As reported here, the Army is convening an Article 32 hearing regarding Lt. Watada, who refused to obey orders to deploy with his unit to Iraq. (An Article 32 hearing is similar to a preliminary, or grand jury, hearing and is used to determine if there is enough evidence to warrant proceeding further).
Of course, the ACLU has to get involved. "Meanwhile, in a friend-of-the-court brief, the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington announced this week that it is backing Watada's free speech rights to express legal and moral objections to the war in Iraq. The ACLU declined, however, to take a position on his challenge to the lawfulness of orders to report for deployment to Iraq.
"Soldiers should not be court-martialed for explaining their views on important political issues when doing so does not adversely affect military functioning. Lt. Watada was exercising his free speech rights as a citizen in a democratic society," Kathleen Taylor, the ACLU of Washington executive director, said in a statement."
The issue here is not - I repeat not - Lt. Watada's free speech rights. The issue here is that Lt. Watada refused a lawful order to deploy with his unit to Iraq, and in the process of doing that, he spoke out at a press conference, disparaging the President, and the war in Iraq, which is something someone in the military cannot legally do. This has been accepted practice for military personnel for over 200 years.
"Watada is not a conscientious objector. Instead he believes the war in Iraq to be immoral and illegal under constitutional and international conventions. He has said he sees it as his duty as an officer to point out and refuse unlawful orders. He has said he would fight in Afghanistan.
"Watada's civilian lawyer, Eric Seitz of Hawaii, has said Watada's case raises key issues about the legality of the war in the face of international war conventions, and the scope of the president's constitutional authority. Seitz hopes to introduce evidence about that, and says he wants to call expert witnesses in international law, including a former United Nations undersecretary, Denis Halliday, to support Watada's contentions."
Pfft. The only "international law" that they could possibly be speaking about that could possibly have any remote relevance to this is the Geneva Conventions, which governs the conduct of war, and treatment of prisoners of war, not whether someone can call a press conference to say he doesn't want to go where he has been ordered to go.
In this follow on article, which is misleadingly headlined ("Hearing for soldier who won't serve in Iraq puts war on trial" - sorry, no it doesn't), during the Article 32 hearing, three defense witnesses called the war illegal - which it isn't, as I (among many others) have explained before.
What they are trying to do is blow smoke up everyone's shorts, to distract from the very serious charges of Missing Movement and Conduct Unbecoming, among others, leveled against Lt. Watada. Trying to figure out if the war is "illegal" is not in the purview of the Article 32 court. Their job is to figure out if there is enough evidence to bring Lt. Watada before a Courts Martial on the offenses he is charged with.
Period.
If you want to debate the legality of the war in Iraq, call a press conference - in Baghdad!
No comments:
Post a Comment