Army officer wouldn't ship out, faces court martial

LadyT

LadyT

JPP Modarater
Contributor
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/05/war.objector.ap/index.html

......The Army accuses him of betraying his fellow soldiers.

At a court martial Monday at Fort Lewis, south of Seattle, the 28-year-old faces four years in prison if convicted on one count of missing movement and two counts of conduct unbecoming an officer for refusing to ship out with his unit, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division.........the government rejected a deal offered by Seitz that would have had Watada serve only three months confinement with a dishonorable discharge.
______________________________________________________________

They should have just confined him and let him go in a few months. Now that he has press and an audience, he's probably more damaging.
 
I know it won't hold up in court, but IMO the Iraq war is an illegal war, and soldiers don't have to follow illegal orders from their leaders.
 
Cypress said:
I know it won't hold up in court, but IMO the Iraq war is an illegal war, and soldiers don't have to follow illegal orders from their leaders.
Click to expand...

precisely. All they are doing is giving people a raison d'etre to fix the current rules and perhaps make it possible in the future for people to legally opt out for wars like the current quagmire.
 
LadyT said:
precisely. All they are doing is giving people a raison d'etre to fix the current rules and perhaps make it possible in the future for people to legally opt out for wars like the current quagmire.
Click to expand...

so; you're a liberal again...gee, that was quick!
 
1) He should be court martialed

2) We should NEVER have a voluntary army with the ability to choose when and where they will fight. If you don't want the possibility of being sent to war.... DON'T join.

3) While this war was untimely, poorly planned and poorly executed by the current administration, it was not illegal. The simple fact that Saddam failed (over twelve years) to live up to the ceasefire agreement gave the US justification for going in. The corruption in the UN further validates their complete lack of credibility.
 
Superfreak said:
1) He should be court martialed

2) We should NEVER have a voluntary army with the ability to choose when and where they will fight. If you don't want the possibility of being sent to war.... DON'T join.

3) While this war was untimely, poorly planned and poorly executed by the current administration, it was not illegal. The simple fact that Saddam failed (over twelve years) to live up to the ceasefire agreement gave the US justification for going in. The corruption in the UN further validates their complete lack of credibility.
Click to expand...

1) If court martial means confined for a few months than I'm not opposed to that.

2) I would have agreed with you in 2000. Bush has changed my mind on a lot of things over the last 6 years.

3) Fact: Saddam was contained and he was not a threat. He was cooperating with inspectors (as we demanded) and it turns out, he didn't have a WMD program which is why we were sold on the war. By the way, do you happen to be talking about the UN's Security Council's cease-fire?
 
uscitizen said:
unfortuantely the war is not illegal. Our wussy congress took care of that problem for Shrub.
Click to expand...

If I was a lawyer, I could argue it was illegal.

We are signatories to international law, that forbids attacking a country that hasn't attacked you, and does not pose an imminent threat of attack.

The US Constitution requires us to comply with all international treaties that we are signatories too.
 
"1) If court martial means confined for a few months than I'm not opposed to that."

I believe he faces 4 years.

"2) I would have agreed with you in 2000. Bush has changed my mind on a lot of things over the last 6 years."

That is just it. You should be pissed at Congress more so than Bush. It is THEIR responsibility to oversee and act, but now you end up with cowards like Armey etc... saying that "they didn't really want to authorize force", "Bush tricked us", blah blah blah. If they truly felt that it should have been stopped... they should have had the conviction to do so.

"3) Fact: Saddam was contained and he was not a threat. He was cooperating with inspectors (as we demanded) and it turns out, he didn't have a WMD program which is why we were sold on the war. By the way, do you happen to be talking about the UN's Security Council's cease-fire?"

FACT.... the inspectors had 12 years.... why is it that only the last couple of months seem to matter? They had 12 years to find out what Saddam had. Then they bitch about not having enough time.

FACT.... the no-fly zone could not have been maintained forever. Just how long do you suggest we should have continued?

FACT.... yes, I am talking about the ceasefire agreement brokered by the UN. The same UN that became corrupt via the oil for food scandal... since we are using hindsight...if you are asking whether Bush Sr. should have listened to the UN in the first place, the answer is quite obviously NO. He should have finished the job THEN. When the Shiite and Kurd populations would have supported us.
 
"But bushie boy claimed Iraq did pose an imminent threat.
I guess it all comes down to the shrubs lies."

Personally, I don't think the threat HERE was imminent. But I do think the threat to US interests overseas were. Had the UN done their job properly in the TWELVE years they had, then we would have known with more accuracy if this was true.
 
Or had bush given them just a couple of more months before he invaded.....
but then he could not wait, his lies would be exposed.
 
"Or had bush given them just a couple of more months before he invaded.....
but then he could not wait, his lies would be exposed."

TOTAL BULLSHIT. What exactly were they going to discover in a few months that they couldn't manage to discover in TWELVE YEARS????
 
1) "I believe he faces 4 years."

Then, I'm against it.

2) "That is just it. You should be pissed at Congress more so than Bush."

I disagree. He's the CIC and the alleged "decider". He should bear the most responsibility.


"3)
FACT.... yes, I am talking about the ceasefire agreement brokered by the UN. The same UN that became corrupt via the oil for food scandal... since we are using hindsight...if you are asking whether Bush Sr. should have listened to the UN in the first place, the answer is quite obviously NO. He should have finished the job THEN. When the Shiite and Kurd populations would have supported us.

Well, that same UN Security Council found our unilateral invasion to be illegal. Its very hypocritical to use the UN Security Council's cease fire as a means of justification for the war and then conveniently throw their jurisdiction to the wayside when that same body declares "Operation Freedom" illegal. Why is that cons like to have their cake an eat it too?
 
uscitizen said:
Or had bush given them just a couple of more months before he invaded.....
but then he could not wait, his lies would be exposed.
Click to expand...

the UN inspectors and the IAEA are the only frickin' heroes in this whole clusterfuck. The inspectors effectively disarmed Saddam back in the 1990s, the IAEA had effectively determined there was no nuke program before the 2003 invastion, and we could have given Hans Blix a few more months to effectively determine there was no evidence of bio/chem weapons.

Hell, without nukes, we shouldn't have invaded over the possiblity of mustard gas or sarin gas anyway. Those are not strategic threats to us.
 
Superfreak said:
What exactly were they going to discover in a few months that they couldn't manage to discover in TWELVE YEARS????
Click to expand...

Exactly what they were finding in the few months that they were there: there was no evidence to support the theory that Sadam had a WMD program.
 
"Exactly what they were finding in the few months that they were there: there was no evidence to support the theory that Sadam had a WMD program."

Bullshit again. That was empty rhetoric. They had no evidence that the WMDs had been destroyed. They simply went to a handful of sites and said "no weapons here". During which time Saddam was burying his jets in the desert.... but WMDs... nope... he couldn't possibly have done anything like that with them. The UN team inspected less than 5% of suspected sites (it was probably less than 1%... but my memory isn't 100% on what the actual number is).

But the important point..... IF they were able to ascertain so much in a few months.... WHY WHY WHY hadn't they done so during the TWELVE YEARS???????????
 
What exactly were they going to discover in a few months that they couldn't manage to discover in TWELVE YEARS????

First of all, it wasn't "12 years". The inspections were from 1991-98: 7 years.

Second, the inpectors DID uncover most of iraq WMD programs, and declared that 95% was accounted for and destroyed. The remaining 5% was more of an accounting matter (did they really exist? Or did iraqi technicians exaggerate their actual production, for pay bonuses and perks?).

Honestly, we ought to be giving the UN inspectors and the IAEA a standing ovation: compared to Bush, Blair, or Clinton, they actually did a great job on iraq. As hindsight has proven.
 
"First of all, it wasn't "12 years". The inspections were from 1991-98: 7 years. "

Bullshit. It was from 1991-2003. Or did they secretly remove the sanctions from Saddam in 1998?

"Second, the inpectors DID uncover most of iraq WMD programs, and declared that 95% was accounted for and destroyed. The remaining 5% was more of an accounting matter (did they really exist? Or did iraqi technicians exaggerate their actual production, for pay bonuses and perks?). "

If this is true, I have not seen it. Please provide a link to your source material that shows they found 95%.

"Honestly, we ought to be giving the UN inspectors and the IAEA a standing ovation: compared to Bush, Blair, or Clinton, they actually did a great job on iraq. As hindsight has proven."

Did a great job with WHAT? Becoming corrupt? Taking money for oil rather than making sure the money went to the Iraqi people?

Please highlight what it is you think they did so well. I am extremely curious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top