Re: Watada
- From: "Alvin E. Toda" <aet@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 18:20:03 -0000
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Jerry Okamura wrote:
In response to Alvin
ALL wars are immoral.... "If" that is his argument,
then he also should not be willing to go to
Afghanistan or Yugosalvia, should he? Can you cite
where they have claimed that the war in Iraq was
immoral and why they believe it is? Can you explain
why Afghanistan or Yugoslavia are also war that were
fought and were not immoral?
IIRC he said that it was his duty not to follow an
illegal order. You claim that he said "immoral" order?
Lt. Watada refused an order to deploy to Iraq, a
statement of fact so undisputed that the defendant
signed a stipulation that he would not contest it.
Prosecutors understood this stipulation to be a
signed confession, and thus presented little evidence
otherwise supporting the charge. But Lt. Watada
insists that the deployment order was unlawful,
because the war itself is illegal under U.S. and
international law. Under his oath of service, Lt.
Watada argues, he has both a legal and moral
obligation to refuse to follow an unlawful order.
Admitting to the facts, Lt. Watada told the court,
was not an admission of guilt. It was this failure to
achieve a "meeting of minds" between Lt. Watada and
the prosecutors that the presiding judge cited in
throwing out the stipulation and instigating a
mistrial.
Jerry, this has been reported before. Here you switch
to using the word "illegal"? Which is it? You should
make a choice and stick with it.
Lt. Watada's legal defense has always relied on the
argument that he cannot be convicted of refusing to
follow an unlawful order -- a defense the judge did
not allow his attorney to present. Prosecutors have
argued that Lt. Watada should not be allowed to put
the war itself on trial, even if that is his only
means of proving his innocence.
You don't really mean the war is on trial? You mean
Bush's justification for the war? Someone is
accountable for the war. There are international treaty
obligations that the President is obliged to follow.
It's obvious that at the present time many officers
don't believe that the war is a legal one. Military
lawyers don't want this defense used because it sets
precedents. How are they ever going to get the men and
women that they lead to follow in future illegal wars?
This president's going for Iran next. With misleading
intelligence again? Will Cheny help him cook up some
reasons again? The duty and obligation to not follow
illegal orders is an American tradition, and one that
protects our democracy. No one is perfect, and
imperfect commanders do give illegal orders. We have a
tradition of revolution and fair play in this country.
.
- References:
- Watada
- From: Jerry Okamura
- Watada
- Prev by Date: Re: Bees and the Super Ferry
- Next by Date: Re: Bees and the Super Ferry
- Previous by thread: Watada
- Next by thread: Watada Inconsistent?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
