge sovereignty" of a target government often contended by the United States to be an illegitimate regime. By declaring war, the United States must acknowledge diplomatically that the target of hostilities are, in fact, the recognized leaders of the country with which the war is declared, therefore often weakening the argument for "liberating" a people of the said country from a tyrannical or illegitimate regime


Additionally, during a declared war the Executive Branch has far more power(which many here are already scared of), where things like sedition, treason, etc... are looked upon with much more scrutiny, and many freedoms can be taken away(private property, industries nationalized, ships commandeered for the effort, etc..).

www.independent.org...

Originally posted by jsobecky

Agit8dChop, it is not as simple and just not true that Saddam never had WMDs. He used them on the Kurds. It's also a fact that he was not totally co-operative with inspectors; he actually ejected them in 1998. WMD's weren't found, but that doesn't mean they never existed or that we were lied to.

And it may seem that some here are blind followers and supporters of the war in Iraq. That's also an unfair characterization, imo. I think that everyone would admit that mistakes have been made, and nobody is in love with the current situation. The points where we disagree are 1) whether the war was illegal or not, and 2) what should we do next.

I admit the USA supplied him with the means to create WMD's IN THE 80's- this is not in dispuate. He did use them on the kirds, the same way the US used them in Vietnam, ahh right.. the US Says theres a difference.

He opened himself up to inspectors, so much so they COULD NOT find evidence of the USA's claims. That alone should of dealt MORE TIME. Saddam asked for TALKS, he ASKED for direct dialouge to SOLVE the issue but the US ignored him. That alone should ring the emergency bells that bush DIDNT GIVE A DAMN about wmd's.

It doesnt mean they never existed, but the government showed NO EVIDENCE. They stated they had undeniable evidence, but yet refuse to show it. now when no wmd's exist, it means there's NO EVIDENCE of wmd's. IT was a setup, why else did they ignore the UN.
simply because we have invaded and occuped based on these lies told over 4 years ago,

'does not mean we should just ignore the fact, that they LIED to start this war'

That has all the bearings on Today, why in the world do you think we are LOSING this war? because there was no reason to start it and murder innocent people.

Soliders dont want to fight, because Iraq was never a threat, it was an illegial war.
Your government refuses to own up to anything, yet your soliders still die, and your Vce presient still makes Millions, upon millions of dollars.

THIS SHOULD NEVER BE IGNORED!

Then everyone SHOULD admit mistakes have been made

THESE MISTAKES HAVE COST ENTIRE FAMILIES THEIR LIVES.
Have cost living citizens their families, there lively hood.
SO WHY ARE THERE still people who following this regime that has taken control of your country?

This is what im fighting, arguing, losing sleep over.

Your govenment lied to get into Iraq.
They lied while In Iraq.
Your good soliders are dying DAILY because of these lies.
Innocent Iraqis are dying every MINUTE bcause of these lies.
So why is not every single citizen of the United states screaming for ther presidents head on a platter?

he is the problem, he is the reason you are losing.
Remove bush and the administration, you wil find a way to solve the Iraqi crisis.

But if you allow him to sit in his whitehouse for 2 more yrs, dictating how 'he' wants Iraq to happen...

It will ruin your country. And this affects me, because it will ruin my country and my livelyhood.

Originally posted by Luxifero
An Anarchist would join the Army were it privatized

That really says nothing other than an anarchist may be violent.

The war is illegal in the sense that no legal precedence exists to justify it

No. Wars do not need to be justified to anyone in order to be legal. THe only laws governing US wars are the international agreements taht the US is party to, and US law. Congress legally declared war in Iraq, it doesn't need to 'justify' it to anyone other than itself. No international organization that the US is party to wrt war laws has said that the war was illegal.

geocom
Additionally if you read the laws in place the president does not need the congress to declare war,

Please point out which Consitutional Ammendment removes war power from congress.

If indeed he did need the congress don't you think that the democrats would be on him like white on rice

The Democrats were massively in favour of the war and explicitly approved it.

are many many provisions and situation that allow this one of which is the patriot act....

The patriot act has nothing to do with war. No law can trump the constitution, which states that war power is specifically in the hands of the congress, indeed, foreign policy, such as treaties, have to be approved within Congress, not by the president, who is merely the executor of congressional policy. The President can not now, nor has the office ever been able to, declare war. No law, no matter if even 100% of congress supported it, can 'give up' the power of congress to declare war, nor give it to the office of the presidency, only a consitutional ammendment can do that.

Blue Raja
He has the authority to use the Armed Forces when he deems it necessary, without Congress having to declare War

Yes, on a limited basis, and under other restrictions as dictated by law. That STILL does not mean that the office of the presidency can declare war. The whole point of the founders was that war MUST be approved by the representatives of the people in congress, not a decision by a single person in the office of the presidency. Its in the constitution, it can't be changed without an ammendment. There are laws regulating what the president can do with the military before, or without, an official declaration of war, and this is a pragmatic and necessary thing to have, especially in the modern era. But no law gives the presidency the power to decide when to go to war.

Nygdan,

Point well taken there is no amendment for the president to declare war without the congress however this has been to trial and the following is the outcome


The president of the United States has no clear constitutional authority to declare war without congressional approval. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the president, as commander-in-chief of the military, does have the authority to recognize a "state of war" initiated against the United States and may in these circumstances unilaterally send U.S. troops into battle. President Bush has also stated that his powers as commander-in-chief allow him to act independently in defense of the nation.

That said I agree with you on the constitution and that fact that it should be followed
to the tee but it seems that in the real world this has been happening for years as there are only 5 instances in U.S. history in which the congress has declared a state of war on another nation.

at any rate I am enjoying the debate on this post

Later
Geo

Originally posted by geocom
Nygdan,

Point well taken there is no amendment for the president to declare war without the congress however this has been to trial and the following is the outcome


The president of the United States has no clear constitutional authority to declare war without congressional approval. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the president, as commander-in-chief of the military, does have the authority to recognize a "state of war" initiated against the United States and may in these circumstances unilaterally send U.S. troops into battle. President Bush has also stated that his powers as commander-in-chief allow him to act independently in defense of the nation.

As I recall, there is an explicitly stated time limit on how long he can deploy troops without congressional approval. Does 90 days sound right?

I believe that it is 60 days from unilateral deployment that the president has to initiate hearings (which do not have a time limit) to convince the congress that it was an appropriate action, probably the most well known instance of presidential war declaration without congress was president Lincoln in which he declared war on the south during congressional recess, however after the war the president went back and did get it on record that this was the proper action.

Of course it could be argued that it was a different world then (no Jets Nancy Pelosi) and it could take 30 days to get congress into emergency session but it doesn't seem like a valid rule or law in todays world where you can get all of congress to Washington within 2 days driving not to mention flying they could all be there in a less than a day.

Later
GEO

After reading this thread I can’t believe the rhetoric coming from the war supporters. You guys must have some vested interest to put so much effort into denouncing Lt.Watada. I know the US government does, because if they let him off the hook, other soldiers are going to follow suit, but I have to wonder about you guys.

Lt. Watada joined the military before the Iraq war started, and after an exemplary tour in Korea, he was being re-assigned to Iraq. He felt the war was unjust and asked to resign, they said NO. He asked to be deployed anywhere else but Iraq and they said NO. With no other option, he refused to deploy with his unit, but did not go AWOL.

Undoubtedly he will be prosecuted and probably go to jail, because they have to make an example of him. He knows this and yet still remains firm, and yet you have the gall to say this…

Originally posted by jsobecky
Watada is a coward and should do time in prison.

Whether you agree with him or not, he is anything but a coward, and like the two border patrol officers that shot the drug dealer and were prosecuted for doing their job, he will also be unjustly imprisoned.

I only wish the administration had the moral character Lt. Watada has.

I respect the fact that he didn't scurry off to some other country, but the fact remains that as a Commissioned Officer in the US Army, he is duty bound to carry out the orders given him. If the orders were unlawful, then he'd have a case with the JAG, but that isn't the case. His personal feelings are irrelevant. The military can only function with order and discipline, and if leaders take it upon themselves to decide they can do what they want, order breaks down. You don't get to pick and choose what orders you want to obey, like a buffet. It's not moral courage to not follow through with your agreed commitment to your superiors. It's indiscipline, and insubordination- nothing more. He wasn't being ordered to execute puppies, and children.

I am not a supporter of this war just a supporter of the troops and former enlisted man

also you might want to check your facts on Lt Watada


Watada is an Eagle Scout,[3] and was a near straight-A student, graduating from Hawaii Pacific University in 2003 with a Bachelor's degree in Finance.[4][5] He joined the US Army after the war in Iraq began, stating that after 9/11 he was motivated "out of a desire to protect our country.

as far as moral character goes he gave up any moral character he had after he refused to serve with and lead (he is an officer) his fellow soldiers. there are many soldiers in Iraq right now that disagree with this war but you don't give up one set of values to chase after another or because you have had a change of heart you follow the processes in place and try to make your case the best you can

I am not sure if he will end up in prison or not but they will discharge him for sure

The judge declared a mistrial in his case i think yesterday based on the idea that he did not understand a document that he had signed. not sure when they will start the trials again

The new trial begins on the 19th of March 2007


Later
GEO




[edit on 2/8/2007 by geocom]

That really says nothing other than an anarchist may be violent.

You have a limited scope on Anarchism. Not all Anarchists are violent; some simply denounce centralized governments and still there are others that follow the anarcho-capitalist route which I was alluding to. These distinct types would join the military were it a privatized endevour. Anarchists are not violent persons, in fact, they're less violent than democratic persons in power currently in the United States. Anarchism has evolved into myriad branches each particulate in it's perception. I'm not sure how you assume that Anarchists may be violent. Violence has not been monopolized by a single political, social and economic ideology.

No. Wars do not need to be justified to anyone in order to be legal. THe only laws governing US wars are the international agreements taht the US is party to, and US law. Congress legally declared war in Iraq, it doesn't need to 'justify' it to anyone other than itself. No international organization that the US is party to wrt war laws has said that the war was illegal.

So in your eyes wars can be categorical imperatives? That's nonsense. War has to be justified in a democratic society or else it washes away the voice of democracy with it's bloody intentions. The congressional approval of this war is not substantial enough to be taken seriously, especially when congress was just as impressed with the lies, manipulations and hog-wash fed to the American people as George Bush is when he just realized that he's capable of finishing a sentence proper.

These international laws you speak of also regulate nuclear weapons and it's proliferation, something which the U.S is more than willing to help other countries acquire yet are more than willing to defunct a countries peacefull progression towards nuclear energy. These International Laws also focus on issues of human rights, proliferation of arms, and war crimes and of these three, it seems the U.S has monopolized it's irrelevancy to their own causes around the world. The U.S recently voted against a treaty that would forbid the sales of Arms to war torn countries, the only country, mind you, to vote against it.

Really, international law means little to the U.S. The U.S simple choses to follow them for good PR practice and use it as weapon against others.

Also,

Who said Watada is a coward? Hey, you coward, go to Iraq yourself. Only a fool would call a man a coward for understanding the horrible disastrous this war is. This man is not a coward, he's a principled character whose speaking out against a machine that has willingly chosen to take this course of action that has consequently led to the utter downfall of the Middle East and will most likely not stop lest a miracle occurs.

Luxifero

As an anarchist, I am certainly not violent, other anarchists may be.

Perhaps 'conscientious objector' may be a better description...

I simply do not like a lot of government policy, legislation and the way some social issues are dealt with. Anarchists (conscientious objectors) just won't play the game like all the other good little boys and girls. It is our right to reject, protest peacefully and push to make things better in our world.

I would like to see more less sheeple and more thinking people

Originally posted by Luxifero
You have a limited scope on Anarchism. Not all Anarchists are violent;

I didn't say that they were.
You said an anarchist would join 'the army' if it were privatized. A non-governmental army is just a gang of thugs. So all you were saying was 'some anarchists can be violent'.
pquote]So in your eyes wars can be categorical imperatives?
I said wars don't have to be just nor justified to be legal.

War has to be justified in a democratic society

A stable democracy will avoid so called 'just wars', and instead only engage in utterly pragmatic wars. A 'just war' is a war where you say that 'they' are evil, that they are 'uncivilized' that they are 'wrong' and can be justifiably killed. The crusades were a "Just War", for example.

willing to help other countries acquire yet are more than willing to defunct a countries peacefull progression towards nuclear energy.

That really has nothing to do with whether the iraq war is illegal or not.

Who said Watada is a coward?

I didn't. I think thats, what, the third thing that you've said I said but that I didn't actually say, no?

resistancia
I simply do not like a lot of government policy, legislation and the way some social issues are dealt with.

Then you're not an anarchist. Anarachists don't object to any specific governmental policy, they object to governance. They reject government even if it was good.

Anarchists (conscientious objectors) just won't play the game like all the other good little boys and girls

A conscientious objector is a person that objects to war out of their own concsience, they are not anarchists. If anything, saying an anarchist is a concientious objector would be redundant, they've already objected to the existence of government, so why further note that they won't join the military? Watada is clearly not a conscientious objector, he's fine with going across the globe to kill people, he just thinks that because he feels the iraq war was wrong, that he shouldn't have to serve there. He's wrong. He's an officer in the military, he doesn't get to decide where or when he goes anywhere.

I didn't say that they were.
You said an anarchist would join 'the army' if it were privatized. A non-governmental army is just a gang of thugs. So all you were saying was 'some anarchists can be violent'.

I'm sure the scores of mercenary groups operating in Iraq would beg to differ. Logic does state that a political concept does not bring forth morality in soldiers, nor does the non-existence of these political concepts. Anarchists are just as violent as regular human beings individually.

A stable democracy will avoid so called 'just wars', and instead only engage in utterly pragmatic wars. A 'just war' is a war where you say that 'they' are evil, that they are 'uncivilized' that they are 'wrong' and can be justifiably killed. The crusades were a "Just War", for example.

A stable democracy would not have pragmatic wars, a stable democracy would perhaps not even in engage in the types of wars the U.S has engaged in; but more importantly, what constitutes a stable democracy? You can't just remark democracy to be stable hence all these pragmatic wars without defining stability. Do you believe the current U.S system to be a stable form of democracy and a healthy forum of dialog? A stable democracy would incorporate a universal consensus on internal and international affairs through the elected officials who are reflective of the majority of the citizenries perceptions, am I not right? If this is true, then how does the current administration intend to justify a war which has been degenerated by a majority of it's citizenry as being unjustified and irrational? How does an elected official pick and choose vague and if not outright lies in his campaign or support his war? There is no stable democracy, there is a recycled group of officials that served for decades and have come about for the second or third time to continue their agenda in the Middle East.

Exactly what is a pragmatic war ? A pragmatic war would be a war fought without social morality, intellectual thought, and ethical precedence..oh wait, you're right, this is a pragmatic war. It follows none of the above nor will this country's stably democracy partake in any.

That really has nothing to do with whether the iraq war is illegal or not.

It has everything to do with the history of U.S war far and intervention and support for other nations in theirs. It has everything to do with how the U.S supports and why it supports illegal activities across the globe.

I didn't. I think thats, what, the third thing that you've said I said but that I didn't actually say, no?

I never said you said that. I positioned it towards whomever stated it and in this case it's not you but another.

Luxifero