You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: WoT
Army charges officer for refusing to fight in Iraq
2006-07-06
SEATTLE (Reuters) - The U.S. Army filed three charges on Wednesday against an officer who refused to fight in Iraq due to objections over the legality of the war. First Lt. Ehren Watada, who supporters say is the first commissioned U.S. officer to publicly refuse to serve in Iraq and face a military court, remained at Fort Lewis base in Washington state when his unit shipped out to Iraq on June 22.

In a statement, the Army said it had charged Watada, 28, with missing movement, contempt toward officials and conduct unbecoming an officer. "Officers are held to a high moral and legal standard. Acts contrary to this standard may be tried by court-martial," said the Army statement. If found guilty of all charges, Watada could face several years in confinement, dishonorable discharge and forfeiture of pay, according to the Army. The missing movement charge carries the heaviest punishment of confinement of up to two years.

Watada's lawyer said he expected the missing movement charge, but was somewhat surprised by the decision to charge the officer with contempt toward officials and conduct unbecoming an officer, because it raises free speech issues. "What he said about the war and the way the war began and the misrepresentations by the Bush administration are all true. Not only does he have a right to make those statements, he has an obligation to make those statements," said Eric Seitz, Watada's Honolulu-based attorney.
Off to a good start in screwing his client. Let's make sure we have a jury of junior line officers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Posted by:Steve White

#33  Read his old man in Hawaii was an active anti-war 'person' during Vietnam time. This dudes enlistment seems like a setup from family moonbattery.
Posted by: Inspector Clueso   2006-07-06 17:53  

#32  Several comments:
This guy is toast. He was ordered to ship out, and he failed to show. They can also decide, after 30 days, that he's a deserter, or hang another 20-30 charges on him.

Secondly, the Bill of Rights overrides the Congress. Every person in the military has exactly the same rights as any other citizen. The Supremes have decreed, however, that those rights must be exercised with care, falling within the " faith and good order" of the military. That means you cannot march in a protest parade in uniform, you cannot make statemenst that are detrimental to the faith and good order of the military, etc., and you cannot decide upon yourself to disobey lawful, legitimate orders for movement. He has two choices: go, or resign. He did neither. He's toast.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2006-07-06 17:17  

#31  I think this guys had this planned from the moment he went in. He comes from a liberal family, he joined after the war was on and he certainly knew he could be called up to fight.

He wants to make a PR splash and thinks this is the way to do it. I hope they lock his ass up for several years. Give him something to think about.
Posted by: remoteman   2006-07-06 15:18  

#30  have a nice time wherever you end up, asshole. you can bet your last dollar that even if you were allowed to go to your war of choice, those who were 'lucky' enough to serve under you would be undermining you and 'work accidents' would be commonplace. your grenade might even explode in your tent ( or wherever) while you were polishing it. when you signed up, you left a lot of things behind, including the freedom of speech. if you want any sort of defense, get another mouthpiece who can maybe get a deal cut. not offering any odds, however, you are an example in the making.
Posted by: USN, ret.   2006-07-06 14:56  

#29  I disagree. I think the guy is being used as a useful tool by the left. The defense is bogus - but they will milk it for all the publicity they can get about the good looking soldier with a conscience. They are hoping he goes to jail as they can continue to publicize his plight. Problem for him, though, is that one day the war will be over and he'll remain in his cell as well as be branded a coward and traitor for life.

I'd feel sorry for him, but only becaue life is hard, but it's harder when you are stupid.
Posted by: 2b   2006-07-06 14:23  

#28  I am in Iraq and came out of retirement after almost six years to go down range with the new Iraqi Army.

Whereas my feelings are he should be shot, the charges they have hung out there give him little wiggle room and it is of course a done deal as to his quilt. His name was on the manifest when his 1SG called it and he wasn't there....

My feeling is he won't do anytime at all...he will be a disgusting coward that happens to be a convicted felon....I hope all his talk show appointments pay back all his school.

I have a number of 18 and 19 studs who have earned their CIB/CMB/CABs that will be more than willing to speak about his "leadership" qualities....
Posted by: TopMac   2006-07-06 14:04  

#27  If this guy was so much against our actions in Iraq why didn't he resign his commission? He had three years to do it.
Posted by: Scott R   2006-07-06 13:58  

#26  #21 Transportation? Angie, that may be because the US Coast Guard falls under the Department of Transportation. Look for an update to the list to include Secretary of Homeland Security.
Posted by: GK   2006-07-06 13:49  

#25  OS,

The UCMJ (according to my JAG buddies who could be bullshitting me) won't allow for a commissioned officer to be busted to private. He prolly won't get a BCD either. Most likely (just my myopic predictions here) he'll get thrown out on either a general discharge or OTH (Other Than Honorable) - one notch less than the Big Chickie. Not that I'm against this pussy getting six, six, and a kick.

Personally, I think he should be tried, convicted, shot & then dumped unceremoniously into an unmarked grave - like any coward. Shit, none of us is jumping up for joy about going back to Iraq or Afghanistan, we just go do our job and hope to bring all our lads home in one piece. This guy's a f*cking Shirker whose already gotten too much press.
Posted by: Broadhead6   2006-07-06 13:22  

#24  They should make this guy document every reason why he does not support our actions in Iraq, and counter his 'facts' as they come forward. The whole Bush lied and no WMDs arguments would be exposed as anti-republican press overbite.
Maybe, just maybe a few of the ever declining left will turn right. It's worth the courtroom time. It's also a good idea to reinforce the idea that the press doesn't know what the military knows, so the press should be ignored.
Another nail in the MSM cofin.
Posted by: wxjames   2006-07-06 13:06  

#23  "The acursed has been advised of his lack of rights under the Secret Code of Military Toughness, and will act accordingly!"
Posted by: mojo   2006-07-06 12:09  

#22  Big Chicken Dinner, busted in rank to slick sleeve and thrown out after a few months at the USDB.

THis guy (at 28 he's not a kid) just ruined his life - BCD = felon = no voting, no rights, no firearms, etc. His lawyer better get a clue about the UCMJ.
Posted by: Oldspook   2006-07-06 12:06  

#21  ...the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation...

Transportation??

...or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present...

So it's all right to say bad things about your home state's governor, but not the governor of the state you're in? And it's OK to totally dis the Secretary of Veterans Affairs?

...the overwhelming majority of civilian lawyers get their asses handed to them in a military courtroom...

Perry Mason won a court martial case once.
Posted by: Angie Schultz   2006-07-06 11:26  

#20  Eric Seitz' primary practice is Civil Rights. That night explain the free speech defense. I did,however, find a news article that describes Seitz as specializing in military Cases.
Posted by: GK   2006-07-06 10:01  

#19  He's lucky a firing squad isn't on the table. Enjoy Kansas, asshole.
Posted by: mojo   2006-07-06 10:00  

#18  1 - There is no free speech, assembly, etc in military service. Even SCOTUS [well at least up till now] has recognized the need for ‘good order and disciplineÂ’ required for the military in the real world. Further the Constitution specifically gives the military law making authority specifically to Congress [Art. 1, Section 8]* which allows it to be outside the normal civilian protections. That law is Title 10 U.S.C.

2 - HeÂ’ll go to the United States Disciplinary Barracks (USDB) pictured here on Fort Leavenworth not the Federal Prison in the city of Leavenworth shown in an above comment.

3 - Unless he elects to take trial by judge only, his court martial will have his peers and given the amount of rotation through the theaters, it will most likely be composed of veterans of both Iraq and Afghanistan.

4 - HeÂ’ll join Captain [doctor] Yolanda Huett-Vaughn who played the same cards in 1991. And we all remember her [well the neo-marxist do as one of their idols in the never ending war against the system(tm)]. Court martialed and time turner at the USDB. Maybe this time the politicians will let the little shrub serve his full time.

* the founding fathersÂ’ memory of Oliver CromwellÂ’s rule convinced them that military law, funding , and the appointment of officers [President nominates, but Congress approves] should be kept in the legislative branch.
Posted by: Ebbavitle Omomotle4723   2006-07-06 09:39  

#17  Anyone here with military experience want to address the free speech issue?

We had free speech? Who knew?
Posted by: Steve   2006-07-06 09:17  

#16  According to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ):

"ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. "

So much for the "free speech" defense. The rules are different for members of the military, especially for officers.
Posted by: Rambler   2006-07-06 09:17  

#15  Broadhead6,

Yeah, I remember the poor Marine that had to stand and take it from Man-whore Kerry at his phoney Wendy's photo-op in the '04 campaign.

Even the Pythons, who are mostly Moonbats, made fun of this attitude:

(Superimposed Caption on Screen : 'AND NOW . . . UNOCCUPIED BRITAIN I970'
Cut to colonel's office. Colonel is seated at desk.)

Colonel: Come in, what do you want?

(Private Watkins enters and salutes.)

Watkins: I'd like to leave the army please, sir.

Colonel: Good heavens man, why?

Watkins: It's dangerous.

Colonel: What?

Watkins: There are people with guns out there, sir.

Colonel: What?

Watkins: Real guns, sir. Not toy ones, sir. Proper ones, sir. They've all got 'em. All of 'em, sir. And some of 'em have got tanks.

Colonel: Watkins, they are on our side.

Watkins: And grenades, sir. And machine guns, sir. So I'd like to leave, sir, before I get killed, please.

Colonel: Watkins, you've only been in the army a day.

Watkins: I know sir but people get killed, properly dead, sir, no barley cross fingers, sir. A bloke was telling me, if you're in the army and there's a war you have to go and fight.

Colonel: That's true.

Watkins: Well I mean, blimey, I mean if it was a big war somebody could be hurt.

Colonel: Watkins why did you join the army?

Watkins: For the water-skiing and for the travel, sir. And not for the killing, sir. I asked them to put it on my form, sir - no killing.

Colonel: Watkins are you a pacifist?

Watkins: No sir, l'm not a pacifist, sir. I'm a coward.

Colonel: That's a very silly line. Sit down.

Watkins: Yes sir. Silly, sir. (sits in corner)

Colonel: Awfully bad.

http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/racket.htm
Posted by: Ernest Brown   2006-07-06 09:16  

#14  "Anyone here with military experience want to address the free speech issue?"

-He can say to other mil types he disagrees w/the war, etc. He can even say it to subordinates though that would be tacky and unprofessional but not against the UCMJ per say. Senior officers will prolly raise their eyebrows & shrug it off to him being one of the few libz on the officer side of the house but that's about it. He is not supposed to make any statements wrt policy to the msm or officially. What he cannot do is disparage/defame the Pres or congress openly - though we did do that when Clinton was c-n-c all the time - though that was done amongst our peers and not to any press types.
Posted by: Broadhead6   2006-07-06 09:02  

#13  
Here is the Cowardly Bum!



Posted by: Fur Trapper   2006-07-06 08:42  

#12  As I remember his beef's with Iraq, but not with Afghanistan.
So send him to Afghanistan. Let him run a one man observation post on the Pakistan border. His lawyer can go too, to keep him company and make sure his free speech rights are protected.
Posted by: tu3031   2006-07-06 07:31  

#11  Blondie,
FWIW - when I was in, Conventional Wisdom was that the FIRST thing you wanted to do when in trouble was call a civilian lawyer, the reasoning being that the JAG types were'nt interested in defending you all that well. After 20 years in the USAF - and attending a few CM's - I can tell you that with the exception of a VERY view high-priced attorneys, the overwhelming majority of civilian lawyers get their asses handed to them in a military courtroom, the Lynndie England case being a particularly good example. Mr Watada is most likely about to discover this at close range.

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2006-07-06 07:30  

#10  His lawyer will start calling him a political prisoner in 5....4....3.....

(BTW, you military types...There's no rank given for Eric Seitz. Wouldn't normal procedure be for him to have a JAG type defending him, even if the JAG guy thinks he's a pathetic puke? How often are civilian lawyers used in a military court?)
Posted by: Swamp Blondie   2006-07-06 04:53  

#9  Free Speech? ROTFLMAO. He better get a new lawyer fast. He is in the military he has less than zero. Goes the totally voluntary service. Have a nice day.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom   2006-07-06 04:14  

#8  Iff the Army or USDOD paid for any education beyond post-secondary, he can and prob will be demanded to pay the $$$ back. The Army-DOD do want the bestest and smartest for the all-volunteer armed forces, as you realize you are also being paid = subsidized to put yourself in harm's way.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2006-07-06 02:43  

#7  When you be raising that right hand and take that big ass step forward Watada, you be then sworn in!

enjoy

Posted by: RD   2006-07-06 02:12  

#6  The lawyer is a dick. First off, you idiot, today's military is voluntary. Get it. You're not drafted. You volunteer. Second, what's the first thing that comes to your military where you here the word military or Army--that's right, Boom! War and all that nasty blow up stuff. Convict this clown, send him to Leavenworth and be done with it.
Posted by: vietvet68   2006-07-06 01:55  

#5  Again - Army 1LT (O-2) is a bit below the pay grade that makes decisions about when and against whom the United States of America commits its military forces.

Some day, if he was elected President (and Commander in Chief) - then his thoughts would matter. Fat chance - let's see what he thinks when he is not even eligible to vote any more!
Posted by: Lone Ranger   2006-07-06 01:45  

#4  Anyone here with military experience want to address the free speech issue? Sounds like the civilian shyster has no clue about what you can and cannot say while on active duty.
Posted by: PBMcL   2006-07-06 01:42  

#3  What would President Lincoln do?
Posted by: Captain America   2006-07-06 00:50  

#2  This slug needs to be found quilty, serve his time, and be removed from the military with a dishonorable discharge. He can address his free speech issues when he enters politics, like Kerry. I was against going into Iraq, but when Bush gave Saddam 48 hours, the die was cast. And the only answer is to win, totally.
Posted by: Xenophon   2006-07-06 00:41  

#1  What he said about the war and the way the war began and the misrepresentations by the Bush administration are all true.

And of course you will provide credible evidence right? Because in a court you have to prove your case and provide evidents more credible then 'Well Cindy Sheehan and Ted Kennedy said so'....
Posted by: CrazyFool   2006-07-06 00:34  

00:00