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…

It is, however, the charges that are put against Watada.

Rather I am pointing out that it is not “traitorous” in the sense that he seems willing to accept the consequences of his actions.

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).

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.

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.

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.