Open Letter From Mother of Lt. Ehren Watada, Resister of Illegal War

I just recieved this email. Some people are taking action against this illigal war. More power to him, and all who follow Lt. Ehren Watada lead.

"As a member of the armed forces, sworn to uphold the US Constitution, he refuses to blindly participate in a war of aggression, an illegal war that undermines who we are as a nation and violates international law. Implicit in his oath as an officer is the duty to disobey all unlawful orders, for to carry out these orders renders him an accomplice to a criminal act. Furthermore, to order his men to participate in a war of aggression multiplies his guilt a thousandfold. His conscience will not permit him to do so. He believes that he can best serve them by taking a stand against the war. In so doing, he demonstrates that one does not relinquish the freedom to choose what is right, even in the military, and that the freedom to choose what is right transcends the allegiance to man and institutions."

www.truthout.org...

No, he could best serve his men best by leading them in a dangerous environment and ensuring they undertake their duties in a lawful manner. Oh, but then again, apparently you don't have to apply this logic of what is best for your men because by defining what you believe is right, you transcend allegiances to man and institution. So at the end of the day the interests of his men don't matter, do they?

Lt Watada joined the military when Iraq was on the cards. His time to go comes up, and then he starts getting moral objections? Sorry, as has been discussed in the already substantial thread about the Lieutenant, his stand appears to be self-centred more than anything else. He does not become an accomplice to an illegal act simply by going to Iraq. In fact, international law demands that occupying forces provide security forces. By not going, he is actually going against international law. As he wasn't part of the actual invasion force, he really has nothing to worry about (not that I think those of us who were part of the invasion have anything to worry about either). The only thing he would have to worry about if he went is his personal safety, which I think is more the issue than anything else.

And for an open letter, it reads more like a press release. Just my impressions.

It's his choice to protest the war. OK, fine. That is certainly his right, but he must also be willing to pay the price. Personally, my thoughts are, he should have gone and done the best job he could to protect not only his men and women, but the innocent that are all too often caught in the middle. That would have been a greater legacy, maybe not as well known, but greater.

The situation in Iraq is beyond hope. The best that people of conscience can now do is simply to refuse to go. Conniving in the asset-stripping of a country and supporting a puppet government just doesn't cut it.

Surely people don't think that Iraq is a sovereign country with an independent government? Can ANYONE cite a truly sovereign, independent country into which, with no notice, the POTUS can fly and summon the head of state to the US embassy for a chit-chat?

Iraq is run by US puppets, and the US army, mercenaries, death squads (backed by the US), the police, insurgents, militias and religious factions all pose a threat to the lives of Iraqi citizens. In the extremely unlikely event that someone in power in the US grows a conscience, they will realise that the best that can now be done is for the US to withdraw and heavily compensate the Iraqi people for the crimes committed against them. That means simply giving them money so that they themselves can do the rebuilding, rather than stuff corrupt contractors' pockets with untraceable cash.

Months after large portions of Fallujah were destroyed in the hunt for non-existent AlQaeda operatives, no rebuilding has taken place. Now Ramadi is set to become this year's Fallujah.

How many cities will the US have to trash before the insurgency abates? LOTS. Why? Because the Iraqis know - better than US citizens - that their country has been stolen from under them, and they want it back and the US troops gone.

A soldier is bound to not execute illegal orders.

He is claiming that by going to iraq, he is doing something illegal.

That, clearly, is incorrect. The Iraq War is not illegal.

He also claims that he'd be in a situation where he'd have to do something illegal. Unfortunately for him, a soldier doesn't get to skip out on war merely because he thinks someone might tell him to do something illegal. He is required to follow specific orders that would break the law once involved in the war.

If he refuses to go to war, fair enough, its illegal for him to do so, but I can see why we wouldn't want to bother executing him, but he's certainly going to have to spend longer than the rest of his service term in a military jail.

Originally posted by Nygdan
A soldier is bound to not execute illegal orders.

He is claiming that by going to iraq, he is doing something illegal.

That, clearly, is incorrect. The Iraq War is not illegal.

The fact that the UK government refuses to release the Attorney-General's several iterations on a legal opinion on this matter clearly indicates that the legality of this war is at the very least open to debate. There are plenty of people within the UK military who have their doubts about it, and an SAS soldier refused to go back because he saw US troops treating Iraqis as "untermenschen" (his phrase).

Originally posted by Nygdan
A soldier is bound to not execute illegal orders.

He is claiming that by going to iraq, he is doing something illegal.

That, clearly, is incorrect. The Iraq War is not illegal.

by international laws it is deemed illegal and has been said many times by countless countries and the UN