Japanese-American is first officer to refuse to go to Iraq

[Sukotto]

Ehren Watada (1978 –) is a First Lieutenant in the United States Army, a member of the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division Stryker Brigade Combat Team, who in June 2006 publicly refused to deploy to Iraq for the Iraq War


Watada, who is Japanese-American, is the first commissioned officer
to refuse to go to Iraq. There have been numerous enlisted women & men to refuse deployment,
but Watada is the first Commissioned Officer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehren_Watada


According to Watada, based on his research he determined that the war was illegal, violating the Constitution and War Powers Act which "limits the president in his role as Commander in Chief from using the armed forces in any way he sees fit," as well as the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and the Nuremberg Principles, which "bar wars of aggression." Further, he asserted that the war was based on misleading or false premises such as the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, and that the occupation itself does not follow the Army's own legal rules of conduct for occupying a country. For all of these reasons, claims Watada, he cannot morally participate in the War."


Watada has said he is not a conscientious objector because he is not opposed to war as a principle, only the war in Iraq, and so offered to serve in Afghanistan. The army refused.


the US Army leveled a number of charges against him:
* conduct unbecoming an officer
* missing movement
* contempt toward officials (in this case, President Bush)

Here is a sight for support
Thank you Lt Watada (http://www.thankyoult.org/)

[DoctorP]

Little late on this story aren't you?

C.O. is not a correct abbreviation for this man. Please type out commissioned officer. C.O. would refer to Commanding Officer of which he is not.

[Sukotto]

Oops sorry. I clarified it. Thank you for the information.
I was actually concerned people might confuse C.O. with "conscientious objector".

When I first heard of this I was not able to get to a computer for three months. But the war is still going on, so i do not believe it is dated.
(I could post about the "65 Active Duty Soldiers Call for End of Iraq Occupation" (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/24/1412238), but that, to my knowledge, has no Japan connection)


I was actually wondering about the 3rd charge in that list. Watada must have said something that was not posted on the wikipedia article (at the time of this post) to get that charge.
Cause what's posted there so far...,
refering to the war being illegal or not adhering to the (constitutionally questionable my input) War Powers Act, if they are refering to that spoken belief alone as 'contempt toward officials', I think rather they are trying to develop fascism. Military personal take an oath to defend the constitution and actually have a legal obligation to refuse illegal orders. Not just 'follow orders'.
There is nothing posted in the wiki article that is 'contempt toward officials'.

[RockLee]

At least ONE sane person. Everybody with at least half a brain should've realized by now that Bush just seeks excuses for his own little private war. Pah!

[Mike Cash]

At least ONE sane person. Everybody with at least half a brain should've realized by now that Bush just seeks excuses for his own little private war. Pah!

I find your opinion just as offensive as the opinion of mine you deleted. I, however, lack God power here.

I'll rephrase it:

I believe he should receive the most severe penalty reserved for those who commit treason and/or show cowardice or desert in times of war.

[RockLee]

That's the typical response i would expect from somebody like you, a true American "patriot". If you're the proud American you claim to be, why don't YOU go to Iraq? I think he has a good right to NOT get being shot in Iraq. For starters this was a war Bush set up to justify his own little crusade against war on terrorism. A meaningless fight for his own selfish ass. Weapons of mass destruction, haven't seen any of those, did you?

[Mike Cash]

That's the typical double standard regarding tone of posts I have come to expect.

You can mouth off like that; I'd get another "infraction" or banned if I replied in the same tone in which you wrote that reply.

[Glenn]

I believe he should receive the most severe penalty reserved for those who commit treason and/or show cowardice or desert in times of war.

I don't think it's either treason or cowardice because he did offer to go to Afghanistan; he just didn't want to go to Iraq.

[Mike Cash]

I don't think it's either treason or cowardice because he did offer to go to Afghanistan; he just didn't want to go to Iraq.

I didn't say it was treason or cowardice.

Nor did I say anything that RockLee could possibly have used as a basis for the assumptions he makes about my opinions. Assumptions which probably were a larger cause for his issuing me an "infraction" than anything I actually said.

[Glenn]

Oh, I thought you were saying you thought he committed treason and cowardice, not merely that he should be given the penalty given to those who do (which I guess you already know).

By the way, would you care to give the reasons for your opinion?

[Mike Cash]

Oh, I thought you were saying you thought he committed treason and cowardice, not merely that he should be given the penalty given to those who do (which I guess you already know).

By the way, would you care to give the reasons for your opinion?

I can't. I'll get banned for having an Incorrect Thought.

(Does RockLee get an "infraction" for his unwarranted abusive tone to me? If not, why not?)

[RockLee]

I gave you an infraction because you said "He should be put to a wall and be shot". I should ban you for even saying such things, I was holding back, next time I won't.

[Mike Cash]

I gave you an infraction because you said "He should be put to a wall and be shot". I should ban you for even saying such things, I was holding back, next time I won't.

I had forgotten how draconian and hot-headed the Belgian Thought Police can be.

Maybe you should be banned for being a hot-head and making an abusive post stemming from your baseless assumptions.

Let's take a look at it:


That's the typical response i would expect from somebody like you, a true American "patriot".

Where did that come from?


If you're the proud American you claim to be,

And what statement of mine supports that assertion?

why don't YOU go to Iraq?

I'm an honorably discharged veteran of the United States Navy. I took my turn standing on the bullseye.

I think he has a good right to NOT get being shot in Iraq.
You obviously don't understand what volunteering one's self for an obligation in the United States military entails. He has no such right. Whether he should have such a right is a matter of opinion and one which I will not discuss with you pro or con.


For starters this was a war Bush set up to justify his own little crusade against war on terrorism. A meaningless fight for his own selfish ass. Weapons of mass destruction, haven't seen any of those, did you?
WMD is entirely irrelevant, both to the war in Iraq and, pay attention now...I'll type slowly so you can keep up with this..., to my opinion of what ought to be done with the man.

I'll repeat it:

My opinion that, as you yourself saw fit to put back in the public eye, that he ought to be stood up against a wall and shot, has nothing to do with Iraq or WMD.

Why were you so quick to leap to the assumption that it did?

[pharaoh21]

Being charged is better than being bombed by insurgents....even though it means of having a chance to be excuted. Die in a less painful way.

[RockLee]

I had forgotten how draconian and hot-headed the Belgian Thought Police can be.
Maybe you should be banned for being a hot-head and making an abusive post stemming from your baseless assumptions.I forgot some Americans THINK they have the right to say anything they want. I didn't hurt your feelings did I?

I'm an honorably discharged veteran of the United States Navy. I took my turn standing on the bullseye.
You obviously don't understand what volunteering one's self for an obligation in the United States military entails. He has no such right.

Patriotism: Patriotism has connotations of self-sacrifice, implying that the individual should place the interests of the nation, and common good of its political community, above their personal and group interests. In wartime,the sacrifice may extend to their own life. In this context, patriotism is seen as an explanation for the apparent suspension of the instinct for self-preservation, which implies that no-one would voluntarily serve in a wartime army.

I've put it bold letters, maybe you can't read well what I write. Btw, tell your nice little story to the people who lost their son or daughter because of this BS war. I doubt they'd give you a second look.

WMD is entirely irrelevant, both to the war in Iraq and, pay attention now...I'll type slowly so you can keep up with this..., to my opinion of what ought to be done with the man.
I'll repeat it:
My opinion that, as you yourself saw fit to put back in the public eye, that he ought to be stood up against a wall and shot, has nothing to do with Iraq or WMD.
Why were you so quick to leap to the assumption that it did?
Just a guess, but maybe the title did? "...first officer to refuse to go to Iraq"
Making stupid remarks of what you think should happen and such a crude way is irrelevant, that's why I removed your post in the first place.

[Mike Cash]

Screw this place. It isn't worth the effort anymore.

[DoctorP]

I think everyone forgets that the man signed up with the Army, not the boy scouts. He should go where they send him...even if it is an administrative role or support role.

Did no one notice that he joined the Army AFTER the war with Iraq began? He knew he would wind up there!

Scott, the third charge was made due to the statements he made concerning the legality of the war and other statements made towards Bush in general.

[nice gaijin]

This thread has turned into something absolutely ridiculous; I don't think the fact that he is nikkei has any influence over the situation, and is just an excuse to post it here on the boards. Intentional or accidental, this thread is 100% flamebait.

[Pachipro]

My opinion that, as you yourself saw fit to put back in the public eye, that he ought to be stood up against a wall and shot, has nothing to do with Iraq or WMD.


Making stupid remarks of what you think should happen and such a crude way is irrelevant, that's why I removed your post in the first place.
I do not agree with Bush's war either, but I didn't know freedom of speech or voicing ones opinion was so restricted here especially when that "crude" remark is based on fact and is one's opinion based on that fact! I think people of other countries outside the US should understand the procedures in the US military before jumping to conclusions.

If I am not mistaken, as I was in the military myself, Mike Cash is correct in what he said as I was also told while in the Army, and it was on the books, that one could be executed in time of war for refusing a direct order and/or deserting one's unit in the face of the enemy. And what did that execution entail? Being placed up against a wall and shot by a firing squad of 5 or 6 men of which only one or two had live ammo so no one would feel guilty that he shot dead his fellow soldier. Some agreed with it while others did not. Either way, like it or not, it was on the books!

Therefore Mike was stating an opinion, and agreeing with a regulation based on standard procedure for the US military! Whether that regulation is still on the books with the Iraqi war I don't know, but it just may still be the standard procedure in time of war although it may be difficult to carry out these days!

I think, therefore, before you jump to conclusions about someone's "crude" remark and delete it, you should ask for clarification of something that may be an actual fact or research it yourself. Stating one's opinion based on a fact should never be grounds for a removal of a post or remarks. Just because you disagree with it and think it "crude" doesn't mean everyone does. Are the mods and admins now thinking for all members?

I for one see nothing wrong with Mike's opinion, as much as I might disagree with it, as I was told that's exactly what could happen to you if you refused orders in time of war, showed cowardice, or deserted in the face of the enemy. If you disagree with it you should say so but not censure the man for his opinion!

I think you owe Mike an apology.

For such a great site I am getting extremely concerned about the inability of one to voice one's opinion that does not agree with the admins and mods in here. It is becoming very disconcerting and it is just not right. Are we now to be censored for stating a fact and agreeing with it?

It should also be stated in the rules of JREF that "This is NOT a free speech zone! Anyone who posts an opinion that the mods or admins do not agree with will have that post deleted, be banned, or both - even if said opinion is based on fact and written without malice." If this is the way it's going to be then put it in the rules as stated above. Put it in writing! Then we'll all know to tread lightly when having a debate or avoid the post altogether lest we get censored/banned.

Then we can have one happy little community all drinking from the same kool-aid container and not disagreeing with each other. But you can count me out.

Lord knows some mighty fine debaters and opinion posters have already left JREF or have much curtailed their opinions and such on matters that irk the admins and mods and Mike Cash seems to be the latest.

We may not all agree with Mike, but you can't deny that he was honest and forthright in eveything he said even if he got under the skin of some thin-skinned people and maybe misunderstood the humor of some posters. I for one looked forward to reading his posts and words of "cash wisdom".

This place seems to be getting more and more like the US and, it seems, Europe, where kids' games like dodgeball, tag, etc are now no longer allowed lest someone gets their feelings hurt by being tagged "it" or, heaven forbid, hit with a soft rubber ball. It might ruin their self esteem or hurt their feelings.

As I stated above, I still think you owe Mike an apology and should own up to your own ignorance of US Military Law that many agree with (both in the US and overseas), and many countries also enforce for their own armed forces, whether you agree with it or not. An opinion is an opinion is an opinion and, like buttholes, everyone has one. Plain and simple. Is that now to be taken away? If so, then it's already too late and this world is changed forever.

Anyone disagree with me?

Intentional or accidental, this thread is 100% flamebait.
You may be correct, but it did bring to the forefront, again, the censorship that goes on here if the "gods" who have the power to ban and delete, do not agree with a simple opinion.

I stayed out of the last debacle concerning censorship that forced many fine people out, but this is really getting riduclous and I must say something! My opinion.

[Pachipro]

I think everyone forgets that the man signed up with the Army, not the boy scouts. He should go where they send him...even if it is an administrative role or support role.


You are quite correct and I do not disagree with you. But Mike's post being censored for stating an opinion? Not right.

[DoctorP]

This thread has turned into something absolutely ridiculous; I don't think the fact that he is nikkei has any influence over the situation, and is just an excuse to post it here on the boards. Intentional or accidental, this thread is 100% flamebait.


Quite true, most of Scott's posts are such. However, it is a valid topic, and obviously one that some people are going to enjoy discussing, so I hope that the thread remains and the hateful remarks stop flying. (from mods as well as others)

[sabro]

I have never supported this war in Iraq. But it is not the soldier's job to determine the legality or worthiness of the conflict. To allow soldiers to do this, especially in time of war, would erode the good order of the military. I know a few people in this position and they knew what they were signing when they joined. I can see Mike Cash's assertion- anyone with military experience knows that something like this could cost lives. Lining up those that threaten military order against a wall and shooting them is a long accepted practice during times of war. The US never actually does this, but the point was valid.

Finish your tour and then protest like hell. Vets against the war have a whole lot more credibility than most of the rest of us.

Mikecash - Smile, happy happy joy joy! Dissent is not tolerated! You should never disagree with administration or moderators. Opinions that differ substantially from theirs should never be spoken here. As I was told, we are merely guests here, staying at their pleasure. They are perfect and shiny examples of humanity. Post will be deleted. Penalties assessed. And strange things may happen before you are banned. We love you. Do not offend those in power. So smile big and play the happy game.

I certainly hope Mike Cash is not leaving over this.

[RockLee]

I think, therefore, before you jump to conclusions about someone's "crude" remark and delete it, you should ask for clarification of something that may be an actual fact or research it yourself. Stating one's opinion based on a fact should never be grounds for a removal of a post or remarks. Just because you disagree with it and think it "crude" doesn't mean everyone does. Are the mods and admins now thinking for all members?
Your whole rant doesn't make up for Mike's rude remark. Free speech or not, saying such a thing is totally unappropriate. If you have such an opinion, keep it to yourself!

Also, you suggest I should ask spammers and that Korean troll spamming decapitated Japanese if I could delete his posts? Maybe somebody agrees with it :mad: Give me a break! I have the right to give mine opinion too, and I think his post was unappropriate, therefor I deleted it. Simple as that ;-)

KEEP YOUR POSTS (FAMILY-)FRIENDLY
Please avoid explicit, obscene or vulgar language, graphics or behavior. Forum posts that contain explicit, obscene or vulgar language will be removed. We do not allow links to web sites with adult, hateful or other inappropriate content as well as sites that offer pirated software ("warez").

Btw, I checked and currently it seems that the highest punishment somebody can get is :

Maximum Permissible Punishments: These are the *maximum* punishments that a general court martial can award toward a particular offense. While not specifically stated, a general court martial can also reduce a person's grade. Most general court martials reduce the convicted person's grade to the lowest enlisted rank (E-1) when punishment includes time in prison and/or a punitive discharge.

[ArmandV]

I find your opinion just as offensive as the opinion of mine you deleted. I, however, lack God power here.
I'll rephrase it:
I believe he should receive the most severe penalty reserved for those who commit treason and/or show cowardice or desert in times of war.

I am 100% in agreement, Mike. The guy enlisted, he was not drafted.

Where would we be if every G.I. Joe would be allowed to pick and choose where he's to be sent?

If G.I.s were allowed to pick and choose where they were sent during World War II, some of these "Belgian wafflers" would still be under Nazi rule.

[RockLee]

I agree with Mike in that way they should be punished, but not being shot. That's something primitive people would do.

Ha! "Belgian Wafflers", that's a new one! :D

Look, I have no problem with them getting punished, but "being put to the wall and get shot" is something barbaric, life-degenerating and not suited for this forum!

I'm gonna end my discussion here, as CC1 pointed out, this is going nowhere and is not ontopic.

[ArmandV]

I agree with Mike in that way they should be punished, but not being shot. That's something primitive people would do.
Ha! "Belgian Wafflers", that's a new one! :D
Look, I have no problem with them getting punished, but "being put to the wall and get shot" is something barbaric, life-degenerating and not suited for this forum!
I'm gonna end my discussion here, as CC1 pointed out, this is going nowhere and is not ontopic.

I think the context of "shooting" the subject is that deserters would be shot if found. I don't think that practice is exercised these days.

Glad you liked the waffler comment. It was meant partially in jest.

[DoctorP]

One last note (we all made this mistake)... He did not enlist, he received a commission in the US Army. There is a difference.

[ArmandV]

One last note (we all made this mistake)... He did not enlist, he received a commission in the US Army. There is a difference.

Since there's no draft, he had to have signed up to even get a commission, eh?

[DoctorP]

True, but receiving a commission is not the same as enlisting. In receiving a commission, extra trust has been put in him.

[Ma Cherie]

You know, I don't think any of us will truly understand why there are people who chose to go to Iraq. I had a close relative of mine who went to Iraq, he's back now thankfully, but I will never understand why he chose to go. And I would like ask the members of this forum (non-Americans in particular) to please try to be careful what is said in regards to issues of Iraq and going to war. Especially when we're talking about the soldiers, because there is a chance that the Americans who are on this forum know someone who have been deployed into Iraq, and there is a chance that the person is close them. So, I'm just asking to please take that into consideration.
But let's not go have this go off topic, okay folks? :-)

[Mycernius]

They are perfect and shiny examples of humanity. Post will be deleted. Penalties assessed. And strange things may happen before you are banned. We love you. Do not offend those in power. So smile big and play the happy game.

I certainly hope Mike Cash is not leaving over this.
I have never been refered to as shining example of perfect humanity before. I'm a shining wit:mad: Mind you I sometimes object to being associated with the human race. Oh hum

Ontopic: The officer in question should be charged and dealt with. As far as I am concerned you join the armed forces and go where they send you. Essentially you are a tool of your government, whether you like it or not, and are there to do their bidding, unless you feel you can do better and lead a coup. Now that would be interesting to see in the US.:relief:
Now that can be for the good of the country or to defend against aggressors and in most cases it is an honourable course, but when the army is run by a political body at the top it can also be used to further their own private course, especailly whentop military brass are also involved with this discission to further their own wallets *cough* (did I say that?)
Call me a cynic (Cynic!), but even though you might or might not know what reasons why you have been sent to war, you still have that job to do. If I went to work on day and told that instead of my normal run to Nottingham I was going to spend two days going to Scotland instead, I would complain, but it is still my job. I'm sure my employer would not be too amused if I told him to stick it and refused to go. One would think that I would either have a warning for it or be picking up my P45 and the end of the day (A P45 is a slip of paper given to you when you leave or are sacked in the UK with tax details on it). This officer should be dealt with the same. I'm sure in some countries he would have been shot for doing such a thing, and if it was about 40-50 years ago he would have been, and I feel Mikes response was more a figure of speech, plus he speaks his mind, which I find refreshing, and he is very much a cynic.
Actually this reminds me of when the Iraq war started and some GI said that he didn't want to go because he could be hurt. What else do you expect when you join the army, dickhead? Getting hurt, shot at and even killed is a risk with that job, that's one reason I wouldn't join the armed forces. I have a severe lead allergy. So my heart does not bleed for this officer. Tough, it is your job. You can ***** and moan, but do it, everybody else has to.

You know, I don't think any of us will truly understand why there are people who chose to go to Iraq. I had a close relative of mine who went to Iraq, he's back now thankfully, but I will never understand why he chose to go. And I would like ask the members of this forum (non-Americans in particular) to please try to be careful what is said in regards to issues of Iraq and going to war. Especially when we're talking about the soldiers, because there is a chance that the Americans who are on this forum know someone who have been deployed into Iraq, and there is a chance that the person is close them. So, I'm just asking to please take that into consideration.
But let's not go have this go off topic, okay folks? :-)
Also remember there are not just Americans there.

[DoctorP]

Actually this reminds me of when the Iraq war started and some GI said that he didn't want to go because he could be hurt. What else do you expect when you join the army, dickhead? Getting hurt, shot at and even killed is a risk with that job, that's one reason I wouldn't join the armed forces.


Thank you for such wonderful wording!

I love the ones who joined the military strictly to pay for college...then want out because there is a conflict somewhere or a war!

[DoctorP]

To clear up one of Mike's posts. If you are found guilty of desertion during time of war, (essentially what this man did although not charged with desertion) you may receive the following punishments:

Maximum punishment.

(1) Completed or attempted desertion with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years.

(2) Other cases of completed or attempted desertion.


(a) Terminated by apprehension. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 3 years.

(b) Terminated otherwise. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years.

(3) In time of war. Death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.


Death in this case would most likely be firing squad, although the last firing squad I know of was 1961. It is not the first choice of penalties in the present day military.

[leonmarino]

I am late to this discussion but what the heck: I think Mike can say whatever he wants: I am in favor of free speech. A limit may be put in place to try to limit personal insults, but if Mike or whoever thinks that Mr. This and That must be shot, sure. This is a discussion forum isn't it?

So remarks like "you American patriot" and "Belgian waffles" are a little out of place if you ask me. :relief:

Anyways, back to the topic. Now some of you might think I am anti-American because I am critical of the US, in the same way that I am critical of Europe and Japan or other country, but here's my opinion:

I haven't been in the army so I don't have the sentimental bonding some of you have, but to me it sounds weird that as a soldier you must go wherever they send you to. I do admit that if you start "whining" that it is too dangerous or whatever, you're not fit for the army. But let us take a very different perspective: what if some Japanese soldier during WWII was against the war and refused to go? Or if a Nazi-jugend realised the war wasn't according to his values? Are they then the same cowards you portray Mr. Watada to be? I think not. That's because the historical lessons have taught us that "they" were bad and "we" were good. It is just a matter of perspectives.

I mean, what if the war in Iraq is "officially" declared as illegal by politicians and historical scientists years from now? What if our childeren will read in our book that Mr. Bush did make a mistake and that war should never have happened? Then Mr. Watabe would be considered a man with values, not afraid to voice his opinions, a true hero.

To clear it up again: I am not engaging in US-bashing, this same line of thought could be applied for any other soldier from any country, for any other war. I am in no way implying that the current US administration is the same as the nazi and imperial regimes of the axis during WWII.

To put it perspective and "bad-mouth" Europe too: in this case, if the future generation will judge the war in Iraq as illegal, our childeren will also read that the rest of the world didn't stand up to it too. Joining a false war might even be worse than starting one.

[ArmandV]

Had any Japanese or German soldier refused to serve in their respective countries' army, then they would be subject to the stiffest penalties (or death) under those countries' laws. And rightly so. While they may have some justification for a refusal due to the fascist nature of those governments, if they desert during a time of war they should face the consequences (just don't get caught).

While it is fashionable to bash George Bush for Iraq, keep in mind that a vote was held in Congress authorizing it. Those who voted to authorize the war are just as culpable as Bush. Claims of beind duped is nothing but B.S.

[leonmarino]

While it is fashionable to bash George Bush for Iraq, keep in mind that a vote was held in Congress authorizing it. Those who voted to authorize the war are just as culpable as Bush. Claims of beind duped is nothing but B.S.I hope you're not implying that I engaged in Bush-bashing with my last post.

[sabro]

...a good reason to vote all the incumbents out of office.

Goodbye Mike Cash! You will be missed. The comments of a patriotic and conservative American were too much to handle.

I'm not sure how the post that was deleted was vulgar or obscene. It seems rather pedestrian to say that a soldier deserting in a time of war should be shot. I'm certain that deleting it and driving away a long time user is entirely justified, and the insults slung in his direction are driven by the purest motives.

[retrodisease]

i, to this day struggle with calling myself an american. i encounter new opinions everyday about the war.this may be a bit off of the topic but i will stray back.
at first i had none. then i had a fierce hatred for it, not anyone in particular though. i saw no reason to shot myself down along with whole nations because of miniscuel prejudices.
thus, i feel as if it were a child and cat game.
the child plays with the cat with glee. the cat responds hesitantly then smells the child, then decides if it is worth going after. then the child does something to scare the cat, the cat is angry now and does not want the childs hand on it's back. the child does it anyway, then finally, after a long struggle to get away from the child, the cat bites the child.
the cat is to be blamed of course, the cat is sick with rabies or some other disease that causes abnomal behavior, that is the childs excuse.

now you decide whether we are the cat or the child.
my research and basic knowledge of our involvement in warfare, and the great empires that inevetibly fell before us, of anykind has provided me with enough evidence to say that we, as a nation like any other great nation or empire that has conquered, will be conquered ourselves. we will either crumble or be destroyed. i see us crumbling now.
our methods of providing serivce to our people have resulted in brainwashing. everything is political.
what the hell does congress do all day, they argue about steroids and why it should be punishable.
crumbling because it seems we have nothing to look after. we have resticted ourselves with the laws that were created in an effort to bring forth a more stable society and hope that all of the razing childless mothers leave congress alone; just so they can argue their points on steroids.

leonmarino: Bush, well he is just a spokeman folks. he has no real power.
our values are a big part of what makes us tick. duh right?
well when our values are being replaced with borrowed ideas and philosophy is no longer being valued as something that creates invention and peace, then 'our' values are worthless.
war is nothing but a mechanical beast against warm flesh.
i see plenty philosophy in that statement alone.

[retrodisease]

who puts claim on warfare. is it a claim to glory and honour?
what is that anymore. seems like anybody can be honoured for having the lowest standards.
'no work eithic you say' the bow tied man would say. of 'of course we have that, that is what our governement provides the people'
nothing is our own
everything is handed to us and then we claim it as ours.
and again borrowed ideas.
sure, i will run out in to the field to rescure a complete stranger that had their own ideas, and even faced heavy persecution for such, and made a radical effort to enjoy their life with the least discontentment as possible.

so i ask, who want's to just live?
then again, who just want's to live the life they were given?

[Sukotto]

This thread has turned into something
absolutely ridiculous; I don't think the fact that he is nikkei has any
influence over the situation, and is just an excuse to post it here on
the boards. Intentional or accidental, this thread is 100%
flamebait.

What can I say, Woah! Often times my posts don't get such a response.
While I am glad there is discussion, that is why we post on a forums
afterall, and did expect there to be disagreements, I did not intend to
get any tit-for-tat type of thing going. I thought about posting this
under other headings, but ended up with the first one I thought of, the
one about nikkei.



On the matter of MikeCash's statement, I didn't see the original, but
maybe he did not refer to any sort of US (military) law when stating he
believed someone should be shot? I don't know. Not refering to any
law, would jref have tolerated someone stating they believe so-and-so
should be shot? I don't know. I think war is just as barbaric as
lining someone up to be shot, thought police, and the full body burka.
Should pro-any of those be allowed here? How can one argue any
one of those is any less caveman than the other. (That's those
with the power to start the wars being the cavemen.)


nice gaijin: "Intentional or accidental, this thread is 100% flamebait."
Quite true, most of Scott's posts are such.

What?? Maybe so. Before I go and check, simply bringing something up that is
not normally talked about is not flame bait. There might also be the matter
of someone not liking the topic talked about. Getting every single US troop
out of Okinawa and/or Japan, for instance. For me such is not flamebait.
I really do believe the US gov't should not keep those troops there or in
the 130+ other sovereign nations in the world and blackmailed with threats
of loss of aid to keep them there. So if someone takes that as
to be flamebait. That is on them, not me. But I won't deny that such may
have taken place, possibly me being in denial at the time of post.


****
Entering the military one takes an oath to defend the us AND its constitution.
As for "the soldier's job to determine the legality or worthiness of the conflict."
It actually is. Just following orders was determined to NOT be a legitimate
excuse at Nuremburg. Nuremburg determined that individuals, soldiers as well as
non-soldiers, had a higher obligation to not obey such things as illegal orders or
participate in crimes against humanity. This includes participating in crimes
against peace, a war of aggression.
It is also US military law obligating US soldiers to disobey illegal orders.
That may be very difficult on the ground when such comes about, like with the
rest of a unit chuckling, 'how are they ever going to catch us'. Perhaps
such training, including the ability to dicern between a legal and illegal war,
should be taught from day one of basic training, before they have to get up
at 4am the first day. I do not know.



If a Japanese, Italian, or German refused to fight in those wars, sure they probably
would have been shot. But of course we now view those that fled to have been very
brave.
I've actually heard that some people believe it is immoral to break the law, just
because it is the law. [Shakes head] Law that we live our day to day
lives by, including while being soldiers, is made by man. Sometimes they are wrong
or unjust. ex: Around the time of the US civil war it was illegal to help those
held in slavery to escape. But to break that law we see clearly now to be the
morally superior thing to do (except for a few crakkka kkk types).

And like Martin Luther King Jr in the past who committed civil disobedience,
Lt Watada is willing to serve his time in prison. That's what you do when you
think a law is wrong and you break it for the purpose of bringing attention to it.
You intend to serve your time. That goes for all in a democracy of laws, no
matter how high up one's position is.

There is actually quite a history of refusal to fight in wars by US citizens,
including WW2 The Good War and Those Who Refused to Fight It (http://www.bullfrogfilms.com/catalog/gwar.html) 40,000 US citizens refused to fight in WW2. 40,000! And that was the so-called
"good war"; against fascism.


Paying for college does suck. Such is the way the system is deseigned that many people have
little other choice but to join. Cuts, cuts, and more cuts for education. What to do?
Dead end job, no skills, no future. I can get some skills in the military. I personally
know many people who have joined the military just because they had no where else to go.
It's actually pretty disgusting when you put it in that light.
Why can't we have such job training programs outside the military.
An educated/trained population is in itself 'giving something back' for the education.
And it would be cheaper too.

While it is fashionable to bash George Bush for Iraq, keep in mind that a vote was held in Congress authorizing it. Those who voted to authorize the war are just as culpable as Bush.

I agree. They are all war criminals and should be held accountable.
Both under international law and US constitutional law.
Article VI of the US constitution reads
all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
So yes, the US gov't has a constitutional responsibility to adhere to treaties that are signed.
Plus the congress gave away what they could not give away.
Declaring war constitutionally is the sole perogative of the
legislative branch and that power cannot be legislated away
except with a constitutional amendment.


While I recognize that Mycernius was almost 100% joking when he said, maybe we need a coup.
Isn't that what happens when too many people become frustrated and feel they need change?
Scary. Especially since to many retired generals are saying Bush is utterly messing things
up with Iraq.
Maybe the last thing a country of such
immense military as the US needs is its military thinking they are
better than the non-military or think they know better what is best for
the country. That leads to things like coups like in Iran and Guatemala
in the 50s or paramilitary death squads like in El Salvador in the 80s
or Colombia today. Luckily such did not happen in the US in 1933 when
Smedley Butler (whom a Marine base at Okinawa is named after, btw) told
a bunch of wall
streeters to stick it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot)


There are numerous vets & others working for change in a democratic way:
Such groups as War Resisters League (http://www.warresisters.org/),
Veterans for Peace (http://www.veteransforpeace.org/),
Vietnam Veterans Against the War (http://www.vvaw.org/), etc.


I hope I did not go off on too many tangents trying to respond to many things at once.
If jref has to ban someone, why not ban me for posting flamebait?
Much better to be banned from a website than to have been disappeared like
in such fascist systems our US gov't, including the current president's father
back when he was the head of the US's secret police, helped set up and maintain such as El Salvador,
Augusto Pinochet's Chile, the Shah's Iran, Guatemala, Suharto's Indonesia, etc...

Don't leave Mike Cash.
If you must leave, just leave this crap string. er, thread.

[Sukotto]

Scott, the third charge was made due to the statements he made concerning the legality of the war and other statements made towards Bush in general.


the US Army leveled a number of charges against him:
3* contempt toward officials (in this case, President Bush)


According to the GIRights Hotline (http://girights.objector.org/)

GIs have the legal right to:
*Say what you think and feel about the military, and participate in peaceful demonstrations, when you're off-duty, out of uniform, off-base, and in the U.S.A. (DoD Directive 1325.6)

GI's don't have the legal right to:
*Call high gov't officials names, including "fascist", "thief", "murderer", "tyrant", "fool", or "gangster".


Since one has the right to state their opinions about the legality of war,
as per the conditions above, that would not be a factor unless on base for example. And some of this makes sense. You want a democratic gov't, not a military run one or a defacto one with threats from the military.

"statements made towards Bush in general"
It would have to be more specific than that.
Simply stating that one believes a war to be illegal is not the same as calling a gov't official names. Maybe in El Salvador or Guatemala in the past it would be the same. But then in those countries they would beat you if you didn't join the military (according to an ex-coworker from one of those countries).

--

It's really scaring me these days when sorts of gov't officials, cabinet members whatever, seem to be stressing 'the president's decision'. Sure it is technically his and not any cabinet member, pentagon person, cia or nsc person's ultimate decision. Tied into all this is this concept of "unitary executive" or the idea that "supremacy of the executive". Cow-dung scary, man. If anything there are 3 equal branches. And I've read else where that the legislative has been traditionally been the strongest of the three. The executive does only, can only do what the constitution says it can do and the legislative tells them. So that's why I'm fearing the idea of the #3 charge against Lt Watada.
I've met people who were no longer in the military who got upset with me because I was criticizing 'our commander in chief'. Well, I'm not in the military so s/he's not my commander in chief. And 2ndly, neither are you anymore. Unless and until you are called back to duty, you are a civilian and s/he is not your commander in chief. Realize that.

[WHEATTHlNS]

That's the typical response i would expect from somebody like you, a true American "patriot".

Can you imagine, how the Revolutionary War or Civil War or hell WWII had played out, if people put their ideological viewpoints over their commitment to being a soldier in the United States Military.

I don't think it's either treason or cowardice because he did offer to go to Afghanistan; he just didn't want to go to Iraq.

Its not cowardice, and it probably wont be considered treason - but it most definitely is insubordination.

Your whole rant doesn't make up for Mike's rude remark. Free speech or not, saying such a thing is totally unappropriate. If you have such an opinion, keep it to yourself!

That, is a pretty frightening statement. I mean, really. You're hating on the guy for stating an opinion - thats pretty crazy and doesnt fill me with confidence to keep posting here.

I agree. They are all war criminals and should be held accountable.

It doesnt work like that. At most, if any body of Congress is taken by Democrats there will be public hearings. Beyond that, nothing any of them did was illegal. You can argue the ethics and morality of making certain decisions, but no act was illegal.

[Sukotto]

It doesnt work like that. At most, if any body of Congress is taken by Democrats there will be public hearings.
That's because the Democrats do and want to continue to do more of the same. They're just typically more subtle about it.

They're not going to charge members of their party with anything.

Don't look back (http://members.aol.com/Bblum6/aer38.htm)
The cartoon awfulness of the Bush crime syndicate's foreign policy is enough to make Americans nostalgic for almost anything that came before.
So here's a little reminder of what Clinton's foreign policy was composed of.
(the link "don't look back")



Beyond that, nothing any of them did was illegal. You can argue the ethics and morality of making certain decisions, but no act was illegal.



As noted above, US gov'ts are constitutionally obligated to adhere to treaties that are signed, i.e. international law. Breaking them is a violation of the constitution, i.e. illegal. Maybe this applies to only the Executive branch?

And warring outside of the constitutionally required declaration?
Executive violated the constitution here too. Violated the law. What they did was and continues to be illegal.

Perhaps all the congress did was "wash their hands" of caring whether the executive violated the constitution. They certainly did not constitutionally authorize war (making).
So maybe in this sense you are right. Maybe the congress did not violate the law (regarding authorizing war making).

I'll have to do more reading of the laws that were put in place immediately after WW2 with regards to crimes against peace/wars of aggression. 'The first war crime from which all others flow.' Maybe the legislative branches of gov'ts are as to be held accountable the same as the executive branches are. "lest we forgot." and all those Jews died in vain

[ArmandV]

Perhaps all the congress did was "wash their hands" of caring whether the executive violated the constitution. They certainly did not constitutionally authorize war (making).
So maybe in this sense you are right. Maybe the congress did not violate the law (regarding authorizing war making).



The congress did authorize the war as they voted on it. Check the Congressional Record.

[Sukotto]

The congress did authorize the war as they voted on it. Check the Congressional Record.


Yes. But they did not conduct a formal, constitutional declaration of war.

If you ask around, say congress themselves, even they will admit they did not declare war. Only authorized it the use of the military.

It seems according to the US constitution that the only uses of the armed forces are the declaration of war, or if invaded or about to be invaded the president or the states (if invaded) can use the armed forces.
It might be that, even then, the president has to eventually go get that declaration. At least in theory.

There is also the War Powers Act passed in the 70s? during or after Nixon?
which was in response to the Vietnam war with its escalation of troops unending. The WPAct allowed the president to use troops for up to 90 days at which time s/he must report to congress and get approval for another 90 days. This must be done every 90 days.
At least that is my understanding of the WPAct.
It also seems like it could be declared unconstitutional since war authorization is supposed to be reserved for the congress - a declaration. But as noted at wikipedia, the courts have refused to get involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States


Alberto Gonzalez is quoted saying there is no declared war on Afghanistan or Iraq because of things to do with treaties. I sure hope he's not thinking "we can avoid all those treaties by not actually declaring war".


But, that's just all my opinion, of course

[Elizabeth]

I agree with Mike in that way they should be punished, but not being shot. That's something primitive people would do.

Jeez, this really is shocking. I was wondering what had happened to Mike....

Most people here are also probably convinced that torturing international terror prisoners is deeply immoral not to mention police routinely using deadly force on suspected criminals, governments using force against their own citizens and all manner of "rude," "crude," "primitive behavior. On the other hand, there are legitimate cases to be for their practice in extreme situations and aspects of situations are still debated in the media and political commentary everyday.

If he had moderated his remarks with greater context or nuance I wonder if that would have made a difference ? The issues I've just mentioned have all been raised here in the past without incident as far as I know. Extremely brutal, graphic video images are still circulating this site. 'Rude' implies it was a personal insult against a member of JREF -- for instance calling President Bush 'stupid' or 'intellectually inferior' is equally infantile and degenerate in my opinion. In conclusion, I suppose I'm trying to flesh out a bit more where this line is being drawn (assuming it isn't completely mod discretionary). :bluush:

[jeisan]

If he had moderated his remarks with greater context or nuance I wonder if that would have made a difference ? The issues I've just mentioned have all been raised here in the past without incident as far as I know. Extremely brutal, graphic video images are still circulating this site. 'Rude' implies it was a personal insult against a member of JREF -- for instance calling President Bush 'stupid' or 'intellectually inferior' is equally infantile and degenerate in my opinion. In conclusion, I suppose I'm trying to flesh out a bit more where this line is being drawn (assuming it isn't completely mod discretionary). :bluush:
it may have, but i think most of this wouldnt have happened if one mod hadnt read the remark. as far as im concerned its an opinion and a common saying. i wish you let us know where those videos/images are elizabeth, as those are things we should be deleting. and yeah, we are meant to take action on personal attacks on members of jref, not for members' opinions of public figures or people in the news, unless said opinions are vulgar; e.g. bush is a ******* ****stain. but alas...
and to answer mike's question.
we cannot give infractions to other mods in the same way that we can members, but there are other ways to go about things...

[Sukotto]

as far as im concerned its...a common saying.


Perhaps there is a cultural difference here?

the mod here being from Belgium.
Mike Cash being originally from the US.


It is pretty well known that we in the US have a culture that glorifies
violence on tv & movies. And (although not really acknowledged)
sort of militaristic.

I'm not sure what the popular entertainment is like in Belgium.
But I'm naively guessing it is not as explosive happy.

[RockLee]

Well, in Belgium we do not have the tendency to say in public or on a board somebody should get a bullet in the head. Neither do we have death-sentence. There is lots of violence on tv and 90% of the media is American. There isn't that kind of "patriotism" in Belgium either. Neither do we stand up and put a hand on our chest at the mere sound of the national anthem.

I think it's not appropriate to say something Mike said, even if it's your opinion. I wonder how many people would complain when I would write something like "I think they should put Bush to a wall and shoot him". It has absolutely nothing to do with thought police or any of that. It's just a matter of decency and in Mike's case we know how blunt he can be.

Also, those infractions are like 5 options to choose from, so it's not that I can choose the infraction i want. Anyways, t'is not that I don't like Mike or anything. I share his sense of sarcasm and enjoy his posting, but I can't allow such things to be said. If you don't like my decision or opinion, so be it.

[DoctorP]

"I think they should put Bush to a wall and shoot him"

Ah...but similar things have been said on this board before...just after 9/11 and the start of the Iraq war. Many of the things said by Europeans on this board...maybe not that he should be shot, but still pretty bad.

Ok...back on topic!

He should at the very least receive his Other than Honorable discharge and be barred from any benefits due to him.

[RockLee]

He should at the very least receive his Other than Honorable discharge and be barred from any benefits due to him.Agree. He knew what he signed up for. But then there is indeed the fact if this is actually a legal war :?

[DoctorP]

There is no such thing as a "Legal" war. War by design is illegal in that you cross another countries border and proceed to shoot them...what could be legal about it?

[senseiman]

At International law, there are two ways in which a war can be legally fought. One is a war in self defence, the other is a war fought with Security council authorization (like the first Gulf War).

The Iraq war really fails on both counts.

[ArmandV]

Agree. He knew what he signed up for. But then there is indeed the fact if this is actually a legal war :?

Soldiers aren't allowed to decide what is a legal war or not. Theirs is to follow orders.

[taehyun]

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/31/kerry.mccain/index.html
I think this comes just in place!

[Mikawa Ossan]

I agree with others who say that it is part of the job of being a soldier to go where you are sent and except in extreme cases, following orders. The order to go to Iraq is not, from a soldier's point of view, even close to being an extreme case. It may be unwelcome, as Iraq is not the safest place one coud get stationed, but danger is part of the job.

I think that any soldier who refuses to obey orders, except in extreme cases or in cases that clearly violate the Geneva Convention, should be punished. I think that the fact he offerred to go to Afghanistan instead is beside the point.

[Sukotto]

At International law, there are two ways in which a war can be legally fought. One is a war in self defence, the other is a war fought with Security council authorization (like the first Gulf War).
The Iraq war really fails on both counts.


And Nuremburg said that citizens, soldiers or non-, have a responsibility to a higher power that supercedes national laws. "just following orders" was not a sufficient excuse to be not guilty in Germany 1940s

It is our failure in teaching kids not to question authority.
"Because I said so" is a poor excuse. Because I'm a cop. Because
I'm the adult. Becuase I'm the teacher. Because I can squash you
like a bug. I know, parenting is difficult, but we've just got to find another way. The above is essentially might makes right. Might does not make
moral. 'unless you say so, of course. don't hurt me'. If we removed the might from authority, could the authority still stand? Perhaps that is
a standard for justice? I don't know. I am totally b.s.ing at this point.



I hate to put it like this, because now it is serious, but back
during high school we used to joke:
"just follow orders like a good #German# ".
That was years ago and totally apolitical.

However in the real world in the 21st century responsiblity STILL lies with those the have the power/authority to order others around. It is called command responsibility and the crime against peace is the first war crime which all others follow from.

[Sukotto]

I do not know why Lt Watada would want to skip Iraq because it is in violation of international law and go to Afghanistan instead.

It seems the invasion of Afghanistan was illegal as well.

"my first post at jref.com"
on the thread titled:
War Crime Trial Bush-Saddam-Blair
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2277


-
'the driving force in any war is always based in greed'

[nurizeko]

If leaders were so unaccountable we wouldnt have situations where soldiers are really struggling between their oath of alleigance to military justice and order, and their loyalty to their ethics and the rule of laws and freedom and human rights enshrined in US society.


I dunno about America but in Britain I find it really annoying when its said "When Britain went to war alongside America" or "Britain is part of the coalition" or "Britain supports the war with soldiers".

This is because the vast Majority of britons opposed the war and wanted nothing to do with it, and despite big marches and a massive no, Blair went and committed us to a war Britain infact didnt support and didnt want it, and honestly, it makes me so angry how he just blatantly disregarded the majority opinion of his people.

He should have been lynched there and then but he keeps getting away with it, probably because Britain isnt like other countries where you could get deposed for such deplorable actions.

Blair kept talknig about struggling with his morals and ethics and all that, SCREW THAT, wether to invade a country or not on false grounds has nothing to do with your touchy feely feelings, its got to do with the majority will, wether you agree or not, after those marches and stuff he should have kept Britain out the war but instead he said "me too1" and got behind Bush.


Wars are serious bussiness, people DIE...committing to war should be a bit harder and more difficult then a premier just being able to say "off to war chaps" or "saddle up, cowboys" and then off thousands of men and women go to die for the noble defence of their country, by attacking another that poses no actual threat.

Offensive warfare should be a process which requires a bit stricter checks on it then the whims of the current leader.

[Sukotto]

Wars are serious bussiness, people DIE...committing to war should be a bit harder and more difficult then a premier just being able to say "off to war chaps" or "saddle up, cowboys" and then off thousands of men and women go to die for the noble defence of their country, by attacking another that poses no actual threat.

Major General Smedley Butler (re) of the US Marine Corps, one of the, if not the most highly decorated soldier the US has ever had suggests that,

only those doing the fighting should vote on whether we go to war or not,

also weapons manufacturing, the profit should be taken out of it and
all the people that run weapons manufacturing plants and all the congress people and senators should get paid the same as the lowest paid soldier who fights in the trenches.
War is a Racket (http://www.twf.org/News/Y2001/0911-Racket.html) says Smedley Darlington Butler, who has a Marine base at Okinawa named after him.


It is strange (or perhaps not since they might say 'you havn't seen what i've seen') that so many veterans have turned against war completely.
Besides the above Butler:
War Turned Eisenhower Into a Pacifist (http://www.twf.org/News/Y2004/0606-Eisenhower.html) or so says his son.

[nice gaijin]

I highly recommend the documentary "Why We Fight" for those who are looking for a better understanding of why America is constantly at war, and why it's currently impossible to separate the economics of war from the compulsion to go to war. I believe it's available on DVD now.

[Sukotto]

It is also available online streaming:

Why We Fight
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8494.htm

[bexchurnside]

That's the typical response i would expect from somebody like you, a true American "patriot". If you're the proud American you claim to be, why don't YOU go to Iraq? I think he has a good right to NOT get being shot in Iraq. For starters this was a war Bush set up to justify his own little crusade against war on terrorism. A meaningless fight for his own selfish ass. Weapons of mass destruction, haven't seen any of those, did you?

I think Lt. Ehren Watada is a hero for having not gone to war. Perhaps if Watada finds it hard to live in the US after this controversy, would it be possible if he wanted to go to Japan and request Japanese citizenship being 50% Japanese descent?

[JimmySeal]

This soldier is no hero. Do you think everyone in Iraq right now supports this war, or ever supported this war? They fight because it is their duty. This person signed up knowing full well that there was a war going on in Iraq and enjoyed the benefits of being in the military and when it came time to pay his dues, he decided to be a chickens***. This shows that he believes his own life to be more valuable than that of the people over in Iraq, and as someone with several friends who have gone there (though they didn't want to), I take issue with that.
This man is nothing but a coward.

[bexchurnside]

This soldier is no hero. Do you think everyone in Iraq right now supports this war, or ever supported this war? They fight because it is their duty. This person signed up knowing full well that there was a war going on in Iraq and enjoyed the benefits of being in the military and when it came time to pay his dues, he decided to be a chickens***. This shows that he believes his own life to be more valuable than that of the people over in Iraq, and as someone with several friends who have gone there (though they didn't want to), I take issue with that.
This man is nothing but a coward.

No, but at the end of the day, Lt. Watada CAN legally become a Japanese national on the basis of his ancestry. Japan would NOT deny him a passport. Imagine if, Lt. Watada worked on a US Army base as an American Lieutenant in Okinawa, and then later lived in Okinawa as a regular Japanese after giving up his US Nationality. I feel that if Watada renounced not only his commission, but became a Japanese national, he cannot be jailed in a US Military prision for the charges that are made against him. The reason is that there is no policy to extradite a Japanese national who is not a US citizen for committing the so called offences that he made. I know it is a loophole, but there is no agreement between the US and Japan regarding a Japanese national committing crimes as a US Soldier, since on paper, that would be an impossibility. Of course, Watada would probably never be able to get back on American soil, but Watada would then be considered only a Japanese national CIVILIAN.

No, but at the end of the day, Lt. Watada CAN legally become a Japanese national on the basis of his ancestry. Japan would NOT deny him a passport. Imagine if, Lt. Watada worked on a US Army base as an American Lieutenant in Okinawa, and then later lived in Okinawa as a regular Japanese after giving up his US Nationality. I feel that if Watada renounced not only his commission, but became a Japanese national, he cannot be jailed in a US Military prision for the charges that are made against him. The reason is that there is no policy to extradite a Japanese national who is not a US citizen for committing the so called offences that he made. I know it is a loophole, but there is no agreement between the US and Japan regarding a Japanese national committing crimes as a US Soldier, since on paper, that would be an impossibility. Of course, Watada would probably never be able to get back on American soil, but Watada would then be considered only a Japanese national CIVILIAN.

I actually want people to find a way to help Lt. Watada get out of facing his charges by taking up Japanese nationality to avoid a lengthy prision term. With such a controversy, if he lived in the USA, someone might even try shooting him. For the sake of his life, I think that if anyone knows about laws, etc, to contact him and arrange for this. Even to bring this idea out in the open is a good start, I think. I know if I was caught in this situation, I would do so.

[Goldiegirl]

Let Japan have a coward.

[nice gaijin]

Why would you want him to take advantage of his ancestry to weasel his way out of the hole he's dug for himself? Let him accept the consequences for his own actions. Back during the Vietnam war, we had people who were willing to be imprisoned for their anti-war beliefs. Have we come so far down the path of irresponsibility and passing the buck that you are suggesting that this officer who joined DURING the war should exploit his roots just to get out of his well-deserved court-martial?

Also, I believe it's been pointed out several times that Watada is an AMERICAN. Do you think that all people of Japanese descent have some deep-seated desire to "return" to Japan and become Japanese?

[Goldiegirl]

Oh, I am not saying he shouldn't accept the consequences of his own actions here in the US. But, my idea is if he wants to be a coward, fine weasel your way out if Japan will have you. I just can't imagine the Japanese wanting a coward...and an American coward at that. It was said tongue-in-cheek...

[JimmySeal]

I think nice gaijin was mostly replying to bexchurnside, who has yet to demonstrate how exactly this man is a hero.

[Goldiegirl]

So sorry, I didn't mean to take anything the wrong way. I wrote a a very short sentence without adding any other thoughts than the first one that came to me!
:sorry:

[craftsman]

OK. If anyone is interested in a discussion that is not throwing around the word 'chicken' or 'coward' or some other emotive expression, take a look at this...


I think our soldier friend did something that he knew was going to ruin his life, at least for a while, on the basis of a principle he thought he should stand up for. Quite what the connection is between the fact that he has some Japanese blood in his veins I am lost to explain. I guess that even though he joined during the war, he, like most of the population knew little about the real reasons behind the war and what was happening in Iraq.


Now - why on earth would a soldier in the US military want to turn around and reject the very people he vowed to serve and have the full force of military law bear down on him?


Well. Maybe firstly. Iraq is no ordinary war.


At the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal in 1946, Nazi leaders like Goering, von Ribbentrop, Jodl and Streicher were sentenced to death by hanging for
"Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a Common Plan or Conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing."
(Article 6, Charter of the International Military Tribunal, August 8, 1945, http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/NurembergIndictments.html)


It is indisputable, in light of the mountains of evidence that appeared over the last few years, that the current leaders of Britain and the United States are responsible for just such a conspiracy. The UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, someone who by the very nature of his job has to choose his words carefully, believes the invasion was "illegal" and clearly in breach of the UN Charter.


Many people also believe that initiating a war of aggression is,
"the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole".
(Quoted, Walter J. Rockler, ‘War crimes law applies to U.S. too,’ Chicago Tribune, May 23, 1999)


So, whether you agree with this or not, and I can see no reason why not after seeing the evidence mount up, he certainly believes it.


Should a soldier therefore be allowed to have a conscience? Can they have a conscience in extreme cases like a war crime?


Normally, the implicit assumption is that signing a contract and being paid to do a job absolves us of all further moral responsibility. We have signed an agreement to do as we are told - an ostensibly innocuous act. If the people with whom we made this agreement then choose to send us to 'bring democracy' or should I say illegally occupy and subjugate the population, that is their moral responsibility, not ours.


But he had also spoken to veterans who helped him make up his mind:


Veterans like US soldier Camilo Mejia who refused to return to his unit in Iraq after taking leave in October 2003:

“People would ask me about my war experiences and answering them took me back to all the horrors ― the firefights, the ambushes, the time I saw a young Iraqi dragged by his shoulders through a pool of his own blood or an innocent man was decapitated by our machine gun fire. The time I saw a soldier broken down inside because he killed a child, or an old man on his knees, crying with his arms raised to the sky, perhaps asking God why we had taken the lifeless body of his son. I thought of the suffering of a people whose country was in ruins and who were further humiliated by the raids, patrols and curfews of an occupying army.

“And I realized that none of the reasons we were told about why we were in Iraq turned out to be true... I realized that I was part of a war that I believed was immoral and criminal, a war of aggression, a war of imperial domination. I realized that acting upon my principles became incompatible with my role in the military, and I decided that I could not return to Iraq.”
(Mejia, ‘Regaining My Humanity,’ www.codepink4peace.org/National_Actions_Camilo.shtml)


Or maybe ex-Marine Staff Sergeant Jimmy Massey who said:


"It sickened me so that I had actually brought it up to my lieutenant, and I told him, I said, ‘You know, sir, we're not going to have to worry about Iraq - you know, we're basically committing genocide over here, mass extermination of thousands of Iraqis...’"
(www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/24/148212)


So, if he had of spoken to these people and decided that the decision to go to war itself was a war crime based on lies and then realised that the situation on the ground in Iraq was only increasing the suffering for Iraqis, I for one think it was a brave decision.


In 1937, Rudolf Rocker wrote:
"It is certainly dangerous for a state when its citizens have a conscience; what it needs is men without conscience, or, better still, men whose conscience is quite in conformity with reasons of state, men in whom the feeling of personal responsibility has been replaced by the automatic impulse to act in the interests of the state."
(Rocker, Culture and Nationalism, Michael E. Coughlan, 1978, p.197)


The world is a better place when a person, whatever their job may be and whatever bit of paper they signed, still knows right from wrong and is not afraid to act on it.


What really counts according to the 2nd century sage, Nagarjuna, is:
“Not doing harm to others,
Not bowing down to the ignoble,
Not abandoning the path of virtue –
These are small points, but of great
Importance.”

[bexchurnside]

Why would you want him to take advantage of his ancestry to weasel his way out of the hole he's dug for himself? Let him accept the consequences for his own actions. Back during the Vietnam war, we had people who were willing to be imprisoned for their anti-war beliefs. Have we come so far down the path of irresponsibility and passing the buck that you are suggesting that this officer who joined DURING the war should exploit his roots just to get out of his well-deserved court-martial?
Also, I believe it's been pointed out several times that Watada is an AMERICAN. Do you think that all people of Japanese descent have some deep-seated desire to "return" to Japan and become Japanese?
Out of a practical necessity. It is either that, OR BE IN JAIL IN THE STATES!
I am not saying that he doesn't want to be American, but as my Canadian boyfriend points out, (and you can see Canadians are all Anti-War anyway), that Michael Moore's Fareignheight 9-11 has unearthed some ills that were not previously evident. Thus, it would be practical for Lt. Watada to take a Japanese nationality that would be guranteed for him.
Perhaps this is a perspective that only someone who lived in Canada for a given time can come to appreciate this perspective. But Kenichi told me that if he was Watada, he would give up being American and run to Japan. Watada is of Okinawa descent.
On the other side, if he were to become newly Japanese, in Okinawa, and the American troops saw him, do you think they would say, "Hey it's Watada, now he is a Japanese civilian! I thought you Japanese are supposed to have honour! How could you dare become Japanese when you were too much of a coward to even for an American?"
But Kenichi says that the Japanese have changed, and it would be sterotypical to think this way. He told me that Japanese are like Canadians in that they aren't too keen into fighting either. He even suggested Canada give up having a military altogether as the US would be there for Canada anyway.

[bexchurnside]

OK. If anyone is interested in a discussion that is not throwing around the word 'chicken' or 'coward' or some other emotive expression, take a look at this...
I think our soldier friend did something that he knew was going to ruin his life, at least for a while, on the basis of a principle he thought he should stand up for. Quite what the connection is between the fact that he has some Japanese blood in his veins I am lost to explain. I guess that even though he joined during the war, he, like most of the population knew little about the real reasons behind the war and what was happening in Iraq.
Now - why on earth would a soldier in the US military want to turn around and reject the very people he vowed to serve and have the full force of military law bear down on him?
Well. Maybe firstly. Iraq is no ordinary war.
At the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal in 1946, Nazi leaders like Goering, von Ribbentrop, Jodl and Streicher were sentenced to death by hanging for
(Article 6, Charter of the International Military Tribunal, August 8, 1945, http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/NurembergIndictments.html)
It is indisputable, in light of the mountains of evidence that appeared over the last few years, that the current leaders of Britain and the United States are responsible for just such a conspiracy. The UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, someone who by the very nature of his job has to choose his words carefully, believes the invasion was "illegal" and clearly in breach of the UN Charter.
Many people also believe that initiating a war of aggression is,
(Quoted, Walter J. Rockler, ‘War crimes law applies to U.S. too,’ Chicago Tribune, May 23, 1999)
So, whether you agree with this or not, and I can see no reason why not after seeing the evidence mount up, he certainly believes it.
Should a soldier therefore be allowed to have a conscience? Can they have a conscience in extreme cases like a war crime?
Normally, the implicit assumption is that signing a contract and being paid to do a job absolves us of all further moral responsibility. We have signed an agreement to do as we are told - an ostensibly innocuous act. If the people with whom we made this agreement then choose to send us to 'bring democracy' or should I say illegally occupy and subjugate the population, that is their moral responsibility, not ours.
But he had also spoken to veterans who helped him make up his mind:
Veterans like US soldier Camilo Mejia who refused to return to his unit in Iraq after taking leave in October 2003:
www.codepink4peace.org/National_Actions_Camilo.shtml)
Or maybe ex-Marine Staff Sergeant Jimmy Massey who said:
(www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/24/148212)
So, if he had of spoken to these people and decided that the decision to go to war itself was a war crime based on lies and then realised that the situation on the ground in Iraq was only increasing the suffering for Iraqis, I for one think it was a brave decision.
In 1937, Rudolf Rocker wrote:
(Rocker, Culture and Nationalism, Michael E. Coughlan, 1978, p.197)
The world is a better place when a person, whatever their job may be and whatever bit of paper they signed, still knows right from wrong and is not afraid to act on it.
What really counts according to the 2nd century sage, Nagarjuna, is:

I think your arguement is good. After all, I like to also add, how would it be wrong for someone who vowed to protect his country to decide against it, if his country forced him to commit war crimes? To want to leave a country of such nature might not be outside his reach if you or someone could tell that to Watada. If I were to make this analogy with marriage, let's say I marry Kenichi, and then he told me later that he is also marrying a Japanese lady, and that she was going to be married to him under Japan, and I under Canada, and told me that he is faithful to me and is single as a Canadian, and all the other stuff were revealed later, I would leave him too. I would be so mad that I would tell the Japanese embassy that he has Canadian citizenship in this case.

I think he upheld his vows to protect the people from committing war-crimes. In reality, I think he should be given the Congressional Medal of Honour down the road by some future Democratic President.

L

[nice gaijin]

two points: One, is Watada even considering attempting this sham to avoid military justice, or does he intend to stand his ground as many of us has stated he should? As I said, conscientious objectors refused to go to war and many were willing to go to prison to make their statement (granted the situations are not entirely paralell). Without knowing what his intentions are, all of this is just conjecture.

Secondly, if Watada was foolish enough to do this and go hang around a US base, he probably wouldn't be heckled for being a Japanese with no honor; he'd get his ass kicked (or worse) for being an officer that abandoned his post at a time of war. I'm not saying that's what he deserves, but it sounds like a more likely response than whispering behind his back.

[bexchurnside]

two points: One, is Watada even considering attempting this sham to avoid military justice, or does he intend to stand his ground as many of us has stated he should? As I said, conscientious objectors refused to go to war and many were willing to go to prison to make their statement (granted the situations are not entirely paralell). Without knowing what his intentions are, all of this is just conjecture.

Secondly, if Watada was foolish enough to do this and go hang around a US base, he probably wouldn't be heckled for being a Japanese with no honor; he'd get his ass kicked (or worse) for being an officer that abandoned his post at a time of war. I'm not saying that's what he deserves, but it sounds like a more likely response than whispering behind his back.

Sure. But his entire life could be in danger if he roamed around the streets in the USA! You only need one patriotic redneck to kick his ass! And those vietnam war resisters, how many Americans became Canadian? I am speaking completely out practicality in a life or death situation. Does anyone know if Lt. Watada can speak and write Japanese? Does anyone have his email? I like to suggest this idea of him taking Japanese Citizenship or even taking Canadian citizenship!! By the way, Canadians would not boo him at all for what he did! I wouldn't be surprised if a Canadian university even game him an honority doctorate for world peace. I feel he was a solider for standing up to the legalities. Watada is unique in that he refused to fight on the basis of legality, and even asked to be deployed in Afghanistan. This shows that it was the illegal assignment, and not his patriotism that was the issue. I know that my fiance nor I would not fight even if a WW3 came around!

[bexchurnside]

http://www.hawaiithreads.com/showthread.php?t=8935

皆様、御覧になって下さい。

[nice gaijin]

looks like that answers a lot of questions; interesting that the ones who mention his ethnicity refer to him as Hawaiian, and not Japanese. Also, it seems that he is willing to accept his punishment, which makes seeking asylum a moot point.

[bexchurnside]

looks like that answers a lot of questions; interesting that the ones who mention his ethnicity refer to him as Hawaiian, and not Japanese. Also, it seems that he is willing to accept his punishment, which makes seeking asylum a moot point.
No, I want to tell him to take up Japanese nationality. I want to convince him that this is a good idea. To this effect, I even opened up an account on Hawaiiforums, and told them about this idea. I want them to come here and join us on the discussion. People such as Craigwatanabe, 1stwhinie, Miulang, and the whole entire gang, on that forum. I want to just talk to him about it. It is more about the child having a father. The baby deserves a father that is there, be it in Canada or in Japan. I only say Japan because it would be the easiest for him to get under political problems. I would be just as happy to see him get a Swiss passport, but that would be too hard for him at this point.

[Goldiegirl]

hmmm...if I break the law as a US citizen, can I get an Irish passport, a Danish passport, a German Passport...that's my heritage. I am an American, right or wrong, not just when it's convenient for me.

[bexchurnside]

hmmm...if I break the law as a US citizen, can I get an Irish passport, a Danish passport, a German Passport...that's my heritage. I am an American, right or wrong, not just when it's convenient for me.

That is true. But Japanese law is to offer nationality via Lex Sangulis, not Lex Soil. Not all countries practice Lex Sangulis, so every country has its own individual policies. In some cases, yes you can. In Watadasan's case, it would be possible. I am not talking morally, or should or ought to be or not to be able to, I am saying he can legally do it.

[Sukotto]

bexchurnside-
The site
http://www.thankyoult.org/
I believe is run by Lt Erin Watada's mother.



Military personal take an oath to defend the constitution and actually have a legal obligation to refuse illegal orders. Not just 'follow orders'.
By refusing to follow illegal orders he is actually obeying international, US, and military law.



The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.
article (http://www.counterpunch.org/mosqueda02272003.html)

[Goldiegirl]

please let me know when the us's invasion of iraq was found to be illegal? I would be interested to know. Maybe I missed that on tv or the internet. Sure I have heard opinions but as of yet, please let me know in what court this situation has been tried in?

[Sukotto]

People are indeed innocent until found guilty in a court of law.


acts such as genocide or a wars of aggression are illegal.

wars of aggression

the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg following World War II,... called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression)


preventive war is by definition a war of aggression:

The concepts of preventive war and preemptive war differ only in the certainty of an attack ―the latter concerns an imminent attack, while the former requires no military provocation. The rationale for preventive war is the claimed prevention of a possible future attack, which international law considered to be indistinguishable from a forbidden war of aggression.
wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventive_war)


The Bush adminstration attacked Iraq on the grounds of the claim that they had WMD and might one day attack the US.
This was not preemptive, but preventive.


It is like,
is stabbing someone illegal?
yes.
is preventive war illegal?
yes.

It is Bush & Co as people who are legally innocent until found guilty before a court of law.
The court of public opinion.
The more people realize they conducted an illegal war....
the more will support impeachment and/or war crimes tribunals.

It is just observation that tells us the war is illegal.

[Goldiegirl]

You are anti-war and that's great, I would defend your rights to feel that way even if it meant war.

Hmmm...anyway...I don't need definitions spent enough time in University with a Poli Sci degree...minor in History...

I think if someone has a knife and swings it at me I would like for someone to stop it before it stabs me. Is that not preventive?

Anyway, as much as I don't like the war in Iraq, I don't believe that when you sign up in the military you get to pick and choose what war you will or won't fight in. Armed forces are armed for a reason...it's not to make friends.

[Sukotto]

You're pro-war and that's great.
ha. just kidding.....just kidding.

Iraq did not, nor was imminently about to attack the US.
Thus it was not preemptive.

The administration attacked Iraq on the theory that they might someday in the future attack the US (with presum... claimed, fabricated words of WMDs)


Going on the basis that Iraq is an illegal war, no soldier has an obligation to obey any order to fight in it. In fact might even have a legal obligation not to. Since soldiers have a legal obligation to disobey illegal orders. They are not legally obligated to "just follow orders". (I am not a lawyer, so do not listen to me. http://girights.objector.org/ GIRIghts hotline for such free advice)

Ah, circles....

If you don't like the war in Iraq why do believe US soldiers should be there, "not make friends", and kill people who are not their/our enemy?

[Goldiegirl]

Hmm...I don't see it as illegal, at least not yet. I don't like it. I took my opinions to the election booth and I think that my votes made a difference. Look at the balance of Republicans/Democrats. I guess I'll see more after the new year. I do believe the Iraq did have some weapons of mass destruction, but they were used on the Kurds.

[sabro]

No imminent threat? No UN Sanction? If that is true, then the invasion would be an illegal act of agression.

[craftsman]

It isn't really necessary for a court to declare it illegal, for it to be illegal...but if you must have one - how about The World Tribunal on Iraq which was held in Istanbul in June 2005.

Modelled on Bertrand Russell’s tribunal on the US invasion of Vietnam, the tribunal consisted of hearings into numerous aspects of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. A jury of conscience from ten different countries listened to the testimony of 54 advocates. This jury declared the war one of the most unjust in history:

“The Bush and Blair administrations blatantly ignored the massive opposition to the war expressed by millions of people around the world. They embarked upon one of the most unjust, immoral, and cowardly wars in history. The Anglo-American occupation of Iraq of the last 27 months has led to the destruction and devastation of the Iraqi state and society.

Law and order have broken down completely, resulting in a pervasive lack of human security; the physical infrastructure is in shambles; the health care delivery system is a mess; the education system has ceased to function; there is massive environmental and ecological devastation; and, the cultural and archeological heritage of the Iraqi people has been desecrated.”

(World Tribunal on Iraq, ‘Press Release about Jury Statement,' June 27, 2005)

The jury presented 13 findings against the US and UK governments that included:

* Planning, preparing, and waging the supreme crime of a war of aggression in contravention of the United Nations Charter and the Nuremberg Principles.
* Targeting the civilian population of Iraq and civilian infrastructure.
* Using disproportionate force and indiscriminate weapon systems.
* Failing to safeguard the lives of civilians during military activities and during the occupation period thereafter.
* Using deadly violence against peaceful protestors.

The jury also levelled charges against the security council of the United Nations for “failing to stop war crimes amongst other crimes”. It also charged “private corporations for profiting from the war” and accused the corporate media of “disseminating deliberate falsehoods and failing to report atrocities”. (ibid.)

Seeing as the result was so damning - you probably wouldn't have come across this court on the news in the US or UK. It would be uncomfortable viewing/reading.

[Goldiegirl]

I think it would be obvious that the US will never be able to have a fair trial as most countries hate us...but when there is a natural disaster or money is needed we are the first they come to. It's frustrating. I will also say I have no use for the UN. It's as useless as the League of Nations was. As for anything the Middle East says about the US I truly could care less. Sorry, but that's honesty for ya. Back to Watada, let him get his day in court as well, thank God he is in America...I wonder what would have happened to him if he refused to gas the Kurds in Iraq had he been in their army?

[Sukotto]

There are more Americans that would agree with that
"The World Tribunal on Iraq" than you might think.

As well as with Lt Watada,
War Resisters League (http://www.warresisters.org/)

including many veterans groups such as
Veterans for Peace (http://www.veteransforpeace.org/)
Veterans Against the Iraq War (http://www.vaiw.org/vet/index.php)
Iraq Veterans Against the War (http://www.ivaw.org/)
Vietnam Veterans Against the War Anti-Imperialist (http://www.vvawai.org/)

to name a few, and
shattering the myth that everyone with ties to the military
supported the invasion of Iraq Bring Them Home Now (http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/) group

[craftsman]

But Goldie it was quite literally a fair trial. From all over the world respected diplomats, academicians, reporters and human rights lawyers came together with international experts from various fields. There was no anti-US rhetoric. It was simply a court of law. The UK, the US, the UN and private corporations were all accused. Don't forget that it isn't only the US.

http://www.worldtribunal.org/main/?b=1

And to answer your question - well - yes I think we all know what would happen to him if he were an Iraqi soldier but....I wonder if he would have noticed the 'made in America' or 'made in Britain' sticker under the gas bomb in his hand!!!?

[Goldiegirl]

I don't believe in world tribunals, the un or any other group...means nothing to me. As for Americans not agreeing with the war...I think I have written this a few times...I don't like it. My point is I don't care if Watada is Japanese heritage, African Heritage, Chinese, Mexican, Irish, it wasn't his choice to decided where he wanted to go to war. When you join the military you go where you are sent...voila...that's it. My family has been in the military and in every war since WW1 and they did the duty that they were signed up for.

[Sukotto]

I don't believe in world tribunals, the un or any other group...means nothing to me. As for Americans not agreeing with the war...I think I have written this a few times...I don't like it. My point is I don't care if Watada is Japanese heritage, African Heritage, Chinese, Mexican, Irish, it wasn't his choice to decided where he wanted to go to war. When you join the military you go where you are sent...voila...that's it. My family has been in the military and in every war since WW1 and they did the duty that they were signed up for.


I don't mean to sound like a jerk (although if it is definately known to about to happen, it is by definition not unintentional - like so-callled "collateral damage"), anyway,

when people sign up for the military, regardless of ethnic, cultural, or religious background, they have a duty, they take an oath to preserve and protect the us AND its constitution and obey legal orders. For example if one were ordered to shoot down a group of unarmed children who are playing hop scotch, it is clear that that would be an illegal order. That's the more obvious since children are more commonly in our minds than things like the constitution, military law, or international law (which we are constitutionally bound by, btw. Article VI "and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;"


In these matters of war is that of command responsibility.
Those that make war or torture (illegal under any circumstance via the Treaty prohibiting Torture) policy have primary responsibility.

I'm guessing Lt Watada is willing to do prison time to stand up for what is right. That is a part of civil disobedience. If one breaks a law they believe unjust, they generally do their time anyway.
Likewise, if a president, especially those with power, say Bill Clinton were to break a law he believed unjust he should too be held accountable.
For wars and crimes against humanity we can just act conservatively with pre-existing laws.

There were flaws in after WW2 causing many to claim there was "victor's justice", which of course isn't really justice but more like retribution, but Nuremburg set the standard. Perhaps Saddam Hussein should not be put on trial for gassing Kurds or Iranians (and perhaps US officials (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/) should not be held accountable for aiding and abetting)? I disagree and instead agree with Bush, "By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder." -George W Bush, September 20, 2001

Or maybe the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, for Milosovic. That trial should keep going forward as well. If it is left dead as Milosovic than we can be certain it really was nothing more than a show-trial after all.

Watada is willing to suffer the consequences for breaking the law, why shouldn't someone like Bush? It might be embarrassing for us to have such
criminals for a rulers, but if we are a nation of laws?


i don't mean to sound like a jerk,
but "doing one's duty" doesn't mean "just following orders".
That got the people like the Germans in big trouble.

[bexchurnside]

I don't mean to sound like a jerk (although if it is definately known to about to happen, it is by definition not unintentional - like so-callled "collateral damage"), anyway,
when people sign up for the military, regardless of ethnic, cultural, or religious background, they have a duty, they take an oath to preserve and protect the us AND its constitution and obey legal orders. For example if one were ordered to shoot down a group of unarmed children who are playing hop scotch, it is clear that that would be an illegal order. That's the more obvious since children are more commonly in our minds than things like the constitution, military law, or international law (which we are constitutionally bound by, btw. Article VI "and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;"
In these matters of war is that of command responsibility.
Those that make war or torture (illegal under any circumstance via the Treaty prohibiting Torture) policy have primary responsibility.
I'm guessing Lt Watada is willing to do prison time to stand up for what is right. That is a part of civil disobedience. If one breaks a law they believe unjust, they generally do their time anyway.
Likewise, if a president, especially those with power, say Bill Clinton were to break a law he believed unjust he should too be held accountable.
For wars and crimes against humanity we can just act conservatively with pre-existing laws.
There were flaws in after WW2 causing many to claim there was "victor's justice", which of course isn't really justice but more like retribution, but Nuremburg set the standard. Perhaps Saddam Hussein should not be put on trial for gassing Kurds or Iranians (and perhaps US officials (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/) should not be held accountable for aiding and abetting)? I disagree and instead agree with Bush, "By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder." -George W Bush, September 20, 2001
Or maybe the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, for Milosovic. That trial should keep going forward as well. If it is left dead as Milosovic than we can be certain it really was nothing more than a show-trial after all.
Watada is willing to suffer the consequences for breaking the law, why shouldn't someone like Bush? It might be embarrassing for us to have such
criminals for a rulers, but if we are a nation of laws?
i don't mean to sound like a jerk,
but "doing one's duty" doesn't mean "just following orders".
That got the people like the Germans in big trouble.

Yes, Bush should be put to trial. I was shocked how oblivious you folks here were in not seeing that Watada might want to take Japanese citizenship. This idea, I will admit comes from an actuality of some Japanese high ranking individual who was not a military officer, but taking the highest position in the country, called President. Guess who? You guessed it, Alberto Kenya Fujimori, the Peruvian President who ran from 1990-2000. He left Peru in 2000and fled to Japan getting a Japanese citizenship. Like Watada, he too was oversea born. As you can see in Fujimori case, Japan was reluctant to even etradite a former president of their nation, there is no discussion that an officer of such junior rank, whose actions killed no one, would be in danger of extradition if he became Japanese.

So folks, if watada did become from a republican perspective, a coward, he wont be the first Japanese to become one. Fujimori's case would dwarf Watada.

I know that if Watada tried to become English, even if successful both England, and Canada (and all commonwealth nations) would co-operate with the United States.

[nice gaijin]

At the time of these initial charges, Lt. Watada faced the possibility of a court-martial and up to seven years in prison as well as a dismissal if convicted. About this eventuality, Watada says that he does not regret his decision and is willing to face the consequences, citing it as what he believes is a moral responsibility: "When you are looking your children in the eye in the future, or when you are at the end of your life, you want to look back on your life and know that at a very important moment, when I had the opportunity to make the right decisions, I did so, even knowing there were negative consequences."As it stands, Watada is standing up for what he believes in, and is willing to accept the consequences for it. I do not think that he would accept your 'option' even if it were presented to him. I'm not sure why you think this is such a great idea.

furthermore, after perusing the wiki article on Fujimori, I noticed this paragraph about his exile in Japan:
After submitting his resignation initially by fax and later in hard copy, Fujimori remained in self-imposed exile in Japan, where his citizenship as foreign-born Japanese was confirmed because his parents had registered him with the Japanese consular authorities in Peru as an infant, and he had not given it up under the 1985 citizenship law revision. Several senior Japanese politicians have supported Fujimori, partly because of what they consider his decisive action in ending the 1997 Japanese embassy hostage crisis.
Note the part in bold. Fujimori was not granted citizenship when he fled to Japan, he already held it. I have found no mention of Watada holding any passport other than his American one. So it seems that he couldn't run to Japan even if he wanted to. Also, if you note the last sentence in the quote, Fujimora was an influencial man, with influencial people on his side. In all actuality, Watada is a nobody, and while there might have been some Japanese figures 5 years ago willing to support a Peruvian political figure in self-imposed exile (also please note that Fujimori was still arrested and is currently awaiting the ruling of an extradition hearing in Chile), I don't think there are too many who are going to stick their neck out to aid someone who would essentially be a fugitive from Japan's biggest ally...

[bexchurnside]

If Fujimori didn't leave Japan to go to Chilie in the first place, he would have never gotten arrested. Lt. Watada could still get his citizenship. It is just that it takes more paperwork to do so. Doing it this way, he would have to lose is US citizenship, however, and not necessarily have the luxury of being a dual national.

There will be a time for Lt. Watada to as the marines wearing their proud Eagle, Globe and Anchor, to "Bug Out!"

Also, if they are willing to give David Arwinkle (Adrudo Debito) Japanese citizenship being fully gaijin, someone with Japanese ancestry should be given his citizenship.

[bexchurnside]

Watada could also join the French Foreign Legion and become a Frenchmen. Kepi Blanc. But then, he would have to become an enlisted man. Having a former commissioned officer will make him more competent than some junior corporal or a sergeant.

[nice gaijin]

Again, Watada is not trying to run from his country. He did his homework and made his decision knowing full well that it would land him a court martial. Why are you so adamant that he should be so willing to give up his own citizenship and nationality and flee to another country?

[bexchurnside]

Because if things get rough and if his life is going to be in danger, seeking exile is the right thing to do? Do you really believe that he would go so far as to make himself a martyr for this cause? Do you really nice gaijin think that if he had a choice of being free in Japan to live his whole life with a fresh start vs. dying but having people believe that the US is corrupt? Do you really believe he has the same courage with an american upbringing? Because nice gaijin, you are telling me that Watada would be willing to become a Kamikaze pilot to get his cause right now. I don't think a third generation Japanese-American would carry that kind of sentiment over 3 genertions being raised in the USA! I actually doubt that even modern Japanese would have enough honour to become a Kamikaze pilot today after McArthianism arrived to Japan. Nice Gaijin, I have not been to Japan before, but I am a fiance to a westernized Japanese, and I know that he said to me that as a Canadian, he would cover his ass if the **** hits the fan! His parents even told me that Kamikaze and Japanese pride days are long over!

After Watada does his thing, why would it be wrong to seek exile, after he gets his message across? It is normal for anyone to chose life over death.

[bexchurnside]

Again, Watada is not trying to run from his country. He did his homework and made his decision knowing full well that it would land him a court martial. Why are you so adamant that he should be so willing to give up his own citizenship and nationality and flee to another country?
I want to tell you that I would not die for England or Canada myself. You know Nice gaijin, it may be that my fiance's pespective is coloured by the fact that he is Canadian. (And I am aware that Americans think Canadians are cowards too). I am amazed that Canada doesn't have a union jack on the corner of its flag especially when Canada never rebelled against the British, and have been "Semper Fi" to the Crown! New Zeland, Australia, still have it, as England is still all Canadian's grandmother.

But even in all this, let's say something got tough politically, and hypothetically, if I had to become American and renounce being English to live a life of safety, I would do so in an instant! I am sure that you Americans would come crying back to the crown when the **** hits the fan! Americans even being proud of their declaration of independence, still would come crying back to the Commonwealth when some draft comes in, so I would give Watada a break if he choses to do the same except he is chosing Japan. It is the same logic, as many Americans who fled up north during Vietnam War? They cried back to Grandma! Wanted to declare interdependence instead of independence!

[nice gaijin]

Because if things get rough and if his life is going to be in danger, seeking exile is the right thing to do? Do you really believe that he would go so far as to make himself a martyr for this cause? Do you really nice gaijin think that if he had a choice of being free in Japan to live his whole life with a fresh start vs. dying but having people believe that the US is corrupt? You are assuming two things: that your idea of what is "right" is universal, and that a seven year stretch in a military prison is a death sentence.

Do you really believe he has the same courage with an american upbringing?what difference does that make?
Because nice gaijin, you are telling me that Watada would be willing to become a Kamikaze pilot to get his cause right now. I don't think a third generation Japanese-American would carry that kind of sentiment over 3 genertions being raised in the USA! I actually doubt that even modern Japanese would have enough honour to become a Kamikaze pilot today aft