http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250549,00.html
Come on Military and Ex-Military... Sound off!
2007-02-07 02:00:36 · 16 answers · asked by Amer-I-Can 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Dennis,
Former military here, Navy, 8 years active...
I'll use quotes from the article you posted...
Gibson: "Lt. Watada sounds as though he comes from a family of conscientious objectors or close."
NAPOLITANO: Yes, he does. Bob...
GIBSON: Is there any hint that he joined the Army in order to make this case?
NAPOLITANO: I know of no reason why he joined the Army other than the statements made by his father. I also know that his father was excluded from the draft at his own request during the Vietnam years, the gentleman you just had on, and was permitted to serve honorably in the Peace Corps and went on to be a public official in the state of Hawaii.
MY COMMENTS:
So...they wanted to USE the U.S. Army as their "soapbox"? Shame on BOTH of them!
What will happen to the "Lieutenant" (in quotations...he doesn't deserve to stand trial in uniform, far as I'm concerned)?
I think what's already said has been appropriate:
GIBSON: The soldier says, "No." Is this disobedience legal?
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO: The disobedience is not legal. And under the law his view that the war is unlawful is not a valid defense, so the court will not even allow him to argue to this jury, this court martial that the law was illegal.
Look, it's a volunteer Army. He was not drafted, obviously. He joined on his own. He joined after 9/11. He is presumed to know what he is getting involved in. The flip side of this is the government could never have a military if individual members of the military were able to opt out of specific missions because they disagreed with them.
He has three charges pending against him. The most serious is refusal to move with his unit. That is, the refusal actually to get on the plane and go to Iraq. The other two counts are conduct unbecoming of an officer. Those are statements he made out of uniform and off the military premises but, nevertheless, using such language that it could be construed by other members of the military that he was encouraging them to drop their arms and not to fight.
MY COMMENT:
I hope they prepare a nice cold hole for him in Ft. Leavenworth.
2007-02-07 02:21:05 · answer #1 · answered by Wolfsburgh 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Double jeopardy does no longer prepare even as there's a mistrial. If he were acquitted he might want to no longer be tried again for an analogous offense in civilian courts. that couldn't prepare to defense force courts. it isn't as a lot as me to have an opinion about his guilt or innocence. it really is a count of defense force regulation, no longer civilian opinion.
2016-11-25 23:28:07 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When you raise your hand and say that oath, you swear to obey all lawful orders. Like it or not, Iraq deployment is not unlawful. You might not agree with it but it's legal for the army to send you there.
So while I might intellectually understand Lt. Watada's reasons, he swore an oath and a man is only as good as his word. Guilty.
2007-02-07 02:13:53 · answer #3 · answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
A soldier must follow orders. He accepted benefits of the military without considering that there is an obligation to pay for these.
2007-02-07 02:08:57 · answer #4 · answered by Chief BaggageSmasher 7 · 7⤊ 3⤋
He didn't deploy an entire unit. I would have no problem if he claimed to be a conscienscious objector, but the people in his unit might not have a problem with going to Iraq.
2007-02-07 02:04:31 · answer #5 · answered by Tuco 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
He should be tried for mutiny and treason. What kind of military would we have if we left it up to our soldiers to decide which wars they would fight in?
And Sean Penn is a liar when he said that Watada and all other soldiers took an oath to defend international law. The US soldiers take an oath to defend our boarders and our constitution, not the UN
2007-02-07 02:14:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 4⤋
There is no question about it. He's guilty. You don't get to pick and choose what war you want to fight in. You follow orders. Plain and simple. He violated the UCMJ, and should be convicted of it.
2007-02-07 02:25:53 · answer #7 · answered by Mutt 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
I hope many young single lib women up there in Washington are bobbing his uncle in support.
2007-02-07 02:33:04 · answer #8 · answered by Monkey Boy 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
He was given a direct order and he disobeyed. I heard that he was sentenced to 4 years and I hope he gets to serve every minute of that time.
2007-02-07 02:10:03 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
He did the right thing... This war is pointless and has nothing to do with America's ineterests. Hope he will get an easy sentence, but I suspect they will make him a scapegoat.
2007-02-07 02:17:33 · answer #10 · answered by Rona9 2 · 3⤊ 5⤋