Warren Watada : Courrageous sence of Honor or...useless dangerous action ?

Question

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1982934,00.html

This guy deserves our respect for his courageaous sence of honnor.
Risking serious sanctions to bring to light the question of U.S legality action, in irak
But is his awakening could be usefull for U.S (and "us" too )in the future ?

Answer 1

Courageous. Regardless whether or not we agree with Iraq, I believe it is important for soldiers to refuse orders they feel are illegal. If we attempt to come down on Lt. Watada for doing so then we are fostering an army similar to what the Nazis had with all the soldiers committing horrific acts and later defending themselves with the famous saying: " I was just following orders!"

We need to allow soldiers to stand up against what is illegal or highly immoral.

I, of course, understand that we can not have an army that decides for themselves what wars they want to fight, however In this case Lt. Watada is correct and we should all applaud his professionalism in reminding all of us that we are a country of morals and values that will avoid the pitfalls that other countries fell into such as North Korea, Nazi Germany, and Italy under Mussolini.

We need to take a step back and see what the real issue is and not attack someone that we on the surface we believe has different opinions then us.

I a curious what someone who would disagree with me do, as a soldier, if they knew an order they received was both illegal and highly immoral. If they would answer something like: "I would do it no matter what!" then you are just a 21st century Nazi in training. The armed forces do not want mindless officers.

Answer 2

I doubt that many will understand this brcause it is one of those things that if you haven't done it you cannot grok (know it fully) it. When one raises his/her hand and accepts a commission as an officer in the US Army you take an oath that 'de facto' commits you to 'protect the Constitution' which requires executing lawful orders as given you by superiors whether you agree with them or not. The war is lawful, initially promulgated by the President and almost unanamously approved by Congress. So, he should have gone as he was ordered. I don't understand why he isn't on trial for a more serious offense, Disobeying a Direct Order. When a 'movement' is planned you receive a written direct order with dtaes and other rewuirements for executing the movement properly. In a sense he is very lucky to be facing charges that will only result in a maximum of 4 years in jail (and officers sometimes get 'confined to quarters in stead.
Although I have wanted our forces out for over 3 years, predicted the civil war then and pointed out that we could not keep the peace in Iraq after our military victory, I 'know' that he should have gone. I would have. I did once before. Being a 'gentleman' carries with it the responsibility of doing what is deemed best for the entire group and individuals cannot be certain that their opinion is better than all the others. No army can afford to allow its rank and file to let their opinions dictate how they execute any orders.
That said, I do think the Army would be better served by simply giving people like this a General Discharge for the good of the service and forgetting about it.

Answer 3

His awakening will soon Wake Up the Whole World. Get Ready.