Officer refuses to serve in Iraq

I disagree. He'll get off scott free.

The Army doesn't want malcontented cowards , even in the stockade.

 

I am going to look into his reasons for his actions. Certianly he is right to resign if he would otherwise be forced to commit war crimes as I would not doubt he would.

This is a very unGodly war and I wish we had never started it.

I really hope it ends before more of our soldiers die.
I hope it ends before any of my friends who are there die for sure!

 

I disagree with you both. The Army can't afford to start letting people out of their commitment just because they "disagree" with the war. He should be court-martialed and if found guilty face the punishment he has stated he is ready for. At least he is willing to face the punishment. Though I disagreed with Cassius's Clay's move he had the guts to pay the price.

And Dale-c, your statement about his avoiding being "forced to commit war crimes" is an insult to those serving there now. I have no problem with someone being opposed to the war, but such a statement is revolting.

 

He'll go to prison, that's for sure.

 

What a vile thing to say. I sure hope you have some experience in a war before you would say that.

 

I agree that he should be court marshaled.

Some people seem to think that joining the Army is a great way to spend a few years in uniform and see the world. Well guess what, once in a while you are expected to fight for your country too!

This looks more like a malcontent trying to make a political statement that he has no right to make while wearing that uniform. His oath is to uphold the constitution and the constitution says that George Bush is his commander-in-chief. That makes what he has done insubordination!

 

It's clear Mr. Watada has no idea what's in the Constitution, or he would not have made this ignorant statement.

 

Technically, he is correct - the last Declaration of War by Congress was in 1941. Any military engagements since then considered "wars" have been unconstitutional because Congress did not declare war (appropriating money is not the same thing as a declaration of war). As noted on another thread, that would include Korea and Viet Nam.

 

Yellow...

Yellow ! Yeellooww !! Yeeeeelllllllllloooooooowwwwwww!!!

Hiding behind the cloak of conscientous objection.
Give up the uniform, yellow !

 

Hey, please go back and read my post again. I did NOT form a definite opinion.
This is the first I have heard about this.
Let me say again: IF he was going to have to commit a war crime -ie commit murder against a civilian or something like that - then he was right to resist. I have no idea the actual facts. He may be a coward, I have no idea.
I believe deserters in a proper war should be shot.
But even at that, it is never right to murder, even if you are at war and are commanded to.
So, again, IF he was commanded to commit a war crime, then he was right to do what he has done.

How was that vile? Vile to want to here the whole thing before forming a complete opinion?
I do not know if he is right or not.
No, I have no military experience nor do I ever wnt to. That said, I am not opposed to war when it is a just war, which this one certainly is not, nor was vietnam etc.

I pray for our troops and wish they could come home..may be a while before we see that though.

 

So, Dale, you believe he may be ordered to commit murder?

 

I am saying I would like to know more about what he was ordered to do.
There were many officers in WWII that were ordered to kill people that shouldn't have been killed. Following orders was no excuse.
So, I am saying, if he would be forced to kill women and children and other civilians, then he is not only justified, but duty bound to take his stand.
I am not saying he is or is not, I am merely saying that we need to find out the whole truth, as much as we can, before we make judgement on the guy.

 

This guy has not been ordered to do anything - yet.
But he is already saying he will not follow orders.
The poster who said this guy is an insult to those already serving is right.
Soldiers are soldiers, they go where they're supposed to go, fight where they're supposed to fight, and if civilians get killed during the course of the war, sad, but it happens, and it's not necessarily murder.
His statement has sweepingly insinuated that US troops serving in Iraq are murderers.
The long and short of this is that officers like him likely get shot in the back in a frontal ambush.

 

During war, accidents happen. Stray bullets hit innocent targets. This is part of war and is excusable though tragic.
The INTENTIONAL killing of women and childeren is NOT,
Again, I just stated that I would have liked to have known more.

 

Oh puh leeeeeze!

 

Would you rather me blindly go along and never try to learn anything for myself?

 

I would rather you remove your inane "war crimes" comment all together or at least apologize for it since you have no basis in fact for making such a statement.

Then I might believe you are interested in the facts of the case. Not until.

 

He hasn't even been deployed in Iraq yet. How does he know he'll be ordered to commit war crimes? Besides, if he is ordered to commit a war crime, his duty is to disobey! He can't disobey an order that hasn't even been given!

He seems like one of those types who wants all of the benefits of the military with none of the cost.

 

I have not made any accusations about anyone committing war crimes, except that of Nazi germany perhaps in the one post.
I have nothing to apologize for.

I will say that in an unlawful and unBiblical war, war crimes are likely. Because of that, I do not readily write him off.
I also know better than to just believe him. He could just be a coward.
But at anyrate, give me one good reason to apologize for wanting to hear the whole matter before making a judgement?