I am very suspicious of Watada for a couple reasons. First, he joined the Army in 2003, after the so-called illegal war began. Second, he seems to love the attention he is getting. Instead of quietly refusing to go to Iraq, he is speaking up like an activist. I think it's possible he joined the Army with the intention of speaking up against the Iraq war.
2007-01-06 08:51:44 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
His parents even created an anti-war website.
http://www.thankyoult.org/
2007-01-06 08:53:11 · update #1
Everyone here can yell and scream all they want about MY opinion - but this "officer" was assigned to my son's unit.
My son went to Iraq in 2003 and served and this "coward" stayed in Washington state and went to lunch with peace demonstrators. This "coward" knew full well what the Stryker Brigade was all about. They were the first Stryker Brigade to be formed - they are the elite - they were hand picked from basic up. These men are back in Iraq for their second tour-- while Watada sits in his comfortable quarters in Washington State, goes to banquets and speaking engagements or is on leave visiting his family in Hawaii.
No one put a gun to this man's head and told him to join the Army and he can't make a case unless he swears to me - he can't read or understand the English langage. Military laws are drummed into every service member and officers even more.
Watada stated "It is the duty, the obligation of every soldier, and specifically the officers, to evaluate the legality, the truth behind every order — including the order to go to war."
This is wrong It is not the duty of every soldier to evaluate the legality of every order. It is the duty of every soldier is to follow all LAWFUL orders. Iraq is a LAWFUL war - as Congress authorized it as is the law of the United States.
This is Article 94 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice:1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;
2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;
3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.
(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court- martial may direct.
2007-01-06 09:23:50 · answer #1 · answered by Akkita 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes that definitely is a good theory. Being stationed at Fort Lewis and having some other insight into the situation, it seems that he does love the attention. It really is a hard situation but like the Stryker mother said, the Stryker Brigade is obviously infantry and expected to be on the front lines fighting the battle.
When I first heard about this story it was hard for me to decide where I stood. My husband deployed a week after Watada was supposed to and it didn't seem fair that my husband had to go for the second time while this Lt. was able to go to college on the Army's dime. In another sense, I can see how it might be good that attention is called to the fact that some troops don't feel they should be in Iraq in the first place. However, Watada doesn't have that first hand insight since he obviously never deployed. It will be interesting to see how everything plays out.
2007-01-07 03:58:36 · answer #2 · answered by MrsHooah 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He is not refusing to serve. He is not even refusing to serve in combat. He is refusing to serve in Iraq.
Why? because the reason he joined, the reason given for invading Iraq, was based on premeditated lies from the administration. He is correct. His "oath / contract" was obtained from him under criminally false statements and intents. He is doing the right thing morally and is willing to pay the price for calling out the administration for what it is. He is doing what the cowards in congress should have done, but didn't have the guts to do.
Frankly, I have no doubt he will be found guilty, but not because he deserves that, but because that's just the way things work. Being right legally and morally means nothing when you take on the military or government. I think his point will be made regardless, and he is indeed brave for not taking the easy way out.
2007-01-08 22:01:48 · answer #3 · answered by hel l 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I would say your theory is a strong possibility,he seems to be enjoying his 15 minutes of fame, or shame.
2007-01-06 16:54:05 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'll bet that is exactly why he joined. These activists will do anything to smear the Military.
2007-01-06 17:00:28 · answer #5 · answered by SGT. D 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Yes, I think that's exactly what happened. I'd be willing to bet on it.
2007-01-06 17:30:49 · answer #6 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋