Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Lt. Watada
After having read this article, I have to say that I commend Lt. Watada for his actions. It has been clearly established that the only "legal" wars or acts of aggression are those that take place with UN Security Council approval or those that are in response to the threat of imminent attack. Despite what some may say, the U.S. is not facing an "imminent" threat, nor did it face such a threat in the spring of 2003. Therefore, the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq, without Security Council approval, was an illegal act of aggression that Lt. Watada rightfully refused to take part in. Critics may assert that Lt. Watada is not courageous for defying the wishes of the current administration but is actually a coward for refusing to answer his country's call. To this I say that Lt. Watada is not a coward. He requested to be posted to other places, including conflict zones such as Afghanistan. He is not shying away from carrying out his country's legal missions in dangerous places. He is only refusing to take part in an illegal war waged for an improper purpose.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Um, sorry. I found a typo in the original post that was driving me crazy, so I'm reposting it, corrected.
I agree that this war is (or is most likely) illegal. However, I think Lt. Watada made a mistake in making his statement as he did. He had to know that if he refused to go to Iraq he would be court martialed for insubordination. Once in a court martial, it seems to me that it would be impossible for that court to accept that the Iraq War is illegal. If the court did so, then all soldiers would be obligated to stop fighting. This would be a violation of the Constitution, which places the President in command of the United States' military. I'm not sure that anyone within the military has the ability or authority to declare, in an official setting, that something it is doing is illegal. For the United States, the President's declaration of war makes the war inherently legal, even if, according to the tradition rules of war, it is illegal. If that made any sense at all.
Hmmm. A few comments:
1. If it is illegal for the military to declare, or rule, in the midst of a court hearing or trial, that the Iraq war is illegal, then an officer declaring the same, does seem like "conduct unbecoming".
2. The President can't single handedly declare war, per se. Congress still holds the purse strings and passes the legal documents that makes war, well, official. (U.S.Const. Art.I, s. 8 [http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html])
3. If the Pres.' declaration makes war inherently legal, then that seems like too much power and has no checks, such as the accepted practice of our S.Ct. being able to determine ultimate legality.
However, I get your point, and I think the issue, "Could a court martial even take a stance on war legality?" is really interesting. I'm gonna go look some stuff up now... JQ
Even though Lt. Watada requested deployment elsewhere, since when has the soldier chosen where he/she is to fight?
I do not call Lt. Watada a coward. I do think he is going against the norms and laws of an institutionalized hierarchical establishment: soldiers are ordered to deploy and they do.
Lt. Watada provides an intersting but complex case. One one hand here is a military officer with responsibilities and "duty" to the citizens of the USA. On the other hand, Lt. Watada stands as an individual with personal feelings and opinions. The question that has to be answered in a legal sense is, is Lt. Watada permitted to act on his opinions as a military officer, or does the fact that he is a military officer trump his constitutional rights. In this case I think Watada had the responsibility to stand up against the war, with valid reasons, however he has to be ready to pay the price of standing up with his decents.
Post a Comment