US army officer refuses Iraq tour

Thursday 08 June 2006, 8:49 Makka Time, 5:49 GMT

Ehren Watada was to be deployed to Iraq later this month

A US army officer who is refusing to fight in Iraq has said serving there would make him party to war crimes.

Supporters of First Lieutenant Ehren Watada, 28, say he is the first commissioned US army officer to publicly refuse to go to Iraq, while the Pentagon says he is among a number of officers and enlisted personnel who have applied for conscientious objector status.

Watada said: "The wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of the Iraqi people is not only a terrible moral injustice but a contradiction of the army's own law of land warfare.

"My participation would make me party to war crimes."

Watada was speaking at a news conference on Wednesday in the US town of Tacoma.

He had been scheduled to be deployed to Iraq for his first tour later this month.

Watada said his moral and legal obligations were to the US constitution and "not those who would issue unlawful orders".

In recent weeks, soldiers have been accused of killing 24 Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha, raising concern's about the US army's behaviour in Iraq.

Paul Boyce, an army spokesman at the Pentagon, said Watada's case was being reviewed, adding it "is not the first case, nor is his case particularly unique".

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...BD6518865C.htm

This story has been picked up on various papers around the world. I have highlighted for emphasis the parts which I take extreme exception to. Let's forget about this little not fulfilling the oath he took to his country. Let's forget how he is betraying the men he has trained and prepared with.

He is making claims that I hope the US Army does not let go without making him prove his case thereby reversing the damage he has done by running his mouth so carelessly and recklessly. In his own selfish pursuit he has put my brothers in a more difficult and tenuous position. If the US Army doesn't stomp on his little cashews I will if given the opportunity.

However understandable his personal opinion, I do raise an eyebrow over this. Where has he been the last few years and wasn´t he aware of the kind of work his profession constitutes? Were he a draftee or civilian.... that is one thing, but being an officer in the US army is quite something else. If he is such a moral light, then go to Iraq and shine it upon the ones who need it! I wonder what the consequences will be for him. I reckon he can kiss his stars goodbye though!

When is his execution for cowardice and treason scheduled?

sounds like a traitor

I have nothing against conscienous objector status, and I certainly understand Watadas desire about not wanting to go to Iraq, but I think this situation is his own fault.

1. First of all, this is his FIRST deployment to Iraq, hes never been there before. Its not like he's a vet who seen terrible things and no longer wishes to participate, he's never been there.

2. He volenteered in 2003, thats means he knew there was a war going on there. What did he expect? A soldiers job is to fight in wars. All wars have atrocities at some level, there is no such thing as a 'clean war', if he didnt want to see such things he shouldnt have volenteered. The army isnt a democracy, you cannot pick and choose if you are going to participate. If your in unifrom and the POTUS orders you somewhere, you go. Its the name of the game, dont like it? Dont play.

3. By my calculation he almost home anyway. He signed up in 2003, 3 year obligation + 6 months stop loss hes home in January.

4. One part about this story that is the ARMYS FAULT. The army suggested Watada resign. He did. They then denied the request. WTF??? They army could have made this problem go away quietly, instead they made it worse.

All of this predicament that the Lieutenant finds himself in is his own doing. If the Armed Forces allowed everyone to pick his own assignment, there would be a small number of foot soldiers or anyone who could find him or herself in a dangerous situation. All who serve do so at the convenience of the CIC, not their own. It's neat and impresses the girls to dress up in a nice clean set of class A s and prance around the old hangouts but, eventually, almost everyone will have to get down and dirty before it's over.

As near as I can recall, there were General Orders that we were expected to learn and follow, none of them mentioned picking or refusing assignments. When you dropped your duffel bag at your unit you were assigned to, there were additional special orders that were law at that post. Step outside those laws, and you suffered punishment. As far as I'm concerned, this man has put his fellow soldiers, his country, and himself at risk. That is not, never has been, and never will be allowed, especially when good men and women are dieing face down in the dirt doing what they see as their duty as it was explained to them before they took that step forward after their oath.

He joined the army, the army didn't join him.
You don't get the luxury to pick and choose when you join the army.
I dunno how it works round your way, but round here, when you join you are asked if you will serve anywhere, without question, and you swear an oath. I feel that if you take that oath, you have given yourself to your country, and have forefeited the right to pick and choose. By all means he's allowed to have his opinion, and he can voice those opinions in a nation of free speech.... but he can't refuse to go.

I dunno about officer types but in the US when you enlist as an enlisted soldier you forfeit your right to free speech. It was in the contract I signed, I knowingly forfeited those rights... but like I said I am not sure about the officer ranks and the bill of rights.

He is a disgrace to the uniform, hope he gets cashiered out.

I dunno about officer types but in the US when you enlist as an enlisted soldier you forfeit your right to free speech. It was in the contract I signed, I knowingly forfeited those rights... but like I said I am not sure about the officer ranks and the bill of rights.

I should elaborate. Free speech.... within reason.