Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Officer at Fort Lewis calls Iraq war illegal, refuses order to go
By Hal Bernton
Seattle Times staff reporter
In a rare case of officer dissent, a Fort Lewis Army lieutenant has refused orders to head out to Iraq this month to lead troops in what he believes is an illegal war of occupation.
1st Lt. Ehren Watada was scheduled to make his first deployment to Iraq this month. His refusal to accompany the Stryker brigade troops puts him at risk of court martial and years of prison time.
"I feel that we have been lied to and betrayed by this administration," Watada said Tuesday in a telephone interview from Fort Lewis. "It is the duty, the obligation of every soldier, and specifically the officers, to evaluate the legality, the truth behind every order including the order to go to war."
In making his decision, Watada has reached out to peace groups, including clergy, students, some veterans opposed to Iraq and others. Some war critics are raising money for his legal defense as they seek to galvanize broader opposition to Bush administration policy in Iraq.
"There has been an outpouring of support in the Puget Sound area," said David Solnit, who works with the anti-war group Courage to Resist. The group and others are helping organize a press conference today in Tacoma to launch the support campaign.
Watada met over the weekend with Olympia peace activists, and had hoped to attend the press conference. But after a Tuesday meeting with an Army colonel, he was given written orders not to attend during duty hours between 6:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. Instead, he expects to offer a video statement.
Watada's actions also may become a lightning rod for others in the debate about the Iraq war.
"He has an obligation to fulfill, and it is not up to the individual officer to decide when he is going to deploy or not deploy," said Jerry Newberry, a Vietnam veteran and director of communications for the Veterans of Foreign Wars. "Some other officer will have to go in his place. He needs to think about that."
Watada, a member of the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, is unsure what charges he might face. But he is concerned that his decision to go public will cause the Army to pile on numerous offenses, such as disobeying an order, missing a troop movement and unauthorized absence.
"I think they will do their best to make an example of me," Watada said.
Though some U.S. commissioned officers refused to deploy in the Vietnam War and the first Gulf War, it is unclear how many if any have balked at deployment in the Iraq war. Pentagon officials said they had no such statistics available.
A Fort Lewis spokesman, Joe Hitt, also had no knowledge of any other commissioned officer refusing to deploy. He declined to comment on Watada.
Among the enlisted ranks at Fort Lewis, Sgt. Kevin Benderman is serving a 15-month sentence at a base correctional facility for refusing a second tour of duty in Iraq. Benderman, an Army mechanic for 10 years, served in Iraq in 2003 but refused to board a plane for a return trip in January 2005.
There is also a much broader category of military personnel who for a wide range of reasons have not fulfilled their service obligations.
Since the beginning of the war, more than 7,900 members of the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force have deserted, a small fraction of the hundreds of thousands who have served. Pentagon statistics indicate that desertions have declined as the war has progressed. They dropped from 3,678 in 2003, the first year of the war, to about 2,000 in 2005. The desertions typically involve enlisted personnel, not officers.
Watada has not deserted, since he remains on post in Fort Lewis.
Watada, 28, is a native of Hawaii, and an Eagle Scout who graduated from Hawaii Pacific University with a finance degree.
His father Robert Watada, a retired Hawaii state official was opposed to the war in Vietnam, and was able to do alternative service in the Peace Corps in Peru.
And Robert Watada said he laid out the "pros and cons" of military service as his son considered joining the service in the spring of 2003 as the invasion of Iraq was launched.
"He knew very well of my decision not to go to Vietnam, and he had to make his own decision to join the Army," Robert Watada said. "It was very noble. He felt like he wanted to do his part for his country."
After the younger Watada enlisted, he was sent to officer-training school in Georgia. Watada said he supported the war at that time because he believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
"I had my doubts," he said. "But I felt like the president is our leader, and he won't betray our trust, and he would know what he was talking about, and let's give him the benefit of the doubt." Over the past year, his feeling changed as he read up on the war and became convinced that there was "intentional manipulation of intelligence" by the Bush administration.
In January, Watada told his commanders that he believed that the war was unlawful, and therefore, so were his deployment orders. He did not, however, consider himself a conscientious objector, since he was willing to fight in wars that were justified, legal and in defense of the nation.
Watada was told that he could submit his resignation, but that the Army would recommend disapproval. That resignation was rejected in May, he said.
In a court-martial proceeding, Watada, who has retained civilian counsel, said he would try to mount a case about the legality of the war under international law and American law. But he is aware that a military court might not allow him to make that case.
Peace activists say they hope more military personnel will refuse to go war.
"We plan a national campaign to try to make sure that he is not punished for what he is doing," Solnit said.
"By his refusal to participate in the ongoing war, Lt. Watada joins a growing number of high-ranking military officers,
I was going to merge these too!-Cp said:PIERCE COUNTY - An Army lieutenant based at Fort Lewis has such grave objections to the war in Iraq, he's refusing to deploy.
In a statement issued at a news conference Wednesday, 1st Lt. Ehren Watada wrote:
"It is my duty as a commissioned officer of the United States Army to speak out against grave injustices. My moral and legal obligation is to the Constitution and not those who would issue unlawful orders."
Watada scheduled the news conference here, near Fort Lewis, where he is stationed, but was barred from attending during his duty hours from 6:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. PDT.
His statement continued: "It is my conclusion as an officer of the armed forces that the war in Iraq is not only morally wrong but a horrible breach of American law.
"Although I have tried to resign out of protest, I am forced to participate in a war that is manifestly illegal. As the order to take part in an illegal act is ultimately unlawful as well, I must as an officer of honor and integrity refuse that order."
He said the war violates the democratic system of checks and balances and usurps international treaties and conventions.
"The wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of the Iraqi people with only limited accountability is not only a terrible moral injustice but a contradiction to the Army's own Law of Land Warfare," Watada said.
In a letter to his command in January, Watada said he had reservations about the Iraq war and felt he could not participate, his lawyer, Eric A. Seitz, told The Associated Press in a telephone interview Tuesday from his office in Honolulu.
A couple of months later, at the Army's suggestion, Watada resubmitted his request to resign, Seitz said. He was told last month that his request had been denied. It would be Watada's first deployment to Iraq.
Joseph W. Hitt, a civilian spokesman at Fort Lewis, about 40 miles south of Seattle, said Watada is a member of the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, the Army's first Stryker Brigade Combat Team. The unit held a deployment ceremony Friday and is set to begin leaving later this month for a second mission in Iraq.
Hitt said only that the Army is aware of Watada's plans. "We have nothing to say about it because nothing has happened, and we're not going to speculate on anything," Hitt said.
Watada, the son of Bob Watada, former executive director of Hawaii's campaign spending commission, enlisted in 2003 after graduation from Hawaii Pacific University. He reported for boot camp that June and began officer candidate school two months later.
Watada's commission requires that he serve as an active-duty Army officer for three years ending this Dec. 3, Seitz said.
"By his refusal to participate in the ongoing war, Lt. Watada joins a growing number of high-ranking military officers, West Point graduates and current and former members of the armed services who have expressed their opposition to the actions of the United States in Iraq," Seitz said in a statement released Tuesday.
Watada could be court martialed if he refuses to serve as ordered, unless the Army allows him to resign his commission or assigns him to duties that are not directly connected to the war, Seitz said.
Watada did not apply for conscientious objector status.
"In order to qualify as a conscientious objector you have to be opposed to war in any form, and he is not. He's just opposed to this war," Seitz told the AP.
Paul Boyce, a spokesman in the Army's national public affairs office, said Watada is "not the first officer, not the first enlisted, nor the first soldier" to refuse deployment to Iraq. An Army fact sheet dated Sept. 21, 2005, the most recent one available, said conscientious objector applications had been approved 87 and 101 denied since January 2003.
Army regulations define conscientious objection as a "firm, fixed and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or the bearing of arms, because of religious training and belief."
http://www.komotv.com/stories/43792.htm
Semper Fi said:As far as I know, and please do correct me if I'm wrong, but my daddy gets his pay check for serving, not for believing. As soon as he finishes his term he can get out, but until then his beliefs and feelings have no place in his professional life.
Kathianne said:I don't think it's called dissent...Let's see, he graduated college and enlisted in 2003, anyone want to bet he's backed by groups on the left?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003044627_nogo7m.html
Semper Fi said:As far as I know, and please do correct me if I'm wrong, but my daddy gets his pay check for serving, not for believing. As soon as he finishes his term he can get out, but until then his beliefs and feelings have no place in his professional life.
GunnyL said:Conscientious objector status is granted to those who can prove their religious beliefs preclude them from participating in any form of violence.
dmp said:Well he's quoted saying he's not against ALL war, just THIS war. Did I mention he's a piece of crap?
5stringJeff - my boss was talking to a couple field grades in my division today; they were NOT speaking kindly of our young LT.
5stringJeff said:When I was in (and BTW, I was in that unit that's being deployed), LTs who did stupid stuff like that were ostracized.
There was one LT in my battalion who slept with one of his female soldiers. Stupid, stupid, stupid. After he got busted, he got transferred to a different battalion, because we had lost respect for him.
There was another LT who failed out of Ranger School, but wore the Ranger tab anyway. He got busted, got put on brigade staff (as assistant assistant assistant coffee-maker) and no one - not even the soldiers - talked to him unless they had to.
Anyway, $50 says that once this kid went public with his intentions not to go to Iraq, he was given the silent traetment by everyone who caught wind of it. And rightfully so.
dmp said:Well he's quoted saying he's not against ALL war, just THIS war. Did I mention he's a piece of crap?
5stringJeff - my boss was talking to a couple field grades in my division today; they were NOT speaking kindly of our young LT.
GunnyL said:I just chose to not address this, but you are quite right. WHO wants a chump like this with your life in his hands in a leadership position anyway? I say kick him out an dgood riddance. Forcing him to go is just going to force him on some troops that won't have faith in him as a leader. In a war zone, that gets people killed.
Hobbit said:Force him into a combat unit serving as an assistant to a REAL leader, one with balls. Make sure he won't take this guy's crap and won't let him do anything to the men. Maybe something will click. If not, give him the boot.
That, or make him serve a tour in Leavenworth.
GunnyL said:Not quite. IF he can prove he is a conscientious objector, and is designated as such, at least in the Marines, he can be assigned to duties where he will not be put into a combat situation. Naturally, he will not be allowed to reenlist.
A relevant point is that he has to prove that he became a conscientious objector AFTER he joined, because DD Form 1966 asks the question, and answering yes is a disqualifer for initial entry into the service. If he claims to have been one PRIOR TO enlisting, he can be court-martialed for fraudulent enlistment, then tried in Federal Court for making a false statement on an official US government Document under Title 17, United States Code.
Also relevant is that if this LT has not done his paperwork and been designated a conscientious objector, then the Army CAN charge him with missing movement and failure to obey a lawful order. Each time he refuses to obey the order, another count to the charge can be added.
IF the basis of his argument is he "originally thought Iraq had WMDs and now thinks it was lie," he's going to lose. Conscientious objector status is granted to those who can prove their religious beliefs preclude them from participating in any form of violence.
