We've been assigned to read a short op-ed about Lt. Watada, an Army officer who has refused to be deployed to Iraq based on his understanding that the Iraq war is an illegal one under international law. As of January 2007 he was facing a court-martial for this stance, with the possibility of prison and a near-certainty of a tarished career.
It's difficult for me to evaluate this situation comprehensively based on this one article. It is an op-ed piece, from a website that would appear to support him personally. But there are issues raised that I can comment on, drawing on this article and what I learned in Dr. Nolan's "Ethics and National Security" class. Still, it is difficult to comment coprehensively, as I'm unfamiliar with the applicable Military Code and the law.
From the standpoint of the US Army, it is easy to see Lt. Watada as a disobdient solider. He was given orders (to deploy) and he has refused those orders on grounds that are not crystal clear at his level of the organization. Therefore he must be brought into compliance, and failing that, punished. Afterall, the Army is a strongly hierarchical organization, and chaos would errupt if everyone declined to do what they don't 100% agree with.
Further, Lt. Watada joined the military of his own free will. He recognized that when he signed that contract, he was giving up a certain level of personal autonomy; he agreed to take orders: to do and go as instructed without question in the vast majority of the things that would required of him.
Additionally, even if the Iraq war is indeed illegal under international law (which it may or may not be-- I do not evaluate that here), it is not Lt. Watada's place to decline to participate. Participation in a potentially internationally illegal war is not necessarily on the same level as commiting more "typical" crimes of war, for example, killing or injuring civilians without cause. If Lt. Watada was concerned that he might be tried with war crimes for having merely participated in the war, he should be able to take solace in the fact that, if the Iraq war is later determined to have been illegal, it is unlikely that he persoanlly would take responsibility-- the government of the United States would, should it be sued in the International Court of Justice by the Government of Iraq, for example. (There is some support to this: soldiers who have been implicated in serious offenses against civilians and prisoners, much higher up on the mens rea foodchain, have gotten little more than smacks on the wrist)
From the perspective of Lt. Watada, as he deeply felt that what he was being ordered to do was illegal, he should not be prosecuted for speaking up. This is the principle that is taught to soldiers in how to avoid committing atrocities in the field: soldiers have the duty to refuse orders they legitimately believe to be contrary to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and they have the right to bring the situation to the attention of higher authorities as tactical conditions allow. (Remember Goldie's "TAKE THE HILL!" film?)
Did the terms of his contract with the Army negate his ability to contientously object to certain missions? (we'd have to see the text of this contract and compare it against the regs on objection to say more definitively) From a practical standpoint, isn't the Army being a tad bit malicious in not allowing him to serve in Afghanistan (which he requested) as a way of navigating his objections? Certainly the Army cannot set a precident for anyone who just doesn't want to go to Iraq to get out of it by claiming a slightly nebulously-grounded objection-- who *wants* to go to Iraq to be shot at, place life and limb at risk and, at the very least, suffer the privations of being 10,000 miles away from family and friends? But are there not internal rules that govern when service members may and may not object? In a similar vein, is the Army's quest to make an example of Lt. Watada (which seems clear enough) an abuse of his due process rights? (granted the UCMJ works differently from civilian law, but it's a valid question)
(The treat to limb is very, very real-- I used to live outside of Washington and used to see regularly around town young men (often no older than 19 or 20 years) missing legs, arms, hands, eyes. A guy roughly my age lived a couple of buildings up from me and I used to see him struggle to get in his truck with a crutch in place of his right leg. A friend of mine who moonlights as a waitress once told me about a customer of hers who had such devestating brain damage that he could not speak or feed himself. And we mustn't forget those who come home physically intact but psychologically injured.)
So, I take a balanced view of Lt. Watada's unfortunant situation: he's acting in accordance with his beliefs and is seemingly being punished for it, while the Army is holding him to his contractual obligations and trying to contain what might be a wildfire. But what are the costs of their actions? Lt. Watada may be setting an example for anyone who is considering joining up, but he might be waging his campaign in thw wrong forum. Army might be protecting itself (as organizations are wont to do) but it might be embarrassing itself and acting needlessly heavy-handedly with Lt. Watada. I do wonder what will happen to him.
(I'd also like to point out that service members who have challenged the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on LGBT people serving openly have often faced the same set dilemmas, but they usually get witch-hunted and booted out with much less fanfare. If you're gay and in the military, silence and discretion are your friends and saviours.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I wanted to respond in particular to your bit about whether or not something in Lt. Watada's contract with the military negated his ability to be a conscientious objector.
There is a nonprofit (not unbiased, I admit) that compiles information for military personnel and possible enlistees. http://www.objector.org/index.html
In the section of the website entitled "Conscientious Objection and the Law" (http://www.objector.org/advice/conscientious_objector-12.html#pgfId-119) it is specifically stated that only "religious training and belief" can be the reasons for a soldier being a conscientious objector. Further, people who object to war "solely upon considerations of policy, pragmatism, expediency, or political views" do not qualify for discharge or transfer under DoD 1300.6.
So it would seem that Lt. Watada is not, in fact a consciencious objector. And if that is his defense for why he refused deployment to Iraq, then his reasoning was flawed as clearly he is refusing orders based on political beliefs.
I didn't know conscientious objectors were only called as such because of religious beliefs. Seems a bit unfair to me that only religious soldiers have recourse in situations where they are faced with an order they do not feel morally compelled to fulfill.
I also agree that it seems unfair that people can only use religion to be labelled a conscientious objector. I can see where this comes from, because otherwise quite a lot of people would spontaneously declare themselves to be pacifists in order to get out of a war, but it does place those who legitimately do object to violence in an awkward position. On the other hand, I've been told that if conscripted, and if you do not hold conscientious objector status but simply oppose war or the individual war, you can instead be placed domestically in some sort of public works program. I have no idea if this is true or not, nor how to find out if it is, but it would seem an acceptable choice.
I think, however, the entire issue comes down to the fact that Lt. Watada was not drafted. He voluntarily joined the army, whereupon he signed away quite a lot of his rights. He should have foreseen the possibility of being called into a war he didn't believe was legal. Moreover, as a lieutenant, one could make the argue that it is even more important that he demonstrate discipline and willingness to follow orders. Of course, I could argue the exact opposite: as an officer, it is his responsibility to set a moral example.
I just wanted to comment on Mercedes' posting. In the US, there is no conscription-- not since the 1970s. So the members of the military are there by choice-- they joined. In many countries where there is conscription, conscientious objectors can do national service for the same period (I know this is true in Germany, for example).
I think you make a good point, Mercedes, that Lt Watada has a certain responsibility to set a good example for more junior soliders. But who defines "good example"? --same sets of issues.
I just wanted to comment on Mercedes' posting. In the US, there is no conscription-- not since the 1970s. So the members of the military are there by choice-- they joined. In many countries where there is conscription, conscientious objectors can do national service for the same period (I know this is true in Germany, for example).
I think you make a good point, Mercedes, that Lt Watada has a certain responsibility to set a good example for more junior soliders. But who defines "good example"? --same sets of issues.
One of the the things that continues to eat at me is the timing Watada joined the military. From Mercede's post: "Lt. Watada was not drafted. He voluntarily joined the army...He should have foreseen the possibility of being called into a war he didn't believe was legal." Not only was there a possibility the he would called into this war, it seems to me that precisely the reason he joined the Army was the whole mess that was aftermath of 9/11. He joined sometime after his graduation from college in 2003. I'm assuming this was the spring right after the invasion of Iraq. In my opinion, there is no way he possibly could have dreamt he wouldn't end up in Iraq. Apart from all of the legal defenses, to me, this seems to be one of the biggest sticking points.
Post a Comment