|
Mr. Watada Speaks...
...After reading this I am now more convinced than ever that he joined the US Army with the specific intent of refusing to go to war. RTWT, for it is good. Let me post the most important bit:In his carefully worded talk, Watada challenges the legitimacy of civilian elected officials calling them "narrowly and questionably elected." Watada claims that Congress and the president did not have the legal power to authorize the use of force in Iraq saying: "neither Congress nor this administration has the authority to violate the prohibition against pre-emptive war." Watada implicitly questions the supremacy of the Constitution saying, "As strong as the Constitution is, it is not foolproof. It does not fully take into account the frailty of human nature." Borrowing the language of caudillos everywhere, Watada claims to be fighting "corruption." Watada claims to possess wisdom beyond that of the Founding Fathers arguing: "The founders of the Constitution could not have imagined how money would infect our political system." Watada claims to be acting after civilian leaders have failed saying: "We have all seen this war tear apart our country over the past three years. It seems as though nothing we've done, from vigils to protests to letters to Congress, have had any effect in persuading the powers that be. Tonight I will speak to you on my ideas for a change of strategy." What is Watadas "change of strategy"? Watada implicitly calls for the United States Armed Forces to impose its will on the elected civilian leadership of the nation saying, "If soldiers realized this war is contrary to what the Constitution extols if they stood up and threw their weapons down no president could ever initiate a war of choice again." Watada closes by calling on soldiers to stop "allowing" the U.S. government this liberty. "Those who called for war prior to the invasion compared diplomacy with Saddam to the compromises made with Hitler. I say, we compromise now by allowing a government that uses war as the first option instead of the last to act with impunity." exJag, assuming he did enlist with the intent of pulling something like this, would all of this not come under the purview of Articles 81, 83, 88, 90, 92, 94, 99, 104, 107, and 133? My God, I've never seen a list of possible charges like this, and I was on the recieving end once myself. Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2007-02-08 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=179884 |