Didn't he join after we'd gone to war in Iraq? If so, that's about as planned as a vegetarian joining Kentucky Fried Chicken, going thru the training program and then complaining about the treatment of chickens once they appointed him manager with PETA serving as his press agents.

Posted by RW on June 8, 2006 08:48 AM Link to comment

It was March '03 - the invasion took place March 20th, so maybe before, maybe after. According to the article, he studied the issue and his views changed over the course of the last three years. Must you act 3 years from now on the basis of the beliefs you hold today?

Posted by smijer on June 8, 2006 09:22 AM Link to comment

Tough questions. Here's my view, based on a very rough analogy.

I sign up for a job with a company, and agree to a number of mutual commitments in my contract. The company fulfills their legal end of our bargain, but I discover after working there for a while, that the company is involved in some area (say, land mine production) that I find morally abhorrent, even though it is not unambiguously illegal. I feel obliged to resign, which means I'm subject to a number of penalties as laid out in my original contract. I would like to say, "I just want to get free and clear," but I'm in a bad position: I don't think I deserve to be punished for making a decision I consider moral, but I am breaking a commitment I previously made, no matter how poorly I now view that commitment.

I think Watada is in a comparable position. He shouldn't be forced to do something he thinks is wrong, and ideally no one should punished for following his conscience. The military, however, also isn't wrong in wanting Watada to be held accountable. I wonder if there's a compromise outcome, in which the military says, "You're out for not following orders, but it's not for dishonorable reasons."

Thinking about this case, I'm reminded of pacifist conscientious objectors who have to make the case that they're against all wars in general. I've never been happy with this. I think that, as citizens of a democracy (or a close approximation of one), we should have a finer-grained choice.

Posted by RSA on June 8, 2006 11:30 AM Link to comment

Must you act 3 years from now on the basis of the beliefs you hold today?

In the case of a soldier: Abso-freaking-lutely. Morally, we could debate until infinity. Legally, that is not even debatable. My nephew, whom you've often seen me write about, signed up for a six year hitch, so he officially agreed contractually to adhere to the USMCJ during that period. If an officer gives him an order that he believes is illegal, there are remedies (they even train for that instance, IIRC). If you get the vapors because you don't like the war, well, that's another issue altogether. When you sign on the dotted line you agree to say "sir, yes sir".

This is a nonstarter, IMO. He either has a plea bargain or a trip to the stockade in his future. My gut tells me "PR campaign" and that he'll soon be discussing the made-for-television movie on his behalf and whether or not Tim Robbins or Sean Penn will play him (directed by Sarandon, of course).

You're out for not following orders, but it's not for dishonorable reasons."

Dishonorable discharge would be the best case scenario for him at this moment. If he's not punished, the door is wide open for any person to refuse orders for political reasons in the future. Think outside the box, gents. One day soon there'll be a liberal Democrat serving in the WH and there's a whole helluva lot of Republican soldiers who may not like the next "peacekeeping" mission that they could be sent on.

Posted by RW on June 8, 2006 12:15 PM Link to comment

One day soon there'll be a liberal Democrat serving in the WH

I'd like to think that Bush is an aberration for Republicans as well as Democrats.

If he's not punished, the door is wide open for any person to refuse orders for political reasons in the future.

Smijer's post touches on organizational issues, but I've thought about them as well. I didn't express it clearly enough above: I think that the best outcome for Watada may be at odds with the best outcome for the military, unfortunately. I'm reminded of court cases in which someone is made an object lesson for others. Bad for him, good for society.

Posted by RSA on June 8, 2006 12:49 PM Link to comment

The second term "moderate at best" Bush is quite the aberration from the GOP norm. :)

Posted by RW on June 8, 2006 01:28 PM Link to comment

The bottom line is the oath to 'protect and defend the constitution...and to follow the LAWFUL orders....'. All other issues are secondary. I personally never paid much attention to the part of the oath about '...all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC..." until we invaded Iraq. It became clear that there are enemies of the constitution within our current administration, and the dilemma became how to defend the constitution against these enemies without destroying the government. It is always interesting and inspiring to see the demonstration of character under the attack of being labeled a character. lLT Wataba's single most admirable attribute seems to be courage. Thanks to lLT Wataba for honoring his oath to defend the constitution and ME!

Posted by Richard on June 20, 2006 08:07 AM Link to comment

Unfortunately, he is getting more press than our Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Airmen who are dying from terrorist placed IEDs, who are captured, tortured and beheaded by terrorists and who are dying to promote democracy, human rights, religious freedom and all of those things that we [the citizens of the United States] feel are self-evident as our human rights.

Apparently a lot of America has already forgotten that we lost over 3000 civilians and a national landmark in a well planned and well funded terrorist attack against our country.

"To obey the orders of those appointed over me"

He volunteered to support and defend the constitution of the United States and obey the orders of those appointed over him. He swore an oath when he became a commissioned officer in the United States Army. He signed a contract with the United States to serve his country. He has failed to do so. Where is his Honor, Courage and Commitment in support of his country? He should be stripped of his rank and commission and summarily drummed out of the United States Army. He has failed his brethren in the military, and I wouldn't trust him to cover my back in a hostile situation. He might let us get overrun by the enemy, because he feels that an attack on their position was unjustified and illegal. The public has no say in this debate, because he can only be tried by his peers at Courts-Martial. His peers will decide his fate. He deserves no more recognition.

He has forgotten that these terrorists in Al-qaeda would like to see him dead, because he is an American.

Do you want to fight the war against terrorism on our shores, in your home town? He evidently does.

If Patton had decided that he didn't want to fight Germany in France or at all, because they didn't attack us on our shores, where would we be today? If we hadn't stepped in to the aid of South Korea, where would they be today?

Think about it. And thank God that our honorable military officers and enlisted personnel are willing to defend democracy and fight tyranny, again, and again, and again.

Posted by REM on June 23, 2006 01:41 AM Link to comment

Back in the day an enlisted man on a US Navy ship could be put to death for falling asleep while standing watch during war time. Do you see where I'm going with this?

Posted by Rob on June 23, 2006 09:46 AM Link to comment

Rob -- no... I mean I don't even know which side you are on. If you are on the, "hang 'im" side, then I guess you are saying that since yesterday was very draconian, anything we do today, no more draconian than then, must be right. If you are on the, "let 'im walk" side, then I guess you are saying that to prosecute him would be just as bad as shooting the guy who fell asleep on watch. Am I even close?

Posted by smijer on June 23, 2006 12:07 PM Link to comment

He was hired to do a job with right hand raised and took an oath. What kind of military protection would this country have if we just let our military personel walk away when they disagree with an order? Hang him? Nope! He should live out his days in prison.

Posted by Rob on June 23, 2006 01:56 PM Link to comment

Forgot to mention that I do not fit the "Joe Six Pack" as mentioned above. I don't care for war at all. But....when it comes to the military there are guidlines.

Posted by Rob on June 28, 2006 11:31 PM Link to comment

Rob, I can relate to the pragmatic argument, that our military must be commanded rather than making individual elective decisions, even if those decisions are predicated on the soldiers' individual moral views.

I am looking at the question more broadly. What are the costs of allowing individual soldiers to operate according to their own moral standards (which, in many cases, may be higher than our governments'), vs. the cost of accepting a situation where persons are allowed or asked to forfeit the right to individual moral judgments?

Your answer above, that an uncooperative soldier should be removed from the military - that is an interesting idea. In such a case, the military would consist only of willing soldiers, and people who were asked to do something they deemed unethical would only be penalized as a matter of natural consequence - in the sense that returning them to civilian life without benefit of military service could be considered a penalty. Certainly not the worst idea - certainly not as drastic as hanging them from the yard-arm.

I think that anyone would agree that, though the German courts never declared illegal anything the German soldiers did under Hitler, it was the proper thing to do for those soldiers to refuse their orders. I think we would further agree that a just society would have permitted those soldiers to refuse their orders. So the question isn't whether it is ever permissible to exempt soldiers from their orders, short of unquestioned illegality of the orders - the question is, under what circumstances is that permissible.

I think that, had it been possible or permissible for soldiers of either side in WWII to work according to their conscience and their own judgment, the result would have been a greater, and less costly victory for the Allied side. Giving soldiers a degree of moral autonomy seems to me to be a check against the power to wage unjust war - and may therefore be desirable. But it does come down to trust in the soldiers themselves. If you believe a decisive number will shirk combat for purely selfish reasons, under the cover of such permissiveness, then it would make sense to disallow it. If you think the decisive number will follow their conscience over their individual self-interest, bearing in mind that their mission is life-saving and crucial - in the way we think volunteer firemen will do the same... then possibly it is a better answer to grant soldiers the right to self-discharge in cases of conscience.

That's why I lean toward granting Watada that option.

Posted by smijer on June 29, 2006 12:04 AM Link to comment