Of course the big news from the military court martial front this week was the surprise mistrial in the case of Lt. Ehren Watada. But the less publicized case of Marine Cpl. Trent Thomas, accused in the kidnapping and murder of an Iraqi civilian, presents an interesting parallel to Lt. Watada’s legal defense, while raising disturbing questions about the government’s efforts to undermine it.
Lt. Watada refused an order to deploy to Iraq, a statement of fact so undisputed that the defendant signed a stipulation that he would not contest it. Prosecutors understood this stipulation to be a signed confession, and thus presented little evidence otherwise supporting the charge. But Lt. Watada insists that the deployment order was unlawful, because the war itself is illegal under U.S. and international law. Under his oath of service, Lt. Watada argues, he has both a legal and moral obligation to refuse to follow an unlawful order. Admitting to the facts, Lt. Watada told the court, was not an admission of guilt. It was this failure to achieve a “meeting of minds” between Lt. Watada and the prosecutors that the presiding judge cited in throwing out the stipulation and instigating a mistrial.
Lt. Watada’s legal defense has always relied on the argument that he cannot be convicted of refusing to follow an unlawful order — a defense the judge did not allow his attorney to present. Prosecutors have argued that Lt. Watada should not be allowed to put the war itself on trial, even if that is his only means of proving his innocence. Our military, they argue, cannot function without strict discipline, and strict military discipline requires that soldiers unflinchingly follow their commanders’ orders. In refusing to allow him to argue the illegality of his deployment order, the government asserts that Lt. Watada had no legal right to question it.
Compare that to the case of Cpl. Trent Thomas, who after having an “epiphany” decided to put himself at risk of the death penalty yesterday, by withdrawing his guilty plea in the brutal killing of an Iraqi civilian.
Cpl. Trent Thomas, 25, pleaded guilty as part of a pretrial agreement to several charges Jan. 18, including kidnapping and murder, in the slaying of 52-year-old Hashim Ibrahim Awad in Hamandia last year. But Thomas said Thursday that he no longer believes he’s guilty and was following a lawful order.
”Sir, when my country gives me an order, I follow it,” Thomas told the judge, Lt. Col. Tracy A. Daly, adding that his squad leader and his lieutenant gave the order.
Cpl. Thomas’s defense rests on the assertion that he was issued a lawful order, whereas Lt. Watada’s defense rests on the assertion that he was not.
Hmm.
In a capital offense such as this, one can only assume that the government will give Cpl. Thomas the opportunity to present his evidence in court, but even if he succeeds in proving he was following his commanders’ orders, it is hard to imagine that he could be fully exonerated for his actions. This question of whether an order is lawful or not is not an esoteric legalism concocted out of thin air by Lt. Watada and his attorney; it is an issue routinely examined by military courts in cases such as that of Cpl. Thomas. Cpl. Thomas and his cohorts allegedly kidnapped a man, forced him into a hole, shot him, and then attempted to make it look like the victim was an insurgent planting a bomb, by placing an AK-47 and shovel next to his body. Perhaps his squad leader and lieutenant really did order him to execute a murder… but that doesn’t make it a lawful order.
Critics of Lt. Watada have long argued that this is an open and shut case — that he refused to follow an order, and thus should pay the penalty for his insubordination. But if soldiers like Cpl. Thomas can be convicted and punished for following an order, shouldn’t the alleged unlawfulness of an order be a valid defense against charges of insubordination? And if so, then shouldn’t the court permit Lt. Watada to present evidence of the illegality of our war in Iraq, the very basis of his claim that his order to deploy was unlawful?
Lt. Watada and his attorney have no illusions that they are likely to convince a military jury that the United States is in the midst of executing an illegal war in Iraq. But if he is denied the right to defend himself, it sets a very dangerous precedent: either any order to act unlawfully places a soldier at risk of court martial, regardless of their actions, or… we are willing to accept “I was only following orders” as a valid legal defense to obeying any order, no matter how heinous.
The lawyers may do a lot of arguing, but I’m pretty sure Watada is gonna be a “guest” at Ft. Leavenworth, eventually.
During the Nurenmburg trials following the defeat of Nazi Germany the court refused to allow a defense based on simply following orders. A distinction was made between following a legal order and following an illegal order. An officer has a resposibility to refuse to follow an illegal order. If the military justice system refuses to allow the defendant an opportunity to present to the judge and jury the rational for determining the order was illegal, then there really is no point in having a trial, or in this case a court martial. All orders would have to be considered to be legal. Unfortunately this seems to be the path our country’s jusdicial system is headed down. That is, if the President says it’s OK, then it’s defacto legal.
A order to kidnap and kill is clearly illegal, but an order to get on a plane and go to another country isn’t illegal. That is Watada’s problem – he wasn’t ordered to hurt, injure, kill, fight, kidnap or do anything else illegal.
The military doesn’t have the power or the authority to question the US Congress and the President of the United States, and trust me, YOU don’t want the military with that power – if they had it- they could take over the country!
Great post Goldy!
Intent, or mens rea, is the focus of most criminal trials: what was the defendant’s state of mind in committing this act? Accordingly, it seems to me that if Watada could establish that he truly believed the specific order he received was illegal, such state of mind should provide him a defense. If, however, he refused the order to make a statement about the war, then he probably should go quietly to the brig.
As I recall, the German armed forces surrendered unconditionally at the end of World World II. We captured several million German soldiers. The surviving leaders of Germany were also captured and tried for war crimes — including the war itself being “illegal”.
However, the millions of individual soldiers were not tried for war crimes. Except for perhaps a few hundred (or few thousand) who had committed atrocities. It may be a crime for a nation’s leaders to wage an “illegal” war, but it is not a crime for soldiers to fight in an “illegal” war, so long as they obey the laws of war and do not commit atrocities.
It is quite clear that Lieutenant Watada was not being given any illegal orders — since he was not being ordered to do anything for which he could be prosecuted for a war crime. So therefore that defense is not available to him. The issue of whether the war itself was “illegal” is therefore irrelevant, and evidence on that issue should be properly denied.
Watada may very well get off on double jeopardy grounds, but that is another issue.
Lt. Watada will soon be making Big rocks into Little Rocks, as he should. He was ordered to deploy, not to participate or take any lives. He could have lobbied for a position as a REMF and then kept a closer eye on whether or not illegal orders were being given. He is a coward, a man with no honor and he should be treated as such.
As John Barrelli pointed out pretty well in yesterday’s posts, there is a distinction between “war crimes” such as torturing or killing of innocents, civilians, surrendered prisoners, etc., and the question of whether the war itself is illegal. As John pointed out rather well, allowing a military court to determine which wars are “legal” or which ones are not tends to undermine civilian control of the military.
But it is also true that the Nuremburg trials had a number of charges against those defendants, some of which were “Crimes Against Humanity” (slave labor, holocaust, etc.). Against these charges, the defense of “just following orders” was deemed to be insufficient excuse. But there were also charges for “waging a war of aggression”, which were filed only against the top Nazis. They also argued that they were just following orders (from Hitler, etc.), but that excuse was not allowed by them, either, but no simple soldiers or sailors were tried under those charges.
Either way, it will make for some great arguments in court by both defendant’s lawyers. This is a case which really should go before the Supreme Court, raising some constitutional issues both in terms of defendant’s rights in the military, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and Balance of Powers between the branches of the federal government.
Proud Leftist @ 5
I don’t believe “mens rea” would allow Watada to introduce evidence that the war was illegal. No more than it would allow evidence in a murder case that the victim simply “needed killing”.
The main charge against Watada is for Article 87 of UCMJ, for missing movement by design:
“Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 87
The specification: In that 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, U.S. Army, did, at or near Fort Lewis, Wash., on or about 22 June 2006, through design miss the movement of Flight Number (redacted), with which he was required in the course of duty to move.”
http://blogs.thenewstribune.co.....&pb=1
The actual text of Article 87 is as follows:
“Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
ART. 87. MISSING MOVEMENT
Any person subject to this chapter who through neglect or design misses the movement of a ship, aircraft, or unit with which he is required in the course of duty to move shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
http://usmilitary.about.com/li.....art-87.htm
If Watada was actually being ordered to commit a war crime, that is a different story. But he cannot legally prove that — even if he offered the evidence he desired to introduce, so he is denied the opportunity to introduce such evidence.
Watada’s does allege that he had a subjective belief that the war was illegal and that his failure to obey the order was therefore excusable. However, this belief — even if he proved it was sincere — does not negate the “mens rea” required for the offense of “Missing Movement”. Instead, it proves the “mens rea”, which is that Watada missed movement by “design”.
The only people guilty of a crime here is Bush, Cheney, Rummy, and Rice.
They lied about Al Queda ties, WMD’s, Nuclear Weapons Programs, and implied Saddam helped in the 9-11 attacks. It is official as of today. Read the news. They cooked the intelligence, which it treason by any measure.
TREASON!
I know you wingnuts love being lied to by your leaders. That is what makes you Republicons. The more innocent people that die because of these lies the better right? If it isn’t murder you support, it is torture too.
You love your party more than your country.
A couple of questions regarding the charges against Cpl Thomas.
First, was he actually given an order by anyone in authority to perform the atrocity that he admits doing?
If not, then he’s done and goes to prison for a long time, as he deserves. Just being ordered to be part of the war does not constitute an order to kill civilians. I can find no evidence that there was any order to commit this atrocity. If there was, then at the very least, the person giving that order needs to be on trial as well.
Next, is there any reasonable interpretation of Cpl Thomas’ actions that might imply that an order to kill Mr. Awad could have been legal?
This one is tougher, and will depend on evidence that is not immediately available to us. Of course, that is the purpose behind having a trial.
On their faces, there is no similarity between the two cases, except that we may have two people attempting to avoid responsibility for their actions.
Good thing for the GOP Anna Nicole Smith overdosed, or the news would actually have to be reporting the fact that our president, vice president, and his staff committed treason….. lying about Saddam’s Al Queda ties.
Fat chance right?
The corporate news is only there to distract us from the crimes of the Bush thugs, and sell a little advertising to pay the bills.
God forbid they actually showed a decapitated child, or a flag draped coffin, or what our bombs do to a HUMAN BEING!!!!!
Iraq war = illegal
Watada = innocent
Just think of all those heroes that joined our military to serve our country, and protect their families, and way of life. They then find out they were only powerless pawns in the political powergrab by the neo-con traitors.
Isn’t it great for their parents to know their kids died in Iraq making America less safe by every measure…..
Sacrificed needlessly, so Bush could play “war president”, as he himself put it, and build “political capitol” right?
Realty kind sucks when you are a rightie. Saddam was not the boogieman…. Sorry traitor lovers. If you still support Bush you should have to do time with him once justice has been served. Unless of course you believe it is the right of the president to lie about threats to our nation in order to build support for illegal wars.
God knows that they won’t show pictures of soldiers in schools or handing out school supplies, candy and water to little Iraqi children.
They won’t show soldiers doing anything good…………That would undermine the press conspiracy to show the Iraqi war as horrible, ugly and illegal!
FACTS @10 YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT.PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
RP @ 9
Thanks for the statutory text. Given that either “neglect or design” is sufficient to establish guilt in this case, mens rea would not seem to be at issue. As the statute is written, missing a flight because of failure to set the old alarm clock would seem enough to permit a court martial. I actually didn’t say above that Watada’s believe that the war is illegal should provide him a defense; I said he would have to show he believed that the specific order he is charged with ignoring was illegal. That’s a tough burden of proof.
AND THE LT IS GOING TO GET 6 YEARS INSTEAD OF THE 4 HE WOULD OF GOT ALL BECAUSE HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT HE WAS SIGNING.NOW THERE IS A LEADER YOU WANT.IF HE DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT HE SIGNED HOW IS HE AT UNDERSTANDING LEADERSHIP AND THE MEN WHO IS SUPPOSE TO TAKE CARE OF.YEP 6 YEARS AND A BOOT JUST LIKE GBS.HELL WHEN HE GETS OUT GBS CAN HAVE HIM AS A HOUSE GUEST AND SHOW HIM THE ROPES AS YOU ALL LOVE GBS THE PISS ANT.
Proud Leftist @ 15
Mens rea would be more relevant if someone was charged with a violation of Article 90, willful disobedience of an order. Which is why they have Article 92, which punishes the mere failure to obey an order.
890. ART. 90. ASSAULTING OR WILLFULLY DISOBEYING SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER.
Any person subject to this chapter who–
(1) strikes his superior commissioned officer or draws or lifts up any weapon or offers any violence against him while he is in the execution of his officer; or
(2) willfully disobeys a lawful command of his superior commissioned officer; shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, and if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.
892. ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION
Any person subject to this chapter who–
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
http://www.military-network.co.....PTERX.html
YO, thank you for posting all of your comments in caps. It makes it easier for everyone to ID your incoherent rants and skip right over them.
A functioning fair judicial system, whether military or civilian must allow an accused to make their case to a judge or jury. This is a more complicated case than it may seem on the face of it. The military judge obviously doesn’t want it to turn into a forum on the legality of the war, however it’s difficult to give the accused the opportunity to defend his actions without opening that can of worms. In my opinion a fairly strong case can be made that the war was launched in violation of US and international law. To participate in an illegal war does make one complicit in that crime. Just because low level officers and enlisted aren’t typically charged with a crime for their participation doesn’t mean they’re without guilt.
Hmmm…it seems today that a story’s been made public that would seem to be an attempt to pin the responsibility for all the cooked “intelligence” about WMD leading up to the war on some poor schmuck in the “office of information something-or-other” that was supposedly set up shortly after 9/11. So if push really does come to shove, they’ll have someone to take the fall for the Commander in Chief and his minions standing up in front of Congress, the United Nations, God and everybody and justify starting a four-year (and counting) orgy of death and destruction by lying like hell.
FACTS, you seem to be missing the important distinction between belief that the war is unjustified and belief that it is illegal under United States law.
There may well be legal action that can be taken against the people that got us into this mess. If so, then the civilian leadership of the country (in this case, the Congress) should take that action.
That doesn’t make the war “illegal”, and doesn’t give military members the right to decide whether or not they will deploy. While I deplore the actions of the elected civilian leadership, the answer is to change that leadership. So long as Mr. Bush is still President, he is still Commander in Chief, and while I wish that it wasn’t so, the Congress did give him the authority to send troops to Iraq.
Sorry, FACTS, but Lt. Watada has apparently violated his oath and should be tried on those facts by a court-martial that will not consider whether or not the war is right.
I’ve posted at length about what I believe the Army will do about Lt. Watada, so I won’t repeat it all here. If you’re interested, start at:
http://www.horsesass.org/?p=2513#comment-642776
and read my comments.
Oh, and just so that I make full disclosure to all here. I’m still in the military, subject to recall at any time.
I may get home from the office this evening to a letter saying “Dear Chief Barelli”, activating me and assigning me to be a decoy driver for munitions trucks between Baghdad and Tikrit.
At which point I hope that I can get one of those helmet refit kits, because I’d need it. Even though I think this war is wrong and even though I think we were brought into it under false pretenses.
Oh, and if that happened, I’d have to stop publicly criticizing the war and the President. Active duty military doesn’t have that right.
I’m military. I do not get to decide where I fight.
@12 no matter how many times you and others say it, it still isn’t fact.
The war is legal. Congress debated, voted and on a very bi partisan basis authorized the war. None of us like the fact that the intelligence was so wrong.
Look up Ansar Al-Islam. Google it.
Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Anyone who puts that forward as THE reason for the Iraq war is stupid.
Saddam, in a post 9/11 world, based on HIS actions, based on his history, and most importantly, based on his willful disrespect for the UN and world communities is the reason for the Iraq war.
Watada willfully disobeyed an order to show up for formation. He may be found guilty.
re 6: I think your argument is a pettifogging bit of sophistry. The defense could as easily (and logically) argue that the entire war is an illegal atrocity.
It would be far easier to prove that it is than that it isn’t.
“But if he is denied the right to defend himself, it sets a very dangerous precedent: either any order to act unlawfully places a soldier at risk of court martial, regardless of their actions, or… we are willing to accept “I was only following orders” as a valid legal defense to obeying any order, no matter how heinous.”
The reality is that the government and military will continue to pick and choose when a soldier must obey an order, and when he must refuse it, putting all of our troops in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” dilemma.
If judges and lawyers can’t figure out when a soldier must obey an order, and when he must disobey it — on pain of conviction and punishment in each case — then how can anyone expect some 19-year-old dogface recruit to know?
Until the Einsteins running our government come up with a clear and unambiguous answer that a scared 19-year-old can figure out under the pressure of being in a life-threatening situation, the best advice any parent can give his/her child is, “Don’t get yourself into this situation in the first place. Don’t even consider enlisting until the people who will hold power of life and death over you decide what the rules are.”
What we have now is simply unacceptable: The rules are whatever the powers that be feel like saying they are at the moment. We expect our soldiers to serve in combat under Alice in Wonderland rules of engagement.
What makes sense to me is a rule like this:
If an unlawful act was committed by a soldier acting beyond the authorization of his orders and in violation of the Rules of Engagement, the soldier is responsible.
If an unlawful act was committed by a soldier acting under orders, the soldier is innocent and the person who gave the order is responsible.
I know it sounds noble to demand that soldiers refuse to commit atrocities, but that works better on paper than on a real battlefield. Amidst the fog of war, simple is workable, ambiguous is not. What is workable is that if your sergeant of lieutenant tells you to do something, you do it. If you do something you weren’t authorized to, it’s your ass. Everyone I served with in Vietnam had no trouble keeping that straight.
Good move, Roger. Make the shit go uphill for once.
@1 Double jeopardy is an absolute rule, not a qualified rule. There are no “ands” or “ifs” or “buts.” If the double jeopardy rule applies, it precludes further prosecution, period.
And it isn’t just Watada’s lawyer who thinks the Army may have a double jeopardy problem. U.W. Law School’s criminal law expert, Prof. John Junker, who has been teaching crminal law long enough that I took classes from him 35 years ago, was quoted by local news media as saying the Army may have a problem. A number of other legal experts are weighing in to similar effect.
But if the case is thrown out, as appears more likely than not (based on what I know of the parallel civilian-court rule), all the Army has to do is cut Watada a new set of orders deploying him to Iraq. If he goes, he’s off the hook. If he refuses again, that’s a new offense, they can bring new charges, and he’s looking at another trial — and presumably a more cautious set of Army lawyers who won’t let him stipulate to anything, not even his name or date of birth.
Yo and 21. (Wrong schtuff)
If you educate yourself and actually LOOK UP all of the “legal” reasons for war, you will be surprised, chagrined, and ashamed for pantsing yourself in public like this.
Put down the pipe and look up a justifiable war. We don’t get to decide it no matter how many times you click your heels together and hope reeeeeally hard to make it so.
The Lieutenant may be the most courageous one of the whole damn lot.
And may Almighty God protect us in this one. We are not exactly standing on the highest moral ground.
Of course, Watada is hoping that by the time this case gets litigated, his enlistment will be up and he’ll be able to leave the Army. If I were the Army, I’d drop all charges right now, tell him he’s free and clear — and hand him orders to report to his unit in Iraq.
@3 I tend to agree with you, Mac. Watada’s refusal seems to have been preemptive — that is, based on the assumption that if he went to Iraq, he would be ordered to do something illegal. Watada is an artillery officer, so it’s highly unlikely he would be involved in home searches, taking Iraqis into custody, or ordering soldiers to shoot civilians. His potential legal exposure would be giving fire-control directions that might put artillery rounds on an out-of-bounds target. But are there any out-of-bounds targets in Iraq? I think he just wants to challenge the legality of the war in court, and even Senators and Governors can’t do that.
@5 Well, actually, mens rea isn’t quite that simple. To illustrate how it works, let’s take the example of A shoots B in self-defense. Whether A gets off depends, not on whether A thought he was in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm from B, but on whether a reasonable person in the same circumstances would think so. In other words, A’s actions will be judged according to an objective standard, externally introduced. A can count on his actions being second-guessed at every step of the legal processby people over whom A has no control — the prosecutor, the judge, the jurors — and they may not agree with his perception of the situation or whether his actions were justified.
Watada’s thought process is relevant, but it is not defining. A bank robber doesn’t get off simply because he thought the robbery was justified. Mens rea refers to intent to commit the act, not the perpetrator’s opinion of whether the act was lawful o a crime.
@6 I think you have correctly framed the legal issues, Richard. Good work. Too bad your personal and professional life is such a mess, because you have a fine legal mind and might have made a fine judge.
It’s soooo much fun to pick on poor Richard! He makes himself so vulnerable, and that soft pink nderbelly is just too tempting a target to resist … he he …
Lt. Watada should be prosecuted for pre-meditated, willful disobedience of an order. He graduated from college in 2003, joined the army, went through OCS, and became an officer. His dad is a noted anti-war protester. I’m betting that dad and son cooked up this whole affair for the publicity.
George Washington had deserters hanged “pour encourager les autres”. Six years at Leavenworth would be richly deserved for Lt. Watada.
@21 “Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Anyone who puts that forward as THE reason for the Iraq war is stupid.”
Ummm … didn’t Bush? And Cheney? BTW, Saddam was atempting to comply with the UN when the U.S. invaded, so neither Bush nor you will get very far with THAT argument. Regardless of whether this war is legal, it certainly has a stench of duplicity hanging over it.
Hi, Roger.
Unfortunately it isn’t quite that simple. Military members are not automotons, and we’re expected to use some intelligence.
Also remember that the phrase “catch 22” was invented by someone that was familiar with the military.
Remember that, as military members, we have already decided that some things are worth dying for. If not, then the military is the worst possible place to be.
Military members go through a lot of training, much of it in classrooms. One of the major subjects is “military ethics”. This particular situation has come up in every war we’ve ever fought, so it gets quite a bit of attention.
Yes, sometimes illegal orders are given, and yes, the person giving the order bears responsibility if those orders are carried out (and can be held responsible even if they are disobeyed).
That doesn’t get the individual carrying out the order off the hook. We are each responsible for our actions.
So, what does PFC Fnorkle do when his 2nd Lt tells him to shoot a bunch of civilians? He refuses, and may get shot by the 2nd Lt (who is pretty obviously out of control) for his trouble.
We expect a lot from those young men and women. Too much? Maybe, but remember that we’re arming them and putting them out where unfriendly strangers will try to kill them. We’re sending them to foriegn countries where they may well be the only American these folks will ever meet.
The test is whether a reasonable person would consider the order illegal. In this case, we’re not talking about a firefight, where the Sergeant points at a target and says “that one!” and it turns out to be a civilian.
One of the reasons we have courts-martial instead of civilian courts is that the people judging the case will be military, and understand the concepts and the situation.
Essentially, just because the Sergeant rounds up the men and children and gives the order to kill them all, then rape the women and kill them too, doesn’t let the men off the hook. Even in the fog of war.
@28 UN Resolution 1441.
RR @ 31
I was trying to simplify the concept so some of our friends on the conservative side of the fence might understand. They don’t do nuance very well, as you know.
The Watada situation seems to have (in part) the smell of the old 22. “Damned if you do and damned if you don’t”. Unfortunately this is not confined to just the military. I am aware of a federal government civilian employee ordered to perform an illegal act. He refused and was suspended without pay for insubordination. He appealed. The ruling stated that inspite of the illegal order, he was insubordinate and the suspension was valid.
In the earlier thread, I pointed out that it really isn’t in the best interests of the Army to do this. Being that I am enamored of my own wit and wisdom (I’m a legend in my own mind) I will repeat the post:
jim @26 he is going to the slammer for 6 years.take your war crap and stick it in your ass.
#13 sgmmac, How many bags of candy will it take to make up for the 100,000 corpses? That is 100,000 so far. It is getting worse every day, and not because of CNN…..
YO says:
FACTS @10 YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT.PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
——
So Yo, you are saying lying about threats to our nation in order to wage war on a non threatening nation to build political capitol is just fine with you right?
Just asking?
@42
There isn’t 100,000 corpses unlesss you are including all of the Iraqis killed by Sadaam
Right Stuff says:
@12 no matter how many times you and others say it, it still isn’t fact.
The war is legal. Congress debated, voted and on a very bi partisan basis authorized the war. None of us like the fact that the intelligence was so wrong.
Look up Ansar Al-Islam. Google it.
Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Anyone who puts that forward as THE reason for the Iraq war is stupid.
Saddam, in a post 9/11 world, based on HIS actions, based on his history, and most importantly, based on his willful disrespect for the UN and world communities is the reason for the Iraq war.
—————–
Put down the crack pipe. The intelligence was not wrong. All the intelligence amounted to we really don’t know at best. The Bush Crime Family stated they knew Saddam had WMD’s. The intellingence was perfect.
All Bush and his pack of liars had to do is say “we don’t know, and can’t take the chance” and try to sell the invasion of Iraq that way. The did not. Remember “30 minutes to a launch”…. They said they knew Saddam had WMD’s and was helping Al Queda, when the intelligence said they didn’t know, and there was no proof he was helping Al Queda.
If Bush said he didn’t know he would not be guilty of treason. Lying like he did is treason.
When are you apologists going to admit it.
They lied. Repeatedly. Openly. Incontrovertably.
The faulty intelligence excuse has been disproven for years now. Only the kool aid iv types are still buying that argument. Oddball, aluminum tubes, and niger uranium? All they had. And this is direct from the C.I.A.
How much Bush Kool-Aid does it take to still support his pack of crooks these days? A 55 gallon drum an hour?
By the way I am talking about international law as far as legal. I bet you forgot that when congress authorized the use of force as a last resort, there were 2 conditions. Bush had to prove Saddam had WMD’s, and he was actively helping Al Queda. The great thing about being a wingnut, is you get to convieniently forget the facts you want…..
I believe Bush, and his pack of liars truly believed Saddam had to have WMD’s. The problem is they said that they knew he had em, and they were lying.
All we got to show for these lies is a depleted demoralized military, 2 trillion in new debt, and a world that hates America.
Way to go W.
# sgmmac says:
@42
There isn’t 100,000 corpses unlesss you are including all of the Iraqis killed by Sadaam
———-
There is a big difference betweed muslims dying because of Saddam, and muslims dying because of an American invasion based on lies, and cooked intelligence (proven). As far as Iraq is concerned, every single death caused by something other than natural causes is a murder. When we “took out” Saddam, which is what Bush was having wet dreams over, we were responsible for security. You know, security. The thing Bush, and Rummy never gave 2 seconds of thought to. All they wanted to do was guard the oil ministry.
And you wonder why they want to blow us up……
God I would hate having to be a Republicon these days. Having to completely disregard reality on a minute by minute basis. Can’t turn on the tv, or radio. Even Rush said he was tired of carrying their water (liing for them). Can’t tell anyone you are a Republicon because they would want to piss on you, and call you a retarded traitor.
Gotta suck big time supporting known liars and traitors.
The great thing about being a liberal, is all facts support my positions. Period. End of Story…..
We tend to want things to be either black or white, totally right or totally wrong. Real life is rarely so simple.
Yes, we were lied to in order to justify a war that should never have happened.
Whether the Iraqis would have been better off if we had not invaded is a question that will be debated endlessly, but I don’t think so. Saddam was an evil dictator and the world is well rid of him, but my call is that the price was much too high, both in American and Iraqi lives. Others are welcome to disagree.
But… There is no situation in real life that does not include some good. American Soldiers are fighting and dying right now to defend Iraqis.
Some American companies are taking billions of dollars and delivering substandard (if any) products in return.
But… Some of those companies are doing their best to deliver on their contracts, often at risk of their lives, despite the conditions they are working under.
The reporting at the beginning of this war tended to be rather one-sided in favor of the invasion. Reporters acted more like cheerleaders than reporters. While many of those reporters have claimed that they were misled, most seem to have simply been caught up in the hysteria, like most of the country.
That was wrong, and may well have prevented the American public from really understanding what was going on in time to do something about it.
But… That doesn’t justify one-sided reporting in the opposite direction. Let’s get the whole story. Not sugar-coated, nor without the little good that can come from this. All of it.
Hey Bill O Really just got booted from giving a keynote at the a fundraiser for abused children given his outrageous comments about the young boy recently kidnapped. At least Bill gets to see that he’s not all-powerful. There are people who will stand up this dick-sucking punk!
John, you have no argument from me. I want the whole story. I don’t believe the price is too high, even now. I remember before going to the 1st Gulf war – the predictions were over 20,000 US soldiers would die……
Roger,
Watada will be court-martialed again, his new court date is March 19th.
Why should the military drop the charges against him? Civilian courts don’t do that for mistrials. Why should the military’s case be comprimised because the Judge protected Watada from his own statement when the Judge believed that Watada didn’t understand the document he signed.
The female SPC from Abu Graib had a mistrial when the Judge threw out her plea bargain for the same reason. She was tried again and convicted. The Judge has a responsibility to ensure that the court proceedings are fair and impartial. It would indeed be a kangaroo court if the Judge thought Watada was taken advantage of and he allowed the court-martial to proceed.
@46
Dead is dead, whether you are killed by a hurricane, a bomb, slowly tortured, have your head chopped off, or are shot by insurgents or US forces, you are still dead.
As for them hating us – they’ve hated us for years, they have been attacking us for several decades with terrorists, what’s one more lame excuse?
@34 “Six years at Leavenworth would be richly deserved for Lt. Watada.”
I’ll go along with that provided you give Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld what THEY deserve.
@38 “They don’t do nuance very well, as you know.”
Yeha, I’ve noticed the concept of innocence flies right over them.
@40 I’m not convinced the Army doesn’t want this story on the front pages. It sure looks like they want to make a public example of him. If they wanted to quietly discharge him, they would have done it, as they have in approximately 8,000 deserter cases. The difference is that Watada called a press conference.
Yes, the difference is that he called a press conference. Precisely. Making it impossible for the Army to make this go away quietly, and requiring that the official wheels of military justice start up.
At that point, had the Army simply quietly discharged Lt Watada, it would have been considered an admission that his actions were acceptable, and his reasoning was correct. Additionally, most of those “quietly discharged” members were discharged either by order of courts-martial or after administrative discipline.
Lt Watada insisted on a very public court-martial.
That made it manditory. An Army Officer has publicly stated that the war is illegal, and that by participating in it, the Soldiers fighting in it are war criminals. We’ve got to have a trial.
But… The Army really wants this whole thing to go away. Having Lt Watada camped out at Leavenworth, giving interviews to reporters and having a parade of protesters outside is possibly the worst outcome possible.
So, we go to trial, and shucks, we messed up. Oh darn. Oops. Now we can’t re-try him on the most serious charges. Well, there are certainly a few that he wasn’t originally charged with. Minor things, but sufficient for a discharge. Mr. Watada goes home, quietly, without much fanfare and certainly without the opportunity to tell a military court that they should aquit him because the war is illegal.
Watch for this to happen during a very busy news cycle.
@44 “There isn’t 100,000 corpses unlesss you are including all of the Iraqis killed by Sadaam”
You’re full of shit, Mac. The 100,000 figure came from the October 2004 Lancet study by public health experts of Johns Hopkins University. They’re more reputable than you.
Please note the 100,000 figure is now 2 1/2 years old. The U.N. and Associated Press both say Iraqi civilians currently are being killed at a rate in excess of 3,000 per month. A more recent study by the same group concluded the civilian death toll from the U.S. invasion and occupation may now exceed 650,000.
The Iraq Body Count project (IBC), an independent U.S.-U.K. group, compiles reported Iraqi civilian deaths, and has attributed roughly 53,000 to 56,600 of these to the invasion and occupation through 2006, while noting that many more civilian deaths probably were not reported.
The difference between these estimates is that Johns Hopkins counts “excess” deaths above normal mortality, including those caused indirectly by the war, such as disease-caused deaths attributable to the war’s degradation of the country’s health care; whereas the IBC counts only violent deaths.
Even the Bush administration, which has been caught underreporting and undercounting Iraqi deaths, acknowledges the war has been very costly to Iraqi civilians.
I am not downplaying the high cost to Iraqi civilians, but the simple fact is US soldiers have NOT killed 100,000 civilians. As for all of the Iraqis killing Iraqis they have been doing that for 1000 years or more. Yes, the US did a lot to create the chaos and give Al-Qaida a country to try to take over, but the US isn’t solely responsible.
I am not full of shit – Facts is full of shit – he/she/it spouts it everyday like clockwork.
@44 (continued) Here is the issue in a nutshell, Mac. Saddam was a brutal dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to get and keep power, so you can justify incurring some deaths in the process of removing him in order to avoid a greater number of deaths in the future. But the U.S. intervention becomes problematical if it ultimately kills more people than Saddam would have.
We pay our government officials — both career and elected — to not make mistakes of this nature. The career people in State and the CIA understood perfectly well that Iraq is an artificial state created by Europeans for their own convenience, that Saddam could hold together only by force, and that if he were removed there was a high probability of internecine warfare between Iraq’s three major tribal factions — which might result in more bloodshed than Saddam’s rule did.
Bush and Cheney ignored these warnings. They turned a deaf ear to advice from people who knew what they were talking about. In addition, Rumsfeld ignored the professional military advice of his own generals. The result is a military and humanitarian catastrophe.
You bet your ass they’re culpable for this goddamned mess. And the Republican Party as a whole bears collective responsibility for supporting their reckless policies and participating in the lies and deceptions — and for attacking the critics, questioners, and dissenters whom events proved right. If you are a Republican, you have blood on your hands.
The democratics are absolute imbeciles. If you believe that this war is as bad as you say it is why aren’t you recently elected majority in both houses of congress cutting off the funding and why aren’t you calling for the head of every member of congress that voted for this so called illegal war? You do realize that if Watada is correct and this war is illegal that all of you top running democratics for president (Obama excluded) are guilty of war crimes. Figure it our Libtards.
@50 The first Gulf War was a totally different situation, Mac. Iraq invaded Kuwait, an independent country, and there is strong evidence that he also had designs on Saudi Arabia. The developed world depends on Persian Gulf oil and has no choice but to defend its access to that oil.
The Gulf War disarmed Saddam, and thereafter, he was a threat to no one except his own people. He had nothing to do with 9/11, and taking him out was not a necessity, either for oil or for purposes of the necessary war against Al Qaeda and terrorism.
Saddam bears the lion’s share of responsibility for the U.S. invasion because he played a dangerous game of bluff. Bush would be forgiven for misgauging Saddam’s military capabilities if he had made an honest mistake. But he wanted this war no matter what, misled Congress and the world about his intentions, gamed the intel, and rushed headlong into a quagmire. Under the circumstances, this must be regarded as a recreational war sold to the American public under false pretenses, and the penalty for his warmongering ought to be removal from office in order to deter future presidents from doing the same thing and to reaffirm to the rest of the world that we are a moral nation that will hold our own leaders accountable for misuse of the power we entrust to them. That power belongs to the American people, not to George W. Bush.
Roger,
You and I have discussed Rumsfield before – I am not a supporter of his, but even though everyone claims he didn’t follow the advice of the Generals, there isn’t much evidence of that. Gen Franks disputed that allegation and so did the JCofS.
As for blood on my hands for being conservative, so be it. Technically, there is most probably blood on my hands from the first Gulf War…………… There are very few do overs in life and I sleep well at night!
The First Gulf war didn’t disarm Sadaam. It seriously degraded his capabilities, but there are land mines, rockets, missiles, chemical weapons and lord knows what else hidden away in weapons caches all over that country.
The UN and Kofi Annon bear a lot of responsibility for the current Iraq crisis. We had American pilots targeted and missiles shot at them enforcing the “no-fly” zone, and how many UN resolutions totally ignored by Sadaam, while the low-life scumbags in the UN lined their pockets with bribes from Sadaam in the Oil for food program.
There is another money crisis in the UN now. Can they fucking do anything right? How many are kids are starving around the world while their aid money is diverted at the UN?
@51 Your comment begs the question entirely, Mac. You seem not to comprehend the import of the double jeopardy issue. Even if the military judge rules against Watada on that issue, he has a right to appeal, and the appeals will keep the case tied up in the courts for years.
It’s a lot less messy if the Army just drops the charges and reissues the deployment order. If Watada again refuses to deploy, they can start over with a fresh case, unencumbered by the legal flaws of this one.
If I were the division commander, I sure wouldn’t want you preparing my legal strategy. Don’t know if I would trust you with a loaded gun, either. I’d probably put you in charge of counting the paper clip inventory.
@52 Yes and no. We’re all going to die, sooner or later. But under human value systems, there’s a qualitative difference between untimely and inevitable, and intentional or accidental, deaths. If you get drunk and run over a child, society will react very differently than if the child had grown up, lived a full life, and died of old age. Our value systems decree that you may not intentionally, carelessly, or negligently cause another human’s death without societally acceptable justification — or there will be consequences.
@46 (continued) This comment also is infused with a pernicious bigotry. You are saying, in effect, that since the 9/11 attackers were muslims, all muslims are fair game. Think about it, Mac. By your reasoning, if a Christian terrorist blows up a muslim cafe in Lebanon, then any muslim government has a right to kill YOU for it. Your argument is preposterous. Anyone who judges an entire group because of the actions of individuals is a pea-wit. With that mindset, you couldn’t pass Ethics 101.
@56 “So, we go to trial, and shucks, we messed up. Oh darn. Oops. Now we can’t re-try him on the most serious charges. Well, there are certainly a few that he wasn’t originally charged with. Minor things, but sufficient for a discharge. Mr. Watada goes home, quietly, without much fanfare and certainly without the opportunity to tell a military court that they should aquit him because the war is illegal. Watch for this to happen during a very busy news cycle.”
Yeah, you may be onto something. This case now has “plea bargain” written all over it.
64: if you rape a child though and kill the kid in the process the democratics/Gary Alexander will let you out of jail.
@66, Roger,
I didn’t write 46, what post are you talking about?
If a female gets drunk and runs over a child, she’s responsible and goes to jail.
If a female gets drunk and has sex with you – YOU can go to jail, because she was too drunk to give her consent!
sgmmac says:
I am not downplaying the high cost to Iraqi civilians, but the simple fact is US soldiers have NOT killed 100,000 civilians. As for all of the Iraqis killing Iraqis they have been doing that for 1000 years or more. Yes, the US did a lot to create the chaos and give Al-Qaida a country to try to take over, but the US isn’t solely responsible.
I am not full of shit – Facts is full of shit – he/she/it spouts it everyday like clockwork.
——————
I never once said these dead Iraqis were killed by our troops. What I have said like clockwork, is the fact that when we took out Saddam, we were responsible for the security of the occupied nation.
Bush, and his cabal of crooks did not even try to provide security. The State Dept. had been working on a plan to stabilize Iraq after an invasion for 20 years, and it was totally ignored so Rumsfeld could scam billions for his, and Cheney’s buddies. We are not there to do anything but make the real power brokers in our country richer. Big oil, and the military industrial complex. If you don’t believe me, just look at Exxon’s profits, and the Pentagon budget. All the proof anyone reasonable would need.
The retarded lying traitors in charge could care less about the Iraqis. The only thing they worry about is how to spin the next lie, and play politics with every issue, to hopefully hold onto power a little longer.
Well, the American People finally woke up. Well, at least most of ’em. The rest refuse to open their eyes to reality. Instead of going after Al Queda, Bush and the gang went after Saddam. The stupidest rock on the pile would understand how insane this was.
I am not, and never was a Saddam fan. I do however remember a picture of Rumsfeld shaking his hand…… The both seem to have been made from the same pile of turds.
So sgmmac, did Bush tell the truth in the run-up to the war, or did he lie. I would really like to know what you think. Was he honest. Go ahead. Tell us all……
@58 “I am not downplaying the high cost to Iraqi civilians, but the simple fact is US soldiers have NOT killed 100,000 civilians.”
You’re not?
Oh, so now you’re changing your statement. You said, and I quote, “There isn’t 100,000 corpses unlesss you are including all of the Iraqis killed by Sadaam.” Did you mean something else? Specifically, did you mean, and I quote, “US soldiers have NOT killed 100,000 civilians”?
I tend to agree that US soldiers probably have not killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians by direct fire, although they haven’t killed none, either. But that begs the issue. It’s a rhetorical trick. The pertinent question is how many Iraqis have died, directly and indirectly, because of the U.S. invasion and occupation. This question should be understood in the classic legal sense of “proximate cause” i.e. “but for” the U.S. invasion and occupation, how many dead Iraqis would be alive? Johns Hopkins University tried to put a number on that concept, and came up with up to 656,000 using hard data.
Roger,
“the appeals will keep the case tied up in the courts for years.”
No, it won’t, because the appeal isn’t going to a higher court………. There are big differences in military courts and civilian courts!
@62 Oh come on, Mac. It’s public knowledge that Shinseki told Rumsfeld it would take 500,000 troops to occupy Iraq — and got sacked. Rumsfeld then tried to do it with 130,000 — and the result is there for everyone to see.
The Pentagon has as many sycophants as any other organization, and you can always tempt someone to do your bidding by dangling a big command and a couple more stars in front of him. How successful has this parade of “yes” men been?
More recently, a raft of retired and active generals have been saying Bush’s “surge” is nonsense — and once again they’re being ignored.
@72
Roger,
Actually I was including collateral damage in that statement, as US soldiers certainly dropped bombs.
I will not argue that the war has indirectly caused thousands of deaths, because it has. There has been an extremely high cost to Iraqi civilians, but the question should be is a democratic government worth it to them? The Kurds are very happy to not be targeted and tortured by Sadaam, ask them if it’s worth it.
Shinseki was NOT sacked, his time was up. He was pretty controversial too, with his “vision” for the future Army. There were many senior level officers and generals who hated his “transformation” of the military.
As for “yes” men – they exist in every organization, military and civilian. Don’t tell me you’ve never met an ass-kisser!
@69 I can’t find what #66 is based on, so I must have misread something, therefore #66 is withdrawn. My apologies.
So mac. You never answered. Was the Bushies honest with us in the run up to the war? Do you choose which facts to ignore? I have to ignore nothing. That is the best thing about living in the reality based world….
Watada is still a hottie!!
FSMP,
I have no idea is President was honest before the warm neither do you. You take every snipet of information or opinion you read and try to turn them into “FACTS.” Taking pieces of information out of context and putting an evil purpose to them-doesn’t make them true or factual.
All of the intelligence agencies in the big countries believed that Sadaam had WMD, Sadaam claimed he had WMD. There were numerous weapons found during the war that qualified as WMD and other weapons that were in violation of the UN restrictions on him. Whether the chemical weapons were still as potent as they were when new- is questionable. That doesn’t mean that they still wouldn’t kill people.
@45 see post #37
“By the way I am talking about international law as far as legal. I bet you forgot that when congress authorized the use of force as a last resort, there were 2 conditions. Bush had to prove Saddam had WMD’s, and he was actively helping Al Queda. The great thing about being a wingnut, is you get to convieniently forget the facts you want…..”
International Law……..followed. UN Resolution 1441
“The faulty intelligence excuse has been disproven for years now. Only the kool aid iv types are still buying that argument. Oddball, aluminum tubes, and niger uranium? All they had. And this is direct from the C.I.A.”
you might want to look at UN reslolution 687 (included in 1441) paragraph C-12 and H
Again google Ansar Al-Islam (pertains to paragraph H of 687) again that little thing ..International Law..
Oh and there is the little matter of Saddam paying families of suicide bombers.
“I believe Bush, and his pack of liars truly believed Saddam had to have WMD’s. The problem is they said that they knew he had em, and they were lying.
“All we got to show for these lies is a depleted demoralized military, 2 trillion in new debt, and a world that hates America.”
The world hates the USA? Well then, let’s shut off our support to the UN? or Palestine, Egypt, France, Russia, etc etc etc. That is just stupid. As soon as something happens in the world…the world community looks to the USA…Again, just because you repeat it over and over and over again…doesn’t make it true. We are the most generous nation on the planet. Are some jealous? yes..but they still have their hand out.
As to depleted military….I don’t have a guage on that.
The debt can be retired in 5 years if the economy keeps on trucking….so no, my kids don’t have to pay it off..
#82. So the U.N. authorized the military invasion of Iraq? Huh? This is news.
Ansar Al-Islam. Saddam would have taken them out if we would have let him. They were operating in the no fly zone, and Saddam had actually looked into ways to attack them. We were actually protecting their area of operations.
In order to be a wmd, your 10 year old rusty shells with a 60 day shelf life would have to have the ability to destroy something. These weapons we found were utterly useless. Where were the tons of anthrax, nuclear weapons programs, and the nuke that could be launched in 30 minutes? They lied about Saddam being a threat. Face it wingnuts. Pull out your kool-aid enemas and admit you are supporting a lying traitor.
We can retire the debt in 5 years, and give tax breaks to all them billionares? Pay for the medicare shortfall, and grow the military budget? You have to be smoking something to say anything this ridiculous.
Funny, I don’t recall the liberals all getting in a twitter about the court martial of Michael New. Could that have ANYTHING to do with the fact that the president at the time was William Jefferson Clinton, a democrat, engaging in a war in Bosnia that the UN did not permit?
Hypocrites!
Oh, you mean the fellow that didn’t want to defend Moooosliiims against those nice God-fearin’ White Christian folks that were just trying to clean up their neighborhoods?
Yea, right.
The man was a disgrace to the uniform and an embarrasment, both to Christians and to all of us that were serving honorably at the time.
And you may quote me on that.