Muted Victory for Ehren Watada

This country sets aside two days to honor military service. On Veterans Day we celebrate the living; on Memorial Day we remember the dead.

I'd like to propose a third national holiday: Active Duty day. A day to celebrate those who refuse to leave their conscience at home. A day to cherish those who elevate this nation's morals by refusing to participate in illegal acts.

Leading this year's Active Conscience-on-Duty Day parade should be First Lt. Ehren Watada, the first commissioned officer to refuse deployment to Iraq.

"To me," Watada told a court earlier this year, leading soldiers into battle in Iraq "means to participate in a war that I believe to be illegal."

Last Thursday a civilian judge handed Watada a victory against those in the military who would like to see him silenced, convicted and locked up.

In June 2006, Watada gained international attention when he publicly denounced the Iraq war as an illegal occupation and then refused to deploy with his Fort Lewis Stryker Brigade.

This February, his court-martial ended in a mistrial, after which his attorneys claimed that Fifth Amendment constitutional protections protected him from a second round in court.

On November 8, Judge Benjamin Settle agreed: "The same Fifth Amendment protections are in place for military service members as are afforded to civilians ... . To hold otherwise would ignore the many sacrifices that American soldiers have made throughout history to protect these sacred rights," he wrote.

In issuing a preliminary injunction, the Judge concluded that "it is likely" that Watada will succeed in his claims that a second court-martial would violate constitutional protections against being tried twice for the same crimes.

But Army officials aren't giving up. In a statement, they said they will file briefs in U.S. District Court to try to prevent the injunction from becoming permanent.

Now is the time for all moral men and women in uniform to stand up -- not just behind Lt. Watada, but at his side. So far, not one other officer has followed in the lieutenant's footsteps.

According to the Army more than 10,000 soldiers have deserted since the Iraq invasion started. Every year, the number of deserters has gone up. Official statistics say 3,196 went AWOL last year, compared to 2,543 the year before. Based on the calls they received, groups like Iraq Veterans Against the War put the real numbers at ten times that.

Desert if you must, but better yet, come out. Activate your Conscience on Duty and I bet I won't be the only one to hoot and holler and organize a parade.

For more on Lt.Watada's case go to Thank you Lt. Ehren Watada.

Comments (75)

1. how 'bout impeachment of treasonous fascist day?

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/12/2007 @ 6:50pm

2. Hate to do it, but....RIO's right.

   A volunteer army (devised for a "post-Vietnam world"...the old paradigm) was set up so that the old draft card burnings and high-tailing it to Vancouver scenarios didn't happen.

   Lt. Watada's right about Iraq...wrong about his options. You don't volunteer just for the "good wars" and get to pick and choose after you've enlisted.

   For good or ill, aside from following clearly defined illegal orders, joining up is basic voluntary servitude. Anybody who does it and doesn't realize that is just fooling themselves.

   I think most do...and that's the reason Watada is practically alone in this effort (no, not because the guys/gals in uniform are just do gung-ho and love Bush), but because they realize this is what they signed up for....even under an incompetent CIC and a failed war policy.

   Posted by Mask at 11/12/2007 @ 7:37pm

3. A day to cherish those who elevate this nation's morals by refusing to participate in illegal acts.

   You mean the "illegal" act that Congress consented to? The irony is that he indeed faced a court-martial for participation in a highly illegal act of desertion.

   Why not give people such as this a Nobel for pete's sake. They seem to be fairly easy to obtain, based on some of the nutcases possessing those these days. Besides, we know how liberals just can't live without recognition and validation of their self-esteem. An award to a lib is like oxygen to a mammal.

   Now is the time for all moral men and women -- in uniform to stand up -- not just behind Lt. Watada, but at his side. So far, not one other officer has followed in the lieutenant's footsteps.

   Do you think that the other officers just aren't getting it?? Does your view of a strong America and an effective military include military volunteers to be anti-war or anti-military?? LOL

   I hate to say it, but every time that I come around to thinking that those on the far left are more than whining vaginas that just hate the US and everything that it stands for, the more that articles like this just revert me back to my initial gut instincts.

   Whatever one's opinion of the Iraq war, Watada's position is untenable. He and his supporters defy common sense. People like Laura Flanders are either enemies of this country who would plunge her into impotence and disaster, or imbeciles.

   EXACTLY!!

   Posted by Sliver at 11/12/2007 @ 10:53pm

4. How about hang deserters day?

   Posted by davebarlett at 11/12/2007 @ 10:57pm

5. How about hang deserters day?

   Posted by DAVEBARLETT 11/12/2007 @ 10:57pm | ignore this person

   If the war isn't legal, than the all CIC orders related to the illegal war would be illegal orders...interesting.

   I don't think we can hang the guy for refusing to participate in an illegal action. On the other hand, if congress would declare war on Iraq...I would be forced to agree with you and the other wingnuts that pounced on this story.

   Posted by BizarroRio at 11/13/2007 @ 12:07am

6. Ms. Flanders, there's more to this story than meets the eye. You forgot to mention Lt. Watada was given the opportunity to resign his commission and take a dishonorable discharge after he spoke out the first time. He refused and decided to take his chances with a court martial after listing to civilians lawyers. This man allowed his Styker unit to be deployed without him because he decided the war was "illegal". Simply put, he wanted all the trappings the military gives but he wasn't willing work for them.

   I can see why none of his mates support him, the yellow streak down his back is pretty hard to miss.

   Posted by ACook at 11/13/2007 @ 12:37am

7. rio, sliver and mask are all wrong (for the time being), as a judge has sided with watada in the meantime. and just because it is an "all volunteer army" means shit: it wasn't (well) known until well AFTER the invasion that pre-intel was FIXED, thereby opening up the possiblity for watada to claim that the war was, indeed, illegal.

   and not only that, but if watada was already in the army upon the even of invasion, he is then further cleared from the above claim.

   for those like rio and sliver, to actually spend time going after a man who is taking on the most corrupt, filthy, lying, cowardly, pathetic, ruthless, bullying FUCKS, to ever lead this country.....is just sad. in effect, you are siding with the psychotic and delusional assholes at the top.....

   shame on you

   Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2007 @ 01:57am

8. I guess we will have to wait patiently for their PRAISE of the policemen who REFUSE to answer dispatcher assigned calls, and firemen who REFUSE to assist on burning buildings, and emergency ambulance responders refusing to run

   this is a FALSE ANALOGY. you cannot compare the invasion of iraq to a burning building in brooklyn.

   nice try, moron.

   Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2007 @ 01:59am

9. Whatever one's opinion of the Iraq war, Watada's position is untenable.

   on the contrary, his position is quite tenable, as a judge has sided with him in his most recent court battle.

   all these crazy batshit right wingers are just huffing and puffing......and are ignoring a very salient fact: that watada is now effectively gaining ground, thanks to this most recent court ruling.

   People like Laura Flanders are either enemies of this country who would plunge her into impotence and disaster

   another one of those extraordinary statements which perfectuly encapsulates the authoritarian mentality of the 22% crowd: that if you question or criticize the commander in chief, during a time of "war," then you are clearly (!) on the side of the "enemy" (nevermind who the enemy is, you're just on "their" side).

   rio, maasch, sliver, mask, and the rest have been effectively duped by this administration, and its complacent media, into believing such blatant fascistic horse turd.

   no wonder the rest of the world hates us! we're surrounded by people who actually believe that criticism of bush = treason.

   Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2007 @ 02:04am

10. nevermind that bush, indeed, took us into a war under false pretenses......just forget that! that's the ONLY way one could EVER buy the argument that watada is treasonous.

    it's like the global warming thing: nevermind the polar ice caps melting at an alarming rate! nevermind the PERFECT CORREPONDENCE between carbon output and the post-war industrial boom!

    just bury your head in the sand and call the other guy 'the enemy', and you're set!

    Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2007 @ 02:07am

11. "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

    "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. 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." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

    "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

    Yeah, sure....Bush and Cheney cooked this up all on their own. Now where could they have gotten the idea that Saddam was a bad guy?

    DD...before you get yourself worked into a lather (probably too late), notice that my issue is with the author, not the soldier. And from the way your town views the military, from their exclusion of ROTC to the denial of military ship landings, I would include you in that as well.

    Been to Vancouver? It's very nice there.

    Posted by Sliver at 11/13/2007 @ 07:15am

12. But, what can one expect from those who DO NOT respect the rule of law, law of contracts, or even cival laws! The real question is what PENALTY must be applied to such lawbreakers? You say none as you represent lawlessness!

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 11/12/2007 @ 7:11pm

    And once again, Rio is proving that his brain is in neutral. Watada believes that this war is immoral, and under our own rules in the military, any soldier who believes he is given an immoral order does not have to obey that order. In short, he signed up for the military, but didn't sign up to help the oil industry.

    If you have read anything about the case of this guy, he's said he would gladly go to Afghanistan to fight, just not Iraq. He has a damn strong point here. Iraq never attacked the U.S. The U.S. attacked Iraq on false premises. Bush may very well be guilty of war crimes being that he drug his country into a war through lies. Watada just has the balls to call him on it where non of the other officers in the military do.

    Sometimes it takes more guts to stand up against a tyrant president or commander than it does to just blindly follow their orders.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/13/2007 @ 07:26am

13. Watada believes that this war is immoral, and under our own rules in the military, any soldier who believes he is given an immoral order does not have to obey that order.

    That is not true by any stretch of the imagination. If that were the case, individual soldiers would literally get to pick and choose those orders from their superiors that they wanted to follow. If this were the case, any time a soldier disagreed with an officer's strategic assessment and thus felt that their superior was immorally wasting lives by implementing that strategy, they could refuse to follow that order. This would also entail, as multiple people have pointed out and has never gone responded to, that people would get to pick and choose which wars they wanted to sign up for.

    That's nonsense. The fact that Wataba got a judge on his side does not make his action any more justified. By the very nature of a voluntary army, when you sign up, you commit to those actions that the military takes. At the very least, if there is a war you think is just fundamentally immoral, you are expected to resign your commission.

    Ask yourself this: what in the principles you have just laid out would prevent someone from choosing (assuming that WWII didn't involve a draft) not to take up arms against the Axis? From your position, the only thing it takes is a conviction that they don't like that particular war, and as has been pointed out, they certainly wouldn't have expected to participate in this war since Roosevelt promised they wouldn't.

    The action that Wataba took, ultimately, is just antithetical to the very notion of a volunteer army. You don't get to pick and choose which wars you want to fight, and you certainly don't get to be the arbiter of the law.

    Posted by Thrawn at 11/13/2007 @ 08:31am

14. The action that Wataba took, ultimately, is just antithetical to the very notion of a volunteer army. You don't get to pick and choose which wars you want to fight, and you certainly don't get to be the arbiter of the law.

    Posted by THRAWN 11/13/2007 @ 08:31am

    Thrawn, You are the one that is misguided here. Under articles of the Geneva convention, no soldier is required to carry out immoral orders, period.

    I'll agree with you that it is somewhat muddy water as far as determnining what an immoral order is. My question for you would be, what do you consider an immoral order? Where do you drqaw the lines?

    Killing for oil is an immoral order. Killing for profit is immoral. Note that few of the people waving the flag demanding that we press on in Iraq have their own kids on the line in Iraq. War, if justifiable, is bad enough, but war for profit is downright evil.

    If the wealthy oil companies want the Iraq oil so damn bad, let them purchase their own military to fight for it, not let the tax payers subsidize the war for them so they can profit in the end from it. Personnly, I think we should take Wolfowitz, Rummy, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rove and stick them in the middle of Iraq. Perhaps let them do a few convoy missions or maybe a door to door search of a neighborhood. The cowards that they are, they would refuse to do it. It's amazing that Bush and Cheney couldn't even anti in for the Vietnam war, but would force others to fight for them 40 years later.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/13/2007 @ 09:04am

15. I think Thrawn might not be as sure of his position were our troops ordered to be quartered in his home, requisition his property, and be at liberty to do with his family members as they saw fit*.

    But maybe he would, after all, they'd just be following orders.

    * This is what's been done in Iraq and what Thrawn thinks volunteers have a duty to do.

    Posted by Ben L. at 11/13/2007 @ 09:12am

16. Posted by WOLFGANG1 11/13/2007 @ 07:26am

    WOLF, here's the problem (and again, not happy with the company I'm keeping here...RIO, etc., but they don't care about the logic, they just care about supporting the stupid war).

    Watada has two choices---

    1. "The war is illegal" option. He'd have a case...except, then the question becomes, what has Hillary been trying to explain, and more to the point what did John Edwards APOLOGIZE FOR and say he regretted voting for?

    See, this "the war is illegal" argument would be fine...if you didn't have a bunch of Republicans AND Democrats who voted for an authorization for force in 2002.

    Now the Hillary people argue that it was "force ONLY if Bush got a second resolution"...problem is, she didn't say it was "illegal" when it happened in March 2003 and everything was going peachy-keen.

    And again, if there was "never Conngressional approval, it was illegal", then....why is John Edwards APOLOGIZING for voting for it?

    So, no "illegality"...Watada has no legal basis to say he can't be deployed.

    2. "The war is immoral". Sure, but that's not a legal case, and then Watada accepts the immorality of it and ALSO (as so many civil disobedience people have in the past...like Thoreau) accepts the PUNISHMENT from the State for refusing to honor that immorality.

    But Watada and his supporters want it BOTH ways...they want him to "get out of jail free", for "making a stand against an immoral war". Well...that's not how civil disobedience works, check your Gandhi or ML King too. He wants to make the case the war is immoral and he's going to "show his bravery by standing up against it"....then he goes to the slammer and his followers make his case for him.

    But to say "I think the war is immoral AND I don't want to accept the legal consequences for my opposition to it"...is a cheap cop-out and not worthy of the term "civil disobedience".

    In point of fact...it's selfish and lazy.

    Posted by Mask at 11/13/2007 @ 09:38am

17. Hey MASK,

    Not to mix threads here, but the other is played out. Saw your comment about everybody knowing Germany was not going to win the war. While I agree with your dispute with MT, I'm not sure that premise is a solid one. In early 1917, the mutiny of the French army, the pulling out of Russia from the war and the last German offensive in 1918 had all yet to occur. It wasn't going to be 1870 again, but the outcome was very much in doubt. Some, (Taylor, for instance, even went so far as to declare flat out that if we hadn't entered, the allies would not have won. All governments have some ulterior motives for what they do, but I'm not sure our entry can be viewed, as it seems to be today, from quite such a semi-cynical perspective

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/13/2007 @ 10:27am

18. Rio-There have been police,paramedics,and fireman who have refused to go into certain areas and they have not been prosecuted.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 11/13/2007 @ 10:30am

19. We can see from the right wing posts as to why Hitler was able to get himself an army of brainless followers willing to fight for whatever a leader wants them to fight for.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 11/13/2007 @ 10:33am

20. Ehren Watada DID what was right for his country.

    Iraq is a disaster, based on the lies of the idiot George Bush.

    Americans did not volunteer TO BE KILLED BECAUSE OF A LIE.

    No American EVER volunteered to die for LIES.

    Posted by conshame at 11/13/2007 @ 10:36am

21. Do you solemnly swear TO DIE FOR LIES???

    Fucck NO. Hell NO. Goddammnit NO.

    YOU do not swear to die for lies, you do not expect your neighbor to SWEAR to die for lies.

    If the lies are so dammn important to you AUTHORITARIANS, then go to Iraq and DIE for them. Do not expect other people to DIE for the LIES YOU believe in.

    Posted by conshame at 11/13/2007 @ 10:46am

22. Show me where it says on that contract, that I have to die in a conflict that makes America less safe, and that is based on lies.

    Republicans: WRONG ABOUT IRAQ, WRONG ABOUT BUSH

    Posted by conshame at 11/13/2007 @ 10:48am

23. "We can see from the right wing posts as to why Hitler was able to get himself an army of brainless followers willing to fight for whatever a leader wants them to fight for."

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 11/13/2007 @ 10:33am

    War criminals tried at Nuremburg tried the "I was only following orders." defense, and got their necks stretched. I've never spoken to an American since who didn't think that was just.

    Watada is a man of principle, and those of you who would question his mettle owe your freedom to do so not only to those who have fought and died, but to the precious few who have stood up for what is right.

    Posted by bwindrip at 11/13/2007 @ 10:52am

24. Ehren Watada DID NOT swear any oath or sign any contract, to BE KILLED, on a mission that makes America less safe. If Ehren Watada went to Iraq and was KILLED - America would be just that much less safe. Each American in Iraq is making America that much less safe, and if they die or lose their mind or lose their soul, America is that much less safe too. America has a defense capacity, and that capacity is being wasted in Iraq, that capacity is being bled for no good reason. Dammn the Republican Authoritarians. Americans should not be dying in Iraq. No piece of paper that bears my signature, means I have to die for a pack of fuccking lies.

    Posted by conshame at 11/13/2007 @ 10:52am

25. MARKCANYON claims Roosevelt deliberately provoked the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbour. How so, Mark, by having the audacity to declare their aggression a bad thing? Cite some examples before you make such a ridiculous statement, and tell me just what it is the bad guys have to DO before they are regarded as such.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/13/2007 @ 10:52am

26. MARKCANYON claims Roosevelt deliberately provoked the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbour. How so, Mark, by having the audacity to declare their aggression a bad thing? Cite some examples before you make such a ridiculous statement, and tell me just what it is the bad guys have to DO before they are regarded as such.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/13/2007 @ 10:53am

27. oops.

    This damn computer can't type right.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 11/13/2007 @ 10:54am

28. ACook-This man said he would go to Afghanistan which blows your claim that he is a coward.It,also,takes far more courage to refuse to go than it does to just go.Talk to any anti war draftee during Nam and you'll discover that most went in because that required less courage than going to prison or leaving the country.I'd take Iraq to prison any day.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 11/13/2007 @ 10:54am

29. Posted by CONSHAME 11/13/2007 @ 10:36am | ignore this person

    Which is why you don't see muttonheads like RIO, LL, PONTI, LEN MOSS or their hoggish progeny fighting in Iraq because one, they are petty poltroons and two, they know in their tiny little chests how bogus the war is. They're mere poll-parrots and cheerleaders for the Washington Cartel. And while I don't believe in torture, I think all of them should be subject to tasering and waterboarding so as to put their faith to a true test with this all-American (and of course, legal) baptism.

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/13/2007 @ 10:55am

30. By the way, it should go without saying that desertion is not a display of principle.

    Posted by bwindrip at 11/13/2007 @ 10:56am

31. Mask, sometimes a good guy has some luck. Watada was ready to go to jail and all that - you seem very bitter - good for him if he ended up not going to jail, he was ready to and he got lucky - Hurray!

    You others: Iraq is exactly the same as Nazi Germany. Riiiight.

    Posted by conshame at 11/13/2007 @ 11:03am

32. BWINDRIP-I did not question his mettle.In fact,in my response to ACook I stated that it took more courage to refuse to go than it took to just go.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 11/13/2007 @ 11:05am

33. MarkCanyon-I see that you're upset because FDR kicked Hitlers butt.Hitler was just a looney wimp who needed drugs to maintain.This loser couldn't even get it up for Eva Braun or any other woman.Lack of Viagra made him cranky.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 11/13/2007 @ 11:11am

34. Posted by MASK 11/13/2007 @ 09:38am

    MASK,

    Under your arguement, you are saying that the state is not at fault, Watada is. But, the state itself is the one chosing to follow the rules of the Geneva convention and is then violating the very rules it said it would follow. So, according to your arguement, the Bush admministration and congress should be sitting it out in the slammer for their "principles", otherwise, they are "lazy and cowards".

    Watada is in no violation of the Geneva Convention, but the same can not be said of Bushco and his rubber stamp congress, and that includes the dems who signed on with them. It's easy to sit on your ass in Washington and send other people off to fight a war. It's not so easy when you are the ones fighting the war. Our brave leaders are only brave when the warfront is far, far away from them.

    Keep that in mind while accusing Watada of being cowardly or lazy. I believe the opposite is the case. This guy stood up for what he believed in on priciple, not greed. The same can not be said of Bushco and congress.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/13/2007 @ 11:36am

35. MASK,

    You incorrigible prune. While you occasionally dress your dreck in sheeny ways, you're missing the point completely - the war is illegal and unnecessary. It has also made not only L'Amérique more insecure but the entire world as well. Watada is a hero because he stands for something. Hillary and Edwards (like Romney and Rudy) are just trimmers who form their opinions to suit the moment. All the politicos on both sides of the aisle are spineless sell-outs who speak for the bankers and corporations (special interests), not the people or the national interest as some morons believe. To think the decisions of greedy men in Washington with bombs and bullets at the ready take precedence over God and His teachings is ridiculous, though americanos are so base as to believe the president was inaugurated by God, so therefore anything the former says is sanctioned by the latter.

    Brown shirts and goose-steppers run amok in L'Amérique. That those who refuse to join and follow such a heinous group of mindless barbarians is conflated with treachery and threatened with time in the calaboose is yet one more sign of the militarization of society, which of course is a blatant sign of fascism. You glamorize the idiots who blindly swallow lies and get in line to be blown to smithereens while denouncing intelligence and equating it with perfidy. A true civilization is a stranger to heresy, for the open exchange of ideas is not only allowed, but encouraged and fomented. That this man's reasons for refusing combat are simply reduced to meaningless terms like "unAmerican" and "unpatriotic" speaks volumes to the obscurantism that slowly but surely eclipses the light in your land.

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/13/2007 @ 11:40am

36. Posted by I'M NOBODY 11/13/2007 @ 11:05am

    I know you didn't question Watada's mettle; the comment wasn't directed at you.

    The first paragraph, in fact, was inspired by your Hitler comment.

    Posted by bwindrip at 11/13/2007 @ 11:41am

37. The vast majority of Iraq war supporters,also,refuse to go,but they're smart enough to not enlist in the first place.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 11/13/2007 @ 11:50am

38. "Brown shirts and goose-steppers run amok in L'Amérique. That those who refuse to join and follow such a heinous group of mindless barbarians is conflated with treachery and threatened with time in the calaboose is yet one more sign of the militarization of society, which of course is a blatant sign of fascism."

    Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/13/2007 @ 11:40am

    "Of course the common people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

    Hermann Goering

    Posted by drhammer at 11/13/2007 @ 12:04pm

39. Posted by DRHAMMER 11/13/2007 @ 12:04pm | ignore this person

    Great quote. And quite relevant.

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/13/2007 @ 12:05pm

40. ACook-The people who have yellow streaks running down their backs are those Americans who were scared of Saddam and those Americans,like Bush,Cheney,Rush,Ann Coulter,and the multitudes of other war supporters who support wars that they refuse to fight in.Those people are true cowards.Cheney's idea of bravery is hunting tiny and helpless birds.You guys support and honor cowards something the right never used to do..

    Posted by i'm nobody at 11/13/2007 @ 12:18pm

41. "Cheney's idea of bravery is hunting tiny and helpless birds."

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 11/13/2007 @ 12:18pm

    Tiny, helpless, farm-raised birds that can't fly worth shit, and are released in his proximity, so that the only way for him to miss one is to shoot his hunting partner in the face.

    He's a real man's man...

    Posted by drhammer at 11/13/2007 @ 12:50pm

42. Posted by DRHAMMER 11/13/2007 @ 12:50pm | ignore this person

    I'm sure the alcohol didn't help his aim any.

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/13/2007 @ 1:06pm

43. Posted by WOLFGANG1 11/13/2007 @ 11:36am

    I'm saying you (or Watada) can't have it BOTH ways, WOLF.

    Either he thinks the war is "illegal" and goes to the court systems and eventually it's shown that Bush using the 2002 Authorization for Force to invade Iraq was an "illegal act" (nearly impossible given Edwards and Obama using it AGAINST Hillary as "voting for war....John and Barack would be witnesses for the PROSECUTION).

    or he goes with "immoral war", which has no legal basis and he accepts the LEGAL CONSEQUENCES of his own moral choice and goes to jail as an act of civil disobedience.

    But to want to bow out, in clear violation of his oath and the duty he VOLUNTEERED for (you don't get to add a caveat to the contract you sign with the Army saying "Unless I think it's an immoral war")....is a cheap Me Generation parody of true civil disobedience.

    Posted by Mask at 11/13/2007 @ 1:19pm

44. Posted by CHIMICHENGA 11/13/2007 @ 11:40am

    CHIMI, seriously, except for the intial premise "America sucks"...

    and a thesaurus....

    is there really any difference (or on-topic relevance) in this post or any of the others you post?

    I swear, we could start a thread on "What's the best flavor of ice cream?" and your total input would be "So what? American ice cream is a ludicrious amalgamation of lactose-tolerant confectionary redundancies!!!"

    Oh, and again, guarenteed, by the time you're 40, you'll be back in "L'Amerique" with a wife with a handfull of credit cards and your kids will be saying "Yeah, dad, whatever" as you tell them how awfully bougouise they are to be shopping in a mall or playing a video game or driving a car.

    Posted by Mask at 11/13/2007 @ 1:26pm

45. "So what? American ice cream is a ludicrious amalgamation of lactose-tolerant confectionary redundancies!!!"

    by mask

    hey that's good. and true*.

    *search and ye shall find microbrew ice-cream, and the new way shall inherit what's left (of earth).

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/13/2007 @ 1:32pm

46. "American ice cream is a ludicrious amalgamation of lactose-tolerant confectionary redundancies!!!"

    Posted by MASK 11/13/2007 @ 1:26pm

    Mildly amusing.

    But if you're going to ghost-write for Chimi, you should get yourself a passion transfusion.

    Posted by drhammer at 11/13/2007 @ 1:45pm

47. I think Thrawn might not be as sure of his position were our troops ordered to be quartered in his home, requisition his property, and be at liberty to do with his family members as they saw fit*.

    But maybe he would, after all, they'd just be following orders.

    Posted by BEN L. 11/13/2007 @ 09:12am

    hey guys. what about these cases? what orders would you have followed in these cases?

    1857-58 -- Utah War. The Utah War was a dispute between Mormon settlers in Utah Territory and the United States federal government. The Mormons and Washington each sought control over the government of the territory, with the national government victorious. The confrontation between the Mormon militia and the U.S. Army involved some destruction of property, but no actual battles between the contending military forces. More than 100 civilians were killed, however, in the Mountain Meadows massacre, which was a massacre of California-bound settlers from Arkansas by Mormon militia and Paiutes.

    1861-65 -- American Civil War A major war between the United States (the "Union") and eleven Southern slave states which declared that they had a right to secession and formed the Confederate States of America,

    1893 -- Hawaii. - January 16 to April 1. Marines were landed ostensibly to protect American lives and property, but many believed actually to promote a provisional government under Sanford B. Dole. This action was disavowed by the United States.

    SOUTH DAKOTA 1890 (-?) Troops 300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded Knee.

    IDAHO 1892 Troops Army suppresses silver miners' strike.

    HAWAII 1893 (-?) Naval, troops Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed.

    CHICAGO 1894 Troops Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed.

    MINNESOTA 1898 (-?) Troops Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake.

    IDAHO 1899-1901 Troops Army occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region.

    OKLAHOMA 1901 Troops Army battles Creek Indian revolt.

    COLORADO 1914 Troops Breaking of miners' strike by Army.

    WEST VIRGINIA 1920-21 Troops, bombing Army intervenes against mineworkers.

    WASHINGTON DC 1932 Troops Army stops WWI vet bonus protest.

    DETROIT 1943 Troops Army put down Black rebellion.

    PUERTO RICO 1950 Command operation Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce.

    DETROIT l967 Troops Army battles African Americans, 43 killed.

    UNITED STATES l968 Troops After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities.

    SOUTH DAKOTA l973 Command operation Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas.

    LOS ANGELES 1992 Troops Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising.

    UNITED STATES 2001 Jets, naval Reaction to hijacker attacks on New York, DC

    not trying to be anti-gringo.

    just curious.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/13/2007 @ 1:50pm

48. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/13/2007 @ 1:32pm |

    Oh, I know, I know!...

    like your beer, your Canadian ice cream is soooooooo much better!

    (heheh, just kidding)

    Posted by Mask at 11/13/2007 @ 1:55pm

49. Posted by DRHAMMER 11/13/2007 @ 1:45pm

    I don't "passionately" hate ice cream....

    but keep a carton of Ben & Jerry's in the freezer (like an ex-pat and his American passport) and claim "it's for guests, of course I would never eat such filth!".

    Posted by Mask at 11/13/2007 @ 1:57pm

50. Rio-You make our troops sound like nothing more than contract killers like those in blackwater or the mafia.They're supposed to kill simply because they have a contract.Quite lame.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 11/13/2007 @ 2:02pm

51. Mask-If you read the oath that people who join recite you'll see that he could easily argue that he is being true to that oath.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 11/13/2007 @ 2:08pm

52. I'm saying you (or Watada) can't have it BOTH ways, WOLF.

    MASK,

    You are putting your own constraints on this. What do you mean have it both ways? Last I checked, Ghandi wasn't a U.S. citizen. Watada was in court martial hearings for being AWOL and I beleive derelection of duty. He refused his orders on the grounds that the orders were immoral.

    Here's the deal. People join the military for a variety of reasons. However, as I'm Nobdy and Conshame have pointed out, just because you sign your name on the dotted line doesn't mean you have to take part in a war you believe to be illegal or against your conscience.

    Now, many a good man has spent time in the proverbial slammer for exercising that right (lack of right), but I question your views of right and wrong here. So, it's alright to throw this guy in jail for doing what he believes is right versus challenging those in power who claim that right is on their side?! As pointed out on this thread, that borders on fascisim. No question of authority? Sounds a lot like Nazi Germany or the old Soviet Union.

    So much for the personal freedoms this country is supposed to stand for.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 11/13/2007 @ 2:16pm

53. Posted by MASK 11/13/2007 @ 1:57pm | ignore this person

    Looks like someone didn't take their Centrum today. I believe I addressed the issue of Watada after hurling my usual stick of dynamite at your mawkish drivel. And as far as my hit-parade never failing to include some breed of jeer, imprecation, insult or punch to the flyblown mummery you pelt us with, well, I think it's evident your posts superaboud with shots at me that only stress your own humdrum life, for if you had any sense of adventure you'd unglue your ass from the idiot box and try seeing the world you're a self-proclaimed expert on. In the world of dullards and bovines you are a real ripsnorter. You can poormouth me all you want, but I am alive; judging by your words you are half-dead. Go eat some ice cream with Chinese beads as sprinkles.

    Posted by chimichenga at 11/13/2007 @ 2:24pm

54. NO piece of paper, just because I signed it MEANS I have to go and die for a bunch of lies!!!!

    The occupation of Iraq makes America less safe.

    Hurray for Watada - HE WAS PREPARED TO GO TO JAIL. He was ready to pay the price of civil disobedience, Mask.

    Mask, what is it? Why are you so upset that a GREAT American, Ehren Watada, got out of jail for free???? Bush gets out of jail for free, drunk driving behind the wheel of a nation, KILLING Americans based on lies.

    The disaster in Iraq makes some rich fuccks alot of money, but it makes America a fucck of ALOT LESS safe.

    NO piece of paper that you sign, MEANS YOU HAVE TO go and die.

    If the LIES are so dammn important to YOU, then YOU go and die for the lies - in Iraq.

    No American ever swore an oath to DIE, for a fuccking liar, an idiot, who calls himself the Commander in Chief.

    NO American ever signed a contract to BE KILLED FOR LIES.

    No American "volunteered" to be blown up, shot up, crushed to death, driven out of their mind, OVER LIES.

    America is less safe because George Bush is BLEEDING our military unncessarily.

    NO American EVER "volunteered" to give their BLOOD FOR FUCCKING LIES.

    Posted by conshame at 11/13/2007 @ 2:54pm

55. Mask, Ehren Watada was prepared to go to jail, he got off easy, Hurray for him. You don't seem too upset that Cheney isn't going to jail. How come you are so damn angry that this good American got off easy? MASK?

    Posted by conshame at 11/13/2007 @ 2:55pm

56. If the LIES are so important to you, HOW COME YOU'RE STILL ALIVE?

    Why aren't you DEAD YET? Why haven't you given your life, YET, for the lies you think are so dammn important? Why isn't your corpse turned up IN IRAQ, YET?

    Ehren Watada shouldn't have joined, but at least he had the INTELLIGENCE NOT TO DIE FOR LIES. He said I don't want to, YOU DIE FOR THE LIES since you believe in them so much.

    IRAQ IS A FAILURE, IRAQ IS A DISASTER. Based on a pack of LIES.

    Posted by conshame at 11/13/2007 @ 3:00pm

57. Troops are going back for tour after tour in Iraq, TILL THEY DIE, for YOUR LIES. Not for your freedom. Your freedom isn't important to you Authoritarians. Not for the "freedom" that you claim to hold dear. YOUR PRECIOUS LIES, not your freedom, YOUR PRECIOUS LIES. And you expect other people to die for them - because they signed a dammn piece of paper.

    Posted by conshame at 11/13/2007 @ 3:03pm

58. SHOW ME THE CONTRACT, where it says, "I agree to die for lies".

    Posted by conshame at 11/13/2007 @ 3:06pm

59. Yeah, sure....Bush and Cheney cooked this up all on their own. Now where could they have gotten the idea that Saddam was a bad guy?

    DD...before you get yourself worked into a lather (probably too late), notice that my issue is with the author, not the soldier. And from the way your town views the military, from their exclusion of ROTC to the denial of military ship landings, I would include you in that as well

    it is completely irrelevant whether pelosi echoed the administration's sentiments on the eve of the invasion of iraq. the entire country, minus new york and san francisco, were likewise swept up in propaganda, fear and delusion. and whether saddam was "bad" is just so patently puerile, i can't even respond.

    that san francisco is "hostile" (meaning: we don't prefer to pronounce our fear of death and destruction in the form of mindless symbolic gestures and faux rituals) to the military is not surprising: we are geographically protected from attack. and any "enemies" coming from the west have since become friends.

    watada should be commended, not destroyed.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2007 @ 4:44pm

60. The figure is 1500 Billion. In adjusted dollars, an "Apollo" moon mission would cost 1 billion dollars. The CSM/LM had a three-person crew, that's 4500 people, with 3000 of those able to board the Lunar Lander and touch-down on the surface.

    The difference of course is...Johnson and Nixon PAID for the Apollo Program, didn't put it on a "credit card" and leave it to their successors to figure out how to pay for it.

    Posted by MASK 11/13/2007 @ 1:44pm |

    actually, if you want good ice-cream go to méxico.

    they still make it from CREAM.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/13/2007 @ 4:45pm

61. Posted by MASK 11/13/2007 @ 1:19pm

    Your logic is flawed. In this case, it is false dichotomy. It is possible for the war to be both illegal and immoral.

    You'll notice that military courts are different than civilian courts. For one, they are established under Article I of the Constitution. For two, they are subject to the UCMJ.

    In this case, he is being charged for missing movement and for "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman". His legal argument is that his order to deploy to Iraq is an illegal order and that his conduct as an officer doesn't limit his First Amendment rights.

    He has been tried in a court-martial, twice - with the result of it being a mistrial. If he had been convicted, he could very well have spent time in jail.

    Given these facts and your comments, the only conclusion I can come to is that you don't know much about the relevant circumstances and need to become better informed.

    Posted by srjenkins at 11/13/2007 @ 5:14pm

62. Given these facts and your comments, the only conclusion I can come to is that you don't know much about the relevant circumstances and need to become better informed

    precisely. and if these nutty, batshit right wingers would simply familiarize themselves with the relevant circumstances, they would soon realize that watada hasn't suffered any serious legal setbacks as of yet.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/13/2007 @ 6:09pm

63. Darla...Pelosi's comment wasn't from the eve of invasion. It was from 1998! Her and the other dems that I quoted got the ball rolling, and then voted to authorize it when it came time.

    Now is Bush responsible for hatching the idea when most dems were talking invasion 4 years earlier?

    Posted by Sliver at 11/13/2007 @ 6:52pm

64. Posted by DARLADOON 11/13/2007 @ 6:09pm

    I don't think Mask qualifies as a nutty, batshit right winger.

    I'd also like to see less cliché expressions. Nutty, batshit crazy has been done. But how about:

    ...fruity, warm coconut milk splashed in a used baby diaper right winger...

    ...Oreo cookie right winger - crunchy liberal cookie exterior with soft gooey right wing center swirling in a glass of rose water...

    ...Coke vs Pepsi vs RC Cola right winger...

    ...you can have someone else's cake and wear it too right winger...

    ...true believer in market engines powered by the tears of laborers right wingers...

    Posted by srjenkins at 11/13/2007 @ 8:23pm

65. His legal argument is that his order to deploy to Iraq is an illegal order----Posted by SRJENKINS 11/13/2007 @ 5:14pm

    How? Again, he'd have to prove that his superior officers are telling him to go into an "illegal" war. And sorry, but how does Watada (or his lawyers) show that John Edwards and Barack Obama are saying Hillary Clinton is a criminal.

    She'd HAVE to be. She didn't claim that the Authorization for Force was NOT Congressional approval for war (until recently, by sycophants like FRANKG). That's accomplice after the fact.

    Now, I'm sorry, I oppose this war...it was stupid from the start...but aside from a lot of BLOG TALK, nobody has ever shown that it is "illegal" and that Congress didn't approve it (ergo legal under the War Powers Act).

    Ergo, Watada has no claim to "illegal orders"...ergo, no case.

    What he (and his supporters) want is a cop-out. They want him to walk, on HIS decision (and theirs) that the war in Iraq is illegal. But there's no way to show that legally.

    So...when he DOES get convicted, maybe he becomes a "martyr". But again, that's not how civil disobediance works. The law (or in this case, war) is judged "immoral" and the person involved (from Thoreau to Gandhi to ML King Jr.) doesn't try to GET OUT of jail, but GOES to jail and convinces the public to throw down the law (or end the war and make further combat "illegal").

    Posted by Mask at 11/13/2007 @ 9:45pm

66. "ACook-This man said he would go to Afghanistan which blows your claim that he is a coward.It,also,takes far more courage to refuse to go than it does to just go.Talk to any anti war draftee during Nam and you'll discover that most went in because that required less courage than going to prison or leaving the country.I'd take Iraq to prison any day."

    Posted by I'M NOBODY 11/13/2007 @ 10:54am,

    IM, Watada said he'd go to Afghanistan in front of the cameras, not to his superiors. Resigning his commission was the only option they gave him. He also stated to the press that when he first heard the US may invade Iraq, he said "he hoped we wouldn't". Which means he knew all along that he did not want to go. He had ample opportunity to file as a conscientious objector and accept a general discharge.

    Posted by ACook at 11/13/2007 @ 10:00pm

67. Posted by MASK 11/13/2007 @ 9:45pm

    Mask, I'm almost certain Congress will not ask the Executive Branch to force the military to change it's policy on guys like Watada nor will they cut funding.

    Posted by ACook at 11/13/2007 @ 10:09pm

68. Posted by MASK 11/13/2007 @ 9:45pm

    Again, if you knew more about the case, you would also know that the judge did not allow the legality question based on Nurenburg principles or his position regarding the First Amendment to be heard. A mistrial was declared because the prosecution cut a deal for a stipulation that was essentially an admission of guilt...and the second time due to double jeopardy...in other words a legal technicality.

    Personally, I think he should do the time, but it doesn't change the fact that your logic is almost as bad as your understanding of how our military legal system works.

    Posted by srjenkins at 11/13/2007 @ 10:48pm

69. Posted by MASK 11/13/2007 @ 9:45pm

    Again, if you knew more about the case, you would also know that the judge did not allow the legality question based on Nurenburg principles or his position regarding the First Amendment to be heard. A mistrial was declared because the prosecution cut a deal for a stipulation that was essentially an admission of guilt...and the second time due to double jeopardy...in other words a legal technicality.

    Personally, I think he should do the time, but it doesn't change the fact that your logic is almost as bad as your understanding of how our military legal system works.

    Posted by srjenkins at 11/13/2007 @ 10:51pm

70. "watada should be commended, not destroyed."

    Posted by DARLADOON 11/13/2007 @ 4:44pm

    Watada doesn't need commendatons, he needs to go to prison.

    Posted by ACook at 11/13/2007 @ 11:21pm

71. Now is Bush responsible for hatching the idea when most dems were talking invasion 4 years earlier?

    it doesn't matter one bit, like i stated. it is a straw man. next argument.

    Watada doesn't need commendatons, he needs to go to prison

    evidently, the judge says he doesn't. and since you have no experience in law, i am siding with the judge on this one.

    Posted by darladoon at 11/14/2007 @ 12:52am

72. Now is Bush responsible for hatching the idea when most dems were talking invasion 4 years earlier?

    it doesn't matter one bit, like i stated. it is a straw man. next argument.

    Really?? That's a pretty shallow comeback. I believe that it negates the whole "Bush sold us a war based on lies" argument, which also shows that it's not an "Illegal war", but rather had bipartisan support from Congress and at least 2 different Presidential administrations.

    Whether you like to admit it or not, we were heading there 3 years before Bush took office.

    Posted by Sliver at 11/14/2007 @ 10:13am

73. It seems to me that the lawfulness of the orders he disobeyed are in question. According to the Manual for Courts-Martial, the "order must relate to military duty, which includes all activities reasonably necessary to accomplish a military mission, or safeguard or promote the morale, discipline, and usefulness of members of a command and directly connected with the maintenance of good order in the service. The order may not, without such a valid military purpose, interfere with the private rights or personal affairs. However, the dictates of a person's conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order."

    The text goes on to say, "Disobedience of an order which has for its sole object the attainment of some private end....is not punishable under this article."

    So, unless the authorization for attacking Iraq has been deemed an order to further the private interests of those who issued the order (which may actually happen years down the road), Watada should be found guilty and appropriately punished. That's the law and I'm posting this here regardless of my own personal opinions of Watada's actions.

    Posted by FritztheCat at 11/14/2007 @ 10:39am

74. Posted by SRJENKINS 11/13/2007 @ 10:51pm

    I was referring to the Watada case in general, not specific.

    Again, want to civilly disobey what you consider an "illegal order", do it. Don't fight it and hope to get away scot-free.

    Posted by Mask at 11/14/2007 @ 11:56am

75. Mask, A GREAT American, Ehren Watada, got a lucky break. HE WAS PREPARED to go to jail for civil disobedience, but thank the Good Lord he got a break. Cheney should go to prison.

    Hurray Watada getting a lucky break from a good judge.

    Posted by conshame at 11/14/2007 @ 12:15pm