“Lt. Watada is a coward.”

Lt. Watada was offered a position within the unit’s headquarters, a position described as one that would not require him to “leave the wire” or carry a weapon.  It was considered safe and out of harm’s way.  Lt. Watada turned down the position because he never claimed to be a pacifist or afraid of direct combat.  His refusal to deploy to Iraq is based on his belief that participation in any manner in a criminal war would be equal to aiding and abetting a crime.  On two occasions Lt. Watada offered to deploy to Afghanistan, which is a dangerous combat zone, but the offers were refused. 
 

“You can’t pick and choose wars.”

Lt. Watada is not picking or choosing anything.  It is the obligation of every service member who swears an oath to protect and defend the Constitution to refuse an order that violates the law and is a crime against the peace.  Every America citizen would surely expect all members of the armed forces to refuse to participate in an illegal war, even one ordered by the President.  This is based on the Nuremberg Principles, which were enacted after World War II.  If German and Japanese soldiers had the obligation to refuse participation in the invasions of China, Korea, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, Czech Republic, France, etc. WWII may have been a lot different.
 

“Lt. Watada should pay back all his college tuition.”

Lt. Watada was not commissioned through Army ROTC or West Point.  These commissioning sources often pay for an officer’s college tuition.  Lt. Watada worked his way through college and still has significant loans to repay without the Army’s help.
 

“Lt. Watada is a traitor.”

Officers in the U.S. armed forces swear an oath of loyalty not to the President, the military, Congress or a political party but to the U.S. Constitution.  The Constitution is the embodiment of the laws, promises, and principles that make America a democracy.  When the policies or orders of any high official, including the President, are illegal and in violation of the Constitution, service members must refuse to obey.   

While the president theoretically grants commissions to officers, these powers are vested through him or her by the People.  Lt. Watada believes the Iraq War is illegal, as do millions of other Americans.  Simply because an official body has not debated the legality of the war does not mean it is legal. 

The legality of official policies, including war, is an issue that should be examined by the courts.  However, the judicial branch, including the judge in Lt. Watada’s court martial, has abdicated this responsibility.  If the judicial branch refuses to check the President’s war-making power, and Congress does not take action, the abuse of power by one person who has authority over the armed forces, is extremely dangerous.
 

“Members of the military don’t have the right to speak out publicly.”

There is nothing in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Dept of Defense regulations, or the Constitution that prohibits members of the military from speaking out publicly.  Instead, there are guidelines for their behavior.  Military personnel are prohibited from making contemptuous remarks about members of their chain of command.  They may not speak out while in uniform or while they are on duty, and they are not allowed to pretend to represent the views of the Armed Forces.  Lt. Watada was counseled regarding these guidelines by his commanders days before he first spoke out publicly, and he complied with all of the guidelines.  He is only charged with making “disrespectful” and “disgraceful” remarks.  These are highly ambiguous and arbitrary terms.   When questioned under oath, of the prosecution’s witnesses revealed that their definition of “disrespectful” and “disgraceful” was a personal belief that did not match theirs. 

The speech charges against Lt. Watada are clearly selective and vindictive prosecution. Less than a year ago, several recently retired generals and senior military officers openly and publicly made critical remarks about the administration’s policies in Iraq that included disparaging remarks regarding Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.  Retired personnel who collect a pension are subject to the UCMJ. 

More recently, 2 U.S. Marine senior officers who called then President Clinton an “adulterous, womanizing, pot-smoking, draft-dodging, lying criminal” received only Letters of Concern.  In 2002, the head of the Defense Language Institute, Lt. Col Stephen Butler, wrote an op-ed accusing President Bush of lying about 9/11 and called him “a joke…sleazy and contemptuous…”  He was allowed to retire.  

In 2003-2004, Lt. Gen. William Boykin made over 23 public appearances in evangelical churches while in uniform and sometimes at government expense.  He equated the fight against Islamic extremism in the Mid-East as a fight against Satan and he referred to Allah as idol worship.  The Dept of Defense considered Boykin’s remarks “freedom of speech,” even after his words angered the Muslim community in the U.S. and heightened the fear of U.S. foreign policy among Muslims worldwide.  General Boykin is still on active duty, still making public appearances and is head of Pentagon intelligence.  Has the military asked if General Boykin’s public comments are placing American soldiers at risk?
 

“Congress gave President Bush authorization for this war.”

Congress made this determination on the basis of intelligence that was provided by the Administration.  This intelligence is now proven to have been horribly wrong.  Recently retired CIA officials have admitted that the intelligence was manipulated to fit a policy to bring about a regime change in Iraq.   

Recent findings by congressional investigations show that former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld created a separate intelligence office in the Department of Defense that ignored the CIA’s findings and presented their own evidence to policymakers as the only set of verifiable intelligence.  In short, the authorization for this war occurred because Congress and the American people were the victims of lies and fraud. 
 

“How is this war illegal?”

Even if Congress and the public were defrauded —a flagrant violation of checks and balances—Congress still lacked the authority to declare a war that contradicted the U.N. Charter.  The U.N. Charter is an international treaty which, when ratified by the U.S. Congress, became part of United States law through Article 6 of the Constitution.  This is a long-standing, pre-established law that prohibits the U.S. from engaging in a war unless the action is necessary 1) to repel an actual invasion or 2) granted by the U.N. Security Council.  Otherwise, it is an illegal war of aggression.  Any country that violates this law – even the U.S. -- is committing a crime.  Furthermore, the Nuremburg Principles, another treaty incorporated into U.S. law, and the Army’s Law of Land Warfare, obligates all soldiers and citizens to refuse to enable a war of aggression in any form.  

“Lt. Watada is a disgrace.”

In February, 2007, witnesses for the prosecution repeated many times that Lt. Watada was a “quality officer.”  His fitness reports from a year-long tour in Korea are nothing short of excellent.  Until he refused to deploy, there was no reason for him to be counseled or reprimanded for misconduct.  In fact, Lt. Watada has recently been selected for promotion to Captain.  Lt. Watada is respected even by those with whom he currently works who do not agree with his position regarding the Iraq War.  The only people who believe he is a disgrace are those who do not share his personal beliefs, those who support this war and the Bush Administration and those who believe military personnel do not have the right to think critically and speak out when they are commanded to commit a crime against the peace.

 
“Lt. Watada is betraying his oath”.

The oath taken by an officer is different from the oath taken by enlisted personnel.  Officers do not promise to follow the orders of the President or those appointed over them.  This distinction is important.  With rank comes the higher responsibility of officers to speak out for their soldiers when they are unable or unwilling to do so.  They must do so at great personal cost to themselves, even if the decision is an unpopular one.  This was highlighted in a public statement made by recently retired Lt. Gen Gregory Newbold. 

 
“Lt. Watada betrayed his men.”

This matter is subject to debate depending on who you talk to.  The true answer should be sought among Lt. Watada’s former comrades-in-arms.  Certainly there are soldiers who believe Lt. Watada is wrong and should accompany his fellow troops to Iraq.  There are also many soldiers who are unable to do the same but support Lt. Watada and appreciate the stand he has taken on their behalf.  And as the prosecution’s witnesses testified, Lt. Watada’s actions did nothing to hurt the morale or mission of his former unit beyond creating create short-lived controversy and discussion.  Most soldiers including officers, respect Lt. Watada’s principled stand for his belief and think nothing more of it. 

 
“Lt. Watada volunteered to serve.”

Regardless if one volunteers or is conscripted into the armed forces, all take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and are subject to the UCMJ which obligates all service members to comply only with lawful orders.  Lt. Watada did not volunteer for the Iraq War, in fact, very few service members today would.  Lt. Watada volunteered to protect and defend this country from all enemies foreign and domestic.  He was wrongly led to believe – as were millions of Americans -- that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat, possessed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, had a role in the September 11th attacks, and had ties to Al Qaeda.  Yes, Lt Watada signed a contract, but the law considers a contract null and void if it is based on fraudulent information.  Moreover, Lt. Watada is upholding his oath by refusing to participate in an illegal war.  He is protecting his country against the domestic threat of administration officials who have repeatedly violated the law with impunity.

 
“Service members lose their rights when they join the military; they don’t get to question or express dissent.”

Contrary to popular belief, soldiers question and express dissent all the time.  Rank has the final say, but if the ranking personnel do not seek out all alternatives and answers to their questions, they are derelict in their duty.  Loyalty and unit cohesion is not gained by tyrannical treatment but through relationships of mutual trust and confidence between leaders and soldiers. 

As a leader, Lt. Watada explained to his soldiers why they were undertaking every task he ordered them to do.  He believes understanding “why” they are ordered to act makes for reliable soldiers.  But in explaining the rationale for Iraq, Lt. Watada found he could not longer explain the “why” to his men and be truthful.  He was told by his commander to tell his men they were going to Iraq because of 9/11.  Lt. Watada knew this was untrue, and he was not willing to order his men to do something he believed was legally and morally wrong.   

Lt. Watada asked numerous times to respectfully and quietly resign his commission.  His request was denied.  He asked to be reassigned.  He was denied.  He was being forced to participate in a mission of “vital importance,” for which the Bush Administration will not institute a draft and instead relies on a military that is overstretched and overused.  The administration seeks “volunteers” with $40,000 enlistment bonuses, promises of U.S. citizenship, and waivers for convicted felons.

 
“If we leave Iraq now, there will be genocide.”

Genocide is already occurring in Iraq as more than 1,000 -- mostly civilians -- die each month.  Over 2 million refugees have already fled the country, and every month thousands are being displaced from their homes.  This is occurring during an occupation by over 180,000 U.S. troops and private security contractors.  It is reasonable to expect that all the regional players--  Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, and Turkey -- have a compelling reason to contain the internal conflict within Iraq, since a regional war would disrupt and likely cause the collapse of their totalitarian regimes.   

While the Sunnis are the minority in Iraq, the Sunni majorities in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria are a powerful deterrent to further ethnic cleansing.  Shia Iran would be a stabilizing factor for Iraq’s Shiite majority.  The foreign jihadists, including Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, would have little reason to stay once the American “crusaders” have left, and would most likely be ejected by the Sunnis who accepted this fragile alliance out of necessity.  However, none of this can occur so long as the American government has a powerful influence in Iraq.  A civil war is occurring as a result of U.S. action, and it will only stop when one side is decimated or both sides become sick of the killing and realize a stalemate as occurred in Northern Ireland.  A western power with questionable intentions who tries to referee the fight only inflames the situation.

 
“Saddam was a brutal murderer and needed to be taken out.”

Saddam Hussein has been executed, and American troops are still in Iraq.  Saddam Hussein became the head of the Baath party after it violently took control of the country.  This coup was supported by the U.S. CIA, even though the Baathists were known for their murderous suppression of political and human rights. 

When Hussein illegally invaded Iran, he was sold chemical weapons and biological agents by Western nations, including the U.S.  When he repeatedly used these weapons against Iran and later their Kurdish allies, the U.S. refused to acknowledge the war crimes. 

 After the Persian Gulf War I, in which 250,000 Iraqis were killed, President Bush Sr. publicly promised support and encouraged the Shiites in southern Iraq to rise up against Hussein.  When they did, he reversed his support and thousands were slaughtered. 

The U.S. then proceeded to set up no-fly zones and economic sanctions to cripple the Hussein regime and cause its collapse.  In doing so, ordinary Iraqis suffered due to lack of medicine and lack of parts for once state-of-the-art sewage, electrical, and water purification plants that were bombed by coalition air power—500,000 died, most of them children.  In the current war, a 2nd John Hopkins/MIT/University of Baghdad study published in the British Lancet medical journal estimates that on average 655,000 Iraqis have died.   

 
“This is a fight against terrorism and for democracy and freedom.”

The 2005 National Intelligence Estimate, a consensus of 10 of our domestic intelligence agencies, concluded that the continued presence of American troops in Iraq is worsening Islamic extremism towards the U.S. and heightening the possibility of future terrorist attacks.  In essence the war in Iraq is making America less safe than before. 

 In a democracy, the will of the people must be heard and acknowledged.  In every reputable poll taken of Iraqi civilians, an overwhelming majority (80% Sunnis and Shias) want American troops to leave their country within months.  

 The Iraqi parliament has just signed into law a White House-engineered bill that gives virtually complete control of the oil fields to British and American petroleum conglomerates.  These companies will retain 75% of the profits for decades and 20% indefinitely—double the industry norm!  The move privatizes the oil reserves of Iraq for the benefit of foreign oil companies and not for the benefit of the Iraqi people.  Is this a fight for Iraqi freedom and democracy or a fight to control the oil profits of the Anglo-American oil industry?