An Officer and a Gentleman
First Lt. Ehren Watada still refuses Iraq deployment orders, calling the war illegal.
He is charged with "missing troop movement" and four counts of "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman." A six-year prison term is possible; preliminary hearings were held Thursday (1/04/06). Unless he is assigned a buxom Marine LTC for defense, like those on the television series JAG, then he is done for.
As admirable, brave and correct is Lt. Watada's refusal to deploy, he will go down, as the sentence for missing a troop movement is immutable. He will either go to prison, or be dishonorably discharged; most likely the former, as the Army cannot allow troop movements to become voluntary.
My opposition to the prosecution of this case lies in the stacking of charges against Lt. Watada. Why is the Army stacking charges against Lt. Watada? They have him dead-to-rights for missing movement charges--the other charges are vindictive, and provide a chill message of repression aimed at all soldiers.
As far as unbecoming behavior, I wouldn't know where to begin in listing everyday examples in the military which might qualify for inclusion in this nebulous category. One example which comes to mind is the fact that American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan watch internet porno daily--is this not "conduct unbecoming" a soldier?
Give Lt. Watada a break and send him to prison, but don't make him a whipping boy.
Lt. Watada is an officer and a gentleman.
He is charged with "missing troop movement" and four counts of "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman." A six-year prison term is possible; preliminary hearings were held Thursday (1/04/06). Unless he is assigned a buxom Marine LTC for defense, like those on the television series JAG, then he is done for.
As admirable, brave and correct is Lt. Watada's refusal to deploy, he will go down, as the sentence for missing a troop movement is immutable. He will either go to prison, or be dishonorably discharged; most likely the former, as the Army cannot allow troop movements to become voluntary.
My opposition to the prosecution of this case lies in the stacking of charges against Lt. Watada. Why is the Army stacking charges against Lt. Watada? They have him dead-to-rights for missing movement charges--the other charges are vindictive, and provide a chill message of repression aimed at all soldiers.
As far as unbecoming behavior, I wouldn't know where to begin in listing everyday examples in the military which might qualify for inclusion in this nebulous category. One example which comes to mind is the fact that American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan watch internet porno daily--is this not "conduct unbecoming" a soldier?
Give Lt. Watada a break and send him to prison, but don't make him a whipping boy.
Lt. Watada is an officer and a gentleman.
posted by rangeragainstwar at 6:35 PM
7 Comments:
Lurch,
Re. your last statement, if he had, indeed it would have been, but he didn't.
Stacking charges is also used as you know to force people into plea bargains.
The conduct unbecoming charges were based upon his talking to the press. Lisa and I disagree on this one; she believes soldiers must restrain comments, and I don't. I believe the First Amendment should apply to soldiers. Why do soldiers protect a Constitution that won't protect them?
Thinking of Pat Tillman, who also opposed the Iraq operation, he correctly withheld speaking to the press until his expressed desire to do so after returning to the states. I feel Watada should have the Constitutional right to speak to the press, though I am not advocating what he did. I still feel it is a stretch to call this conduct unbecoming an officer.
It will be interesting to see his defense re. missing the troop movement. It could be messy. You don't get in a contest with a skunk; no one comes out smelling like a rose.
Jim
LT Watada is a quisling. He should have never swarn oath for a commissioned officer.
Disgraceful
Lurch,
I'm not an attorney, but..the court martial convening authority, i.e., CG, has rather broad powers under UCMJ. If memory serves, he can dismiss charges and reduce sentences. There is flexibility built into the system.
In a sense, an art. 15 is a plea bargain, b/c the preponderance of proof is lower. Once the soldier signs the art. 15, he's admitting his guilt. If he doesn't do this, then you proceed to the next stop, court martial. There is a precision to this that is beyond my level of knowledge.
It's been a long time since I've opened a UCMJ, but as I remember, it would make a hell of a bludgeon instrument.
I'm as conflicted as you are on this Watada case. But when we take the positions we've taken, you can't be half pregnant.
Like you Lurch, I don't like to dabble in conspiracy theory, and none of us knows what really happened out there with Tillman. And the Army is not very forthcoming on this one.
I'm gonna write further on Watada.
You have every reason to be proud of your service, as I am of mine. The attack on the Iraqi invasion is not an attack on the Army, as they are only carrying out executive orders.
Jim
Claymore,
You're either a veteran, or a Scottsman, and I talk to both. If you're a veteran you'll understand the following: the worst we could do to Tillman is bend his dogtags and send him to Afghanistan. But since he was already there...
We used to say the only way you can be hurt with an efficiency report is if someone rolls it up and sticks it in your eye.
I believe the system could ascribe much worse punishments upon an NCO, but since Tillman was so high profile, this would not be practical for the military,
Thanks for your comment
Claymore,
I went through jump school in June of 68, when the TX ANG was converting to airborne status. So I rubbed shoulders with the tab you have on your mail.
All the way,
Jim
Anon,
I do understand there is another way to view Watada's actions, but I don't believe Quisling is the correct term, but I am writing another piece called Quisling, as you've inspired me. As well, I am writing a clarification piece on my views on Watada.
Thanks for your input.
Claymore,
Thanks for bringing the Reuters article to my attn. I had never seen that alleged quote b/f in any of the press materials I'd read. If he said that, it would be stupid of him to do so and criminal, and if he said it, that is a violation of UCMJ.
His statements may be disgraceful according to his prosecutors, but what article of UCMJ does that violate? I find Bush's justification for going to war disgraceful, but he will not come to trial. It depends on whose ox is getting gored here, it seems.
Some safe JAG can talk about Watada being safe in his office, but when has the JAG officer ever been exposed to danger? Who is he to criticize.
Post a Comment
<< Home