ACLU To Defend War Deserter, Lt. Ehren Watada
Posted on August 23, 2006
Photoshop by: Sanctuary
Remember this moonbat hero? When thousands of Fort Lewis troops prepared to deploy to Iraq this man refused to obey his orders and the anti-war groups rallied around him.
A little flashback from the Seattle Times:
1st Lt. Ehren Watada’s Stryker brigade is scheduled to make its first deployment to Iraq this month. His refusal to accompany these troops puts him at risk of court-martial and years of prison time.
“I feel that we have been lied to and betrayed by this administration,” Watada said Tuesday in a telephone interview from Fort Lewis. “It is the duty, the obligation of every soldier, and specifically the officers, to evaluate the legality, the truth behind every order — including the order to go to war.”In making his decision, Watada has reached out to peace groups, including clergy, students, some veterans opposed to Iraq and others. Some war critics are raising money for his legal defense as they seek to galvanize broader opposition to Bush administration policy in Iraq.
Well it looks like the defense team has assembled and it is non other than the ACLU of Washington. No suprise here.
In a military justice case that has drawn wide attention, the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington is backing the free speech rights of a soldier facing court martial for refusing to serve in the war in Iraq. The ACLU today submitted a friend-of-the-court brief contending that Lt. Ehren Watada should not be punished for his public statements expressing legal and moral objections to the war in Iraq.
The military is holding a hearing on August 17 to determine whether to go forward with court martial proceedings against Watada. The ACLU takes no position on his challenge to the lawfulness of the orders to report for duty in Iraq.
“Soldiers should not be court-martialed for explaining their views on important political issues when doing so does not adversely affect military functioning. Lt. Watada was exercising his free speech rights as a citizen in a democratic society,” said Kathleen Taylor, Executive Director of the ACLU of Washington.
I think the ACLU is barking up the wrong tree on this one. The fact is that this man is a deserter who not only defied his orders but made himself into a public spectacle over it. Watada claims that the current war in Iraq is illegal. Interestingly, he joined the Army in June 2003, after we had invaded Iraq. Michelle Malkin has links to a lot of research on him and his proud anti-war father. It would not be a stretch of the imagination for one to think this entire episode was planned from the beggining. If it could be shown that he did this with the intent of encouraging other soldiers to do the same he could be charged with much more including Mutiny. Watada did not seek conscientious objector status because he does not oppose all war, just the one in Iraq. How he has concluded that this war is illegal is beyond me when it was authorized by Congress and the United Nations Security Council.
While he is entitled to his opinion the bottom line is that he disobeyed his orders. However this is not the charge the ACLU is focused on.
In addition to charges against Lt. Watada for refusal to report to duty, the military is seeking to penalize Lt. Watada for statements he made to reporters expressing his objections to the United States’ involvement in the war in Iraq (see below). He is being charged with violating two articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: Article 88, which prohibits use of “contemptuous words” against the President and other top governmental officials; and Article 133, which prohibits “conduct unbecoming an officer” – that is, behavior which dishonors or disgraces an officer or “seriously compromises the officer’s character as a gentleman.”
The purpose of Lt. Watada’s public remarks was to explain the motivations for his actions. While one may disagree with Lt. Watada’s opinions on the war’s legality, the ACLU said in legal papers, his expression of those opinions reflected his deeply felt beliefs and showed a seriousness of purpose and high moral character. In speaking his mind, Lt. Watada expressed sharp disagreement with government policies and the actions of the President, but he did not use contemptuous language and did not behave in a dishonorable manner.
The ACLU include three of his statements that are at the base of the charges against him.
The Army charges that the Statements 1 and 2 violated Art. 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (“Contempt Toward Officials”) and that all three statements violated Art. 133 (“Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and Gentleman”).
Read the statements yourself and come to your own conclusions, but I am in agreement with the Army. There is much more to Watada’s actions than just refusing his orders. He reached out to anti-war groups and media and made a spectacle of the entire thing. These are the actions that most definitely fall under “Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer and Gentleman”. When one enters into the military it is understood that our political speech is limited. Watada definitely crossed this boundary. If a military member feels that they are being asked to follow an illegal order they should work it up the chain of command. If that fails they should get their Congressman involved, not hold a “coordinated news conference” about it.
Watada’s actions reflect badly on the military and I think they should throw everything in the book at him. The ACLU has an uphill battle with this one. They may get one or two charges dropped, but this guy is going down. I wonder if he will try to refuse Leavenworth too? The sad thing is that no matter what happens to this guy he will be hailed a hero by the anti-war left.
The ACLU knows full well their brief is total bull. As an officer and a gentleman, Watada did not have complete freedom of speech and the UCMJ is very specific indeed about that. I read his statements (included in the ACLU press release) as extremely contemptuous of the president. And a refusal to lead his unit most assuredly effects military functioning (although his former unit is much better off without the likes of him, frankly).
Linked at Wizbang
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
5 Responses to “ACLU To Defend War Deserter, Lt. Ehren Watada”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
He has also in local rallies called for troops to lay down their arms, which is fairly treasonous.
Conditions other than Honorable - Something ACLU members all have in Common…recall stoptheaclu.com article (Communist History of the Most Dangerous Organization in America).
In 1952, Dr. Albert Eason Monroe (a.k.a. ACLU loser), U.S. Navy serial No. 316900, was discharged from the U.S. Naval Reserve under conditions other than honorable.
This alone is enough to make my stomach churn like Tequila in Milk. This Fonda Savant couldn’t even serve his country with dignity and integrity. His entire life agenda to spread socialism is even tainted by his pathetic servitude to the Armed Forces. His parents, siblings, and friends are all tarnished by his failure to support the flag of freedom he misuses to spread his ACLU dribble. Freedom of Speech (among other rights) is afforded by just by being a citizen of the U.S., but the opportunity to give back and earn that freedom is a great privilege this scumbag loser didn’t even have the piousness self-respect or constitutional character to serve his country with honor.
ACLU To Defend War Deserter, Lt. Ehren Watada. Another typical ACLU member, like Al Monroe. Therefore there is no societal expectation that he would behave morally or ethically, or have the constitutional character to serve his country with honor. He used his opportunity to earn his freedom of speech by disgracing himself and the veterans that serve /served with honor.
No code of ethics or statement of policy can spell out the appropriate moral conduct and ethical behavior for every situation that individuals will confront. But for our Military voluntary force enlisted and officers in whom the Nation invested its special trust and confidence, it is anticipated and expected that they make carefully considered moral and ethical decisions.
Why?
Because they do, they do it over and over, that is why!
As a matter of habit and our expectations and while invested with the special trust and confidence of the Nation, each Military Enlistee and Officer must rely on his or her own good judgment in applying the principles outlined in this expected Code.
Thank God for then huge majority of our Military and Veterans with great character and moral fiber.
Jane Fonda and the ACLU actually deserve this worm. Can I have a HooYah!
It is best to live with honor for just a day than with dishonor for many decades; better a short lived celestial swan than a century-lived crow. Quote - Sri Sathya Sai Baba, Guru of Gurus…even a long-hair, robe-wearing, pacifist knows what dishonor is.
As a military officer he took this oath or one very similar to it. His actions put him in violation of the oath. His opinion is not superior to that of the governments. His right to free speech and action is limited because he chose to join the military and is under orders. He also put action to his words and saying I disobeyed orders because I did not agree with them sounds stupid. He is basically perjuring himself and that is a felony.
“I (insert name), having been appointed a (insert rank) in the U.S. Army under the conditions indicated in this document, do accept such appointment and 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.”
He is right that it is his duty to disobey illegal orders but he must also be aware that he may pay the consequences if he does not convince a military tribunal that they were illegal.
Hoo Yah!
Since he joined AFTER the Iraq war started, logic would dictate that there is a likely chance they you will get deployed to the conflict. I am willing to bet that he planed this in advance.