scribblings from a deist transhumanist libertarian minarchist citizen soldier

Army charges lieutenant who wouldn’t go to Iraq

Posted by Trevor in under other on Jul 6th, 2006 | View Comments |

1st LT Waqtada I believe that soldiers are morally obligated to obey the Constitution, but it’s really not up to a First Lieutenant to decide whether or not a war is justified. Congress and the President decide those matters. You’re kind of stuck with what they decide after you swear in. I don’t think that Watada is doing his best to “faithfully discharge the duties of his office.”

I’m not quite sure how I feel about the charges of contempt being brought forward. I’ve expressed frustration with President Bush and other American politicians on several occasions in this blog. Hopefully, Army lawyers aren’t planning on charging me with contempt. I think that military personnel walk a fine line. It’s important that we have the political freedom to speak freely just like any other citizen. However, military personnel should always make clear that their personal feelings are on the back burner while in uniform.

The Army accused 1st Lt. Ehren Watada of missing his brigade’s troop movement to Iraq, twice speaking contemptuously of the president and three acts unbecoming an officer. The alleged actions are violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The charges come about a month after Watada announced his decision not to deploy with the 3rd (Stryker) Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division at a June 7 news conference in Tacoma with opponents of the Iraq war.

I think there is a difference between being ordered to shoot unarmed civilians lined up against a wall and just plain old refusing to go to war, even though you swore an oath to obey the orders of the President and everyone else above you in the military chain of command. Certainly people are entitled to make their own final decisions about what is moral and what isn’t; even those who are in uniform. But if a military court disagrees, as I suspect it will, then LT Watada will be paying a heavy price for deciding himself that the war in Iraq is unjustifiable.

You can read the officer and enlisted oaths of office in their entirety below:

Enlisted “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).Officer “I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

Similar Posts:

Print This Post |

Helen

As an officer he is suppose to set an example for his enlisted personnel. He is doing a really poor job of that.
Trevor

I'm curious to see how it all turns out.

Watada is going to be made an example of because he promotes something that military leaders are always worried about - insubordination.

Imagine if soldiers suddenly started refusing to deploy en masse for various personal reasons or because they objected to this, that or the other thing. I am a big fan of the thinking soldier, but a man who carries a gun for a living should be mentally prepared to use it at some point.

When that same man swears to use the gun according to orders given by the men who are militarily in charge of his nation, and takes a paycheck for a year or two only to refuse continued service when told it is time to earn his keep, well...
Dale

This is appropriate. He objects, ok. He doesn't follow orders, he goes to trial. Actions have consequences. These are his.
Walter E. Wallis

I resent the fact that this smegma still wears the Indian Head patch of the Second Infantry Division, the patch I wore into combat. I suggest that in any future uniformed appearances he wear a Smiley Face or a no u-turn sign.