Watada argues that similar to the Nuremberg trials, he does not want to committ what he interprets as an international crime simply because he "followed orders".
The Nuremberg trials disallowed this argument so how can we allow this argument now?
Is this a case of do as we say, not as we do??
2007-02-05 19:41:05 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Michelle Malkin as a source??!? That has got to be a joke!!!
2007-02-05 20:03:22 · update #1
GUILTY of performing his duty to serve and protect the U.S. Constitution.
2007-02-05 19:44:19 · answer #1 · answered by sirdoctorfine 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Innocent and the ones on trial should be everyone that still support the moronic war "Operation Iraqi Freedom" what happened to "Mission Accomplished" and "...Death Throes..."? I was in Department S-11 aboard the USS Lincoln CVN-72 in the 1990s when it was at Alameda Naval Air Station. I was the chef to the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Ship.
2007-02-06 03:48:08 · answer #2 · answered by Green Lizard 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The guy is protecting the Constitution. He refuses to risk his life for nothing. We had no business just barging into Iraq. I'm sure if it was the War on Terrorism and he was to be deployed elsewhere, he would do so. But not in Iraq, the president can't even get it through his head that his military strategies are s***. How would you feel if you joined the military to protect the values of the U.S. and then your government went and told you to risk your life somewhere we have no business being in the first place?
2007-02-06 03:47:29 · answer #3 · answered by Dick B 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Lt. Watada is a son of a Vietnam war protester. This is all a stunt. To speak and be heard. It will come back to bite him when he is serving time. People hold President Bush accountable for the war but what about all the Democrats that voted to go after seeing the same Intel as the President did. I would be pissed off at the CIA!
2007-02-06 03:55:09 · answer #4 · answered by HiphopAnonymous 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Watanda swore an oath to uphold the US Constitution and to obey all legal orders given to him.
In order for the 'unlawful order' defense to stand he has to be able to quote an existing 'on the books' law that the order violates. His political opinions do not matter.
2007-02-06 12:34:55 · answer #5 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋