WA Democrats Support Watada

It seems that the Washington State Democratic Party decided to throw their support to a law breaker.

From the Tacoma News Tribune:

Leaders of the state Democratic Party voted overwhelmingly Saturday to support Lt. Ehren Watada, the Fort Lewis officer who refused orders to serve in Iraq.

There were a few like Mike Carnahan:

Mike Carnahan, a Democratic Central Committee member from Clark County, spoke against the Watada resolution. It’s an all-volunteer military, he said. “I find it offensive as, a veteran, to have him doing what he’s doing,” Carnahan said.

Conversely:

But other veterans on the committee said that, particularly as an officer, Watada shouldn’t just blindly follow.

And some tried to make a comparison with Abu Ghraib and the Nuremberg trials:

But other veterans on the committee said that, particularly as an officer, Watada shouldn’t just blindly follow.

“To say he’s required to follow all orders would be to negate the Nuremberg trials,” said Mike Mosbarger, a Mason County Democrat.'

And:

State Democratic Party Chairman Dwight Pelz said in an interview that officers at Abu Ghraib prison or Guantanamo Bay might have done well to take an action such as Watada.

Mr. Carnahan got it right, but he didn't go far enough.  Mr. Mosbarger and Mr. Pelz are either clueless, or so blinded by ideology, they can't see how absolutely untrue those statements are.

Here is the problem.  Regardless of how you feel about the war, it is legal.  The congress voted to fund the war and whether you think there should have been a formal declaration or not, funding the war is a tacit declaration.

Mr. Watada ( I refuse to use a title he does not deserve) does not have the authority to make a determination concerning the legitimacy of any conflict he might be assigned during the term of his service.

It is true that the soldiers who broke the rules at Abu Ghraib should not have complied with any order to engage in some of the things they did.  The general in charge of the prison at the time issued no order to engage in any illegal activity.  She was dismissed because she should have applied proper oversight to keep abuse from happening.

Mr. Mosbarger apparently doesn't understand the purpose of the Nuremberg trials and the charges that were brought up against the defendants.  Those men were accused of crimes against humanity.  They purposely murdered millions of innocents.  It was not a crime for a German to be in the army and fight against the allied forces as long as he didn't commit atrocities.

Everyone who enters the service is taught the difference between an illegal order and a legal order.  As an officer, Mr. Watada would have received even more training than an enlisted man.

We cannot have an army where individuals decide what wars to support.  Chaos would be the result. If the Democrats can't understand that concept, they shouldn't be in charge.

VW

Comments

[canuckistani]

Too many people weighing in on this that don't know what their talking about. They all look like fools.

[Kelly]

One word comes to mind, typical.

[MOGS]

Vee-Dub:

You asked Pidge for a little analysis on the law regarding the Watada case, and while neither of us are JAGs, here the law as I understand it:

The case against Watada is actually very narrow, very specific, and has little to do with the legality of the war itself or his opinion of it:

Near as I can tell, he is charged, specifically, with a violation of Article 87 of the UCMJ (Title 10 US Code, for those keeping score) "Missing Movement" - in order to find a verdict of "guilty" the gov't must prove guilt in each and every element of the article:

"“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.”

Elements.

(1) That the accused was required in the course of duty to move with a ship, aircraft or unit;

(2) That the accused knew of the prospective movement of the ship, aircraft or unit;

(3) That the accused missed the movement of the ship, aircraft or unit; and

(4) That the accused missed the movement through design or neglect.

IOW - the order for Watada to must with his unit, and get on the military transport, is a lawful, legal order and must be obeyed.

The order to move ITSELF, is the order in question. An order telling the hopefully soon to be ex-LT to get on a plane or boat...there ain't nothing illegl about that. His opinion of the war itself, if the gov't keeps the charges and specifications to this point, is immaterial.

There is also Article 92, Failure to Obey Order or Regulation - he is probably being charged with that as well.

Seems pretty straightforward so far...

What might be more difficult, and may actually open the case up to discussions of the war itself are charges of violating Article 88 (Contempt towards officials), the general Article 134, or Article 133, Conduct Unbecoming (for good measure)