On June 7, 2006, a 28-year-old Army lieutenant named Ehren Watada released a video press statement announcing that he was refusing to deploy to Iraq because the Iraq War was illegal and his “participation would make me party to war crimes.” After three years of trying to convict him by court martial, the Army has finally given up and allowed Lt. Watada to resign. Despite his direct refusal of an order to deploy, Watada did not spend a single day in jail.
Watada’s Story
A former Eagle Scout with a degree in finance, Watada volunteered for military service after 9/11. His motives could hardly have been more patriotic. For himself and his fellow soldiers, he said, “the reason why we all joined the military” and “the commitment we made to this country” is “to sacrifice everything–sacrifice our lives, our freedom–to ensure that all Americans live in a country where we have true democracy.”
When he learned that he would be shipped to Iraq, Lt. Watada began to read everything he could find about the war, on all sides, so that he could better motivate the troops under his command. One of the books he read was James Bamford’s A Pretext for War. In a film made about his story, In the Name of Democracy, Watada described shock at what he learned: “Our country, and we as a military, had been deceived. There’s no other way of putting it. Whether they misrepresented the truth, or they told half-truths or misled–it’s a lie.” The Iraq War was “a war not out of self-defense but by choice.”
Watada is not a pacifist, and he based his stand not just on the falsehood of the justifications for the war but on the usurpation of legitimate constitutional authority by the officials in the George W. Bush administration.
“There came a time when I saw people with power, and they held that power absolute and they did not listen to the will of the people,” he says in In the Name of Democracy. “That was the leadership of our country. Those were the people who were in charge of our lives, and yet they did what they wanted to do with impunity, and nobody was willing to stand up and challenge them.”
Watada offered to resign or to be deployed to Afghanistan; the Army refused. He felt bound by his military oath to do what his conscience abhorred. Then he had an epiphany: his military oath actually required him to refuse orders he believed were illegal, and his loyalty was owed to the Constitution, not to the officials who were perverting it.
“I believe the only real God-given right we have is the freedom to choose,” Watada says. “And when we take that away from ourselves, then we put ourselves in an invisible prison that nobody else imposes on us except for ourselves. When you tell yourself again that you do have a choice–I could go to prison for it, I could be tortured, I could die for it, but I have that choice and I can make it–then that invisible prison kind of lifts off, and you feel free. I felt so free when I told myself that I have a choice.”
On June 7, 2006, Watada issued a statement announcing his refusal to deploy: “It is my conclusion as an officer of the armed forces that the war in Iraq is not only morally wrong but a horrible breach of American law. Although I have tried to resign out of protest, I am forced to participate in a war that is manifestly illegal. As the order to take part in an illegal act is ultimately unlawful as well, I must as an officer of honor and integrity refuse that order.”
Crucial to his argument was the unconstitutionality of the decision to go to war. “We had people within our country with tremendous amounts of power who were doing whatever they felt they wanted to,” Watada explained. “There were no checks and balances like our Constitution espouses.”
His disobedience was also his duty under international law: The UN Charter and the Nuremberg principles “bar wars of aggression.” As treaties, they are US law as well.
Watada was aware that imprisonment was the likeliest consequence of his action. But he planned to put the war on trial in the process: “I will try to argue the legal merits of the war: that it is illegal, that it is immoral and that officers and soldiers of conscience should not be forced to do something that is illegal and immoral.”
The Army charged Lt. Watada with failure to deploy to Iraq with his unit and began court martial proceedings. There began the torturous process that ended with Watada’s recent victory–a process that echoes the old saying, “Military justice is to justice as military music is to music.”
Watada and his supporters prepared to put the war on trial. But Military Judge Lt. Col. John Head refused to allow Watada’s motivation for refusing the order–the war’s illegality–even to be considered. Judge Head maintained that when Watada stipulated that he had disobeyed an order, he was actually confessing guilt, making any defense irrelevant.
The court tied itself in knots trying to maintain the paradox that a soldier has a duty to disobey illegal orders while Watada could not argue that the order he disobeyed was not a lawful order.
When the judge called for the prosecution and defense lawyers to request a mistrial on the grounds that Watada must have misunderstood his own statement, both sides told Judge Head that they disagreed with him. At that point the judge virtually instructed the lawyer for the prosecution to ask for a mistrial, which he immediately granted.
Judge Head proposed to retry Watada on the same charges. But, as Watada’s lawyer Eric Seitz said in a press conference after the court martial, since both prosecution and defense had presented their full cases, that would be an obvious breach of the Constitution’s safeguard against double jeopardy–trying anyone twice on the same charges. The Army, Seitz said, should realize that “this case is a hopeless mess.”
Three military courts rejected Watada’s double jeopardy claim; but as soon as the case was appealed to a civilian court, US District Court Judge Benjamin Settle issued a stay blocking the retrial and charging that “the military judge likely abused his discretion.” The Army announced it would appeal but then did nothing for eighteen months, leaving Watada in limbo. Finally, after a campaign by Watada’s supporters, the Obama administration’s Department of Justice nixed the Army’s appeal. The Army threatened to court martial Watada on other charges but finally decided to accept defeat.
Deeper Questions Remain
Ehren Watada is now free to go on with civilian life. But as the Obama administration goes into arrears on its pledges to withdraw from Iraq, plunges further into quagmires in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and threatens to escalate conflict with Iran, the questions Watada’s action posed continue to haunt us. Here are a few:
Is there a right and obligation to resist?
Watada raised the fundamental question of whether authority–in the military or in society more generally–is something to be blindly accepted, or something to be subject to rational moral and legal examination. He asserted that “the American soldier must rise above the socialization that tells them authority should always be obeyed without question. Rank should be respected but never blindly followed.”
Gen. Peter Pace, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked in 2006, “Should people in the US military disobey orders they believe are illegal?” He answered, “It is the absolute responsibility of everybody in uniform to disobey an order that is either illegal or immoral.” If so, what are the implications for soldiers, for the military and for the rest of us?
Should the military hear claims that orders are illegal?
Watada stated, “I understand that under military law, those in the military are allowed to refuse and in fact have the right to refuse unlawful orders–a duty to refuse. In a court of law they should be given the opportunity to bring evidence and witnesses to their defense on how that order was unlawful. In this case I will not be, and that is a travesty of justice.”
Should the law recognize selective objectors?
The Selective Service Act provides conscientious objector status to those who oppose all wars on grounds of moral conscience. But it takes the position that objectors can’t pick and choose their wars. Yet today there are strong moral grounds to oppose many, if not most, of the wars that occur, even for those who might admit in principle that some wars might be justified. Amnesty International takes the position that there is a right to such “selective objection” and that those who are punished for refusing to participate in a war they consider immoral are “prisoners of conscience.”
Watada recognized that “in opposition to my position, the argument will be made that soldiers don’t have a right to pick and choose their wars.” But, he maintained, “I would respond that it is not only our right but our constitutional and moral duty.” Is it time to recognize conscientious objectors to particular wars?
How can illegal wars of aggression be prevented?
There is currently a broad debate on torture in policy circles, the public and to some degree in the courts. But torture is only one war crime, and it’s not the most severe. Yet there is virtually no effort to question or establish accountability for the most important war crime by the United States in Iraq: illegal pre-emptive war.
As Watada said, “I think the greatest crime that the leaders of a country could commit–the leadership of a country–would be to take their people, their country, into war, based upon false pretenses.”
In a statement that won him an additional charge from the Army, Watada told a Veterans for Peace convention, “To stop an illegal and unjust war, the soldiers can choose to stop fighting it.” Is such action disloyalty, or a much-needed addition to our system of checks and balances?
The Army vented its own frustration at its failure to convict Watada by insisting that his resignation was “under other than honorable conditions.”
Lt. Ehren Watada honorably sacrificed much and risked more “to make sure that all Americans live in a country where we have true democracy.” The Army should honor him as a military hero.
__._,_.___
“He answered, ‘It is the absolute responsibility of everybody in uniform to disobey an order that is either illegal or immoral.’”
For the cost of a single additional soldier stationed in Afghanistan for one year, we could build roughly 20 schools there, writes Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times. Kristof discounts the argument that you have to “do security” before you can “do education,” noting that Greg Mortenson has built 39 schools in Afghanistan and 92 in Pakistan – and not one has been burned down or closed. CARE has 295 schools educating 50,000 girls in Afghanistan, and not a single one has been closed or burned by the Taliban. The Afghan Institute of Learning, another aid group, has 32 schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan, with none closed by the Taliban. Kristof argues that these schools were protected by local community support. Judging by actions, Islamic extremists in Pakistan believe more in the transformative power of education than the government of the United States – they provide free schooling and often free meals. For roughly the same cost as stationing 40,000 troops in Afghanistan for one year, we could educate the great majority of the 75 million children worldwide who, according to Unicef, are not getting even a primary education.
Heather Taskovics Many bright blessings to my beautiful friend, Mysticle Wuori for posting this on her FB page: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvG1iVw8IjQ
I repeat, we will solve problems, as Americans. There is no need for fear mongering or second guessing. Mr Obama is a Pragmatist who is trying to get our legislators off their dead centers and make changes that can benefit everyone. Tyranny comes in many forms. We are living under the tyranny of private corporations who not only make the rules but then use their money, power and influence to create public opinion. In this case, however, that’s just not going to work because despite the constant barrage of misinformation, dirty tricks and negative reporting coming from the likes of Fox news, we elected Mr Obama. The same majority that elected him is supporting his efforts to create fairness in the health care system. So squawk all you want to about Socialism. That doesn’t change the fact that we are functioning here as a healthy Democracy.
Interesting definition of Socialism in the American Heritage Dictionary: 1) a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods. 2) In Marxist-Leninist theory, the building of the material base for communism under the dictatorship of the proletariat. The proletariat, as I understand it, is the common people. At least in the Marxist-Leninist version, this is probably at the heart of the failure of most socialist systems because it is akin to being directed by a committee that has absolute authority. America has always exhibited a mixture of independence and central authority. The central authority is usually given power when private interests create abuses (ie the need for all kinds of regulations). Ironically it is the Democratic aspects of our system that gives the govt. more power. If health care was working and people were not being abused by private co’s we would not be trying to regulate them.
My point is that the American private sector is alive and well and will not be dictated to by a committee for very long. They will make adjustments so that they can continue to produce profits. None of the health care proposals are going to put Insurance co’s out of business. They will complain, and object, which is their right, but in the final analysis what’s right is right and what’s wrong is wrong.
Prominent people in the insurance industry are beginning to admit to the abuses of power by some co’s. I’ve been in the insurance industry for a long time. I predict that the co’s are probably way ahead of the curve. They have probably already planned their future moves and will deal with whatever congress throws at them. A year from now, five years from now, ten or twenty years from now, we will still have a prosperous private insurance industry. But because of the reforms that we can put into place now, we will have a better society to live in.
They cannot be happy for America when it means supporting our president. Something I believe they called treason when people questioned the previous president when his administration broke myriad laws and lied to start wars.One of the things that the world and many Americans found so disturbing about the bush cabal was their total disregard for the entirety of the flow of history and their disregard for the internation system of conflict resolution created by the United States in the 20th century. A system and set of ideas and ideals followed by every American president from FDR to Clinton. Every one regardless of party or ideology played from the same rulebook. A rulebook drafted from the foundation of American values and ideals. bush thought all the rules – those ones, the ones in the Constitution, the ones in American law, simply did not apply to him if he wanted to do something outside the rules. THAT is why the nobel commitee was moved to present this award to President Obama. He has moved in a short time, a time when he is also fixing the system of finance left in tatters by conservatives, while he is fixing the health care system left in tatters, the environmental policy of the US also left in tatters, moved in that short time to place the United States foursquare and center back in a place of leadership and moral authority stemming from our adherence to our own system of laws and values. He is leading by example, not by dropping bombs on anyone who dare disagree with him. A much stronger and far reaching way to affect democratic change and bring peace.
Posted by: John1263 | October 9, 2009 8:08 AM
A knee-jerk reaction to this news isn’t worth much. It takes a little research to understand the rationale of the Nobel peace prize committee.
1. The committee said that for 108 years it had sought to stimulate precisely the international policy and attitudes for which Obama is now the world’s leading spokesman.
That is to say, the prize is intended as both a representation of what the committee has been promoting and also a much-needed endorsement of Obama, a push in the direct direction.
2. On the other hand, the other candidates were less than impressive. The Guardian for example notes: “Speculation over potential winners had focused on Zimbabwe’s prime minister, Morgan Tsvangirai, a Colombian senator and a Chinese dissident, along with an Afghan women’s rights activist.”
3. Those who want achievements instead of speeches and efforts, should be reminded that the world’s most intractable problems are in Obama’s lap through no doing of his own, but yes through the doings of the previous American president. He can try but if he doesn’t succeed, it’s not his fault.
Posted by: FedUp1 | October 9, 2009
I congratulate the Nobel Prize Committee for this bold and correct choice to award President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize. His vision, leadership, and initiatives to promote peace and harmony among countries and peoples mired in war and violence deserved nothing less.
RUPERT MURDOCH, the owner of MySpace, FOX, WSJ, NYPost, DowJones (didn’t kinow that did ya?), 39 % of UK SKY, DirecTV (didn’t know that either, did ya?), London Times, Sunday Times, 20th Century Fox (records, films, radio, TV) & another 20% of the world’s media; controlling interest in many more companies & even more controls on CBS, NBC, ABC & any other company that wants to produce programming for DirecTV & SKY (give him time, with proxies & buyouts he should control in 6 months), is now out to force all people to pay for view on the internet. He is trying to take control of the internet.
Now, you may not think that is a threat but – Rupert is the fund behind the project for a New American Century – the neo-con group that includes Rumsfeld, Cheney, Kristol (the younger idiot, not the elder who was in & of himself smarter and actually scarier), Bauer, Decter, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Forbes, Quayle & others. He funds the Weekly Standard (Kristol’s propagandist rag) & FreedomWatch (Bradley Blakeman’s shill 501c4 org that promoted Bush policy on the outside- Blakeman was Bush’s lawyer). They are the planners of the concept of perpetual war for the economy & power of the world. Paranoid? Not hardly. DO YOUR RESEARCH
Starting July, 2009, the WSJ & possibly the DOW will go on pay net – pay to see; NYPost & the rest to follow suit setting off a 2 tier net. One of commercials & little information, the other pay for information.
Network neutrality or “net neutrality” is the principle that Internet users should be able to control what lawful content they view, what applications they use, and what information they post on the Internet without interference, restrictions or limitations imposed by their Internet service providers. It is, in essence, the founding principle of management for the Internet, described by the Federal Communications Commission as the “Four Freedoms”.
As of now though there are no rules prohibiting network operators from interfering with subscriber Internet access and use and no real way for the FCC to enforce, as a matter of law, those principles. That may be about to change. In September the FCC proposed a new set of rules embracing net neutrality and preventing companies such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from deliberately blocking or slowing certain kinds of web traffic. The rules came in large response to actions by Comcast and others of blocking or disrupting Internet traffic for its subscribers and censoring access to certain kinds of sites. The FCC is expected to vote on the proposed rulemaking at its October 22nd meeting. That vote will set off a series of regulatory procedures, with a final rule introduced sometime in the spring.
The issue is not just confined to telecom companies censoring content. Large telecommunications and cable companies want to create tiered pricing for content providers to better reach Internet users. That would drastically change the ability of individuals and small businesses to compete with larger interests to attract users.
Not surprisingly, Republican lawmakers are pushing back against the proposed FCC regulations, arguing that the effect will be to stifle innovation and growth. In September Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX), Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation COmmittee introduced an amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill that would prohibit the FCC from expending funds to develop and implement any of these regulatory mandates. If successful this would hamstring the FCC from doing its job of properly regulating telcom interests for the benefit of consumers, thus leaving Internet users vulnerable to the current predatory, unfair and discriminatory practices of the telecommunications industry.
The issue seems like a no-brainer. If the content is lawful to begin with, users should be free to access, exchange, and post that content without Comcast, Verizon, or any other corporate interest acting as a gatekeeper. In many ways the Internet functions much the same way as our public libraries- spaces where information of all kinds is available, accessible, and exchanged. So long as it is lawful it should be available and free from interference.
And to the issue of tiered subscription services for Internet access, isn’t that akin to discriminating on content. If a subscriber is forced to pay for “premium” services the same way cable subscribers are forced to buy channels in “bundles” how are those choices determined and how are the prices set? What guarantees would consumers have that they could access ALL Internet content, regardless of price if telcom holds the keys?
We have already given the telecommunications industry blanket immunity for spying on citizens, immunity for data mining, and now they want to usurp the very democratic principles that have driven Internet growth and development so far. With all the fear-mongering concerning “socialism” shouldn’t we be worried about the corporate fox already in the hen-house?
Michael John Woods Thank you President Obama for your honesty and credibility. Your speech was inspiring, timely, and informative. It’s great to have a leader in the White House! We will solve problems. Together as Americans. No need for fear mongering or second guessing. We can make this work!
Immigration is a complex issue that is changing the face of cultures worldwide. In the United States, it is often a controversial issue with many social, economic, political and even religious implications. In the midst of the debate, what often gets lost are the human issues at stake..
“Dying to Live” is a profound look at the human face of the immigrant. It explores who these people are, why they leave their homes and what they face in their journey. Drawing on the insights of Pulitzer Prize winning photographers, theologians, Church and congressional leaders, activists, musicians and the immigrants themselves, this film exposes the places of conflict, pain and hope along the US-Mexico border. It is a reflection on the human struggle for a more dignified life and the search to find God in the midst of that struggle
“This documentary is a revealing, riveting and heart wrenching look at one of the most pressing issues facing our nation…this film digs deeper and explores the hopes and aspirations of the men, women and children who risk everything for a better life and for the opportunity to work toward the American Dream.”http://www.dyingtolive.nd.edu/index.html
Report: Good Immigration Policy Helps the Middle Class
Posted by Michele Waslin, Immigration Impact at 8:59 AM on September 26, 2009.
The myth that immigration is bad for U.S. workers has sullied the immigration debate for far too long. A new report by the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy (DMI), “Principles for an Immigration Policy to Strengthen and Expand the American Middle Class: 2009 Edition,” sets the record straight. In the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, and in anticipation of a new round of legislative debates on comprehensive immigration reform, DMI’s report makes a rational, concise argument for why comprehensive immigration reform is needed to improve the conditions for middle class Americans.
DMI states that “good immigration policy should be good for every American,” and designs a two-part litmus test to evaluate immigration policies: 1) Immigration policy should bolster—not undermine—the critical contributions immigrants make to our economy as workers, entrepreneurs, taxpayers, and consumers; and 2) Immigration policy must strengthen the rights of immigrants in the workplace. Using these two guidelines, Congress can create and implement an immigration policy that is good for middle class Americans.
Bolstering Immigrant Contributions
DMI refutes the myth that our economy is a closed, zero-sum system. When immigrants are working in the U.S., many assume they simply take jobs away from Americans. The fact is that immigrants contribute to the growth of the economy as workers, taxpayers, and consumers. The middle class relies on the goods and services produced by immigrants, and benefits from the generalized economic growth immigrants stimulate. Immigrants spend money, thereby creating demand and jobs. Immigrants pay taxes, helping to shore up Social Security and other programs middle class workers depend upon.
Under the current system, undocumented workers are vulnerable and exploitable, living at the mercy of their employers—to the detriment of both the immigrants and middle class Americans. The current recession increases employers’ incentive to cut costs by taking advantage of cheaper undocumented workers.
As long as a cheaper and more compliant pool of immigrant labor is available to employers who are willing to wield the threat of deportation against their workers, those same employers will be less willing to hire U.S.-born workers if they demand better wages and working conditions.
Ensuring that immigrant workers and native workers are on a level playing field—the same enforceable rights, the same ability to complain—makes for better conditions for everyone. If immigrants are empowered to exercise workplace rights, they can improve their own working conditions, making the jobs more desirable, and more jobs can become “middle class jobs.”
DMI concludes that comprehensive immigration reform, including permanent legal status for immigrant workers, is necessary. Perhaps Lou Dobbs, self-appointed champion of the American middle class worker, should read the fact included in DMI’s report and discover he’s got it wrong—immigration reform would be a boost for American workers he claims to speak for.
Michele Waslin, Ph.D., is the Senior Policy Analyst at the Immigration Policy Center
Right now, America’s prairie dogs are being poisoned and suffering horrible deaths. Slowly bleeding to death – even through their skin – their agony can last weeks.
The cause of their deaths: the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) shocking approval of the use of two incredibly toxic poisons known to cause wildlife deaths well beyond their intended use – Rozol and the morbidly named Kaput-D.
Prairie dogs are an essential part of healthy prairie ecosystems; they are a food source for predators, maintain short vegetation, and dig burrows that many other animals also use. But these keystone mammals already have been eradicated from more than 95% of their historic range across the Great Plains!
Scientists at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have questioned the EPA’s approval of Rozol and Kaput-D, citing serious concerns about the effects of these poisons on prairie ecosystems – and especially on highly endangered black footed ferrets and imperiled swift fox, burrowing owls, bald and golden eagles and other wildlife linked to prairie dogs in the food chain.
Yet these poisons are now being used to kill prairie dogs, threatening many of the imperiled prairie bids and mammals that we’ve fought so hard to rescue from extinction.
Last week, we filed a lawsuit with our local allies at Audubon of Kansas challenging the use of Rozol and Kaput-D. We face a tough fight ahead as we take on the lawyers at the EPA and the well-funded legal teams of the makers of these poisons.
Rozol and Kaput-D can take weeks to kill a poisoned prairie dog, making them easy prey as they become disoriented and slowly lose bodily function.
And, because these poisons can linger in a prairie dog’s carcass for weeks, animals like black-footed ferrets and birds that feed on dead or dying prairie dogs or live in contaminated burrows (as burrowing owls often do) can also inadvertently become poisoned and share the same grim fate.
The effects of Rozol and Kaput-D are widespread and dangerous. Will you help us fight in court to end the misuse of these deadly poisons and protect America’s prairie wildlife?
For the Wild Ones,
Jonathan Proctor
Rocky Mountain Region Representative
Defenders of Wildlife
P.S. Your help can make a big difference. Thanks to the actions and donations of caring people like you, Defenders has been able to help the Northern Cheyenne Tribe in Montana and private landowners in Kansas save two important prairie dog colonies in these states and help establish two new footholds on America’s plains for endangered black-footed ferrets.
The fact that he was elected was reason enough for him to be this year’s recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.
Because on that day the murderous actions of the Bush/Cheney years were totally and thoroughly rebuked. One man — a man who opposed the War in Iraq from the beginning — offered to end the insanity. The world has stood by in utter horror for the past eight years as they watched the descendants of Washington, Lincoln and Jefferson light the fuse of our own self-destruction. We flipped off the nations on this planet by abandoning Kyoto and then proceeded to melt eight more years worth of the polar ice caps. We invaded two nations that didn’t attack us, failed to find the real terrorists and, in effect, ignited our own wave of terror. People all over the world wondered if we had gone mad.
And if all that wasn’t enough, the outgoing Joker presided over the worst global financial collapse since the Great Depression. Michael Moore
0