| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Mr. Watada Speaks... |
| 2007-02-08 |
| ...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 Watada’s "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 |
| #17 I'll shoot this bastard and save time and money. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2007-02-08 14:09 |
| #16 I remember in the 60s SDS types were trying to do the same type of thing by infiltrating in the military, though I do not remember them having much success. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2007-02-08 22:25 |
| #15 Watada is having his minutes of fame becuz he andor his Attys know he's gonna lose. The caselaws + UCMJ standards are very clear - that being said, in a few years another(s) will come along to challenge again. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-02-08 21:29 |
| #14 There is no legal requirement that the US restrain itself from a pre-emptive war. We've done it several times, including both the Grenada invasion and the Panama incursion during President Reagan's terms of office. This POS not only hasn't read the Constitution, he has little knowledge of US history. He deserves far more than he's going to get. Personally, I'd have him walking the rim of Kilauea from morning to night, policing up the new rocks, with a large ball attached to his ankle by a stout chain. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2007-02-08 20:59 |
| #13 Mrs. Ex-JAG, I love you! Kick ass. Have fun while you're at it. |
| Posted by: Whiskey Mike 2007-02-08 19:43 |
| #12 My pleasure. I've posted a detailed legal analysis over on the other thread. In summary: f*ck f*ckity f*ck f*ck f*ck. I was assigned to USAREUR until a few years ago. I loved defending my commanders, they were great guys. One of my favorite moments was with our XO, who was tough as nails, but scrupulously fair. He was in my office shortly before he was to testify, and it took me a few minutes to realize he was about to wet himself, he was so nervous. Mr. Hardcharger? I couldn't believe it. So impulsively, I squeezed his hand, and told him to just tell the truth. I'll never forget the way he smiled. He did great. And we won, of course. :) |
| Posted by: exJAG 2007-02-08 16:33 |
| #11 exJAG, Ma'am, my apologies - and thank you for the comments. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2007-02-08 16:16 |
| #10 Thanks TW, My Jag in the early 90's was just amazing! A wonderful woman and a pit viper Jag officer. She saved my keester a number of times during the don't ask dont tell, drawdown, oh the angst of Bosnia/Clinton times. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2007-02-08 15:52 |
| #9 exJAG is in Germany now, 49Pan. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-02-08 15:27 |
| #8 So ex Jag were you in Germany in the early 90's??? |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2007-02-08 15:17 |
| #7 I guess the Left is now in favor of military coups and opposes civillian control of the military. So when the M-1s roll onto the White House lawn and President Hillary Rodham is dragged from the Oval Office and strung up from a convenient tree on authority of the provisional council for her crimes against the people, they'll be cool with it, right? |
| Posted by: Mike 2007-02-08 15:16 |
| #6 I was fortunate enough to have the same Jag officer for two seperate commands, lucky PCS. "She" always protected me and never lost, even when she was 7 months pregnant and had to come in on her own time to help! Like I said, it has to be sedition cause he cant be that stupid! |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2007-02-08 15:16 |
| #5 Seems to me he is calling for for the Army (and other armed forces) to mutiny or desert when he says "If soldiers realized this war is contrary to what the Constitution extols – if they stood up and threw their weapons down". Even civilians can be charged with inciting mutiny or desertion. I haven't read the UCMJ lately, so I am not sure which article he could be charged under for these statements. I, too, would defer my retirement pay for an opportunity to sit on this POS's court martial. |
| Posted by: Rambler 2007-02-08 14:58 |
| #4 Okay, I'll bite, but remember you asked for it! :) Each crime listed in the UMCJ is defined by a list of elements -- usually three to six specific actions. Each of them must be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, to obtain a conviction. As a prosecutor, you most assuredly want to avoid charging crimes where you lack admissible evidence to prove each and every element. Because you fall short on any one element, you risk acquittal on the whole charge. The difficulty with many articles you cite would be proving his intent, his inner state of mind, at the time in question. It doesn't matter so much what the accused did, but what the government can prove, within a very restrictive set of rules. This is meant to protect the innocent, but it's very frustrating when you know the accused is a remorseless scumbag who'd do it again and again. Personally, my strategy would not be to nickel and dime this to death with stuff like fraudulent enlistment or conduct unbecoming, none of which carry a max punishment of more than a couple of years. Instead, I'd marshal every possible resource to document Watada's every move for the last four years, and go whole-hog on the one charge that truly captures the evil of his conduct: Art. 94, mutiny and sedition, which carries the death penalty, in peacetime or war. A mutiny/sedition case would be very unusual, take tremendous effort, and require backing from risk-averse colonels and generals who wouldn't want to do something shocking like fight back or rock the boat. But to me, our justice system is pointless, if we do not use it to stomp bottom-feeders like Watada, and let it be known all across the land, to never, ever, try this shit again. But then, I am exJAG (of the "ma'am" variety, btw). :) |
| Posted by: exJAG 2007-02-08 14:55 |
| #3 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. Mike, I agree 100% with your assessment. His talking points are too polished. |
| Posted by: Sea a few desks over 2007-02-08 14:22 |
| #2 I would happily defer my retirement if they give me a seat on his next CM board. This guy is either the dumbest college grad in America or he is a deliberate seditious plant into our military. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2007-02-08 14:19 |
#1
| |
| Posted by: wxjames 2007-02-08 14:09 |