ABOUT HARDBLOGGER

Hardblogger delivers opinions and analysis on the latest political news by MSNBC anchors, correspondents, analysts and contributors. Whenever news breaks, Hardblogger will break it down, so check in often.

Hardball with Chris Matthews airs weeknights on MSNBC.



'Against all enemies' -- The case of Lt. Ehren Watada

Posted: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 11:09 AM by Hardball

On Feb. 5, the court martial of a U.S. Army officer began at Fort Lewis, Washington.  Lt. Ehren Watada is charged with refusing to deploy to Iraq with his unit, a Stryker brigade combat team, and with two counts of conduct unbecoming an officer stemming from his public statements against the war in Iraq.

Several groups and activists have already rallied to Watada’s defense, including actors Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon.  That is all well and good, but let’s take a closer look at the facts.

Lt. Watada volunteered to serve in the U.S. Army in 2003.  Here is an excerpt from the oath he took as a commissioned officer in the armed forces of the United States:  “…I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, …I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same….”

I took that same oath years ago.  These are not mere words – they define who we are, they define a social contract between the military and the people of the United States.  In the ensuing three decades, I was sent to wars, conflicts and “police actions” in Vietnam, Lebanon, Iraq, the Persian Gulf and Bosnia.  Did I agree with all these operations or commitments?  Maybe, maybe not – it did not matter.  When you take the oath, you commit to defend the Constitution and obey the orders of those above you.  I bore true faith and allegiance. 

Lt. Watada did not enter the all-volunteer Army until after U.S. forces had invaded Iraq; he knew what he was getting into.  Many Americans consider the war on terrorism more closely associated with the invasion of Afghanistan than the invasion of Iraq.  That’s fine for those in the military, as long as you honor your oath – “against all enemies.” 

Lt. Watada is not entitled to choose the venue of his battles – he volunteered after the invasion of Iraq.  Refuse to serve, pay the price. 

Our soldiers deserve nothing less.

 


 

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Lt. Watada accepts the consequences of his actions. He knows he could've gone to Iraq and "laid low" just to get by...would that have been the american way that we should all be proud of? No. Instead he decided to do what only Congress is truly capable of doing...declare the war in Iraq illegal. He will be found guilty, he will goto jail. But maybe, just maybe, he'll wake enough people in this country up to get off their lazy butts and start writing their repesentatives to start taking action.

Nick B (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:03 PM)

Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing. in some country if talked the way some of you do you would be secretly rounded up and shot. I think some times some of you forget what a wonderful country this is. US American Have great rights if we disagree with the administation we can vote in a new one. One of our great right's as American is that we can volinter for service NOW. he had to know what was coming. maybe he should't of volintered. it's hind sight now he should face the punishment

Dan Grants Pass, OR (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:13 PM)

Some people still do not understand, this issue has nothing at all to do with whether or not you approve of our "war" in Iraq. It has to do with voluntarily giving your oath as a member of the military services to, among other things, obey the orders of the president of the united states and obey the orders of the officers appointed over you. This means that you must obey these orders, whether or not you like the orders. This disipline is absoloutly necessary for the military to work. If a person does not agree with this, then DON'T JOIN the military.

H. Johnson (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:16 PM)

You all seem to be forgetting that he VOLUNTEERED after we had already enetred Iraq. I'd say he made his choise then. This isn't about weather the war is right or not. It's about a persons word. If Iraq is an unjust conflict and it's wong, is it not also wrong to lie? Or is it that no ones word means anything any more? Thats sad.

Kat C, Tucson, AZ (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:21 PM)

Those who are not in the military, it is hard to make comments if you haven't heard anything about Articles of War. You can have the right to make comments if you understand what it meant. You will understand what it is when you are inside the organization.

Tobsky (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:25 PM)

Lt. Watada is in a tough spot- one that I don't envy. It is wrong, I believe, to call him a coward, 1) because he has stated that he would serve in Afghanistan, indicating that this his motivation is not simply to avoid combat and 2)agree with him or not, it is a rare individual who will stand up for their principles even in the face of severe consequences. I too took the oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States"- twice, once as a sailor and once as a police officer. To me, it has a two-fold implication: one the physical defense of our nation and community as a means of preserving our Constitutional Republic, and 2) a reference to our founders strong belief that power tends to corrupt and that security is frequently the justification for the creeping deprivation of liverty. Supporting and defending the Constitution means the principles as well as the document. As distatseful as it seems, Iraq is considered by many to be a war of aggression- a notion that many if not most Americans are uncomfortable with. The sense that none of the reasons that were used to build the case against Iraq panned out to be valid has further increased that sentiment. As I understand Lt. Watada feels, as do many Americans, that his patriotism and trust in his commander-in-chief was abused by the specious rationale for the invasion of Iraq. In a way, he is also honoring another American tradition that hasn't been discussed much. America's behavior following the Second World War was unprecedented for a victor nation. We showed mercy and re-built our enemies. We didn't pillage but rather helped construct the Nurmemburg trials and touted the Rule of Law. A key precedent to come out of Nurmenburg was that "I was only following orders" would not be recognized as a valid excuse for unjustified actions in warfare. Lt. Watada's actions raise difficult questions for many Americans because they capture and highlight one of the most troubeling long-term concerns about America's involvement in Iraq, were we right and morally justified in using our awesome war powers in this case? Have we, ultimatley, done a good thing? This rightly concerns many of us and Lt. Watada has, in a sense, become our conscience on the question.

Matt, American Canyon, CA (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:27 PM)

Is It time for another revolution? Government no longer acts in the interest of it's people, but rather it's investors (i.e. forign governments, big business, etc...). Unless dramatic changes take place, I think it's about time to wipe the slate clean and start all over again.

Joe, St. Clair Shores, MI (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:28 PM)

The oaths of office that have been previously cited on this post ARE the ENLISTED soldiers oath of office. They are different. Officers DO NOT swear allegiance to follow the orders of the President!!! Here are BOTH oaths: The Oath of Enlistment (for enlistees): "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." The Oath of Office (for officers): "I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."

R "Bruce" McAlpine, Burbank, CA (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:29 PM)

Does the Military Code of Justice allow for torture? Staying silent when crimes are committed? Obeying Illegal orders? As atated above the LT signed up to the following "I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice." Again according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The defendant has an obligation to obeya lawful order, the question is ' was the invasion of Iraq on false pretenses a "lawful" order?

K U, Danbury CT (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:31 PM)

even 70% americans want to end the war, the senators want to continue war, well no one listen to us. so nothing can be done, and Lt.Watada wasted his futer for nothing. as 70% can not chage the course , wht he can do , poor man will spend 5 yrs in jail.

real america (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:32 PM)

Watada did not receive an illegal order he could refuse. The legality of the war is not for him to decide. That task is left to Congress. Reguardless of public sentiment now, they voted then for America to make war on Iraq. Watada's orders were to deploy to Iraq with his unit. If, once he actually had boots on the ground, he were given an illegal/immoral order (kill innocent civilians/POWs, destroy property, etc...) then, and only then, could he begin the process of refusal he so ignorantly began while still in garrison. Now he needs to be stripped of the uniform of which he is so ashamed. And why is he ashamed of the uniform when it is the President and the war he is protesting? I'm thankful he's not in my particular branch of service, let alone my chain of command. We need officers who are made of better stuff than that.

Staff Sgt. CDH, USMC, Hampton, Va. (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:33 PM)

(Long sigh) First of all, LT W. is a commissioned officer in the U.S. Army. He is legally and morally bound by his oath to serve in Iraq or anywhere else President Bush dictates. Whether you like Pres. Bush, hate Pres. Bush, or are a yellow dog Republican who just thinks he's a yellow dog, he is the President. LT. W. is required to follow his orders and the orders of the his long list of subordinates. And no, this does not make him a Nazi or a machine. It's the nature of military service and the penalties for disobeying are quite well spelled out. If you think that's wrong, consider that in a year or two the Democrats will try to put us in the Sudan to stop the genocide there-and rightly so IMO. What will you liberals say to disgruntled Iraq vets who refuse to go for their 2nd, 3rd etc. Middle Eastern tour for Pres. Hillary? "Thanks for following your conscience?" During the Bosnian War a U.S. Soldier was court martialed because he didn't want to be in the "U.N. Army". I don't recall Sean Penn jumping to HIS defense. Perhaps Penn had stronger feelings about genocide (or was recovering from Madonna). Finally, what the media fails to report is that U.S. servicemen in Iraq are more than criminals and targets. If he went to the war, LT W might actually have helped build schools, plan local governments, dug wells, etc (the stuff you never hear about). Or even stopped people that think blowing up a hundred innocents at a time is a good idea. But if he really, honestly has moral qualms about his service, he should plead guilty and go to jail. That would satisfy his oath to the military and his conscience. To do otherwise only displays his attempt to weasel out.

Eric Lehmann (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:34 PM)

I served as a Sgt. in the Army and took the same oath. Fortunately I never had to make the choice of defying my superiors because I felt that we were involved in an illegal war. Why are the Abu Ghraib soldiers in prison? Some are there because they said they were following orders. Where do you draw the line? Obviously Watada has drawn that line and has the courage to stand up to the lie that is Bush's war on Iraq. Just as Hitler's soldiers were tried for crimes, Watada is listening to his conscience as IS HIS DUTY! We went into Iraq illegally, against UN resolutions to enforce UN resolutions! Further, Bush is still attempting to undermine the constitution, but that is a whole other argument. Watada is a hero, and only liars and cowards want to see him punished.

E. Skyhawk (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:35 PM)

Maybe he will be our president one day!!!!!!!! From what I have seen you must have at least one bad thing in your past to be the president!!

C.L. (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:39 PM)

Lt Watada is not whining about his impending punishment. Indeed, he has already stated that it is a done deal and he will accept the punishment imposed by the court. Anyone who labels his actions as cowardice is sadly mistaken. Like many people in this country (and most people outside), Lt Watada, after researching the decision by the Bush Administration to invade Iraq, has correctly determined that the war is immoral and illegal. The question is whether he will be released from prison once Congress comes to the same conclusion.

Mark, Las Vegas (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:50 PM)

As a newly retired Command Master Chief, let me just say that it seems that most are getting caught up in legalities of the oath and weather parts of it are debatable. The truth here is that like it or not we in the military are not allowed the same freedoms of speech (or what ever else one might call it) that civilians are. We protect the rights for others to have their say. It has to be that way for the military to be successful. There are in fact ways that people who have a problem to use the Chain of Command to get things done and LT Watada did not or was not successful in that area which led him to where he is today. The botom line is this fact. If any of us in the military was able to quit anytime we had an opinion about politics, it would leave a big hole in our forces at a time when needed most. Lets not forget the Soldiers who had to make last minuet changes to a team readied for war.

Rick Carter Bremerton Washington (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:52 PM)

The reality is that if Watada is allowed to decide when and against who he will defend this country, then that would leave all those in our armed forces to decide who and when. That's just not realistic in running a military. Many join the military thinking they might not have to serve and still reap the benefits, and that's just not the case. You don't become a policeman and then say it's against your moral standards to arrest someone in posession of marijuana just because your politics are liberal on the subject. the law is the law, if we begin to allow the average citizen to set our laws it would be chaos. That is why our government is set up by representatives. if you disagree with the war, or Bush's policies, fine, fight it in legislature (good idea might have been not to re-elect).

Jennifer, NY (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:52 PM)

I THINK WHAT HE IS DOING IS A DISGRACES TO ALL THE SOLIDERS THAT HAVE DIE. HE TOOK THE SAME OATH THAT EVERYONE SERVING IN THE MILITARY HAVE TAKEN. I HAVE NOT SEEN HIM GIVING THAT NICE PAY CHECK THAT HE HAVE COLLECTED FOR THE LAST THREE YEAR FOR SEATING BEHIND A DESK DOING NOTHING. I'M A SOLIDER IN THE AIR FORCE AND WE ARE GETTING TIRED ON THESE SOLDIER COMING OUT AGAINST THE WAR WHEN THEIR NUMBER IT CALL TO GO, BUT I SURE BET THAT WITHDRAWN THE MONEY ON THE 1ST AND 15TH OF EVERY MONTH FOR DOING NOTHING. WE GET PAID TO BE READY TO GO TO WAR WHEN THE PRESIDENT CALL FOR IT. SO DON'T COMPLAIN NOW. AS AN OFFICER HE SHOULD BE ASHAMED BECAUSE A LOT MORE PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN PAID LESS THAT HIM DID BACK OUT OF THEIR DUTY.

SSGT USAF (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:52 PM)

I served for 21 years and 3 months in the Air Force, including two years four months in Vietnam. If more would refuse to serve in this Bush family war we may see an end.

george, charleston, sc (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:52 PM)

Politics aside, the Lt. let his troops down- soldiers who depended upon him- the oath does mean something and his decision not to deploy will haunt him someday- as well it should..."and gentlemen in England now a-bed shall think themselves accursed they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks that fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day...

CW3 (ret.) Mark E. Harden (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:54 PM)

If you have never served a day in the active duty military, you have not earned the right to judge a man that has. Unfortunately, the vast majority of conservatives are those that fit this description and totally disregard that fact. Having taken the oath to serve myself, I get a kick out of those that are the first to judge but never had the guts to take the oath themselves. If our forefathers had been like them, we would be speaking German today as well.

John Graves, Montgomery, AL (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:55 PM)

I'm not a liberal but I am getting tired of hearing that all liberals hate our country and our military. If someone disagrees with your point of view, it doesn't mean they hate what you love. they just disagree. I would like somebody to define that line you may cross when an order is illegal. How did we decide that the German soldiers following orders then are now guilty of war crimes now? How will the future decide what we are doing now?

Tony Granfors, Westlake, Ohio (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:55 PM)

On the side of those who support Watada, you have the viewpoint that while he DID enlist with full knowledge of the war in Iraq, the Iraq war is an illegal action, and based on the Nuremburg trials Watada is entitled and even required to obey what he believes is the correct moral choice. On the side of those that condemn him, you have the viewpoint that the man took an oath to obey orders, and well, an oath's an oath. You don't break an oath. By oath he swore allegiance, and he should be tried for breaking said oath. But here's the thing: a conscience does not swear allegiance to anything except a moral code. You cannot *force* your conscience to commend every decision a higher ranking officer makes. HOPEFULLY, no one in military has sworn their conscience away to ANY president, Bush or otherwise. If America has become a place where the military regularly oaths away their moral compass to whoever's in the White House, then that States are no BETTER than Communist China. In fact, I'd say the States would be even WORSE off - at least China's up front about making it known you're basically oathing your conscience away.

Steve Beresh, Niagara Falls, Ontario (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:55 PM)

To accuse liberals of not loving America or the military is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard! The Bush administration took the fear of a country after 911 and twisted that fear and newly learned need for revenge towards Iraq with lies and deception to create an illegal occupation of a country that did us no harm! If you go back a little bit in your history you will see who put Saddam into power in the first place and gave Iraq weapons! This goes deeper than most of you but not all of you know and our precious soldiers should not be meer puppets on strings awaiting orders to be picked off in Iraq! Can you recognise a terrorist if you saw one on the street, can you recognise a sniper, a suicide bomber ... NO! But with all our soldiers in uniform they are recognised easily and picked off like sitting ducks! Not only is this war illegal but how do you fight a war against an invisible enemy unless you become invisible yourself? This young man has every right to not want to police a civil war of millions where the enemy can not even be recognised but our soldiers can!

T (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:56 PM)

I agree with Mike in GA. Big surprise here that the left backs this tuck and run idea. Its exactly what the left wants us to do in Iraq.. This soldier is a coward and should have known in the first place what he was signing up for.

Ryan ne (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:57 PM)

According to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, American military personnel are allowed to refuse unlawful orders. However, the judge in this case has refused to consider any testimony regarding the legality of the Iraq War. This is a shameful travesty of justice.

John Doe, Salt Lake City, Utah (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:57 PM)

Lt. Ehren Watada is the "stupid one" to sign his name on the dotted line. He volunteered to join the US Armed Forces without undue influence. As a former member of the US Navy, I was in many conflicts and the Persian Gulf War. If he wanted to exercise his freedom of speech, he joined the wrong club. He wanted his voice to be heard, the military is the last place to be. He must be punished to the maximum allowed by law for his insubordination, desertion and conduct unbecoming of an officer. He is a stain in an officer's rank. He wanted peace, he should join the Peace Corps and not the USArmed Forces. They normally go to war. And to all of those who think otherwise, they do not appreciate the sacrifices of those who gave the ultimate sacrifice for the this "FREEDOM" we are enjoying. I have a son who is currently serving the Armed Forces and his wife is also in active duty. If the event that I loose either one, it will be a PAIN that I have not experienced in my life. It will probably hurt so much but that is life. It is NOT the fault of the Chief Of ALL the Armed Forces if he give his life to protect us. It is our FREEDOM we are protecting. I would rather bring the war to them than fight them in our backyard...at any cost.

Pepe Miranda (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:58 PM)

I can't believe the incredible shortsightedness of many far left ideologues. Do you really want a military that picks and chooses what instructions from the civilian government it will obey? Though a military that follows orders is dangerous to it's own people when the elected government is out of line (now?) a military that does not follow orders is dangerous under any circumstances. The world of the military is not an armed version of the civilian world. The feelings, rights, and even the lives of the people in the military are necessarily secondary considerations when placed against the goals and missions set for the military by the civilian government. The rights and lives of people outside the United States are of even less concern when placed against the needs of the service. It is an ugly truth that carries so much danger with it that the only possible reason for taking this risk is the horrid certainty that failing to maintain a military will result in worse. Having said that, if the man truly objects then he has my admiration. Any good officer realizes that he may be called upon to sacrifice the lives of himself or his men for the greater good. It is sad to see that for many sacrificing their careers and "good name" is more difficult. A man who makes a stand in the full knowledge of the consequences, good and bad, personal or general, is done a disservice by those who attempt to excuse or dilute his sacrifice.

Aaron Bonar, Omaha, NE (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:58 PM)

The Nuremburg trials held that 'following orders' was not a defense for illegal acts. Look it up. Shrub could be indicted and convicted of war crimes for what he has done, which to some was lying us into this catastrophe, and to others was being too stupid to keep us out. Pick one. He's not only the worst in history but the full effects of this disaster won't be known for years, as the Chinese use our money to overtake us amoung other things. But, to the matter at hand, it's an illegal war fought under false pretenses.

JerryC (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:59 PM)

The LT is a coward! He shoulds be court-martialed! Military personnel obey the office of the Commander in chief--not the person! Get grip you idiot leftist cowards! If you hate the USA so much get the hell out! LTC(RET)K

Kurt Christensen, Tampa, Fl (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:59 PM)

Hopefully the FBI and Homeland Security will be scrutinizing this thread and adding some of you to their watch lists.

Dave, Dallas, TX (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:00 PM)

I have just about had enough of all the bleeding hearts supporting this guy. He joined the military, plain and simple. He was trained to fight. Who did he think he would be fighting? Did it ever occur to him when he was cashing his big fat officer paycheck that he could possibly go to war? Hello? Did he realize there was a war going on when he JOINED???? This chicken is not standing up for what he believes in! He is shaming the military and what it stands for. He is slapping mud in the face of every US service member stationed throughout the world. He should be ashamed of himself. He should be made to repay every single cent that he "took" from the taxpayers of this country, if he does not want to hold up his end of the deal. He should be court martialed, stripped of rank, and be given a dishonorable discharge, as well as be forced to reimburse the US taxpayers for all his training and salary which was fraudently obtained. He has let his fellow servicemembers down. He is a coward. His family should hang their head in shame as well. Everyone who supports this "man" should pack up their belongings and move themselves and their families to Iraq. Maybe they would be happier. Not our problem you say? Yes, it is our problem. President Bush made the decisions he did based on the information he had at the time. That is called an informed decision. Those people that support this spoiled rotten brat, have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. You all shame every servicemember who ever served in the United States military.

Cat Smith, Frederick, MD (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:04 PM)

I doubt that someone who has not served their country should comment on this but freedom encourages that. Turn off your TV if you don't like what you see, don't enlist or commission if you don't believe in your duties, don't critize a person if you don't agree with their views. This is freedom of choise. I doubt some of the blogs would be as hateful or opinionated if that person had the responsibility of the President of the United States. Further education in the duties of government office would be very entlightening to most of the people America. What a great country!

Don Boe, Boise, Idaho (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:04 PM)

I believe LT Watada enlisted in the military to become a commissioned officer in order to pull this stunt. Everything about him is packaged just right to be the poster boy for the anti-war movement by refusing to deploy. He is a disgrace to the United States Army. Give him a few years in the DB at Leavenworth to find out if it was worth it. For all the whiners out there that disagree with me, I've been there, done that and have the CIB to show I wasn't a Fobbit.

Mark Moore, Kansas City, MO (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:04 PM)

Look at this another way, Here is a guy that volunteered to do a job, but as some point he decided that I do not want to be accountable for my decision so I will change my mind and do something else. I will not honor my commitments or duty. This type of person is not someone I would hire nor would it be someone I would want my daughter to marry. If you cannot stand up and do your duty and make yourself accountable in this case, I would doubt few people would trust you in any thing else. It is not about the war, agree with or disagree with, it is about being accountable for your decision's.

D Wheeler (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:04 PM)

That kind of blind faith "You Took an Oath" BS is old and tired. People really should think for themselves and if something is obviously wrong TAKE A STAND. I'm sure all the WWII Nazi's could say "I was following orders" but who's going to say they were correct and loyal ?? I take my hat off to this guy for standing up against dumb and stupid superiors, plus all the flag waving fools who will now vilify him.

Paul C, Los Angeles. (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:04 PM)

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.) Since 1775 all military personal have taken some oath of allegiance similar to the one above. Lt. Watada took the same oath that all military officers have taken for nearly 50 years. Enlisted personal take a similar oath. No where in the oath does it say, I will follow orders only if I feel like it or if I agree with the commander-in-chief. Lt. Watadas ledership and actions are supposed to instill trust in the troops under him. By breaking his oath he has broken the trust of all those around him, both junior and senior. Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon wouldn't understand what trust or honor is though. Just look at the wrecks their personal lives are; divorces, children out of wedlock, etc. etc. Lots of trust there. It's sad that so many people, including the media, look up to the wacko entertainers and celebrities. They'll be the first ones to hide and scream where's our military when the next 9/11 happens rather than step up in support of our military. As a US Navy veteran I for one would be happy to see him get a dishonorable discharge and what ever else he brought upon himself. Lt. Watada should consider himself lucky if that's all he gets. By shrugging off his duties as an officer and purposely missing movement he probably save himself from being shot and killed by friendly fire.

Greg Spaulding (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:05 PM)

Most posters here are missing the point. The armed services, to an individual, are disempowered to refuse obedience to the lawful orders of the president of the U.S., and rightfully so. Military coup and junta are not in the best interests of the American people and the constitution protects against that. The Lt's argument that deployment to Iraq constitutes an illegal order is predicated on some deference to international legitimacy in determining legality. It is a weak legal stance, one that didn't even make it into trial. The fact that this war was initiated on specious justification is certainly a problem, but it's a problem that should be corrected through the checks and balances of our government. The legislature has the means and the responsibility, as did the voters of this country in 2004. Anyone that suggests that it is in the best interest of America for Lt Watada to set the precedent of refusing orders to affect political change hasn't picked up what the founding fathers have put down, and should be careful what they are asking for.

Adrian Armold, Oceanside CA (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:06 PM)

You folks coming to Watada's aid, you amaze me. This soldier "volunteered" for this duty and took the oath. Court-martial him, by all means. If he didn't agree with the oath he was taking he had his opportunity to walk out during the oath taking ceremony. If he wanted a "kush" job he should have looked else-where outside the military. Oh, BTW, John Doe 1, how about a real name instead of hiding.

Larry Louwellin (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:08 PM)

We put Watada on trial because he DID NOT obey orders from those above him. And, in Guantanamo, we are holding hundreds because they DID obey orders from those above them. Two faced.

Jack; Fairfax, VA (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:08 PM)

I'll never forget the images at the start of the war.........iraqis attacking our 50 million dollar tanks with 1974 little white datsun pick ups with a machine gun bolted to the back..........sheesh.........and these guys were a threat to the united states..........this wasnt a war....its an invasion........its wrong and watada stands against it.....good for him...!!!

q mollin (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:08 PM)

BEing put into a brig is better than killing civilians and ening up in many small pieces. We are occupying, the war is over. The military didn't lose, they beat the enemy, they captured Saddam, they met every mile stone that we told them was there "Current" purpose. Bush has left them in harms way to do a job they never agreed to do, and I wouldn't go either.

Tom Todia (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:09 PM)

I want to start by saying that I didn't vote for Bush, either time around. But I married a soldier, Army reservist, who did a year tour in Iraq. When he joined the reserves eight years ago noone could have forseen 9/11. My husband was in Bosnia at the time and ended his deployment there knowing he'd be heading somewhere else to fight. He did his tour in Iraq and returned home unharmed and for that I am grateful. Not once did he complain about going to war. He signed up and knew when he took his oath that the US military could send him anywhere at anytime. As a LT. he gave orders to men that could have gotten them injuried or killed, and they followed them. He himself lead convoys in Iraq, all the time on the look out for ambushes and IEDs. He followed orders because thats what soldiers do. They don't get to decide which orders to follow and which ones to ignore. Soldiers follow orders. I'm ashamed of Watada. He's supposed to be a leader of men. Instead he turned out to be a coward. His men went off to war, regardless of how they feel about President Bush and Iraq. They went. Watada should have gone as well. My husband went just as thousands more have gone, many more than once.

Lynn, Washington DC (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:09 PM)

I remember the draft unlike many. I'm also a liberal. To many individuals enlist in the military for the paycheck and education benefits. During war time chances are you are going to the war. If he has a conscientious objection or didn't want to go to war he should not have signed the contract. Not only do I feel like he should be court martialed but he should spend time in Leavenworth. This is not about Bush, this is about the Uniform Code of Military Justice, integrity and ethics.

Mary Crosby, Little Rock, AR (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:10 PM)

let us not forget, he knew we were at war BEFORE he enlisted. He was aware of all the facts BEFORE he enlisted. If he did not wish to support this war he should have not enlisted.

jeff havelock (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:12 PM)

It a good thing that the soldiers of the 1940s didn't interpret the Japanese threat the same way many of the current respondents are. Let's see; So the Japanese attacked Hawaii, no skin of my nose, I'm not going! I will personally decide what actions I join. This will certainly make a poor military! As a soldier, one is expected to obey command. Nobody asked Watada to do anything but support US policy. Not genocide, not burn and pillage. Not loot and destroy.

Marvin Woody (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:12 PM)

I have a few questions: Is it okay for a police officer to not arrest and detain a criminal, because the man is the same skin color as himself, and because he is either sympathetic towards the black panther party or the white supremacists? Does that police officers personal conscious rank higher than his duty to his sworn job? How about a paramedic who would refuse treatment at a scene of a shooting because he thinks the man he is working on was the shooter? Does the paramadic have the right to refuse the treatment because his conscious says something different than his sworn duty? I find it a scarry thing that people are willing to make a social rule that personal convictions should some how stand taller than sworn duty, responsibility, and honor to ones own sworn commitment. They would make this rule only because it involves politics and a single war that they don't agree with? I'd hope when the day comes when you need a police officer to do their sworn duty to protect you, that the officer refuses that protection because they don't like your stance on politics or because he finds fault in the place you work at. It won't happen because our police carry higher values in their sworn duty. I would expect nothing less from our all-volunteer military.

Ruffneck, Philly, PA (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:13 PM)

look alot of the people on this board are really makeing me sick. As a soldier and oif vet myself i can sum this up real quick. Lt Watada does not descide foreighn policy. The president and Congress decide that. His job is to lead soldiers. By not doing this he has bypassed both the Army values and Warrior ethos. But something tells me he wasnt mutch of a leader to begin whith.

SFC US Army (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:13 PM)

Keenan, it is true officers don't enlist, but LT W. did enlist and went to OCS to become an officer. Larry A. is correct about him enlisting in the Army.

Mark Moore, Kansas City, MO (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:13 PM)

I had opportunity to listen to Lt. Watada and found his position to be thoughtful and diligently researched. He came to his conclusions while studying the war and its basis in an effort to know how to prepare his men for deployment to Iraq. Clearly, he intended to go, except his research led him to conclude that he could not follow what he believes are illegal orders. If the orders are legal, Watada should be punished, if they are not legal, he should be exonorated. Unfortunately, the legality of his orders will not be examined by the military court and Watada has been barred from presenting this issue in his own defense. In defending the constitution Watada has a sworn duty to defy unconstitutional orders as well as illegal and inhumane orders. His conclusion that this war is illegal has merit. Only Congress can declare war. Read your constitution. Congress did not do that. It authorized a use of force, not a war. This issue needs to be tried by the highest courts and I hope it gets there. Watada is a courageous man, regardless of whether he is right or wrong, because he was willing to take a stand for conscience. I salute you Lieutenant.

J. Pritchard, Bend, OR (Sent Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:15 PM)



SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.): 

 Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private)

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://hardblogger.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=50258


The Essentials

More Hardblogger

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Authors:

Syndicate This Site

Add Hardblogger to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google

MSNBC Weblogs