Problem: Ehren Watada's court martial is ongoing right now and the embattled lieutenant has not been permitted to present his case.
Very simply, he feels the U.S. did not have legal cause to invade Iraq and pursuant to the well-known Nüremburg defense, "I was just following orders", felt it was his duty as an officer and as an American to disobey orders he judged to be illegal.
His hopes to testify as to why the invasion of Iraq was illegal were dashed by military judge Lt. Col. John Head, who would not permit into evidence questioning of the legality of the deployment. This has already drawn criticism from judicial scholars as the judge summarily decided Lt. Watada's motive is "irrelevant".
Clearly the judge is in a precarious position - letting Lt. Watada off the hook could very well open the flood gates for thousands of other soldiers to follow suit, inviting political pandemonium, just what the Bush administration wants to avoid.
Would allowing Watada's defense give precedent for any wild-eyed disgruntled GI to question future presidential orders to deploy? Perhaps, if he is willing to risk imprisonment to make his point. But in this case I believe close consideration of the evidence will show Lt. Watada is the one observing Constitutional law and proper military conduct and Bush is the madman.
Judge Head's curt, confusing explanation in denying the defense witnesses dismissed the question altogether as a "political issue" beyond the jurisdiction of the court.
In short, the judge is missing out on an opportunity to right a historical wrong, to use his gavel to strike a blow for justice and send shockwaves through a nation. Instead, he chooses to be the bus driver who told Rosa Parks to give up her seat - or the driver of the tank in Tiananmen Square.
Lt. Watada is willing to be the first domino to get all the others dropping. This is why directing wide international scrutiny to this trial is the best thing that can happen now.
Many have made donations to Watada's defense fund, but money alone cannot do it. In fact, recent complaints have highlighted the unwanted consequence of funds donated to MoveOn campaigns which simply enrich TV stations and media conglomerates.
A large, daily protest outside the courtroom may serve to publicize the trial, but may not reach a national or international audience. Extensive coverage of the trial has been noticably sparse.
I noticed frontline celeb activist Sean Penn made it to the protest this week, but when I learned that Bishop Desmond Tutu had issued a statement in support of Lt. Watada, lending his Nobel Peace Prize cred to the debate, it struck me as the key to making this issue blow up.
I am therefore making a public call (yes, right here from OpEdNews) to the biggest and brightest names in politics, entertainment, literature and pop culture - especially any Nobel Peace Prize winners. Please issue your press releases now in support of Lt. Watada. This is greater then fighting for the sentencing of one soldier, this is fighting for the right to argue the legality of this war in court, something that could affect over 150,000 soldiers.
Citizen petitions are also encouraged, but the time to act is now. I'd say this was even more pressing then surge-opposition activism. If Watada is sentenced, he will be silenced - use this window to draw coverage and scrutiny to this trial and how it is being conducted.
During the anti-Communist hysteria of the early 50s, there were worldwide protests in defense of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg who were executed for spying. Their trial had been greatly flawed - the main witness himself admitted on 60 Minutes decades later that he had lied to protect himself and his wife. The attention almost stayed the executions, when Albert Einstein, Pope Pius and other notable authors, artists, entertainers and luminaries lent their name to the Rosenbergs' cause. We know now that due to public pressure, the judge in the case had secretly written President Truman, unsuccessfully asking for his intervention. Judge Kaufman was looking for an out badly, but couldn't stop what had already been set in motion.
Today we see the same type of pressure - with the overwhelming majority of the population opposed to this war and looking for an end, and on the other side a rogue White House looking to maintain it's dictatorial hand and not be undermined.
A much greater increase in the publicity of this case therefore would compel the judge to follow the law as closely as possible. If we've voted in the mid-term elections, donated to Watada's defense fund, contacted our representatives and written the military commission, the best we can do now is make noise. I would hope the A-listers will come forward and make their clarion call for justice before Lt. Watada disappears into obscurity like the courageous Vietnam resisters who were suppressed, silenced and sentenced.
Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people: Write the papers!
GW is a proud American from NY State, concerned about ethics issues, media manipulation and overconsumption. He has recently changed careers to become an inner city schoolteacher. A firm proponent of curbing overpopulation and international adoption, he hopes to adopt a third child and enjoys history, outsider art, garage rock music and rare/unusual vinyl records.
He promised when he joined the military that he would do what was asked of him. when you sign a contract you are GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. You have no say so. You can have your opionion but you still need to do the job. He is an embarrassment to all the soliders who did go when they were told. He just simply did not want to go. I highly doubt his motives.
by
Gabriel Davis (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Wednesday, February 7, 2007 at 11:04:48 AM
Is the UN Charter a contract as well? The Geneva Conventions? Articles of Nüremburg? Is the oath to uphold the Constitution important?
You point to one contract yet ignore these important contracts.
The Abu Ghraib soldiers who sexually abused, tortured and humiliated prisoners were imprisoned for NOT disobeying orders. They were jailed because they did not break the contract they signed, when it was necessary.
You are entitled to your "hunches" about the Lieutenant's motives, sitting at your keyboard and not knowing a fraction of the facts in the case. Bush and Cheney are the ones who avoided service, going AWOL and draft dodging. By contrast Lt. Watada asked for an assignment in Afghanistan, every bit as dangerous as Iraq, but not an illegal war.
If you read the exact text of the Military Code and the longstanding treaties above that the U.S. proudly signed into law, you will see that in the absence of current WMD programs and ties to 9-11, the war is clearly unconstitutional.
Read UN Resolution 1441 and the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq and you tell me if the conditions for U.S. aggression were met. You may be too timid to call a President on his lies, but to plainly read the "contracts", this war is illegal.
If you believe otherwise, I welcome your research and viewpoint.
_
by
Gustav Wynn (47 articles, 32 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 222 comments)
on Wednesday, February 7, 2007 at 11:37:33 AM
There are times when disobeying a command is legit. However those are usually cases that everyone subjects to. Here you have a soilder who trained his troops and when it was time to go he bailed out on his own soliders. If he didnt aggree with the war he should have found a way out a long time ago not just when all of the sudden he is called up to go Iraq. This is not a illegal war. Even before Bush got into office there were those who truly believed there were WMD
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
It is clear that these people before bush who had the intelligence reports believed that Sadam did in fact have WMD. These same people who accused Bush to have bad intelligence. Seems odd they had them before he did.
I work here on Fort Jackson. My experience is I say more soilders support this war than not (of course they wont put that on the news).
If the whole entire military was agaisnt this war then I can see the point of "disobeying orders" but the facts are they are in support of this war.
As far as the soilders who were sexually abused. The ones who did it have been taken care of. There are always bad apples. Giving an order to do such and act is not an ordered and could have been easily reported to the upper chain.
I also work for AIT programs this is where soilders come to get trained for their jobs. People are coming in by high numbers despite the reports on the news. Knowing that they are going to war. Its time to stop listening to the lies of the dems who want to ban christians yet want to pray with the muslims.
Dont' get me wrong I don't agree with everything that Bush does but he is not a bad president.
In Christ
Gabe
by
Gabriel Davis (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Wednesday, February 7, 2007 at 12:17:07 PM
There may have been people who "believed" there were WMD, but for a war to be legal there must be sufficient evidence and there is none.
I appreciate that you're here at OpEdNews getting the other side of the story so I'll share it with you and at the same time point out how your right wing sources have been trying to groom you to dispense incomplete or misleading arguments.
Your cut and paste job lists quotes from Democrats who said it was imperative to prevent Saddam from getting WMDs.
Did you know they were talking about getting the WMD from America?
You must have seen the pics of Rumsfeld having tea and cookies with Saddam when Reagan sent him to Iraq as a civilian envoy, not coincidentally the head of Monsanto Chemicals. Very soon after Reagan gave Saddam this aid, Iraq began to threaten Iran with a special "pesticide" and soon after that, Iranian AND Iraqi casulaties started turning up with white phosphorous burns, a chemical agent banned by the UN and our own treaties.
But the situation changed after the first Iraq war. Saddam invaded Kuwait and we went to war against them, but stopped short of entering Baghdad because Poppy Bush said it was unwise to send our troops into a "hornet's nest".
Two weeks before we invaded in 2003, Hans Blix briefed the UN that Saddam was in compliance with Resolution 1441, that he had searched 500 sites in Iraq including all the sites the US said had WMDs and found nothing. He said that he would be able to search the entire country within a few more weeks and that Iraq was busy destroying (conventional) weapons daily. These were not conditions for an invasion.
The intelligence from every agency held that there was no credible evidence of WMDs, but Bush/Cheney cited publicly three things that said made their case:
The unsubstantiated testimony of Curveball, a foreign detainee who said there were mobile weapons labs under torture in a gulag - he was deemed not credible by the CIA.
The testimony of Ahmad Chalabi, who wanted to be installed as Iraq's prime minister, who was also found guilty of embezzlement and had worked for a US-backed propaganda ministry and whose unsubstantiated testimony was all disproven by multiple reports before Powell's UN speech.
The claims Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger, disproven immediately by Bush himself, announcing the claim should not have been in the State of The Union address just days later.
These were the reasons cited at the time as proof of Iraq having WMD?
They all were not only false, but the intel agencies, covering their asses after Bush and Cheney tried to blame them documented that they had told the White House such before the UN speech.
So-called evidence in Judith Miller's NY Times articles were all lies originating from Dick Cheney's office and ended up in her disgraceful firing.
Bush and Cheney have publicly stated "mistakes were made" and try to change the subject, talking about working "together" to find a way to proceed in Iraq. But Jay Rockefeller will be making public many documents that detail the misuse of intel in the lead up to the war and he claims "The White House will not be pleased".
Bush has also never denied the Downing Street memos. Why wouldn't he simply clear his name?
So share with me what intelligence reports you are talking about that Democrats saw. I have never heard of the existence of any post-1991 WMD in Iraq.
I believe your sources have misled you. Bush himself has said there were no ties to al Qaeda and that means the AUMF, which ties Bush's use of force to WMD and 9-11 has conditions that have never been met, invalidating it. This will also come up soon in hearings.
The AUMF also required Bush to go back and get another UN Resolution authorizing agression in Iraq, and he did not, violating the UN Charter, a "contract" the U.S.A. was in the forefront of creating. I believe I have shown why the war was illegal - the problem remains that the White House is still bulldozing ahead, in opposition to an overwhelming percentage of Americans including the Joint Chiefs, retired generals, a majority of both houses of Congress and the nations of the UN Security Council
The Army Times published at least one survey showing that a majority of active US soldiers disapprove of the war. I understand some don't, but we are a democracy after all. The American people disapprove 5 to 1 now! Even the Iraqis would prefer to take their chances, 80% of them say U.S. out now.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but in a discussion should be able to back it up.
You say the war is legal because there were intelligence reports showing post-1991 WMD programs active in Iraq? I say show us where, if not revise or restate your reason the war was legal. Let's get to the bottom of this and zero in on the truth! Thanks, GW
_
by
Gustav Wynn (47 articles, 32 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 222 comments)
on Wednesday, February 7, 2007 at 1:29:47 PM
Just to let you know I have read through those comments and they were in fact not talking about getting WMD from America. All those comments are resources from CNN and USAToday. I read through those articles and it talks about Saddam PRODUCING THEM not us.
Gabe
by
Gabriel Davis (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Wednesday, February 7, 2007 at 1:37:35 PM
The American people have woken up and smelled the BS
They talk about IF he was producing them. However they were not when Bush invaded the country - I was disappointed in your failure to point out to me where you were learning that anyone had seen proper evidence before invading.
We know the evidence Bush showed Congress and the UN and the American people turned out later to be false, but that was made public by intel agencies only after we had already invaded. We trusted Bush and he let us all down.
So in hindsight, the war was illegal and if you can point me to evidence that it is legal, I'd be extremely curious to see it. This would be evidence showing 1. Iraq did have active WMD programs after all, 2. had ties to al Qaeda, and that 3. Bush had gotten permission to attack from the UN Security Council.
Those were the conditions of the Congressional AUMF (our LAW) allowing military strikes in Iraq. If the conditions are not met, the invasion was illegal.
This is only one law on the books that has been violated - I mentioned the others already. The UN Charter, Articles of Nüremburg, our military's COC, and the Geneva Conventions, and lastly our Constitution which by extension makes all the international treaties U.S. law. (Not to mention FISA and FACA laws).
I would also caution you to trust USAToday, though they may have individual reporters who are responsible journalists, the paper itself is owned by Rev. Sun Hyung Moon who has funnelled billions to right wing causes for years.
CNN has also been roundly faulted for failure to cover enormous stories critical of the Bush regime - I know this first hand from my familiarity with a staffer at the Anderson Cooper show whose job was to pull news from the wire and he was NOT permitted to use news critical of the war or Bush because of a strict corporate-editorial process.
So I appreciate your emotional attempt to cling to what you feel, but I would ask that you take a better look at the facts.
Perhaps you can tell me what proof you would need to see to accept that this war is illegal?
by
Gustav Wynn (47 articles, 32 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 222 comments)
on Thursday, February 8, 2007 at 9:20:58 AM
