The case against 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, who refused to deploy with his unit to Iraq and made statements against the war and President Bush, took an unusual turn yesterday when the army subpoenaed the journalists who originally reported on Watada’s statement:
Army prosecutors have sent subpoenas to journalists in Oakland and Honolulu demanding testimony about quotes they attributed to an officer who faces a court-martial after denouncing the war in Iraq and refusing to deploy with his unit.(HT: Instapundit)The Army’s subpoenas, which the journalists said they received last week, put them in the uncomfortable position of being ordered to help the Army build its case against 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, who faces up to six years in prison if convicted.
“It’s not a reporter’s job to participate in the prosecution of her own sources,’’ said Sarah Olson, an Oakland freelance journalist and radio producer. “When you force a journalist to participate, you run the risk of turning the journalist into an investigative tool of the state.’’
But Olson, who received her subpoena Thursday, acknowledged she has no legal grounds to refuse to testify, since she is being asked only to confirm the accuracy of what she wrote about Watada and not to disclose confidential sources or unpublished material.
Normally, she said, “no one, myself included, has any problem verifying the veracity of their reporting.’’ The ethical problem in this case, she said, is that she would be aiding the prosecution of one of the dissidents and war critics who regularly trust her to tell their stories to the public.
I can understand the reporter’s reluctance to testify. But the defense attorney says he doesn’t mind the reporters giving testimony – ostensibly because he is basing his defense of the soldier on Watada’s First Amendment rights:
Watada’s lawyer, Eric Seitz, said he understands journalists’ unhappiness at having to appear in court but would not object if they complied.“It doesn’t bother us or disturb us that reporters testify Lt. Watada made those comments,’’ he said. The main issue, Seitz said, is “whether he had First Amendment rights to say what he did.’’
Both Olson and her lawyer, David Greene, declined to say whether she would comply with the subpoena, which requires her to take part in a hearing in January as well as the court-martial. She could be held in contempt of the military tribunal and jailed if she refuses.
I think Olson is overreacting. She’s not being asked to reveal anything. She will be asked to confirm the accuracy of her reporting, something any reporter worth their salt should gladly do whether it be to the public or a military tribunal. In fact, she appears to be setting up something of a strawman in order to justify non compliance:
Before sending subpoenas to the journalists who reported Watada’s comments, the Army asked them to verify their quotes voluntarily, but they refused. Olson said last week that free expression is endangered by both the Army’s case against Watada and its attempt to enlist journalists.“If conscientious objectors know that they can be prosecuted for speaking to the press and that the press will participate in their prosecution, it stands to reason that they would think twice before being public about their positions,’’ she said. “What we need in this country now is more dialogue and not less.’’
This is nonsense. First of all, conscientious objectors will never be prosecuted for “speaking to the press.” That’s ridiculous. What they might be prosecuted for is what Lt. Watada is being charged with; failure to deploy with his unit and “conduct unbecoming an officer” for his statements against the Commander in Chief. Would Watada be prosecuted if he simply stated his opposition to the war and left out his criticism of the Commander in Chief? I doubt it.
There have been plenty of examples both here in America and in Iraq where soldiers have not been shy about declaring their opposition to the war. As far as I know, none of them have been disciplined. And if they have, that too would be ridiculous. Joining the army doesn’t mean that you lose your right to protected speech under the First Amendment. But criticism of the CIC is a different story. It goes against both military tradition and common sense. You can’t have an army in the field second guessing the decisions of the CIC. This would affect morale not to mention lead to chaos in the ranks.
There is one more aspect to this case that troubles me; it appears that the Army decided to make an example of Watada. Here’s Watada’s statement – puerile though it may be – as well as an offer the young man made that I can’t understand why the military didn’t agree to:
Watada, raised in Honolulu, joined the Army in 2003 after graduating from college and was first stationed in South Korea. In public appearances and interviews, he has said he was motivated to enlist by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks but had misgivings about the Iraq war from the start and eventually concluded that it was both immoral and illegal.“As I read about the level of deception the Bush administration used to initiate and process this war, I was shocked,’’ Olson quoted him as saying in one of the statements cited by the Army as conduct unbecoming an officer. “I became ashamed of wearing the uniform. How can we wear something with such a time-honored tradition, knowing we waged war based on a misrepresentation and lies?’’
The interview, conducted in May, was published on truthout.org on June 7, the same day Watada declined to go to Iraq with his armored vehicle unit in the 2nd Infantry Division. He said he offered to redeploy to Afghanistan or resign his commission but was turned down.
As I understand it, such requests for reassignment based on conscientious objections are unusual but have been honored in the past. As have requests to resign a commission for similar reasons been accepted. It seems to me – as completely unschooled in military procedures as any civilian – that the army wants to single Watada out and make an example of his objections to the Iraq War. If so, we can reasonably ask if Lt. Watada is being treated fairly.
Despite sounding like a Michael Moore clone, Watada is entitled to his opinions. However, his refusal to deploy based on his political opinions cannot be allowed under any circumstances. But what about his refusal to join his unit in Iraq based on his personal, moral precepts?
These are tricky waters indeed for both Watada and the army to navigate. Watada refusal of duty is not based specifically on the moral tenets of any organized religion but rather on his own personal, moral code. In this respect, Watada’s refusal of a lawful order to deploy may be seen in the same moral context as a soldier who refuses to carry out an order to shoot civilians or kill babies. It doesn’t matter if we believe Watada to be a misguided, simple minded fool. Each soldier is responsible to their own concept of morality. In this sense, Watada’s dissent may be seen as an honorable means to live up to his own personal code of moral conduct – as long as he is willing to accept the consequences of his dissent.
That last being the key to any act of civil disobedience. Because in essence, that is what Watada is doing in a very public way; he is trying to influence others by sacrificing his career and possibly his freedom. We can violently disagree with his methods and his rationale; but we can also recognize that in a democratic, civil society, this is an honorable means to disagree with the government.
UPDATE
Some may disagree with my characterization of Watada’s actions as “civil” disobedience. And they would be technically correct. But the practical consequences of Watada’s protest go beyond military justice and enter the realm of politics. For this reason, Watada’s protest impacts civil society much more than it impacts military jurisprudence.
10:22 am
Rick,
I DO think he has a right to speak out…HOWEVER, when he uses his status as an officer in the Army to promote his political causes, he begins to fall into the category of someone like Kerry who DID THE SAME DAMN THING! The only difference is that no one even tried to stop Kerry while he was still wearing the uniform of the United States. Morality is a double-edged thing. When you are an officer you are responsible for people other than yourself. Their very lives depend on what you do and say. When someone takes an “oath of office” or is “sworn in” whether that be for President, Senator, Commissioned Officer, or Enlisted…you also VOLUNTARILY take on that morality too, otherwise they’re empty words that mean nothing.
However, I DO think that a less-than-honorable discharge should be sufficient in this case. Sending him to Afganistan would be unaccetable to the men and women under his command. You think having 600 or so Congressmen conducting our wars and foreign policy is bad. Try that with every officer and elisted man who decides that he doesn’t like his job!
Sorry…my two cents.
Carol
10:27 am
Valid points all, Carol. My only quibble is that I’m not excusing or advocating what Wataba is doing. Rather I am pointing out that it is not “traitorous” in the sense that he seems willing to accept the consequences of his actions.
And I see your point about sending him to Afghanistan. But why not accept his resignation? The army lets grunts out for far less. Unless it is the fact that he’s an officer, I can’t see this prosecution as anything except an effort by the army to make an example of him.
10:54 am
A couple of points from someone who has served:
1. Resignation. I am not surprised and would not expect the military to refuse an offer to resign a commission. The precedent it would set could have serious ramifications. Are officers allowed to pick and choose which combat operations they deem “legal” and them simply resign to get out of them? I imagine many more officers would resign to keep from deploying if they could. Also, Lt. Watada had not yet served his entire first comissioning period. New officers typically have at least a 4 year initial commitment where they are not allowed to resign. After that, they have more leeway in when they can resign depending on commitments due to new assignments, training, etc.
2. Going to Afghanistan. Lt. Watada was assigned to a combat unit. Members assigned to such units in all the services train and deploy with their units. It’s not practicable logistically to simply send him to Afghanistan instead since he would have to be temporarily assigned to a unit he has not trained with. Although it could work for one or even a few inidividuals, this action would again set a precedent – imagine the flood of requests to go to Afghanistan as soon as Iraq deployment orders come up. Officers in the Navy, especially pilots on aircraft carriers, often support both operations. Would they be allowed to request only OEF and not OIF missions? Of course not.
Additionally, according to Lt Watada’s wikipedia entry, he was offered a non-combat desk job by the Army, which he refused.
Overall I don’t have much sympathy for Lt Watada. Perhaps his convictions are genuine and he truly believes what he says. In either event, it does not matter because once you sign the dotted line and take your oath, you are expected to do things you may not agree with. That is simply part of serving in the military. For example, I have always been against the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and some other policies of the military, but I have to take the bad with the good and do what I can in the confines of what is legal and honorable. Soldiers throughout time have been ordered to do things they either did not want to do or went against their personal ethos. That Lt. Watada is getting court-martialed and not summarily shot is a testament to how far we’ve come in dealing with these situations.
10:56 am
Rick,
“Unless it is the fact that he’s an officer, I can’t see this prosecution as anything except an effort by the army to make an example of him.”
BINGO! Officers are given a special responsibility and honor to command others. This is never something that should be taken lightly or without deadly serious commitment. Ask what kind of message we are sending those cadets who are still at West Point. Honor means something.
Kick him out, fine…but accord him all the shame and dishonor that he has called upon himself by stripping him of his vaunted status and any future benefits he may have had. It’s just a pity they didn’t find out about this guy while he was still a cadet. There are other peoples lives on the line now and we simply cannot afford it.
George Bush is just ONE Commander-in-Chief. They’re were others before him and there will be others after him. Respect for the “office” of CIC by those in service is something that should never change with whose in office.
Carol
11:01 am
Andy:
Thanks for all that information and your considered opinions.
I was unaware that Watada turned down a desk job. Does that change my opinion? Actually, it butresses my point that he is practicing civil disobedience in that he wishes to publicize his opposition rather than simply fade away.
Again, it is necessary that he accept the consequences of his dissent for it to be truly an act of civil disobedience rather than grandstanding.
11:03 am
Also, Lt. Watada claims the war is “illegal,” but according to every constitutional measure, it is perfectly legal and in accordance with the constitution and the US government. It is true that people in the military are obligated to only follow lawful orders. Unfortunately for Lt Watada, deployment orders are perfectly lawful.
11:08 am
Andy,
It is often the case that whenever someone disagrees with some action it is called “illegal”. For instance, Ted Rall has said that the Afghan War was just just as illegal as the Iraq War, yet gives no reasoning – as there is none. It’s sort of a catch-all for anything with you don’t like, as a lot of conservative bloggers (Rick is not among them) who call anyone against the war/the president a “traitor” or a lot of left bloggers who call anyone against their pet ideals a “fascist” or “warmonger”.
11:08 am
which you don’t like*
1:02 pm
Rick,
You don’t get it. Check out Watada’s fathers history. Young Watada joined the Army fully intending to refuse orders to deploy to Iraq. This a political stunt. He knew he would get publicity with little or no real punishment. The Army now sees that and they are pissed. They wasted valuable resources training this punk and he turned out to be a fraud. There is not too much they can do about it, but they will do what they can to punish him and deter others from trying the same stunt again.
1:16 pm
A few more points from someone else who has served.
1. Does Watada have the right to civil disobedience? Does he have the right to use his actions to make a political statement when those actions violate an oath he made to obey his CinC? Rick seems to be saying he has most of the same rights as any other citizen, including making a statement by civil disobedience. He says,”...we can also recognize that in a democratic, civil society, this is an honorable means to disagree with the government” I would say he gave up that right and there is nothing honorable in his actions. In raising his right hand during enlisment and swearing to defend the Constitution and obey all lawfull orders, he gave up his right to this kind of action.
2. Even if he does have the right to civil disobedience, Rick seems to be taking two opposing sides. He defends Watada’s right to civil disobedience, as long as he is willing to face the consequences of his actions. “In this sense, Watada’s dissent may be seen as an honorable means to live up to his own personal code of moral conduct – as long as he is willing to accept the consequences of his dissent.” But then when the military takes action that will cause Watada to face those consequences, Rick accuses them of making an example of him. If Watada gets to decide where he will serve and even if he will serve, where does it end? Will everybody in the military get the same deal? I am sure any reasonable person will agree that this is a recipe for disaster. Of course the military is making an example of him. They have to. If they don’t, then many more will start dictating to the military under what conditions they will serve, or not.
3. Watada uses the justification for his actions that this is an illegal war, which was the same justification used by the Viet Nam era objectors. Putting aside the argument regarding the legality of the current conflict, anybody joining the military post Viet Nam has know you run the risk of being sent to fight in a war you don’t agree with. But unlike the Viet Nam era, this is an all volunteer force. If you can’t live with fighting an unpopular war, don’t sign up. If you didn’t think it through before signing up, tough luck, suck it up and deal with it. But signing up and then deciding on your own that a war is illegal and you won’t serve, demonstrates either a poor grasp of historical reality or a lack of morality.
I swore the same oath Watada swore. There were no conditions attached to that oath. Watada’s CinC has given him a lawfull order and he has refused to carry it out. His violation of his oath is immoral and there is no honor in his civil disobediance. He is a disgrace to the uniform and his actions are an insult to all who have served honorably. The military has not only the right, but the obligation to prosecute him for his actions.
2:18 pm
Dan:
If you send me a link to some factual info about his father, I’d be glad to include it in an update.
Paul:
I appreciate the sentiments you expressed. You have made some excellent points that I hadn’t considered.
3:57 pm
Paul makes the arguments better than I. However, I can see a rare case where someone in the military has a real change of heart or religious conversion, etc. In those rare cases, the military may reassign a person to a non-combat role, such as the chaplain or medical services. But the case with Watada is not that he does not want to fight, but that he does not want to fight in Iraq. There is no precedent that I know of in the military that would allow people to pick and choose which conflicts they participate in.
And as an officer, Watada should have, and almost certainly was, taught about the legal requirements of service, including what constitutes a lawful conflict under the US Constitution. In every respect, the was legal and he should have known that international “norms” do not apply unless they violate a signed and ratified treaty.
Finally, I don’t know if the desk job offer is real or not – it’s just what I read on his wikipedia entry. I assume there is some justification for it.
4:19 pm
This makes no sense. An action is traitorous or it is not regardless of whether the traitor “accepts” the consequences. If that’s the basis for which you’re calling this honorable dissent, then I most emphatically disagree.
More importantly, I think you don’t understand the culture and precepts that good order and discipline require for the military to function correctly as both a fighting force and as a culture. This is not merely some schlub off the street—it’s a commissioned officer subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The man has, if the newspaper reports are correct, violated his solemn oath, and put another officer under the burden of deploying in his place, and put the men assigned under his care at risk because that team is now rent asunder and have not trained for deployment together.
I will give Watada the benefit of the doubt until the trial is complete—although his statements to the press have been in my opinion not creditable to his honor. If the charges are accurate, they are charges that are despicable and dishonorable to the core. The Army isn’t “making an example”; I fully expect any armed service to investigate and prosecute every such incident—as they have. The Army has to—it’s essential to good order and discipline. Other Army types recognize this.
And it’s not as though the guy got put there against his will and then the war magically appeared. A person in the military right now on a first enlistment has been in since we’ve been at war. Even Iraq was several years ago, and only a tiny minority would be on a first enlistment when we were at war in one location and discussing the second. A guy in ROTC who decided War Is Bad would be able to find a way out of being commissioned, although it wouldn’t be an easy free ride and would have consequences for his actions. These people who protest after joining are fools for making an oath they didn’t comprehend, or for signing up for false pretense (as a protest, as in the photographer’s mate in the Navy case right now who’s walking a very tight line to perform antiwar agitprop).
4:45 pm
Just want to mention that I believe we need to take “treason” out of the discussion. Treason is defined in the US Constitution and Watada’s violations of the UCMJ certainly do not amount to treasonous conduct. Dishonorable? Probably. Treasonous? Certainly not.
5:45 pm
I agree with you Rick, you hit it spot on – Watada went too far. He wasn’t a run of the mill dissenter. He was all about the politics and the publicity. I remember reading about it at the time, I think I blogged about him. And, yeah, the reporter shows her agenda, too.
6:39 pm
Andy, you’re right. I picked up on the sentence with that because of the logic error in the sentence, not because of the term. I prehaps should have put a caveat there.
It is, however, the charges that are put against Watada.
4:25 pm
Gerald Ford: Paying Respects
Our sky and city was filled with the memory of patriot Gerald Ford, this morning. May your skies and life be filled with memory which strengthens and instills the confidence that honor will always triumph over the World’s tyranny. RickMoran clears u…
1:25 am
[...] Roundup: Blue Crab, right wing nuthouse, [...]