Fort Lewis officer says he'll refuse to go to Iraq [chngd title] (1 Viewer)

[Navy Pride]

This is really outrageous.......This army officer joined the military as a volunteer....He gladly accepted all the benefits the military afforded him.....He raised his hand and swore to follow the orders of his superiors...Now he refuses a direct order to serve in Iraq......This is insubordination in a time of war and this guy should be tried by a General Court Martial, and if found guilty should be reduced to the rank of private, go to the brig for a specified time as outlined by the court martial and dishonorably discharged from the army........This is a slap in the face to every military person that has served in Iraq.........

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/st...ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-06-08-00-03-38

Fort Lewis officer says he'll refuse to go to Iraq

By MELANTHIA MITCHELL
Associated Press Writer

TACOMA, Wash. (AP) -- An Army lieutenant says he's prepared to face the consequences of his decision not to deploy to Iraq with his Fort Lewis Stryker brigade.

First Lt. Ehren Watada, who turns 28 Thursday, could face at least two years in prison for failing to obey an order to deploy, the officer said Wednesday evening during an Associated Press interview.

 

[ShamMol]

Re: Fort Lewis Army officer refuses and order to go to Iraq.

First, it is not a slap to the face of everyone who has served in Iraq, this is one guy's decision that is showing how he feels about the war in Iraq, not the soldiers who served it. Second, he said he would be willing to serve in Afghanistan, just not Iraq. And third, this little tidbit from the article. "The Army said Wednesday his request to resign was denied because Watada's current unit is in a stop-loss category, and he has not fulfilled his service obligation. His commission requires that he serve as an active-duty Army officer for three years ending this Dec. 3, his lawyer said."

That is interesting to me because that policy to me, is one that is flawed and against the american values of freedom and individuality. But hey, of course it is this guy who is unamerican and not the policies of the army brass with the "stop loss policy." Of course.

 

[jfuh]

Re: Fort Lewis Army officer refuses and order to go to Iraq.

First, it is not a slap to the face of everyone who has served in Iraq, this is one guy's decision that is showing how he feels about the war in Iraq, not the soldiers who served it. Second, he said he would be willing to serve in Afghanistan, just not Iraq. And third, this little tidbit from the article. "The Army said Wednesday his request to resign was denied because Watada's current unit is in a stop-loss category, and he has not fulfilled his service obligation. His commission requires that he serve as an active-duty Army officer for three years ending this Dec. 3, his lawyer said."

That is interesting to me because that policy to me, is one that is flawed and against the american values of freedom and individuality. But hey, of course it is this guy who is unamerican and not the policies of the army brass with the "stop loss policy." Of course.

I must disagree. This is nothing but a show of cowardace. You swore an oath, you signed a contract, and as an military personal, these freedoms are not enjoyed by you because you signed them off.
For perhaps the first time in DP history I have to agree with NP on this one.
The officer in question is a disgrace to the military, though I wouldn't go so far as it's a slap in the face for all those who've served as this is just his call, there have also been plenty of other instances of such cowardace as well.
Stop-loss has nothing to do with the original contract which this officer signed. He wasn't drafted, he volunteered.

 

[ShamMol]

Re: Fort Lewis Army officer refuses and order to go to Iraq.

I must disagree. This is nothing but a show of cowardace. You swore an oath, you signed a contract, and as an military personal, these freedoms are not enjoyed by you because you signed them off.
For perhaps the first time in DP history I have to agree with NP on this one.
The officer in question is a disgrace to the military, though I wouldn't go so far as it's a slap in the face for all those who've served as this is just his call, there have also been plenty of other instances of such cowardace as well.
Stop-loss has nothing to do with the original contract which this officer signed. He wasn't drafted, he volunteered.

We have to allow him to make this decision and then properly punish him for it. It is that simple...the stop loss policy is cowardice, not what this man is doing. He will be punished severely for his beliefs, and when has that ever been cowardice, to stand up for something someone believes in?

It is a breach of contract and he deserves to be punished, but it is completley not a slap in the face of everyone who served. And plus, it is not like he is not willing to serve...just saying, he will be punished for not going, but he is willing to serve.

 

[Navy Pride]

Re: Fort Lewis Army officer refuses and order to go to Iraq.

First, it is not a slap to the face of everyone who has served in Iraq, this is one guy's decision that is showing how he feels about the war in Iraq, not the soldiers who served it. Second, he said he would be willing to serve in Afghanistan, just not Iraq. And third, this little tidbit from the article. "The Army said Wednesday his request to resign was denied because Watada's current unit is in a stop-loss category, and he has not fulfilled his service obligation. His commission requires that he serve as an active-duty Army officer for three years ending this Dec. 3, his lawyer said."

That is interesting to me because that policy to me, is one that is flawed and against the american values of freedom and individuality. But hey, of course it is this guy who is unamerican and not the policies of the army brass with the "stop loss policy." Of course.

Its pretty obvious that you my friend have never been in the military.....If you had then you would know you don't pick and choose where you serve...........Can you possibly realize what the military would be like if every one thought like you?

 

[ShamMol]

Re: Fort Lewis Army officer refuses and order to go to Iraq.

Its pretty obvious that you my friend have never been in the military.....If you had then you would know you don't pick and choose where you serve...........

No kidding, but it also shows that he is not completely unpatriotic in that he is willing to serve. That was the point of mentioning that, not to allow you to demonstrate your navy pride. And I am from a military family, so don't talk to me about not understanding.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Re: Fort Lewis Army officer refuses and order to go to Iraq.

First, it is not a slap to the face of everyone who has served in Iraq, this is one guy's decision that is showing how he feels about the war in Iraq, not the soldiers who served it. Second, he said he would be willing to serve in Afghanistan, just not Iraq.

When you're a soldier, you do not pick and choose what jobs you will and will not do. It doesn't matter what you feel about anything, you put it aside and you do the job at hand. If everyone in the military were allowed to refuse lawful orders they wouldn't be able to fight a war.

And third, this little tidbit from the article. "The Army said Wednesday his request to resign was denied because Watada's current unit is in a stop-loss category, and he has not fulfilled his service obligation. His commission requires that he serve as an active-duty Army officer for three years ending this Dec. 3, his lawyer said."

That is interesting to me because that policy to me, is one that is flawed and against the american values of freedom and individuality. But hey, of course it is this guy who is unamerican and not the policies of the army brass with the "stop loss policy." Of course.

The American values of freedom and individuality don't apply to soldiers. Individuality is discouraged, they aren't free, and they aren't guaranteed any Constitutional rights, because the Constitution doesn't apply to them anymore. The UCMJ does.

It sounds bad but it's really not, I did it for 5 years. It's all a state of mind, but one that's required if people's lives may depend on your ability to follow lawful orders no matter how you feel about them.

It's a slap in the face to every solder in Iraq, whether or not they agree with the politics behind it. He has betrayed the team by not putting politics and personal feelings aside like every other soldier has to, and he has set the worst possible example as an officer. I hesitate to even call him that. I completely agree with Navy Pride.

 

[Navy Pride]

Re: Fort Lewis Army officer refuses and order to go to Iraq.

We have to allow him to make this decision and then properly punish him for it. It is that simple...the stop loss policy is cowardice, not what this man is doing. He will be punished severely for his beliefs, and when has that ever been cowardice, to stand up for something someone believes in?

It is a breach of contract and he deserves to be punished, but it is completley not a slap in the face of everyone who served. And plus, it is not like he is not willing to serve...just saying, he will be punished for not going, but he is willing to serve.

I can't emphasize how wrong you are..........If this coward does not go someone has to take his place..........The person might get killed.........Make no mistake about it as long as things were going his way this guy was happy and when he is asked to do the things he signed up for he whines like a coward...........I hope they throw the book at him.......

 

[Navy Pride]

Re: Fort Lewis Army officer refuses and order to go to Iraq.

I must disagree. This is nothing but a show of cowardace. You swore an oath, you signed a contract, and as an military personal, these freedoms are not enjoyed by you because you signed them off.
For perhaps the first time in DP history I have to agree with NP on this one.
The officer in question is a disgrace to the military, though I wouldn't go so far as it's a slap in the face for all those who've served as this is just his call, there have also been plenty of other instances of such cowardace as well.
Stop-loss has nothing to do with the original contract which this officer signed. He wasn't drafted, he volunteered.

Wow, as Al Michaels said at the 1980 olympics when the U.S. Hockey team won the Gold Medal...."Do you believe in Miracles.":cheers:

 

[Navy Pride]

Re: Fort Lewis Army officer refuses and order to go to Iraq.

No kidding, but it also shows that he is not completely unpatriotic in that he is willing to serve. That was the point of mentioning that, not to allow you to demonstrate your navy pride. And I am from a military family, so don't talk to me about not understanding.

Well if your from a military family then you would know that you don't pick and chose where you serve..You should know that............

 

[jfuh]

Re: Fort Lewis Army officer refuses and order to go to Iraq.

We have to allow him to make this decision and then properly punish him for it. It is that simple...the stop loss policy is cowardice, not what this man is doing. He will be punished severely for his beliefs, and when has that ever been cowardice, to stand up for something someone believes in?

It is a breach of contract and he deserves to be punished, but it is completley not a slap in the face of everyone who served. And plus, it is not like he is not willing to serve...just saying, he will be punished for not going, but he is willing to serve.

When you're a soldier, an order is as good as the word of god. It doesn't matter what you think. Military officers and enlisted are not private citizens. Though what you argue is perfectly acceptable for a civilian, this is not the case for anyone in the military. You do not choose who you work with where you work when you work, it's all regulated by strict military protocols.
He choose to not go to Iraq because of his personal means, that's it, nothing else. Not only so, but he also choose to publicize the incidence.
He signed a contract and as an officer swore to take orders, not to mention he was given direct orders. His patriotism, his reasons, his loyalty, all are moot; if he comes before a court martial none of the reasons I've seen here would stand. He choose to disobey and publicize. The pentalty would go far beyond simply termination of his contract.
His action is nothing short of abandoment. I mentioned cowardice earlier because that is how abandonment is seen as.

 

[Yuleluder]

Re: Fort Lewis Army officer refuses and order to go to Iraq.

PVT:
But Sir, I can't land on the beaches of Normandy, there are Germans with big guns atop those cliffs. I would much rather operate a radar system.

SGT:
Sure Pvt what ever you feel comfortable doing!

If this is how are military worked, well let's just say we wouldn't be writing english on this forum, better yet this forum probaly wouldn't exist!

 

[Jay R]

Re: Fort Lewis Army officer refuses and order to go to Iraq.

A sergeant is addressed as Sergeant and not Sir, last I heard anyway. The usual response is "Don't call me 'Sir', I work for a living!"

 

[Binary_Digit]

Re: Fort Lewis Army officer refuses and order to go to Iraq.

A sergeant is addressed as Sergeant and not Sir, last I heard anyway. The usual response is "Don't call me 'Sir', I work for a living!"

Yep, and "My parents were married!"

 

[Yuleluder]

Re: Fort Lewis Army officer refuses and order to go to Iraq.

You get the point!

 

[easyt65]

Re: Fort Lewis Army officer refuses and order to go to Iraq.

Going in, we take an oath to obey every order, to go where we are told, and to fight for our country - there are no 'but's or exceptions in that oath. It is a contract, pure and simple. No one twists our arms to sign it. He has every 'right' to say no, but the military has every right to punish him to the full extent of the UCMJ. I refuse to question his patriotism or his bravery but instead judge him on the facts above.

He will most probably get an Article 15 or equivalent and be given either a 'Dis-honorable Discharge' for 'Failure to go', 'Disobeying a Direct Order, etc...or an 'Other than Honorable' Discharge.

I had a troop who did not want to deploy with the rest of his team to a location far from combat. He was a year and a half out from getting out and was concerned only with getting out and starting his own Rap career. (No kidding.) I had to sit him down and explain that the choice he was about to make would 'haunt' him the rest of his life. 3 months in a safe location or the possibility of jail and/or a 'Dis-honorable' discharge. He made the right decision to go, but he made the decision knowing full well what the consequences of not going would be.

I do not look at this guy as a victim - he is just a man who has made a decision that he alone will have to live with for the rest of his life.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

Re: Fort Lewis Army officer refuses and order to go to Iraq.

Does he claim concientous objector status?

 

[easyt65]

Re: Fort Lewis Army officer refuses and order to go to Iraq.

Does he claim concientous objector status?

I don't see how he could after saying he will fight and kill in Afghanistan but not in Iraq.

 

[::Major_Baker::]

Re: Fort Lewis Army officer refuses and order to go to Iraq.

I don't see how he could after saying he will fight and kill in Afghanistan but not in Iraq.

Aren't you able to concietiously object to a certain military operation?
I know you are still punished, but for example, and Iraqi American may object to fighting in Iraq....

 

[easyt65]

Re: Fort Lewis Army officer refuses and order to go to Iraq.

He's not an Iraqi American.

Besides, if you allow soldiers to start picking and choosing what wars they will and will not fight in, you do not have an effective and reliable fighting force!

"Sorry, no-can-do on this one! I'll fight in the jungles, but the desert heat and blowing sand chaps my lips!" :doh

Now, I WOULD consider it if it was a race/religeous thing - remember the Islamic American who threw the handgrenade in the tent of officers? If he came to me before-hand and said he had a problem with going, i would have listened. Now, i am all for the death penalty on the guy! But this new guy has a 'political' thing, and that is not a good enough reason - sorry!

 

[::Major_Baker::]

Re: Fort Lewis Army officer refuses and order to go to Iraq.

He's not an Iraqi American.

Besides, if you allow soldiers to start picking and choosing what wars they will and will not fight in, you do not have an effective and reliable fighting force!

"Sorry, no-can-do on this one! I'll fight in the jungles, but the desert heat and blowing sand chaps my lips!" :doh

Now, I WOULD consider it if it was a race/religeous thing - remember the Islamic American who threw the handgrenade in the tent of officers? If he came to me before-hand and said he had a problem with going, i would have listened. Now, i am all for the death penalty on the guy! But this new guy has a 'political' thing, and that is not a good enough reason - sorry!

I agree with you.

here is the grounds for concietious objection:
Army regulations define conscientious objection as a "firm, fixed and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or the bearing of arms, because of religious training and belief."

 

[Captain America]

Re: Fort Lewis Army officer refuses and order to go to Iraq.

The sad truth about the military is that what you raise your right hand and swear to protect, no longer applies to you.

The military is not a democracy. Freedom as we know it cannot apply in an effective military. It has to be a total dictatorship in order to work. You cannot just turn in your two weeks notice. You are a servant. You are just shy of being a slave.

I respect this guy standing up for what he believes in. At least he didn't hide and go to Canada. He is willing to serve elsewhere. But he is very naive. The military will never let him have his way or an avalanche of others wuill follow suit.

When I was in I had to sign papers saying that I would serve "in the need of the Navy" and that meant that all other things beyond that were secondary.

If this guy wants to stand up and take his lumps, so be it. But I ain't really got a lotta sympathy for him. I always though most officers were dumbasses anyways.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Re: Fort Lewis Army officer refuses and order to go to Iraq.

It's pretty cut and dry isn't it?

1) Order given to officer
2) Order Refused by officer
3) Charges brought against officer
4) Officer found guilty
5) Officer no longer and officer
6) Prvt placed in brig for extended period
7) Prvt released and discharged dishonarably
8) Civilian sells story to New York Times and Hollywood who write articles and make movies about what a hero he was for NOT doing his duty

 

[ShamMol]

Re: Fort Lewis Army officer refuses and order to go to Iraq.

When you're a soldier, you do not pick and choose what jobs you will and will not do. It doesn't matter what you feel about anything, you put it aside and you do the job at hand. If everyone in the military were allowed to refuse lawful orders they wouldn't be able to fight a war.


The American values of freedom and individuality don't apply to soldiers. Individuality is discouraged, they aren't free, and they aren't guaranteed any Constitutional rights, because the Constitution doesn't apply to them anymore. The UCMJ does.

Actually, you are right and wrong at the same time. They do go before the UCMJ and are subject basically only to military rules, but the fact remains that as US citizens (for the most part), they are under the jurisdiction of the Constitution until they die, whether it be in service or at home.

It sounds bad but it's really not, I did it for 5 years. It's all a state of mind, but one that's required if people's lives may depend on your ability to follow lawful orders no matter how you feel about them.

It's a slap in the face to every solder in Iraq, whether or not they agree with the politics behind it. He has betrayed the team by not putting politics and personal feelings aside like every other soldier has to, and he has set the worst possible example as an officer. I hesitate to even call him that. I completely agree with Navy Pride.

I don't think that this is political at all, I think it is a tatical decision to not agree with a war and standing up for what you believe. I call it a heart-felt decision.

Well if your from a military family then you would know that you don't pick and chose where you serve..You should know that............

I do know that and that is why he is gonna be going to prison. I mean, no kidding, you don't choose where you go, but I was making the point that he is willing to serve...basically it still means he has some form of patriotism in there...deep deep down. Get the point?

I can't emphasize how wrong you are..........If this coward does not go someone has to take his place..........The person might get killed.........Make no mistake about it as long as things were going his way this guy was happy and when he is asked to do the things he signed up for he whines like a coward...........I hope they throw the book at him.......

They will throw the book at him because that is what he deserves because he literally broke military and contractual law. I don't disagree with you there. IF things were going our way in Iraq, he would have never looked into why we went there in the fist place, now would he? So you are correct there.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Re: Fort Lewis Army officer refuses and order to go to Iraq.

I agree with you.

here is the grounds for concietious objection:
Army regulations define conscientious objection as a "firm, fixed and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or the bearing of arms, because of religious training and belief."

Under those guide lines in a volunteer military it should be abolished. That statuus in todays military should not be an option under any circumstances. Take it off the books