Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by civ_king, Sep 27, 2009.
Is this fair, should have have been allowed to resign after refusing to deploy to Iraq?
How the hell could they not convict him? Some kind of technicality or something, whats the rest of the story?
edit: I see resignation for good of the service in lieu of general court martial is a special type of resignation. I don't know a whole lot about it, hopefully Mobboss or Patraklos have some info
There should be a clause that allows people to get out of BS wars. I would join if such existed.
Can't say I really approve of this, but on the other hand, would we want this guy leading men into battle?
Misread the poll, or it wasn't clear, or something.
Voted "Yes he deserved it" as in he deserved to be court marshaled.
Come on chaps, would you want to see an officer in the glass house ?
And US officers become gentlemen on the day they receive their commissions, even if they are from a trailer park background.
They should discharge the team that botched the prosecution.
He should have been jailed and dishonorably discharged from the service.
By agreeing to become an officer, they have as a part of their duties the enforcing of laws and regulations. So they certainly should follow them themselves. So they should follow orders up until the point where they have the right to resign and leave. If they refuse to do so, then they should be punished according to what the relevant regulations are.
Precisely. I would think it much better for unit morale and cohesion if they don't send him. Should he face some sort of legal punishment back at home? Probably, yet I don't think the army is in any hurry to attract attention to it's officers being unwilling to serve in an already unpopular war.
When the 22nd century looks back to the reality of this war and to Lt. Watada's dishonorable discharge it will be obvious the entire affair was a face saving maneuver. He should have been allowed to resign when he applied the first time, instead he got this mockery of a court martial where his explanation for why he wanted to resign was used to charge him with an offense. A dishonorable discharge groups him with the lowest scum of enlisted criminals. That isn't the right response any way you look at this.
Thing is, Lt. Watada could expect this result as could any officer, but he must have felt strongly enough that his true obligation as an officer was to refuse. To refuse to make his men into criminals. Unlike the various fruit cakes trying to get out of service because of their political ideology, this man acted as a true professional officer standing against the improper ways this war has been conducted, and he faced the consequences. That's courage.
Don't soldiers have the right to refuse an illegal or immoral order? I don't know the specifics about whether this would even qualify as either, but if it was, he got too much punishment. If it wasn't, then he damn well should have been court-martialled.
I don't like the wording that he was "allowed to resign". He should be "forced to resign" for such a dishonor. He signed up to fight for his country whether it was right or wrong. If he cared so much about avoiding combat, maybe he should have looked into the womans axillary unit, or something. I'm sure you guys have one of them?
Sure, he should be allowed to resign. As should all military service personnel. I mean, yeah it's the armed forces and all, but that should be no reason on its own to impose unfair and stringent labour restrictions. Even if this was for some ridiculous reason like believing that Obama wasn't the CinC because he's Kenyan (which I fully expected this thread to be about, before opening), then resignation should be an option. There isn't any point in having people fighting something they believe is illegal/wrong.
Congratulations Mr. Watada.
Who's going to find a conscience next?
No, it doesn't. It groups him with people who have accepted a commission/enlisted under false pretenses, have violated lawful orders and who have violated the public trust. There is no reason to make the distiction between him as an officer and enlisted members. Enlisted members and officers both can serve with equal distiction both good and bad.
Thats nice, but he is wrong. If I could refuse any order just because I felt like it then what is the point? There are specific reasons to refuse orders and the only ones that matter is their illegality and for competant objection. In the case of the latter that is wholly on your own initiative, and if circumstances prove you wrong after the fact then you stand alone (a courts martial will flesh this out).
Neither of these apply to Lt. Watada. There are plenty of things I disagree with in the Navy but that doesn't mean I get to disregard whatever a personally disagree with. I am free, however, to officially log my concerns with the CO and to try and change things internally.
No, resignation should not be an option. When you commission there is no mystery as to the terms of the contract you sign. The military operates under the assumtion that the oath you took will be honored and is should go without saying that the buisness we are involved with is one of the most serious out there.
If you feel so morally inclined to disregard your oath after the fact, then feel free to do so. However having volunarily placed yourself under oath and without any legal recourse to challenge it you should be under no illusions that you are entitled to simply walk away. This is one of the most disturbing thing about protesters these days, their inability to accept responsibility for the consequences of their protest and instead whining about it. If you want to make a personal stand fine by me, but you lose all moral authority when you try to weasel out on the legal consequences of it.
And I do. Quick lesson. In the military, you have two different avenues of approaching misconduct.
One is judicial and non-judicial: Court-martials and article 15s. Watada dodged a court-martial due to the prosecution team screwing up what should have been an easy case.
Second and lesser known is administrative: Admin boards often remove someone from service for a wide variety of reasons, but this is not considered punitive, as punishments via judicial/non-judicial methods are not allowed - however, people can still get an Other Than Honorable discharge and kicked out of the service. Officers often have their federal commission revoked under administrative systems, HOWEVER, officers have a right to resign in lieu of having a board action under these rules.
This is probably how Watada is getting to resign.
Bear in mind that an OTH (Other than honorable) discharge is NOT a DD (dishonorable discharge), but it will reflect on his record, and could cost him jobs and possibly VA medical benefits down the road. But thats about it.
I agree, and fwiw their career probably got pigeon holed on it.
My initials are NJP. (they really are, lol)
Yah, I looked up resignation for the good of the service in lieu of general court martial, and he doesn't get VA benefits. Its not really a good way to get out, lol. I'm sure he can find a sympathetic employer to hire him, though.
edit And I still can't believe they couldn't prosecute him, though, wtf.
Eh he should just gone Section 8 on them.
Separate names with a comma.