2008 Woodie Awards
Army officer charged for refusal to deploy
Daniel Black
Issue date: 2/8/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Earlier this week, charges were brought against 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, an officer in the United States Army, for refusing to deploy with his unit to Iraq. Last June, Watada had expressed his understanding of the war as illegal and immoral, an irreconcilable reality that precludes his involvement. Succinctly put, participation constitutes commission of war crimes; he has not the freedom but the duty to disobey. He desires to plea these pretenses before the court.
Allegations of this nature, especially when they come from a junior officer, are never taken softly by any military unit or the United States Government. On Monday, retribution from both culminated in the form of a general court martial for "missing a movement by design" and four counts of "conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman". So began what's been interpreted by many as court action that, at least indirectly, puts the war itself on trial.
Shortly after commencing, though, this trial has proven a disappointment for anyone anticipating its provision of insight into the Iraq war's legitimacy. Whether Watada's case against the legality of the Iraq war has any substance, we will never know. The institutions waging their wrath against him have decided against our right to have all the facts or rightfully conceive of Lt. Watada as a criminal or a hero. The Judge, Lt. Col. Head, will not allow into the courtroom any evidence revealing the bigger picture behind Watada's resolve to reject orders to fight in Iraq.
It is a man, not a war, that is on trial, and this has been made clear. This is sound reasoning for isolating vastly different issues and handling them individually in their appropriate contexts, and I wish that was the end of the story. The truth that Lt. Watada wishes to share with the rest of the American people -that the larger issue, whether or not the war itself is legal or criminal- is effectively silenced through omission from any critical evaluation and the issue of him refusing orders is subsequently invalidated.
Allegations of this nature, especially when they come from a junior officer, are never taken softly by any military unit or the United States Government. On Monday, retribution from both culminated in the form of a general court martial for "missing a movement by design" and four counts of "conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman". So began what's been interpreted by many as court action that, at least indirectly, puts the war itself on trial.
Shortly after commencing, though, this trial has proven a disappointment for anyone anticipating its provision of insight into the Iraq war's legitimacy. Whether Watada's case against the legality of the Iraq war has any substance, we will never know. The institutions waging their wrath against him have decided against our right to have all the facts or rightfully conceive of Lt. Watada as a criminal or a hero. The Judge, Lt. Col. Head, will not allow into the courtroom any evidence revealing the bigger picture behind Watada's resolve to reject orders to fight in Iraq.
It is a man, not a war, that is on trial, and this has been made clear. This is sound reasoning for isolating vastly different issues and handling them individually in their appropriate contexts, and I wish that was the end of the story. The truth that Lt. Watada wishes to share with the rest of the American people -that the larger issue, whether or not the war itself is legal or criminal- is effectively silenced through omission from any critical evaluation and the issue of him refusing orders is subsequently invalidated.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
John
posted 2/09/07 @ 12:07 AM EST
the trial is dead. Watada beat the government through double jepordy.
Post a Comment