Re: Watada update...
- From: "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:45:02 -0000
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Hertz_Donut wrote:
"Alvin E. Toda" <aet@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1192947306-sch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[Jerry's] definition or mine isn't really in
question here. It's his trial, not yours. And it's
been well establish by trials after WWII, and of
the US massacre of the My Lai village, that all
soldiers have a duty to disobey an illegal and
unlawful order.
There was no illegal or unlawful order involved in
the Watada Case.
It's up to the court to decide that. It may be that
Watada might lose the case on that point. But to his
credit he wants to have his say on that point in court
and the right to call other military and civilian
leaders in to tell his side of the story, under oath.
And he's willing to pay the price if he loses. He's
saying that he is only doing his duty to his oath and
country.
To the discredit of the military court, they have been
trying to avoid having him call witnesses, and avoid
setting a precedent as to what is an "unlawful order".
In doing so, they have twice placed him in jeopardy
contrary to their own procedures. There will be an
appeal to a Federal court to show the public that the
military does not run kangaroo courts of its officers.
There's a report even in the papers today, when a
sgt ordered his men to murder civilians in an
operation in Iraq.
An example, if true, of an individual abusing his
position of authority. The younger soldier
purposefully fired two rounds that missed the Iraqi
he was shooting at, a very resourceful action on his
part. You cannot confuse what individuals may do
with orders issued by a MACOM or higher.
IIRC didn't the report say that he did fire some
bullets into other bodies, but the question there was
whether the person was dead before he fired? In the
case of the victim that he claims that he purposely
missed, he blames the sgt for giving the order. But he
was observed to have fired at that time. I guess this
is one where a military jury of officers will have to
decide whether he has lied.
IIRC his commander has lost his rank and command,
but I don't recall whether he is charged with being
knowledgable about the murders and trying to cover
it up.
Again, the Sgt. was not acting on orders from above.
If anyone in the COC was relieved, it was because
they either hid evidence or hindered an
investigation.
In a civilian court, they are considered to have
conspired to commit the murder. And I don't really see
the difference in either criminal act. And do we know
that the Sgt really said that? Sure he was upset. But
he's a professional. He and the commanding officer are
good friends, and I don't think that the officer has
claimed that the sgt said that. In fact, I would bet
that the officer backs his friend up all the way.
It may have been that at the time, they all lost their
heads and they're just blaming the Sgt. Nobody would
have said anything if someone hadn't spilled the beans.
For example, they claim that he shot an unarmed Iraqi
who was running away, in the back. But how would
someone tell that someone is unarmed if they only see
them from the back? It may happen that there will be
little inconsistancies like that that may convince the
jury that the soldiers are lying.
.
- References:
- Watada update...
- From: Alvin E. Toda
- Re: Watada update...
- From: Hertz_Donut
- Watada update...
- Prev by Date: Re: Say, "Aloha", to the SuperFerry.
- Next by Date: Re: Watada update...
- Previous by thread: Re: Watada update...
- Next by thread: Re: Watada update...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
