The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Well I wanted to post an article for those of you who like politics. The article is concerning a soldier who has recently been called up for his first tour of duty in Iraq but is refusing to go.

I was going to post this in Smack like the others but Boss is right these sort of topics really should go in the lounge section.

My point of view regarding this is that "I don't care". However for those who are in the Military or know about the rules...can you do this legally as a soldiers or is this guy risking jail-time and discharge?

Either way I gotta give it up to the guy for standing up for his beliefs.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060607/us_nm/iraq_usa_officer_dc

this guy is not a conscientious objector.. he joined the military.. he is an officer! an officer geeze


if you are going to give your life to the country you follow orders...


now im not going to join because i dont trust the people in charge..(also im a college student) but if you are an officer in the military you dont disobay orders

see you in jail buddy

Maybe I am reading this wrong. But he has been in the active duty military since 2003, why wait until now when he is getting deployed to apply as a CO.

I suspect that he received his Commision through ROTC. I would bet that he had no difficulty in accepting the Army's money to pay for his education.

Either way I gotta give it up to the guy for standing up for his beliefs.

Had he done so before he accepted his scholarship money or his commission, I would agree with you. He did not, and I do not. It is certainly convenient that he did not see a need to express his "conscientious objections" until he had orders in hand.

There can be no Conscientious Objectors in a volunteer military. The concepts are mutually exclusive. If you have trouble with the concept of combat, you don't sign the contract.

I have tremendous respect for legitimate CO's. They are people with real moral courage. I don't know that courage is a trait that 1LT Watada has in great supply.

Hang him. Enjoy

A refusal of duty by a commissioned officer in any branch of the US Military can result in a litany of UCMJ violations including, but not limited to:

Article 85 - Desertion.
Article 86 - Absence without leave.
Article 87 - Missing movement.
Article 88 - Contempt toward officials
Article 90 - Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer.
Article 92 - Failure to obey order or regulation.
Article 94 - Mutiny or sedition.
Article 107 - False official statements.
Article 133 - Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.
Article 134 - General article

Look, this young man, just like everyone else who's signed on the dotted line took an oath of office. This isn't as blurry a case as some are making it out to seem.

It's probably better, though, if he doesn't deploy. What would his men think of him as he attempts to "lead" them? Who could honestly say that they could follow his orders without question, which must be done at times, especially during combat?

But I think that he should be made to resign his commission and repay his tuition, pro-rated for the time that he has served. Currently the committment to the military is 6 years of active duty service, and if he has served 6 years, then he's pretty much off the hook, but any less than that, and he should have to re-pay the monies.

It's probably better, though, if he doesn't deploy

Oh, absolutely... but it's moot. No matter what the outcome, he will never lead troops again, and they will be better for it. Hopefully, he had some very strong NCO's to mitigate any damage such a leader would cause. I imagine they are pretty angry.

Countertrey wrote: Had he done so before he accepted his scholarship money or his commission, I would agree with you.

He didn't say he has a problem with war or killing people to defend freedom. I think he has a problem with this war because it is unjust and he doesn't want to be a part of a war where innocent people are getting killed.

Countertrey wrote:It is certainly convenient that he did not see a need to express his "conscientious objections" until he had orders in hand.

Well people are allowed to change their minds. This isn't an Arab saying it....it's an American soldier who is stating the war is unjust and he doesn't advocate the killing of innocent people.

Well people are allowed to change their minds.

. . .maybe when you aren't part of the military. But, I'm pretty sure that you can't wake up and say to yourself "wow, I don't feel like doing this anymore" and simply give your two weeks notice once you're in the army (or what-have-you).

Since he knew that beforehand, he should be willing to accept the consequences of his actions.

I agree with many of the posters on this thread.

This guy joined the military voluntarily. Once he does this, he waives any potential claim to be a "conscientious objector".

If he refuses to go to IRAQ, in my opinion:

(a) he should be courtmartialed immediately; and
(b) any scholarship benefit he received from being in the military should be immediately withdrawn and/or he should be ordered to repay it.

You just can't have it both ways.

FanfromAnnapolis wrote:

Well people are allowed to change their minds.

. . .maybe when you aren't part of the military. But, I'm pretty sure that you can't wake up and say to yourself "wow, I don't feel like doing this anymore" and simply give your two weeks notice once you're in the army (or what-have-you).

Since he knew that beforehand, he should be willing to accept the consequences of his actions.

Yea I agree. With every action there is a consequence. He has to face it and I'm sure he knows the possibilities that exist. I'm sure right now he would rather face those consequences and possibly go to jail rather than pull a trigger and take someones life.

Yea I agree. With every action there is a consequence. He has to face it and I'm sure he knows the possibilities that exist. I'm sure right now he would rather face those consequences and possibly go to jail rather than pull a trigger and take someones life.

Right, and with this I've got no problems. It's too bad that he's put himself in this position, but the guy's got guts to stand up for what he believes.

but the guy's got guts to stand up for what he believes

Were that the case, he'd have done it long ago, while he was not at risk to go there. Is the war somehow "less moral" now that orders have been cut?
It doesn't strike you as convenient that he didn't realize that he was a CO until he had orders in hand?

Question is did he screw the Military in the process by not coming forth early about this? Probably true.

Countertrey wrote:

but the guy's got guts to stand up for what he believes

Were that the case, he'd have done it long ago, while he was not at risk to go there. Is the war somehow "less moral" now that orders have been cut?
It doesn't strike you as convenient that he didn't realize that he was a CO until he had orders in hand?

I see what you're saying, but I don't have enough facts to really make a judgement call here. (At least, all I've got to go on is this Yahoo News bit and a quick google search).

It might be the case that, until now, he's been serving faithfully in what he believes is a generally good cause--that is, the military aside from Iraq. He's been serving in Korea, training, etc.

If you're in the military, it isn't a given that you are either 100% behind everything about it or 100% against it. I have a friend who spent 3 years enlisted in the Navy, trying to get into the Naval Academy, put in 2 years there before he refused to sign his re-commitment papers because--over time--he developed his current view that the US military is doing more harm than good in the world. Instead of finishing at the academy in 2 years, he's now been moved as an enlisted solider (I think in California) and it will take 2 years to get out of the military. That's 7 years of his life gone because he decided to become a CO--and he wasn't even scheduled to go to Iraq!

All I'm saying is that I think that it's most likely the case that this main in the news came to the conclusion that he could not serve in Iraq. Perhaps receiving orders to go there was the catalyst for his formalizing it. The fact that he faces prison time and dishonor for what he's doing doesn't speak to the idea that he's merely picking a 'convenient' time to 'become' a CO--in my humble opinion.

I suppose that there is a difference between the viewpoint of an individual who spent over 30 years in the military, and one who has not. That is not intended as a slight. Frankly, I am relieved that he is not going to be leading troops any longer.
His attitude would surely place them in increased danger.

I will say this. If he, in fact, has moral objections to the war in Iraq, he knew about it a long time ago. An honorable man would have raised this issue long ago, as well.

Once you have signed the contract, you have a commitment. Is the determination to honor a commitment no longer of value? If he is a "hero" for honoring his conscience (though I certainly do not concur), is he not equally a goat for trashing his word? Can his word ever be trusted?

During the days of the draft, there were true Conscientious Objectors. They still served. They were Corpsmen and Medics, Chaplain's assistants, and Pharmacy techs. Many died in combat. These were true people of courage.

Men like 1LT Watada dishonor those men. If he is truly a CO, there remain ways that he can honor that value, and still meet his obligation. The problem is, he needed to address that long before the got his orders. No. A lack of forethought on his part does not make a hero.

I have a friend who spent 3 years enlisted in the Navy, trying to get into the Naval Academy, put in 2 years there before he refused to sign his re-commitment papers because--over time--he developed his current view that the US military is doing more harm than good in the world. Instead of finishing at the academy in 2 years, he's now been moved as an enlisted solider (I think in California) and it will take 2 years to get out of the military. That's 7 years of his life gone because he decided to become a CO--and he wasn't even scheduled to go to Iraq!

You don't see the difference? Your friend is still honoring his obligation. And, I don't think he ever called a press comference to publicize it.

Counter-trey wrote

There can be no Conscientious Objectors in a volunteer military. The concepts are mutually exclusive. If you have trouble with the concept of combat, you don't sign the contract.

I can think of a few sorts of legitimate CO's in the current military:

- there have been a few who deployed to Iraq, killed people and saw others kill people, and then decided they were "opposed to war in all its forms", as the CO statement used to say. Before, it had all been an abstraction; later it wasn't. In the case that I'm thinking about, the Army denied the guy his CO.

- others should never have joined in the first place, but people do a lot of things for the wrong reasons. My impression is that the Army, at least, is pretty reasonable if the Soldier applies for CO before being ordered to get ready to be deployed.

Neither of these apply here.

Still, this lieutenant must know that he will be charged, at the least, with missing a movement and will be sentenced to at least a year in jail. Then he will be given a dishonarable discharge -- not a good thing to carry for the rest of his life.

I can't work out any clean, clear, ethics of the case. Given that the single largest thing in the Army is loyalty to others (from what I can see through my son), it must have taken a lot of moral courage for the officer to refuse his orders -- especially knowing the consequences.


He must have considered the consequences.

He must have considered the consequences.

Or... maybe not.

dnpmakkah wrote:

Countertrey wrote: Had he done so before he accepted his scholarship money or his commission, I would agree with you.

It is certainly convenient that he did not see a need to express his "conscientious objections" until he had orders in hand.

Well people are allowed to change their minds. This isn't an Arab saying it....it's an American soldier who is stating the war is unjust and he doesn't advocate the killing of innocent people.

He didn't say he hade a problem with war or killing people to defend freedom. I think he has a problem with this war because it is unjust and he doesn't want to be a part of a war where innocent people are getting killed.[/quote]
He took a oath to serve in the Military Services of the US of America, at no point in this otha does he state the right to retain his believes on what orders he will or won't follow. He is a 1st Lt with 2years service thats says he came in through the ROTC program. One of the first things you learn as a cadet is the military is a dictatorship within a democracy and you about a year and a half to chew on that before he accepted his commision and had his schooling paid for. He's already served overseas which could account for the change in color of his bar but the US was at war when he excepted the promotion. Getting orders to a combat zone wasn't part of his plan I guess

Yes people are allowed to change ther minds....
Servicemembers of all branches have this same right but when they take that oath they agree to put that right on hold until the separate from the service.

First Lt. Ehren Watada has given up that right, and by the time he gets it back he'll be very familar with the state Kansas (Fort Levenworth to be more to the point)

Wow I never thought I'd see the day when people would advocate to send to jail a person who didn't want to kill another human being.

dnpmakkah wrote:Wow I never thought I'd see the day when people would advocate to send to jail a person who didn't want to kill another human being.

You're oversimplifying. It is a condition of his employment.
Some people have to wear hard hats in their job. If they don't, they go bye-bye.
His job entails maybe having to go someplace and shoot people. He knew it when he signed up. Nobody is saying that, "Hey, you don't kill them...we'll kill you." All they're saying is, "You don't do the job you were hired to do, these are the consequences". He was certainly aware of the rules, as a CO.
I think the jail time is just consequential, and the discharge a formality. I don't condemn his choice. The punishment fits the "crime", so to speak.

tcwest wrote:I think the jail time is just consequential, and the discharge a formality. I don't condemn his choice. The punishment fits the "crime", so to speak.

I agree with tc on this point.

Don't get me wrong, Countertrey, I'm not saying that this guy is a hero for what he's doing. My only comment (at least, I'm pretty sure) was that I think it takes a lot of guts to do what he's doing, and (as tc said) that I'm not ready to condemn him for it.

Also, I know nothing as to whether or not this man was selling his story to the media or whether the media simply picked up on it and turned this into something. Obviously that would have an impact on how we see the situation.