Heroes of the Republic

[fastpat]

Eventually these fine men who've exposed the lies of the Executive Branch will be listed among the rightful heroes of America.

Martyrs of the Republic

by Karen Kwiatkowski

Ah, how things change! The military court in LT Ehren Watada’s trial has denied any courtroom discussion of the legality of the war in Iraq. Yes, the vast majority of Americans, Senators and Congressmen have already admitted that the war was based on lies, fostered by a narrow set of agenda setters, for a non-national security agenda, violates international law, and is likely unconstitutional. Yes, we all suspect today that the war for "democracy" is no more than make-believe, even as the war for oil and bases is all but lost. Yet victory is claimed daily by White House schemers, as disaster inexorably creeps throughout the streets of Baghdad, and of Washington, D.C. But these facts and conditions are all so much fluff and nonsense to the military court.

It appears that Watada will be tried for missing a troop movement, conduct unbecoming an officer and contempt toward officials. Logically, a soldier’s duty to reject and challenge unlawful orders may result in a missed troop movement, or two, or ten thousand. However, charging Watada with conduct unbecoming and showing contempt towards officials is too rich, even for the stupefying non sequitur that is military justice.

I served as an Air Force officer or cadet under Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43. Contempt towards elected officials of one sort or another, including at times our own military leadership, was shown every year, by nearly every rank. Not surprisingly, the harshest words – and institutional toleration of them – were reserved for those officials who attempted to question pre-existing military culture or worse, to question military budgets or bookkeeping.

Carter, naturally, was held in contempt. His tree-hugging micromanaging style was not compensated by Naval Academy years and early military service. Reagan, big spender and big talker, was seemingly adored – until it became clear that he was an anti-nuclear friend of Gorbachev, unlikely to substantially use the Pentagon machine he had so generously primed. In the mid-1980s, when we gave Stinger missiles to various freedom fighters in Afghanistan and Angola, congressional hawks and the military, while concerned about the risk, approved the shipments because it opened up the next generation of Stinger production for ourselves. The freedom we were fighting for appears to have been nothing more than the freedom to buy and sell more weapons at home and abroad, and the freedom to fight at will, wherever, for whomever or whatever.

The Reagan grousing began before Iran-Contra and continued until that great friend of militarism, George H.W. Bush, arrived. Bush the Elder understood institutional-political spending and the military industrial complex, and he knew how to please us. It’s no surprise that we secretly loved him best.

Whether coincidence or grand strategy, Bush 41 gave us something big to do in those tenuous, uncertain early years of the post-Cold War era. But then, he too was disrespected in many military circles for premature withdrawal in Iraq, and for playing emotional world policeman in Somalia. But our practiced contempt would blossom fully with the arrival of Bill Clinton, and his military-hating wife.

All bets were off, after that early "don’t ask, don’t tell" shot across the Pentagon bow. Military officers and enlisted alike felt freedom to discount, condemn, criticize, and joke about the Clinton presidency, his policies, his decisions and actions, and those of his immediate family and staff. And it was all good – few if any courts martials were convened. The July 1999 The Army Lawyer puts it in perspective and is worth a read. To get an idea of what was happening only a few years ago, a reserve major who called the president a "lying draft dodger" and "a moral coward" received not much more than a "letter of caution."

He wasn’t talking about George W. Bush, although he certainly might have been. How things do change! Lt Watada is facing six years in prison, for saying the war appears to him illegal, and the policies that led to this illegal war questionable. Many Republican senators and representatives, and most of the old Bush 41 team have already said and written as much.

It’s funny, except in a nascent totalitarian state, one mustn’t laugh.

Another court case looms, providing one more interesting example of police state intimidation. Navy lawyer LCDR Matthew Diaz is charged with transmitting secret war on terror information to unauthorized persons. He worked as a staff legal advisor at Guantanamo for six months in 2004, and now faces up to 36 years in prison. The unauthorized "terror" information he is accused of giving out seems to have been some names of those held in Guantanamo, in legal limbo, uncharged and mistreated in perpetuity by our Commander in Chief about Whom No Bad Things Must be Breathed or Whispered.

The Congress already suspects, and the Supreme Court already knows, that much of what the President and his political lackeys have done in Guantanamo is illegal under international as well as constitutional law. I guess this is why the executive branch has gotten so sensitive about things like release of the – dare I say Christian – names of those we are holding, seeing as how the Pentagon has already admitted that most of those incarcerated have done little if anything wrong, and many of those will never be charged, even as they remain incarcerated indefinitely.

Diaz, like Watada, Joe Darby, and so many others are men of conscience assigned to an unconscionable political bureaucracy, operating in an immoral political era. They would be first in line to defend this country if we were truly at risk, and the rest of us would admire and praise their courage and their honor. We would, in another time, gladly share their vision of what is worth saving in America. Instead, we shop our hearts out, count our fiat dollars, marvel at our nanny state and commend our warm and loving national socialism. Instead, we look fearfully on those few who would trust that still small voice, that handful who believe the fragile republic might be worth saving, and those rarities who boldly stare down our institutional Goliaths.

These men frighten us a bit, and perhaps we turn away, uncomfortable with what they are risking, and nervous about what it all means for our cherished fantasies about the power of law written in museums, not living in our souls.

In an age where a 21st century Caesar claims divine right to wage preemptive and imperial war – audaciously rejecting the vast majority of American serfdom as well as the country’s elected law-makers – it is nice to know that these few men do frighten the state, as men like them have done in earlier times. Now, as then, the state will arrest them, hold them, intimidate them, punish them and eliminate them. We the people will not act until it is too late, but these men will indeed become our martyrs, and our inspiration, in years to come.

January 20, 2007

Karen Kwiatkowski, Ph.D. , a retired USAF lieutenant colonel, has written on defense issues with a libertarian perspective for MilitaryWeek.com, hosted the call-in radio show American Forum, and blogs occasionally for Huffingtonpost.com and Liberty and Power. Archives of her American Forum radio program can be accessed here and here. To receive automatic announcements of new articles, click here.

[Seahawk]

It has been cold outside, so my numb fingers may not translate my even colder thoughts:

In response to Lt. Watada's refusal to deploy, the U.S. Army has leveled a number of charges against him:

* conduct unbecoming an officer
* missing movement (for refusing to deploy to Iraq on June 22)
* contempt toward officials (in this case, President Bush)

At the time of these initial charges, Lt. Watada faced the possibility of a court-martial and up to seven years in prison as well as a dismissal if convicted. About this eventuality, Watada said that he does not regret his decision and is willing to face the consequences, citing it as what he believes is a moral responsibility.

Watada has said he is not a conscientious objector because he is not opposed to all wars as a matter of principle, and so offered to serve in Afghanistan,[8] which he regarded as "an unambiguous war linked to the Sept. 11 attacks." This was also refused. Watada, in turn, refused an offer for a desk job in Iraq without direct combat involvement.[5]


At least he has the courage of his convictions...but not meeting a deployment? Tough...face the music.

[Joeaksa]

Wish I could re-up and tell the CO where I wanted to serve!

Wonder if Hawaii needs people this time of year? Then I could PCS to Bavaria in spring, summer and fall, then return to Hawaii next winter!

Hope the LT likes Leavenworth. He will be there for a long time and he deserves every day of it. Maybe he can share a cell with slopat?

[fintstone]

Sounds like the Lt is more scared of Iraq than Leavenworth. I imagine he is relying on a future loser President to pardon him...like the scum that went to Canada during the Vietnam War. I hope he rots in prison.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Seahawk
It has been cold outside, so my numb fingers may not translate my even colder thoughts:

In response to Lt. Watada's refusal to deploy, the U.S. Army has leveled a number of charges against him:

* conduct unbecoming an officer
* missing movement (for refusing to deploy to Iraq on June 22)
* contempt toward officials (in this case, President Bush)

At the time of these initial charges, Lt. Watada faced the possibility of a court-martial and up to seven years in prison as well as a dismissal if convicted. About this eventuality, Watada said that he does not regret his decision and is willing to face the consequences, citing it as what he believes is a moral responsibility.

Watada has said he is not a conscientious objector because he is not opposed to all wars as a matter of principle, and so offered to serve in Afghanistan,[8] which he regarded as "an unambiguous war linked to the Sept. 11 attacks." This was also refused. Watada, in turn, refused an offer for a desk job in Iraq without direct combat involvement.[5]


At least he has the courage of his convictions...but not meeting a deployment? Tough...face the music.

Watada has frightened the US government to its core, and since his methods are non-violent, he has my respect.

I don't think he's attempted to avoid the consequences by any action, such as fleeing to europe which he could easily do. Several european countries would recognize his status as a political prisoner.

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by fastpat
Watada has frightened the US government to its core, and since his methods are non-violent, he has my respect.

To its core?

He has my respect...all the way to his conviction, and beyond.

You never miss a deployment, ever. People are counting on you, especially officers and senior enlisted.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by Seahawk
To its core?
...You never miss a deployment, ever. People are counting on you, especially officers and senior enlisted.

Agreed. His cowardice or selfishness...whichever it is, may well cost the lives of some of his buddies...who likely do not share his cause.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Seahawk
To its core?

A frightened government is a vindictive government.

He has my respect...all the way to his conviction, and beyond.

You never miss a deployment, ever. People are counting on you, especially officers and senior enlisted.

If you know a "movement" to be illegal, and there is no question that the invasion and attempted occupation of Iraq is illegal with regard to both US and international law. As an officer, isn't he duty bound to disobey unlawful orders?

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by fastpat
[B]A frightened government is a vindictive government.

If you know a "movement" to be illegal, and there is no question that the invasion and attempted occupation of Iraq is illegal with regard to both US and international law. As an officer, isn't he duty bound to disobey unlawful orders?

Illegal, unlawful? I love those terms. The international law cite is most amusing given your stated predilections. If you had the opportunity to be an unrestricted line officer you would know the difference.

Get with your troops, get them prepared, take care of them and be a man. Always.

I won't paste the oath he took, what I will say is that his men deserved better.

[jmshepard]

Oh please! Shaken to is’ core, not hardly. Not even on the RADAR screen of the US Military or the USG. Where are the hundreds (or tens) of soldiers that are following his lead?

Illegal war, I do believe that the Congress voted to support the Iraqi mess, including Hillary. Don’t even try the “Bush lied” gambit because history will vindicate his decision based on the Intelligence that he assessed. BTW, The Congress had access to the same intell and went along with the invasion.

As far as I can remember, no one is compelled to join the military. The Lt. raised his hand as a volunteer and signed up for the term of service. The right to choose which lawful orders to obey in the military not one of the choices afforded a service-member.

Recap:

1. War voted on by Congress.
2. Issued a lawful order by those appointed over him.
3. Missed a military movement.

The Lt. will be convicted and will spend time in the US Disciplinary Barracks at Ft. Leavenworth KS where he will learn to take direction.

Jim S.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by jmshepard
Oh please! Shaken to is’ core, not hardly. Not even on the RADAR screen of the US Military or the USG. Where are the hundreds (or tens) of soldiers that are following his lead?

Not relevant.

Illegal war, I do believe that the Congress voted to support the Iraqi mess, including Hillary. Don’t even try the “Bush lied” gambit because history will vindicate his decision based on the Intelligence that he assessed. BTW, The Congress had access to the same intell and went along with the invasion.

Congress cannot vote a war without an actual Declaration of War, further since the US government is a signatory to the treaty known as the UN Charter, which prohibits invading another member nation, the war against Iraq is illegal.

As far as I can remember, no one is compelled to join the military. The Lt. raised his hand as a volunteer and signed up for the term of service. The right to choose which lawful orders to obey in the military not one of the choices afforded a service-member.

Recap:

1. War voted on by Congress.
2. Issued a lawful order by those appointed over him.
3. Missed a military movement.

The Lt. will be convicted and will spend time in the US Disciplinary Barracks at Ft. Leavenworth KS.

Jim S.

One must obey only lawful orders.

[Seahawk]

You are using the UN as a reference?

Wow.

[jmshepard]

Okay, not relevant, upon what do you base your assesment that the USG is shaken to its' core?

And it was a lawful order. Review the rules of Land Warfare and the Geneva Conventions. Ordered to report to a location is not an unlawful order.

Jim S.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by Seahawk
You are using the UN as a reference?

Wow.

Like it matters...the UN approved the Gulf War with Iraq.

[Rearden]

This is in the same league as Pat's messing himself over the secession convention. Really big news for moonbats who read the fringe blogs and get excited over meaningless events. To everybody else, BFD.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Seahawk
You are using the UN as a reference?

Wow.

Since it's a lawful treaty, why wouldn't I refer to it? See Article VI of the Constitution for the power of Treaties. It's what makes them so dangerous to American Sovereignty.

Nevertheless, the treaty is in force to prohibit attacks by one UN member upon another without meeting express provisions.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by jmshepard
Okay, not relevant, upon what do you base your assesment that the USG is shaken to its' core?

The fact, as the article illuminates, that the legality of the invasion of Iraq has been ruled out of order, the US government is fearful of that illegality being found in court. Otherwise, why bar it being raised?

And it was a lawful order. Review the rules of Land Warfare and the Geneva Conventions. Ordered to report to a location is not an unlawful order.

Jim S.

If the invasion violates US law, then the order to participate in the invasion is unlawful.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Rearden-Phaenicia sericata
This is in the same league as Pat's messing himself over the secession convention. Really big news for moonbats who read the fringe blogs and get excited over meaningless events. To everybody else, BFD.

Yeah, right.

[fastpat]

Update and background information on the Ehren Watada trial.

Backstory: Dissent of an officer
The first trial of a commissioned officer who refused to deploy to Iraq starts Monday.
By Dean Paton | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

BELLEVUE, WASH. - Carolyn Ho was at her apartment that overlooks Kaneohe Bay on the windward side of Oahu, on another enviable evening of silk-shirt temperatures, when the phone rang. It was New Year's Day 2006. Her son, Ehren, was calling from Fort Lewis, near Tacoma, Wash., where he was stationed as an artillery officer in the US Army.

She assumed he was calling to wish her a happy New Year. He had something else on his mind. He told her he was opposed to the war in Iraq and was going to refuse to deploy there. "I was surprised and pretty much went ballistic over it," recalls Ms. Ho. "I tried to talk him out of it."


Ehren Watada: Shown here at Fort Lewis, Wash., his case will test the bounds of officer dissent.

TED. S. WARREN/AP

Friday, 02/02/07



A week later, Ho – with the help of a Kahlil Gibran poem reminding her that we don't really own our children – changed her mind and has supported her son ever since. Proudly. Fiercely.

On Monday she will be doing it again as 1st Lt. Ehren Watada goes on trial in a military court as the nation's first commissioned officer to refuse deployment to Iraq.

It's a trial with significance beyond Lieutenant Watada. The case will provide a test of how far officers can go in resisting an order and how much they can criticize their superiors – notably the commander in chief. Over time, Watada came to believe that the Bush administration lied about the reasons for invading Iraq and concluded its actions were "illegal and immoral."

The Pentagon, however, argues that no soldier can pick and choose assignments, something that would undermine a core tenet of the military – the command structure. It also says that when people join the Army, they lose some of the free-speech rights of a civilian.

Thus Watada faces two charges of conduct unbecoming an officer, for his suggestion that President Bush "deceived" Americans, and one count of "missing movement." Two other charges were dropped. He could get a maximum sentence of four years in prison.

The trial comes at a time when the antiwar movement is gaining strength, which has added to its symbolic importance. Almost overnight, Watada has become a poster child for critics of the war – a sort of Cindy Sheehan in fatigues. He speaks at public rallies. His father addressed the antiwar protest in Washington D.C. last weekend.

Yet beneath it all lies the story of how a one-time Eagle Scout and model patriot came to be a war resister – one willing to suffer time in prison to prove the "generals, the Congress, and the president" are a "threat to the Constitution."

***

As a child growing up in Honolulu, Watada remembers "playing war. Who didn't? Who didn't watch 'G.I. Joe'?" His mother recalls "a reflective child. When I would take him to soccer practice he always listened intently to his coach; he wasn't horsing around like the other kids."

Young Watada was a two-sport athlete: soccer and football. He also rose to the top in the local Boy Scouts. "Some of that desire to be in the military came from that," he says – "the dedication to service, loyalty, morality."

In his early 20s, Watada delivered packages during the day while finishing school at night. Then terrorists struck in New York and Washington. "I always wanted to join the military – and, especially after 9/11, a lot of us wanted to do more," he says. "We had this call to duty."

Watada already had a strong military heritage in his family, which is of mixed origin: his mother is Chinese-American, his father Japanese-American. Both grandparents on his mother's side served in the US Army and were stationed in China. Two of his father's brothers enlisted as translators and interrogators in World War II. Another died in Korea, and a fourth later joined the US Marines. "We served when we were asked," Watada says. His father, Robert, took a different path. Ehren Watada says his father saw Vietnam as a "very racist war." So he joined the Peace Corps and went to South America.

When it came time for Watada to enlist, he was diagnosed with asthma and declared physically unfit. He paid $800 to have an outside test done and was accepted into the Army's college-option program. He completed basic training in June 2003, and went to Officer Candidate School in South Carolina. He emerged 14 weeks later as a 2nd lieutenant. "Nothing dissuaded me from wanting to be in the military, not even the war in Iraq," he says. "I believed in the war. I believed in the president. I believed there were weapons of mass destruction."

During a yearlong tour in Korea, he served under a commander who told his junior officers that if they didn't learn everything about their mission, they would be mediocre leaders – and fail those serving under them. The earnest Watada took this to heart in his own way. When he returned to Fort Lewis, he began researching Iraq. The exposé at Abu Ghraib prison fueled his doubts about the war. He read the report of the Iraq Survey Group, a team formed after the 2003 invasion to see if weapons of mass destruction existed. It found they didn't. He studied the United Nations Charter, the Nuremberg Principles, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Later, after concluding that Saddam Hussein had no ties to Al Qaeda, as the president had claimed, he became more disillusioned: "And I said, 'Wow – it's not bad intelligence; it's manipulative intelligence.' When you put it all together, I became convinced that what we're doing is illegal and immoral. I went into a short period of deep depression. I was so shocked. I felt betrayed."

In early 2006, after telling his family of his decision not to deploy, Watada went to see his commanding officer. "I was very nervous," he says. He offered to train his replacement. He offered to fight in Afghanistan instead of in Iraq. Both requests were denied. On June 5, 2006, he called a press conference to announce that he would not fight in a war he considered "illegal and immoral." Soon afterward, the Army took a step of its own – launching an investigation that resulted in the convening of a court-martial.

***

Watada looks trim and athletic, though not large. He has neatly cropped black hair and today is dressed in a gray sweater, blue jeans, and running shoes. He has just addressed a crowd of 60 people at a church here in Bellevue.

As his case has gained notoriety, and his trial neared, he has been speaking out about the war at public rallies and to the media. In a 90-minute interview at the church, he talks matter-of-factly about his possible court-martial and position at the vortex of a national debate.

Not surprisingly, he is both vilified and vaunted. Letters to the editor here have called Watada a coward and a traitor. Many members of his Fort Lewis unit were shocked and angered at his decision. "Soldiers can't just pick and choose which war they would like to fight or where they would like to deploy," says Joseph Piek, a civilian public information officer at the base.

His family has been engulfed in the controversy, too. His mother asked the Japanese American Citizens League (JACL) to back her son. One influential group – the storied 442 Infantry, an all-Japanese unit that served in World War II – was adamant: Watada is being unpatriotic. In the end, the JACL voted 7 to 5 to stand by him.

While his mother doesn't want to "dwell" on what might happen at the trial, Watada is prepared for the worst. His older brother, Lorin, has come here to help pack up his apartment.

"To me, it's a worthwhile sacrifice," Watada says over a buffet lunch. "I didn't enter into this cause because I thought I had a great case, especially in the military justice system."

He adds: "And I didn't want the people of the world to look back on America and say, 'Why didn't Americans stand up against this?' "