....to the war? I am sure you all have seen news about him.

What's with people who join the military and then complains about having to do their job? It seems he has the anti-War fiends surrounding him. Did he just join the military to make a political message?

He talks about the violence of War killing troops and innocent Iraqis and Afghans. But, conveniently and predictably omitts the part about the enemy killing their own people in mosques, markets, schools, etc...
As always, it's the U.S. responsible

He's a panty waist. He is probably in more danger just driving on the interstate than going to Iraq. At least over there he can protect himself.

I respect him for going into Iraq...I respect the enemy who fights our troops too....

Lt watada is oddly an MP. Here is a email exchange between him and another MP who actually servered in Iraq which Watada has not.


1LT Watada,

I just read about your refusal to deploy with the men and women of your unit. Perhaps you forgot but when you raised your right hand and swore to obey the orders of those appointed over you, there was no caveat that said "as long as I agree with them".

You are a commisioned officer of the United States Army. That title brings responsibilities, responsibilities you have chosen to shirk. You will of course get your 15 minutes of fame and can probably join the Cindy Sheehan tour this summer that is if you are not sittling in Leavenworth. Lest you take me for a "ChickenHawk", I served for 12 months in theatre as the S4 of a military Police Bn, 10 of those in Baghdad and Balad Iraq. I found it to be one of the most rewarding years of my life and should I be told to do so, will go again. I suggest you think long and hard about your next step as it will seriously impact the rest of your life.

Michael XXXXXXXX



ehren.watada@us.army.mil


To 06/08/2006 07:06 Michael XXXXXXXXXX
PM

Subject Re:

Dear Sir,

I'm sorry you feel the way you do. But the fact is, I do remember what I swore upon my oath of office: to protect and defend the Consitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.

The oath of an officer says nothing of obeying the unlawful orders of the President. Even though your experience was rewarding, it gives no credence to the legality of the war and occupation.

Please sir, before you respond read the numerous articles by international and Consitutional law experts regarding the Iraq war. It takes a simple Google search. Read the accounts of Iraqis, vets, and independent journalists who may not have been in your same AO.

The responsibility of an officer is to evaluate the legality and truthfulness behind every order. We cannot blindly accept every order, especially one to go to war, based on faith and what our "political" leaders tell us. Many Germans went along with the Nazi's idea of racial superiority or because they were afraid of prison or execution if they didn't. Real leadership means first realizing what's wrong, finding everything there is to know about it, and finally acting upon it.



http://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/06/an_email_from_w.html


Any person who has ever been in the Military knows unquestionably the procedure for dealing with what one concludes is a unlawful order.

They take up it the chain of command and at the same Time to JAG and the Chaplin office. They can as they go up the chain of command and to JAD as well as also use the chaplins office request a non-combat assignment as alternative to defying a direct order.

This is not about fighting or not fighting, or the war being legal or not, its clearly a political statement exclusively.

For god's sake his very first comments as to his intent to not deploy was not to the Army but as a speech and an announcement of the LT refusual through an area anti-war group and a press release.

He offically notified the Army of his refusla just as his unit was to board a bus for deployment which he refused to do.

Lastly this guy entered OCS in 2003 while we were liberating Iraq, what was he thinking then, I won't have to go to war or what?? Likely he had, so called not there tomorrow friends, that persuaded him after he joined.

[U]His unit, the 4,000 strong 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division Stryker Brigade. A unit that served in Iraq in 2003 and 2004. This would have been Watada's first deployment there. His obligation to serve on active duty will be up on Dec. 3, 2006. Oddly as we are starting a draw down, he does this, odd behavior indeed.

Watada states has tried to resign his commission several times since January, saying , "I am whole-heartedly opposed to the continued war in Iraq, the deception used to wage this war, and the lawlessness that has pervaded every aspect of our civilian leadership."

His entire argument is sumed up in the following:

Watada has said he is not a conscientious objector to war but believes the war in Iraq is illegal and suggested he will defend himself on those grounds, abiding by an obligation among members of the military to disobey unlawful orders.

The principle that military members must obey lawful orders of superior officers stems from the Nuremberg trials after World War II, where Nazis accused of war crimes unsuccessfully argued that they were only "following orders."

So to prove his innocents, he MUST CONCLUSIVELY, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, PROVE the war in Iraq WAS ILLEGAL and therefore, allowing him the right to refuse an unlawful order, as any order to commit an illegal act, is unlawful. Otherwise he is gulity and will get time.

Odds of his proving that anyone?

Yet, as an officer and the first to refuse to boot that became an Officer during the liberationof Iraq, he will not be measured with kids gloves, I imagine, unless the military wants more of this.

Levenworth bound, I suspect, for 3 to 5 years at a minimum.


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/275056_watada23.html



TUM DII DAI DII, TUM CHUA DAI CHUA!

THAT IS ALL!!

is he gonna be in trouble?

Thank you Haupt...we already know your the main spokeswoman for the land of the terrorists (a.ka.RagHeadKingdom.)