How would YOU punish this "Contentious Objector" of the Iraq War?

Question

This anti-American jerk, Lieutenant Ehren Watada, is refusing to go to war because he claims it is an "illegal war". However, I am sure it has been pointed out to him that Congress voted for the war, but apparently facts can't get in his thick skull.

He is set to face up to six years in Prison, which, with parole, will probably be one at best. The soldiers "torturing" prisoners at Gitmo got more than that, if you can call putting underwear on someone's head torture. It's not like they cut someone's head off. Oh, that's right, the IRAQIS did that.

I mean, look at this dude. He just LOOKS like a pansy.
http://hotzone.yahoo.com/b/hotzone/blogs19056
They shouldn't have accepted him into the army anyway.

Back to my question. How would YOU punish this guy? I would say a public hanging, or firing squad. But I would prefer the public hanging, I think people need to see what happens to a traitor.

Answer 1

Unfortunately, this country doesn't seem to believe in such things as traitors anymore. So all he will probably get is a figurative slap on the wrist.
He eliminated is ability to be a conscientious objector when he enlisted in the military. A prison sentence for sure, and preferably in on maximum security prison. Most prisoners in this country have more respect for this nation than many of the pansies who are afraid to fight for freedom. Since our courts won't punish him any worse than a short loss of freedom the guys in there would help get the message across.
I really gets to me whenever I hear about US Citizens who believe that we shouldn't fight for freedom anywhere. Not even at home. Don't they know that Freedom is not FREE.

Answer 2

Article VI (2): This structure, and the regulations of the U. S. which will be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which will be made, below the Authority of the U. S., sticks out because the perfect regulation of the Land; and the Judges in each State would ascertain thereby, any ingredient contained in the structure or regulations of any state on the opposite regardless of the reality that. you probably did not consider that the UN did not exist in Adams, Jefferson's and Madison's time. let me comprehend in case you'll come across a unmarried treaty any of those large Presidents violated - I particular won't be able to locate one. remedy of preemption concepts and criteria is determined out below the commerce clause, it really is the superb source of preemptive authority. The nullity of an act, inconsistent with the structure, is produced by way of the assertion that the structure is the perfect regulation. the ideal software of that portion of the clause which confers an identical supremacy on regulations and treaties. In different words, Congress might want to have had to bypass a regulation specifically pointing out that the invasion of Iraq turned right into a sovereign concern which superceded the UN structure. because it really is, technically, the U. S. is in violation of the UN structure, for this reason has violated one among its international treaties, and for this reason is in breach of Constitutional and international regulation. in case you pick me to improve and commence bringing up ideal court docket precedents and judgements, i am going to experience free to oblige.

Answer 3

I think 6 years in Leavenworth is just fine. He should also pay any restitution for any benefits received while serving in our military. He should not have joined an organization who's primary business is war. If this was a war such as WWII, I would say just shoot the coward and be done with it. If he feels this strongly against America then after he serves his time we need to drop him off into the middle east somewhere. I'm sure he will find so much more justice there.

Answer 4

Give him a medal.

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.

Answer 5

Actually, it is a crime to be in the military as a contientious objector. When you join the military, that is one of the questions they ask you. If you answer yes, you will not be allowed in. If you say no, join the military, and then decide you are, you are in breach of your contract with the US government.

And, according to the way our Respresentative Republic works, if congress votes to allow the troops to stay in this conflict, or actually declares war, then it is a legal war. While it may not be agreed upon by citizens of this country, the elected officials representing them pass the laws, policies, and rules governing this country and the military.

You may not agree with abortion, but your representative can vote either way on the issue, and you are bound by the vote he casts.

Answer 6

This individual may not believe in the war, however, he signed up for military duty and is not to question what is handed down by his superiors. In refusing to follow orders, he will be court martialed and receive a dishonorable discharge. He will not be eligible to receive a pension from his service days, receive a VA loan, or any other benefits that military personal enjoy.

Furthermore, if he is so against the US, then what I would personally perceive as justice for his disgrace would be to renounce his citizenship and force him to live in Iraq. Never allowing him to enter into the US again.

Answer 7

I would just max out his sentence. If he were anyone else that was not an officer nor someone that drew the media attention I wouldn't be so harsh.

The dishonorable discharge is going to haunt him for the rest of his life. He will never get a government job. He will never get any job of "trust". He will lose a ton of rights, between that and a felony conviction.

Answer 8

When they sign on the dotted line, that doesn't give them the right to decide what is and what is not a "legal war".

After his public humiliation before his peers, I think he should be subject to duty that involves some crap work in some other hellhole like Djabouti (sp?) for a full tour, then community service in a military housing area on post somewhere that he can be ridiculed on a regular basis.

Answer 9

It was established at the Anderson-ville trial, again at Nuremberg, and again in the 70's with the Calley trial, that a member of the armed forces is answerable first of all to his own conscience. By your logic the people who ran the Death Camps in Germany during WW2 did nothing wrong since they had been given orders. This man made his decision, stood by it, and is accepting the consequences. Though I disagree with him, I respect his actions.

Answer 10

if this was an enlisted soldier i would say 4 years in prison 2 years after his ets date. but, he is an officer.for him to openly say it is an illegal war or anything to that extent is an article 88 under UCMJ. he should be locked up for 8-10 years. how is a soldier suppose to fight when the leadership does sh!t like that.