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

[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", 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]

Originally Posted by 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!

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 ***. 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]

Originally Posted by Mike Cash

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]

Originally Posted by Glenn

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 ***. 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]

Originally Posted by Mike Cash

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]

Originally Posted by Mike Cash

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.

Originally Posted by RockLee

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?

Originally Posted by nice gaijin

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]

Originally Posted by CC1

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 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]

Originally Posted by Mike Cash

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!

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.