Now Playing: Arthur Ruger
Topic: Lt. Ehren Watada
I've written previously about the antics of civilian leadership when it deliberately ignores or downplays the horrific consequences of war, bombing campaigns and torture, justifying an evil  by something other than literal defense of the homeland. This is a reflection of legitimate moral blindness that puts military families at a disproportionate amount of risk in this country.

We have let them get away with it.

In the face of our obsession with Super Bowls, car races, idols, survivors and celebrity dancers we see revealed a tragic flaw in our civilian society.

This in a nation established and sustained by military will, strength and courage.

The history of our revolution, our Civil War and the World Wars does not reflect a nation primarily ignorant of this nation's foreign and domestic affairs. Back then the country was not dominated by consumers sitting around playing games, pursuing entertainment and dabbling in pursuits of fame and fortune all the while waiting for a president to tell them what to do and why.

They were not dependent solely on the president to tell them that it was time to start paying attention and what they should focus on.

They were more aware back then of the real global situation. They were willing to join up or send their sons and daughters, trusting that their President was both honest and wise in commanding as chief.

Not this time in this age of America.

The recent Citizen's Tribunal in Tacoma - among other things - was a public effort at showcasing many of the legitimate arguments supporting the illegality of the war.

The military, which of itself doesn't make the decision to invade and occupy, nor initiate shock and awe without being ordered to do so, must build a case against Watada that establishes or justifies the "harm" of his words and actions.

It's in the Army's best interest to portray Watada's actions not only as violations of the UCMJ, but patriotically unacceptable because of a possible "harm" to troop discipline and morale; supposedly impacting the effectiveness of troops already serving in harm's way.

When the Watada Court Martial commences, are we likely to see prosecution attempt to justify its position by calling on families, wives and children of active duty personnel in Iraq to testify about Ehren`s negative impact on troop morale as well as the morale of military families?

You bet we are and there`s nothing unfair about that as a legal tactic.

The recent Tribunal either attempted and failed or more likely chose not to bring in rebuttal testimony and I'm not faulting them for that. The Panel Chairperson announced early on that the Tribunal made no claims to impartiality, only to truth. The panel then proceeded toward truth with a view unrestricted by procedural concerns, equal time or rebuttals.

But at the Court Martial, if we see families testifying as to how harmful the Lt's actions are, what do we do with that point of view?

It's one thing to be part of an activist group, crowd or mob where the choir dominates, speeches run to redundancy and spontaneity of action usually results in mighty roars of approval.

It's another to speak amidst a crowd or to an audience wherein mixed perspectives and priorities are present. Roars of approval then compete with disapproving shouts. For activists seeking chain reactions and stampedes the thrill is not the same.

My point with this is to examine ultimately what Lt. Watada and those bearing the grandest scale perspectives think they are after with Ehren.

Based on his own statements, I'm assuming that Lt. Watada hopes to start a cascade of feelings that generate thoughts that lead to words and finally actions that stop the war, end the killing and bring the crimes to a halt.

That's a reasonable message to send to military families, not some sort of "free Watada from the brig" civil disobedience that elevates one individual beyond that which he himself desires or to an undue level of importance at the expense of something greater.

Lietta and I, as members of Military Families Speak Out, do not desire divisiveness with any other military families over a  Watada-deserves-punishment versus Watada-deserves-freedom issue.

Watada himself is not the point.  

Although I make no comparison between Watada and Jesus, I see in some activists an insistance that support for Watada is more important that what Watada is talking about.

And that attitude is not unlike contemporary Evangelical Christianity and its excessive focus on Jesus himself rather than the philosophy and God Jesus pointed to as a means of making humanity more humane, less cruel, less judgmental, less self-interested and less violent.

In my opinion, citizens in this country must take ownership and responsibility for the actions carried out in our names. We do not let anyone irresponsibly and without accountablility send our children out to fight. We do not expect our children to serve this country with no sense of ethics simply because the ethical and moral sense has been assigned to higher authorities.

What we want of all military families is a projection - into the lives of their loved ones who serve - the safety AND moral issues connected with the purpose of service right now in Iraq.

We don't want a military wife to tell us what's right or wrong about Watada.

We do ask that a military wife focus on her husband and the situational and moral quagmire he is in; that he's stuck in his current venue because no one to date has challenged the legality of the orders given him nor the ultimate unwise and unethical civilian source.

We don't excuse our soldiers for ethical and moral lapses because authorities placed in positions of appointed power have - with self-preserving hypocrisy - labeled offenders as some few "bad apples," who deserve no further close scrutiny and need to be locked up, the key thrown away.

We should not tolerate civilian administrators pleading innocence because of the vast gap between the highest echelons of authority and the lowest front line chain of command;

 

a front line where sergeants can be punished because a corporal suffered from the same moral blindness as those self-serving civilians on Mount The invasion that became a military occupation has deteriorated to an on-going action carried on in the name of staying on a course that has been revealed as illegal, immoral and destructive of the innocent.

 

• staying a false course that deliberately destroys more innocent victims than it does terrorists

   

• because we were lied to by a dishonest leadership  that now declares that ending the illegal aggression would be "cutting and running."

   

This lack of moral responsibility pervades the current administration which is now seated at the steering wheel;

- villainous fools who are passing judgment on the moral fiber of anyone who disagrees, thereby labeling dissent as treason.

Our soldiers absolutely must emerge from basic and combat training with moral competence intact.

I hope that stories of institutionalized programming of racial hatred, bigotry, stereotyping and name-calling are not predominantly a part of teaching warriors a moral and ethical code. If the testimony and stories reflect what is happeneing across the board, I again declare here and now that the military training organizations are not doing it in my name nor on behalf of my family.

I repudiate these training tactics based on moral recklessness.

We hopefully raise our children with the expectation that they will become independent and self-reliant adults.

If my son or daughter joins the military and enters into its initiations, I am not being unreasonable in expecting that this current  military establishment reclaims its own sense of ethical and moral responsibility from the immorality of a corrupt president and his party.

I expect that sense to coincide with that which we as parents have endeavored to plant in our children's hearts.

I expect that all military families are not unreasonable in such an expectation before they decide to say who is patriotic and who isn't.

Now Playing: Citzen's Tribunal on Legality of the War in Iraq
Topic: Lt. Ehren Watada

Now Playing: Lietta Ruger at Washblog
Topic: Lt. Ehren Watada

Now Playing: Dahr Jamail Truthout.org
Topic: Lt. Ehren Watada

On Saturday night, I was lucky enough to be at the Veterans for Peace National Convention.

For that night, Lt. Ehren Watada was able to give the following speech, which I've just received permission to post here. The speech was met with a powerful, standing ovation from the vets who've been there.

Lt. Ehren Watada, for those who don't already know, became the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse deployment to the unlawful war and occupation in Iraq. While doing this on June 22, 2006, Watada said,

"As the order to take part in an illegal act is ultimately unlawful as well, I must refuse that order."

Just as Watada took the stage and began to speak, over 50 members of Iraq Veterans Against the War filed in behind him. Watada, surprised by this and obviously taken aback by the symbolic act, turned back to the audience, took some deep breaths, then gave this speech:

"Thank you everyone. Thank you all for your tremendous support.

How honored and delighted I am to be in the same room with you tonight. I am deeply humbled by being in the company of such wonderful speakers. You are all true American patriots. Although long since out of uniform, you continue to fight for the very same principles you once swore to uphold and defend.

No one knows the devastation and suffering of war more than veterans - which is why we should always be the first to prevent it.

I wasn't entirely sure what to say tonight. I thought as a leader in general I should speak to motivate. Now I know that this isn't the military and surely there are many out there who outranked me at one point or another - and yes, I'm just a Lieutenant.

And yet, I feel as though we are all citizens of this great country and what I have to say is not a matter of authority - but from one citizen to another.

We have all seen this war tear apart our country over the past three years. It seems as though nothing we've done, from vigils to protests to letters to Congress, have had any effect in persuading the powers that be. Tonight I will speak to you on my ideas for a change of strategy.

I am here tonight because I took a leap of faith. My action is not the first and it certainly will not be the last. Yet, on behalf of those who follow, I require your help - your sacrifice - and that of countless other Americans.

I may fail.

We may fail.

But nothing we have tried has worked so far. It is time for change and the change starts with all of us.

I stand before you today, not as an expert - not as one who pretends to have all the answers. I am simply an American and a servant of the American people. My humble opinions today are just that.

I realize that you may not agree with everything I have to say. However, I did not choose to be a leader for popularity. I did it to serve and make better the soldiers of this country. And I swore to carry out this charge honorably under the rule of law.

Today, I speak with you about a radical idea. It is one born from the very concept of the American soldier (or service member). It became instrumental in ending the Vietnam War - but it has been long since forgotten.

The idea is this:
that to stop an illegal and unjust war, the soldiers can choose to stop fighting it.

Now it is not an easy task for the soldier. For he or she must be aware that they are being used for ill-gain. They must hold themselves responsible for individual action. They must remember duty to the Constitution and the people supersedes the ideologies of their leadership.

The soldier must be willing to face ostracism by their peers, worry over the survival of their families, and of course the loss of personal freedom. They must know that resisting an authoritarian government at home is equally important to fighting a foreign aggressor on the battlefield.

Finally, those wearing the uniform must know beyond any shadow of a doubt that by refusing immoral and illegal orders they will be supported by the people not with mere words but by action. The American soldier must rise above the socialization that tells them authority should always be obeyed without question. Rank should be respected but never blindly followed.

Awareness of the history of atrocities and destruction committed in the name of America - either through direct military intervention or by proxy war - is crucial. They must realize that this is a war not out of self-defense but by choice, for profit and imperialistic domination.

WMD, ties to Al Qaeda, and ties to 9/11 never existed and never will. The soldier must know that our narrowly and questionably elected officials intentionally manipulated the evidence presented to Congress, the public, and the world to make the case for war.

They must know that neither Congress nor this administration has the authority to violate the prohibition against pre-emptive war - an American law that still stands today. This same administration uses us for rampant violations of time-tested laws banning torture and degradation of prisoners of war.

Though the American soldier wants to do right, the illegitimacy of the occupation itself, the policies of this administration, and rules of engagement of desperate field commanders will ultimately force them to be party to war crimes. They must know some of these facts, if not all, in order to act.

Mark Twain once remarked,
"Each man must for himself alone decide what is right and what is wrong, which course is patriotic and which isn't. You cannot shirk this and be a man. To decide against your conviction is to be an unqualified and inexcusable traitor, both to yourself and to your country …"

 By this, each and every American soldier, marine, airman, and sailor is responsible for their choices and their actions. The freedom to choose is only one that we can deny ourselves. The oath we take swears allegiance not to one man but to a document of principles and laws designed to protect the people.

Enlisting in the military does not relinquish one's right to seek the truth - neither does it excuse one from rational thought nor the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. "I was only following orders" is never an excuse. The Nuremburg Trials showed America and the world that citizenry as well as soldiers have the unrelinquishable obligation to refuse complicity in war crimes perpetrated by their government.

Widespread torture and inhumane treatment of detainees is a war crime. A war of aggression born through an unofficial policy of prevention is a crime against the peace. An occupation violating the very essence of international humanitarian law and sovereignty is a crime against humanity. These crimes are funded by our tax dollars. Should citizens choose to remain silent through self-imposed ignorance or choice, it makes them as culpable as the soldier in these crimes.

The Constitution is no mere document - neither is it old, out-dated, or irrelevant. It is the embodiment of all that Americans hold dear: truth, justice, and equality for all. It is the formula for a government of the people and by the people. It is a government that is transparent and accountable to whom they serve. It dictates a system of checks and balances and separation of powers to prevent the evil that is tyranny.

As strong as the Constitution is, it is not foolproof. It does not fully take into account the frailty of human nature. Profit, greed, and hunger for power can corrupt individuals as much as they can corrupt institutions.

The founders of the Constitution could not have imagined how money would infect our political system. Neither could they believe a standing army would be used for profit and manifest destiny. Like any common dictatorship, soldiers would be ordered to commit acts of such heinous nature as to be deemed most ungentlemanly and unbecoming that of a free country.

The American soldier is not a mercenary. He or she does not simply fight wars for payment. Indeed, the state of the American soldier is worse than that of a mercenary. For a soldier-for-hire can walk away if they are disgusted by their employer's actions. Instead, especially when it comes to war, American soldiers become indentured servants whether they volunteer out of patriotism or are drafted through economic desperation.

Does it matter what the soldier believes is morally right?

If this is a war of necessity, why force men and women to fight?

When it comes to a war of ideology, the lines between right and wrong are blurred. How tragic it is when the term Catch-22 defines the modern American military. Aside from the reality of indentured servitude, the American soldier in theory is much nobler. Soldier or officer, when we swear our oath it is first and foremost to the Constitution and its protectorate, the people.

If soldiers realized this war is contrary to what the Constitution extols - if they stood up and threw their weapons down - no President could ever initiate a war of choice again.

When we say, "… Against all enemies foreign and domestic," what if elected leaders became the enemy? Whose orders do we follow? The answer is the conscience that lies in each soldier, each American, and each human being.

Our duty to the Constitution is an obligation, not a choice. The military, and especially the Army, is an institution of fraternity and close-knit camaraderie. Peer pressure exists to ensure cohesiveness but it stamps out individualism and individual thought. The idea of brotherhood is difficult to pull away from if the alternative is loneliness and isolation.

If we want soldiers to choose the right but difficult path - they must know beyond any shadow of a doubt that they will be supported by Americans. To support the troops who resist, you must make your voices heard. If they see thousands supporting me, they will know.

I have heard your support, as has Suzanne Swift, and Ricky Clousing - but many others have not.

Increasingly, more soldiers are questioning what they are being asked to do. Yet, the majority lack awareness to the truth that is buried beneath the headlines. Many more see no alternative but to obey.

We must show open-minded soldiers a choice and we must give them courage to act. Three weeks ago, Sgt. Hernandez from the 172nd Stryker Brigade was killed, leaving behind a wife and two children. In an interview, his wife said he sacrificed his life so that his family could survive. I'm sure Sgt. Hernandez cherished the camaraderie of his brothers, but given a choice, I doubt he would put himself in a position to leave his family husbandless and fatherless.

Yet that's the point, you see. People like Sgt. Hernandez don't have a choice. The choices are to fight in Iraq or let your family starve. Many soldiers don't refuse this war en mass because, like all of us,, they value their families over their own lives and perhaps their conscience.

Who would willingly spend years in prison for principle and morality while denying their family sustenance?

I tell this to you because you must know that to stop this war, for the soldiers to stop fighting it, they must have the unconditional support of the people. I have seen this support with my own eyes. For me it was a leap of faith. For other soldiers, they do not have that luxury. They must know it and you must show it to them. Convince them that no matter how long they sit in prison, no matter how long this country takes to right itself, their families will have a roof over their heads, food in their stomachs, opportunities and education.

This is a daunting task. It requires the sacrifice of all of us. Why must Canadians feed and house our fellow Americans who have chosen to do the right thing? We should be the ones taking care of our own.

Are we that powerless - are we that unwilling to risk something for those who can truly end this war?

How do you support the troops but not the war? By supporting those who can truly stop it; let them know that resistance to participate in an illegal war is not futile and not without a future. I have broken no law but the code of silence and unquestioning loyalty. If I am guilty of any crime, it is that I learned too much and cared too deeply for the meaningless loss of my fellow soldiers and my fellow human beings.

If I am to be punished it should be for following the rule of law over the immoral orders of one man. If I am to be punished it should be for not acting sooner.

Martin Luther King Jr. once said,
"History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period … was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people."

Now, I'm not a hero. I am a leader of men who said enough is enough. Those who called for war prior to the invasion compared diplomacy with Saddam to the compromises made with Hitler.

I say, we compromise now by allowing a government that uses war as the first option instead of the last to act with impunity.

Many have said this about the World Trade Towers, "Never Again."

I agree. Never again will we allow those who threaten our way of life to reign free - be they terrorists or elected officials. The time to fight back is now - the time to stand up and be counted is today.

I'll end with one more Martin Luther King Jr. quote:
"One who breaks an unjust law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."

Thank you and bless you all.

 

The only thing Watada said that I would disagree with is that he claimed that he is not a hero. He is a leader, yet again, by taking this stance. And he may never know how many lives he has already touched.

Today, it is up to the anti-war movement to make sure his leadership touches as many soldiers' lives in Iraq as possible.

Watada is making his stand. He needs continued support. As he said, if more American soldiers in Iraq know that they, along with their families, will be supported if they stand up against this illegal occupation, countless more will follow, and this repulsive war will end.

-Dahr Jamail is an independent journalist who has reported for the Guardian, the Independent, and the Sunday Herald. He now writes regularly for Inter Press Service and Truthout. He maintains a web site at dahrjamailiraq.com.

Now Playing: Arthur Ruger
Topic: Lt. Ehren Watada
Voluntary military recruits - both those who've enlisted and those with commissions - bring to the military initiation process that set of ethics and morality cultivated in childhood. Although family circumstances in some cases were inadequate in helping create a solid foundation of ethics and morals, most who join come out of families where at least some degree of a value system was encouraged and demonstrated.

Ideally then, entry into military life would include a strengthening of moral and ethical traits into a blend with a warrior's code of conduct.

Soldiers are neither devoid of nor excused from ethical and moral responsibility. If - in destroying those preconceived notions considered by the military to be contrary to the values and skills necessary in a soldier - new notions, values and skills do not include a strong sense of moral responsibility then our basic training and combat training programs are harming both recruits and the nation.

Our sons and daughters are not to become amoral killing machines totally lacking in moral responsibility. This sense of moral responsibility absolutely must graduate from basic training intact in a soldier's mind and heart.

In the absence of real moral responsibility in our soldiers, not only will we see more and more tragic incidents of the shaming of one's self, one's unit, one's branch of service, one's community, and one's country, but the absence of moral responsibility will stand more fully revealed as a flaw in the civilian society as well.

The antics of civilian leadership when it deliberately ignores or downplays the horrific consequences of war, bombing campaigns and torture justified by something other than literal defense of the homeland reflects a legitimate moral blindness.

We do not send our children out to fight irresponsibly with no sense of ethics simply because the ethical and moral sense has been assigned to higher authorities.

We don't excuse our soldiers for ethical and moral lapses because authorities placed in positions of appointed power have - with self-preserving hypocrisy - labeled offenders as some few "bad apples," who deserve no further close scrutiny and need to be locked up, the key thrown away.

We should not tolerate civilian administrators pleading innocence because of the vast gap between the highest echelons of authority and the lowest front line chain of command; that front line where sergeants can be punished because a corporal suffered the same moral blindness as those self-serving civilians on Mount Olympus.

Moral blindness at an even more starkly elevated level insists that:

An invasion that became a military occupation must be continued in the name of staying on an immoral and unethical course of deliberate destruction of innocents because we were lied to by the liars who now declare that to cease the immoral aggression would be "cutting and running."

This is the lack of moral responsibility we've seen in the civilians now seated at the steering wheel who are passing judgment on the moral fiber of anyone who disagrees, thereby labeling dissent as treason.

Our soldiers absolutely must emerge from basic and combat training with moral competence intact.

I hope that stories of institutionalized programming of racial hatred, bigotry, stereotyping and name-calling are not predominantly a part of teaching warriors a moral and ethical code. If the stories are true, I declare here and now :  

They are not doing it in my name nor on behalf of my family. I repudiate these tactics of moral recklessness.

That is of course why we raise our children to become independent and self-reliant adults.

When my son or daughter join the military and enter into its initiation, I am not being unreasonable in expecting the military to blend its own sense of ethical and moral responsibility with that which we as parents have endeavored to plant in our children's hearts.

I clicked on a link in the article referred to at the end of this post and immediately found a book by Shannon French entitled The Code of the Warrior.

This from the Amazon site quoting Publisher's Weekly:

"French, a professor of philosophy and ethics at the U. S. Naval Academy, believes that the warrior needs an ethical framework not only to be an effective fighter but to remain a human being-and even to save his or her soul."

To which I want to add that as an American citizen who willingly endorses - if it happens - the decision of my own flesh and blood to join and serve in the military, I request that the military act in ways that reflect professionalism, integrity and personal class, teaching the real moral and ethical code of the warrior.

If my child has an officer's  commission and is to become a leader of soldiers, I do not expect a professional military leadership to attempt to destroy the inner sense of integrity of that fledgling officer. Nor to try to replace integrity with moral blindness.

Moral blindness can be infectious and if left untreated will pass from soldier to soldier, even from officer to officer.

Discernment is the key here and it is absolutely vital to this nation that we do not place morally blind officers in positions of command that lead to blind amoral obedience.

We do not want morally blind soldiers who cannot act competently when confrontations with ethical dilemmas arise. We want to see in our soldiers' behavior a strong support for legal authority, moral authority and ethical authority. To the degree that such authority is lacking or not modeled by the political leadership, America suffers.

This is no more amply demonstrated than by behavior at the highest levels that denigrates genuine dissent and genuine efforts to ascertain legalities, moralities and ethics involved in launching an invasion that has become an occupation of Iraq.

Hiding behind shallow "cut-and-run" slogans demonstrates aptly and without question the moral and ethical shallowness of placing politics at the forefront of national security priorities.

... of placing soldiers in confrontations demanding high ethical and moral values where none were taught or encouraged in a military too focused on fear of its civilian leadership.

Our 2004 election has been publicized as a victory for voters supporting moral values. The most prominent and whining conservative Religious leaders in this country have contributed to this fog of confusion regarding ethics and moral competency.

We have prominent voices declaring ethical nonsense like the U.S. should "blow them away in the name of the Lord,"  (J. Falwell)  

... or the disingenuous non-Christian immorality of looking the other way while a Republican administration invaded and occupied Iraq, requiring our children in the military to kill thousands of innocent Iraqis in the process.

These are ethical and moral lapses of the highest gravity - especially when it's revealed that Christian celebrities and policy lobbyists consider a Constitutional amendment against gay marriage or teaching creationism in schools to be higher godly priorities than murder wearing an American  Military uniform.

... As if God were focused on gays and evolution, looking the other way with no almighty interest in focusing a divine gaze on Iraq.

---

So what do we do when a soldier refuses an order based on his own developed sense of ethics, morality, loyalty and patriotism?

Again from the author of  The Code of the Warrior

"The best way to ensure that military personnel will not commit a war crime even if given (illegal) orders to do so by a superior officer, is, not to drill them on codes of conduct and provisions of international law but rather to help them internalize the significance of the history and tradition of the military and of concepts such as honor and courage in order to develop a coherent sense of what it means to be a member of the military."

What does the initiation into the military teach our children?

Discipline ... which of course takes many forms.

What does moral and ethical discipline look like in the life of an American soldier?

Whose moral and ethical values are the primary instinctive and emotional guides in a human being?

Certainly none taught by those infected with moral blindness.

I recommend the following article:

Teaching Military Ethics: Personal Development versus Moral Drill

By Mrs. E.M. Wortel
Faculty of Military Sciences
Netherlands Defense College
and
Major J.P.M. Schoenmakers
Netherlands Royal Military School

Which can be found at
The International Military Ethics Symposium.

Now Playing: Lietta Ruger at Washblog
Topic: Lt. Ehren Watada

Army brings official charges today; Lt Ehren Watada refusal illegal orders

By Lietta Ruger at Washblog
Wed Jul 05, 2006 at 04:03:11 PM PST
Section: United States Topic: Military

 Three charges are being leveled at Lt. Ehren Watada today.  Most all our local to Washington newspapers and tv media have published a brief account per the news release from Fort Lewis spokesperson; Tammy Reed who indicated he would be charged today but she did not know what the charges Lt Watada would face.  All the first published stories have now been updated again to give more full account. Lt Watada will be charged with three counts; missing movement, contempt toward officials, and conduct unbecoming an officer.  His attorney, Eric Seitz, reports that by  calculations of military lawyers indicate Lt Watada could face up to eight years in prison.

 Kudos to Washington media for their extensive coverage of Lt. Watada since he first announced on June 7, 2006 his intention to refuse what he has discerned to be an illegal order to deploy to Iraq. What seems to be missing is the lack of reporting by those more big gun media, ie, CNN, MSNBC, New York Times - you know - the national/international level 'it's an important and worthy story' kind of reporting.
 

Rather than cite specific links (there are far too many), you can easily google news entering Lt. Ehren Watada to read the accounts and see the huge number of local media across cities and towns in our nation, as well as some international localized media reporting on charges being brought today.

What is not absent is a groundswell of support for Lt. Watada who is exercising a different kind of courage and is, in fact, in my opinion, exercising conduct most becoming to an Officer with regard to this war/occupation in Iraq.  This is not a military only story, friends, and while Lt. Watada is both aware of the severity of punishment and willing to accept the consequences of his decision, that courage is inherint in each and every one who questions the validity of the Iraq war/occupation.  

Now what to do with your own courage....

Act on it.

Support for Lt. Watada is not isolated to the act of supporting one Army Lieutenant, rather the symbology it represents.  What makes Lt. Watada, as an Officer, refusing an order to deploy to Iraq is that while he is not the first Officer to refuse combat deployment orders since 911 attack, he is the first Officer to make a public staement on his reasons for refusing the order.  Army officials at the Pentagon reports 10 officers have refused combat deployment orders since 911 attack.  My understanding is that the situation for other officers refusing combat deployment have been individualized situational refusals citing extreme family concerns.  Lt. Watada has cited his reasons as the illegality of the war/occupation in Iraq, therefore the need as an Officer to determine a legal from an illegal order.  

How you can best help Lt. Watada is to help ensure his act of courage and speaking out becomes part of the public dialogue.  Obviously, the Army has to do what it has to do, according to military discipline, and I am not writing a plea to rescue Lt. Watada.  I am writing a plea to not let his act of courage become irrelevant.  Thank you for listening.

see Friends of Lt Watada website

links to previous Lt. Watada accounts at Washblog:

2nd Lt Watada Press Conference in Seattle w/ Col Ann Wight

Military Families Support Lt Watada at Tacoma Press Conference

Fort Lewis Army Lt. Set To Refuse Deployment To Iraq

Now Playing: Arthur Ruger
Topic: Lt. Ehren Watada

Now Playing: Lietta Ruger at Washblog
Topic: Lt. Ehren Watada

In a second Lt Watada press conference; supporter Col Ann Wright says illegal war and war crimes

By Lietta Ruger at Washblog
Tue Jun 20, 2006 at 11:21:45 AM PST
Section: Pacific County Topic: Military

 

{Update - Tomorrow = Natl Day of Action to Stand Up with Lt. Ehren Watada - Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Ft. Lewis, WA - 7am - Morning bannering on the Exit 119 (DuPont Rd.) bridge over Interstate 5.
Ft. Lewis, WA - 4pm - Bannering and support rally on the Exit 119 (DuPont) bridge over Interstate 5.
Tacoma, WA - 7am - Bannering: (1) McKinley Way overpass above I-5; and (2) Pedestrian Bridge over Route 16 near Narrows Bridge.
Tacoma, WA - 4pm - Bannering: (1) McKinley Way overpass above I-5; and (2) Pedestrian Bridge over Route 16 near Narrows Bridge.
Seattle, WA - 5pm - Vigil and sign holding: (1) Westlake Park, 4th and Pine Streets; and (2) Greenlake, East Green Lake Way N and N 64th St.

[Update - June 22, 2006. Lt. Watada refused Iraq deployment this morning; Under restriction and gag-order. More at website Thank You Lt. Ehren Watada ]

In a second press conference Lt Ehren Watada held in Seattle, June 19, 2006, (ret) Army Colonel and Diplomat, Ann Wright, speaks in support of Lt. Watada's decision to refuse orders to deploy to Iraq as his right to disobey illegal orders.  His parents, Robert Watada and Carolyn Ho, came from Hawaii to be with their son in Seattle and spoke at his press conference.  I had the opportunity to have a personal phone call exchange with his mother, Carolyn Ho, as she was on her way from Seatac airport to the University Lutheran Church in Seattle, for the 6:15 PM press conference.

  Mother to mother, military family to military family we talked, me with two returning Iraq veterans in our family who will be redeployed; she with a son who is an Officer in U.S. Army making the monumental decision as an Officer to refuse orders to deploy to Iraq.  I valued our exchange and she said she valued what I had to share with her. She seemed very moved when I said to her that her son, as an Officer, was doing what I would expect an Officer to do and if he were an Officer for the two Sgts in our family, I would want him to deliberate on the orders being given for our two to carry out.

  While I wasn't able to make the 3 hour trip up to Seattle on Monday evening, I was able to listen to the video of the press conference that KING 5 has posted to their online website (you have to listen first to a 20 second commercial then the video coverage begins).  It helped me feel very much  like I was there.  Gratitude to KING 5 for posting the entirety of the press conference making it available for all to hear firsthand. There is strength in the words of Col Ann Wright, and rather than report on her words, I have transcribed her speech and am placing it here.

NOTE: June 27 will be a national day of action in support of Lt. Watada and his refusal to deploy.  Supporters have planned events across the country, including events at Ft Lewis, WA; Charlotte, NC; Cleveland, OH; Harrisburg, PA; San Francisco, CA; and Oklahoma City, OK.

Colonel Ann Wright (Ret.) served 29 years in the Army/Army Reserve and 16 years in the U.S. Foreign Service.  She resigned from the U.S. Foreign Service  
on March 19, 2003 in protest over the Bush administration's decision to go to war in Iraq without UN Security Council authorization, and over the curtailment of civil liberties in the United States.

text of her speech June 19, 2006, Seattle at press conference in support of Lt. Ehren Watada.

Good Afternoon.  It is with heavy heart that I am here.  Heavy heart that the U.S. Military may be taking action against a noble and principled Officer of the U.S. Military who is saying to U.S. Military and U.S. goverment that the war in Iraq is an illegal war and he refuses to take orders to go to an illegal war.

This is a right that a military officer has to disobey illegal orders and to be ordered to an illegal war is something people can stand up against.  And as you can see, not many people do.  We have one officer that's done it; we have 24 in Canda who have done it; 10 in jail or imprisoned who have said no to these illegal orders.  Ehren will be the first Officer that will say no.

By the Nuremburg Principle codified after World War ll, when United States of America executed Japanese and German military officers and civilians for going along with what the International Communities termed 'illegal wars'.  That's when it came to the front, that we as civilains and military have the obligation and responsibility to say no to a government that takes us into an illegal war - a war of aggression.  And by the Nuremburg Principles, a war of agrression is called a war crime.  The Bush administration is committing war crimes.  The country of Iraq did nothing to the United States of America.  The Bush administration invaded and occupied a country that did nothing to the United States of America.

By the three principles of legal wars;

 - If the United Nations Security Counscil will vote that the International community has to take military action against a threat to the International community.  The Bush administration was unable to get U.N. Security Council to vote for military operations on Iraq.  

 - If imminent danger to your country ... the weapons of mass destruction were not imminent danger.  In fact, there was an ongong U.N. inspection to determine if there were WMD. But the Bush administration threw away that and said we're going in anyway.

 - The third is to prevent humanitarian disaster such as genocide; a genocide taking place.  While the Saddam Hussein regime had committed atrocities on it's people, it was not doing so at that time.   In fact, the atrocities that were being committed on the people of Iraq were being committed by the International community by the International sanctions that had been placed on the country.

  So, in my opinion, and, in fact, and I resigned my career as a diplomat, because I firmly believe the U.S; the Bush administration has taken the country into a war crime and an illegal war of agrression.  I firmly support Lt. Watada's decision to refuse orders to deploy to Iraq.  I think he is on firm, solid, legal ground that he is disobeying an illegal order.

  We support him - others support him too - not just myself.  A colleague in the Diplomatic Corps of the United Kingdom back in March 2003, same month I resigned, she resigned.  She was the Deputy Legal Counsel of the equivalent of the British State Department or the Foreign And Commonwealth Office.  Her name is Elizabeth Wilmshurst.  In her letter of resignation she specifically states the invasion and occupation of Iraq by the United States and the United Kingdom would be a war crime as a war of aggression.  The British government also threw away the legal opinions of it's lawyers and went ahead, just as the Bush administration went ahead to this illegal war.  

  I think we all have a responsibility as citizens to support those in our government, particularly our military who stand up.  It is not easy to stand up.  Having been in the military 29 years, I know the pressures that Lt. Watada is under.  It is very difficult thing to go against the organiztion.  When I resigned from the State Department, that was very difficult.  I had spent 16 years there.  It is hard to leave your colleagues and I know Lt. Watada is having a difficult time leaving his colleagues, the people he trained with..

  But there are higher principles at stake.  There are principles that will save one's conscience; I mean it is an act of conscience that he is doing but it will save his soul ... for going to war, to an illegal war where you will be committing illegal acts, where you will, in the name of the United States of America, be committing murder. These are things that people have to evaluate, what they want to live with the rest of their lives.   And Lt. Watada has said I will not have on my conscience the murder of innocent men, women and children.  I will not participate in an illegal war of agrression, a war crime.

  I hope all people of the United States will join us on June 27 when we do call for a National Day of Action to stand up for Lt. Watada.  (Here she names the organizations that endorse a National Day of Action, both national organizations and Washington state organizations and identified cities that are participating.)   We hope that hundreds and hundreds of cities all throughout America, cities and towns will join with us in a day of protest against this illegal war and a day of conscience where people, citizens and military stand up to say no more to these wars.

      Thank you.

 On a personal note, I have met and spent time with Col. Ann Wright, at Crawford, Texas, last August, and in Washington DC last September.  I vividly recall a press meeting in DC we were invited to attend, which included General Wesley Clark.  I was moved that General Clark asked for the U.S. flag to be brought into the room and the veterans from Veterans for Peace ceremoniously bringing the flag into the room and placing it in front.  I remarked to Ann that I was moved by the ritual, and it still stirs in me what feels like a strong sense of patriotic ownership in honoring what our flag means to me.  I have heard Ann speak before, and her speech in conjunction with Lt. Ehren Watada's action and decision brings more power to her own action and words and to his.

Coverage of this second press conference is carried in Seattle PI, the Seattle Times, and video coverage at KING 5 website .

Now Playing: Lietta Ruger at Washblog
Topic: Lt. Ehren Watada
link Thank you Lt Ehren for resisting an illegal war website

Military attempts to stop Lt. Watada from speaking against illegal war       

PRESS ADVISORY (June 9, 2006) - On Thursday, June 8, 2006 U.S. Army First Lieutenant Ehren Watada's commanding officer moved to prosecute Lt. Watada for protected speech. An official investigation into his public speech in opposition to the illegal war in Iraq is underway. Lt. Watada was read his rights and declined to make a statement without a lawyer present.

In response, Lt. Watada confirmed, "I have a legal and ethical obligation to speak out against, and refuse to fight, this patently illegal war in Iraq. This has not changed."

Eric Seitz, lead attorney for Lt. Watada's legal team, declared "It is obvious that the military is simply trying to keep him from speaking out in opposition to the unlawful war."

On Wednesday, June 7th U.S. Army First Lieutenant Ehren Watada became the first U.S. commissioned officer to publicly refuse deployment to the unlawful Iraq war and occupation. Standing before the national media at a Tacoma, Washington press conference, Lt. Watada outlined his duty to refuse the illegal order to deploy in support of an illegal war. A showdown with military is imminent as Lt. Watada's Stryker brigade is scheduled to deploy from Fort Lewis, Washington for Iraq within days.

Steve Morse, director of the GI Rights Hotline, a non-governmental legal resource center for members of the military, explains "When soldiers join the military they swear to uphold our Constitution, they do not give up their basic right to freedom of speech." According Mr. Morse, "Members of the military clearly have the right to say what they think and feel about the military, and even participate in peaceful demonstrations, as long as they are off-duty, out of uniform, off-base, and within the United States. This is outlined in Department of Defense Directive 1325.6".

It is expected that the military is moving to stage a Commanding Officer's Non-Judicial Punishment hearing (Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice) in order to impose even further restrictions on Lt. Watada. The military will likely focus their investigation on vague UCMJ articles that bar "conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman" (Article 133) and "any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President (or any senior members of government)" (Article 88).

# # # END # # #

Note: We are aware that the Fort Lewis military public affairs office may have not yet been informed of this new development.

Links;

  Support website for Lt. Ehren Watada; follow updates there (and you can add your name to the petition there)
Thank you Lt Ehren Watada

  Hear Lt Ehren Watada speak for himself.  Video; Lt Watada answers media questions; June 7, 2006, Tacoma, 6 PM.  
media conference, Lt Ehren Watada answers media questions

  Daily Kos Lt Watada stories; see Daniel Kirkdorffer's DK diary
U.S. Soldier Publicly Protests Deployment

 and Lietta Ruger's DK diary Military Families support Lt Watada at Tacoma press conference text

  see Daniel's blog here at the Portal; he is blogging Lt Watada's story; On The Road To 2008

  and see the stories on Lt Watada here at Washblog; Fort Lewis Army Lt. Set To Refuse Deployment To Iraq

also Military Families support Lt Watada at Tacoma press conference

Please add some part of the story or link referrals to your own blog, and please network Lt Watada's story widely. Whether your conscience supports his decision or it doesn't, his actions nonetheless depict courage and at the very least are deserving and befitting of authentic dialogue among the 'netroots', blogging community, media community, political community, military community, and among citizens of this country who have civilian responsibilities to our troops at a time when our nation is at war.  

Thank you -

Now Playing: Lietta Ruger at Washblog
Topic: Lt. Ehren Watada

Military Families support Lt Watada at Tacoma press conference

By Lietta Ruger at Washblog
Fri Jun 09, 2006 at 06:04:36 PM PST
Section: Pacific County Topic: Military

 

[Update] The Nation has comprehensive and substanative article, June 12, 2006, addressing Lt Watada's decision, position and legalities; Lieutenant Watada's War Against the War [end update]

Reporting on press conference of Lt Ehren Watada, Tacoma, WA, June 7, 2006.  Yes, that is me in the photo, to the right of Lt Watada when he was first introduced at the 6 PM media conference.  I'm in the white Military Families Speak Out - (WA state chapter) t-shirt.  Supporters give him welcome applause.

I was there at the noon press conference, Lt Watada was prohibited by his Fort Lewis chain of command from attending the scheduled noon press conference. In his absence his statement was given  in the prepared video taped DVD.  Announcement made that Lt Watada would be available at 6 PM to answer questions if media/press wanted to return at that time.  Media/press did return, and I was there for both the noon and the 6PM press conferences.  

My report and perceptions with links to actual video of Lt Watada answering questions from the media which you can hear for yourself and form your own perceptual opinions.  He is very poised and even in expressing his thoughts and I was very impressed with this young 28 yr old Officer.  

Noon press conference, June 7, 2006.  When I arrived there was already considerable media with the satellite vans parked around the building, along with cameras, camera people and microphones. I was pleased as it signalled to me that media viewed this as an important story.  Inside the lights, cameras and mics were set up and the plasma tv was in place.  

Supporters were outside and inside, and there were four of us from Military Families Speak Out in our t-shirts to show visible support of military families for Lt Watada decision to make public his intention to refuse deployment orders to Iraq. We took our place alongside the veterans of Veterans for Peace who were there to show support.

left to right; Military Families Speak Out Jenny Keesey - Elma; Judy Linehan - Olympia; Lietta Ruger - Bay Center.  Also not pictured Stacy Bannerman - Kent.  

It was announced Lt Watada would not be able to attend so we knew the prepared DVD statement would be used.  There were to be 4 presenters prior to introducing Lt Watada.  We went ahead with the presenters anyway followed by the DVD of Lt Watada's prepared statement.  

Presenters;  
-- The Rev. Jim Davis, a United Methodist minister and chaplain of the University of Puget Sound.

-- Majorie Cohn, a professor at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law and president of the Natioinal Lawyers Guild

-- Joe Colgan, WA veteran and father of Lt Benjamin Colgan, killed in Iraq in 2003. See dvd Gunner Palace in which Lt Benjamin's unit was being filmed when Lt Benjamin Colgan was killed.

-- Judy Linehan, Military Families Speak Out, mother of son, returning Iraq veteran who had deployed to Iraq with Stryker Brigade. (We elected Judy to speak for all four of us and it was emotional for her since her own son has connection to Fort Lewis and Stryker brigade)

-- Lt Ehren Watada's prepared DVD statement.

links;

  video of noon press conference
Northwest Cable News

   video of Lt Ehren Watada's prepared DVD statement
KIRO 7 tv

   Announcement was then made that Lt Watada would be available at 6PM to take questions from the media if media wanted to return.  I decided to return for the 6 PM conference.  Interestingly, Jenny and I had arranged to meet and drive one car (save gas $$) and she had previous committments so could not stay in Tacoma till 6PM.  Same for Judy and Stacy.  Jenny drove us back to our neck of the woods out here in Grays Harbor and Pacific County, and I got back into my own vehicle and immediately drove back to Tacoma.  These are about 2 hour drives from where we live in these outlying counties. So not a few hours spent in driving on Wednesday.  

   I arrived back in Tacoma at 6PM straight up, and bustled through the cameras and mics to get up front with the supporters. Veterans for Peace was already there, and made room for me with them and that is how I wound up right next to the podium.

  When Lt Watada was introduced, the warm and welcome applause was heart-warming and that is the only photo I've seen that has me smiling.  There are several other photos of Lt Watada and I show up in the photos since I was standing right next to him, but I'm not smiling in any of the other photos.  Well, it was a somber occasion.

  As I listened to the young Lt Watada field the hardball and softball questions from the media, I was much impressed with his poise.  He behaved with the kind of humility, dignity and respect I would expect from an Officer.  Obviously he has had time to reflect, prepare for this moment since he has been contemplating his decision since Jan 06, and it is evident a lot of thought went into his decision, his prepared statement and he answered the media questions put to him from his own convictions.  

  Rather than report and repeat the media accounts you likely have already read, refer to the video link for the 6 PM media conference and hear him for yourself in entirety.  He answered questions for 1/2 hour or longer and it is all in the video link.  He answered a question from a little boy, not more than say 7 yrs old who asked the Lt 'why do you think this war is bad'.  Lt Watada answered him patiently and did not talk down to him.  I was impressed.
Link video
6 PM media conference, Lt Ehren Watada answers media questions KING 5

  It was Lt Watada's 28th birthday the same day of the press conference, June 7, and some of you may know how I feel about the importance of young people participating actively in this process of democracy and our nation's future.  I was personally moved as I stood there thinking 'he's so young, and he's having the courage to do this' -- it was moving.

  Lt Watada had two lawyers standing behind him, and when they thought enough media questions had been asked and answered, they wrapped it up and announced enough questions.  They then started to escort Lt Watada out of the room, and I said to one of the lawyers 'wait, I very much want to shake his hand'.  The attorney smiled and was willing, but by then Lt Watada was already out the door.  The attorney shrugged, smiled and moved on.
I really wanted Lt Watada to know we are a military family with returning Iraq veterans and I was there to support him.  

  Ahh, but wait, there on the podium was Lt Watada's cell phone he had set down and I just knew he would need his cell phone.  So I grabbed it, and made my way to the door and to the back room where they had taken him for debriefing.  I explained to the people monitoring in the hallway that I needed to give him his phone.  They let me pass, and of course, my t-shirt rather is recognizeable, so I guess I was considered safe.

  I went into the room, where Lt Watada and the two attorneys were in conversation.  I thanked Ehren, shook his hand, explained I was a military family.  He asked if we had -- well he didn't have to finish the question -- I knew.  Yes, I told him - 2 returning Iraq veterans in our family.  I gave him his phone and shook his hand agan and said 'thank you Sir, for what you are doing'.  Then I left the room.

  It was over, and many of us milled about for a short while outside.  There were some either impromptu or planned private interviews by media with Lt Watada afterwards so we did not get to see him again that evening.  

  That wraps up my account.  Questions, please ask, as I may have overlooked writing some detail.  Please do view the video of Lt Watada's 6 PM media conference and listen to him answer media questions, as I think it will give you a more personal perspective of him.
6 PM media conference, Lt Ehren Watada answers media questions KING 5

My understanding is that Lt Watada will be presenting over the weekend, and at this time the best information I have so far is;

On Sunday, June 11 at 1 p.m. at the Traditions Fair Trade, corner of 5th and Water, Olympia, WA, Lieutenant Ehren Watada will speak on his reasons for Refusing to obey the order to deploy to Iraq
[edited to add link and also posted at Daily Kos]