Soldier Exercises Free Speech-Gets Arrested

[geauxtohell]

Must be some confusion on some level because I'm not saying "illegal order" should not be evaluated by the UCMJ. I'm saying the opposite. It most certainly gets a UCMJ test. As for saying he got lucky.....let's look at evidence it was not luck:


"When Judge Head called the mistrial, in the first court martial, it was over the strong objection of Ehren ’s counsel, and initially against the wishes of the prosecution. After going behind closed doors the prosecution emerged, requested a mistrial, mistrial was granted."
desertpeace.wordpress.com/2008/10/22/ehren-watada-case-updates/

The fact that Watada is not in prison right now is a "win" for him. Nonetheless, your claims that he won his case on the grounds that Iraq was illegal are simply not true.

 

[Darkwind]

So the question is this: Should those who Sacrifice their lives defending Free Speech be prosecuted for exercising Free Speech?

Yes. Here's why. No one forced the soldier to volunteer and sign the contract of enlistment. He should have read the fine print.

By that logic there should be no safety laws in a workplace. If people voluntarily show up for work then their employer can have any kind of conditions they want. It doesn't matter it is a volunteer military. That does not change the purpose of the question.

Why do people always use extreme and absurd examples in a way to justify their position?

When you enlist in the military, there are certain rights that are curtailed and for logical and sound reason. I'm sure that explaining those reasons to you is a waste of time, but lets try this one out for size.

As a member of the military, you are required by law (UCMJ) to obey every lawful order given to you. When you sew dissension in the ranks you are a threat to good order and discipline. You are violating a number of general orders and you can be prosecuted.

You seem to have a target painted on our military for some reason. Do you center your life around trying to find what you deem injustices in the military?

 

[CurveLight]

Must be some confusion on some level because I'm not saying "illegal order" should not be evaluated by the UCMJ. I'm saying the opposite. It most certainly gets a UCMJ test. As for saying he got lucky.....let's look at evidence it was not luck:


"When Judge Head called the mistrial, in the first court martial, it was over the strong objection of Ehren ’s counsel, and initially against the wishes of the prosecution. After going behind closed doors the prosecution emerged, requested a mistrial, mistrial was granted."
desertpeace.wordpress.com/2008/10/22/ehren-watada-case-updates/

The fact that Watada is not in prison right now is a "win" for him. Nonetheless, your claims that he won his case on the grounds that Iraq was illegal are simply not true.

No. My claim is he won because the military did not want to put the war on trial.

Eta. What is the reason for not addressing the cause of dismissal? Likewise, what do you think about what Judge Krant said?

 

[geauxtohell]

No. My claim is he won because the military did not want to put the war on trial.

That is total speculation. Like I said, I am not going to see a conspiracy over the issue.

The fact is, Watada never won in court on the basis of the war being illegal.

He's lucky he got out with just an OTH.

 

[CurveLight]

Yes. Here's why. No one forced the soldier to volunteer and sign the contract of enlistment. He should have read the fine print.

By that logic there should be no safety laws in a workplace. If people voluntarily show up for work then their employer can have any kind of conditions they want. It doesn't matter it is a volunteer military. That does not change the purpose of the question.

Why do people always use extreme and absurd examples in a way to justify their position?

When you enlist in the military, there are certain rights that are curtailed and for logical and sound reason. I'm sure that explaining those reasons to you is a waste of time, but lets try this one out for size.

As a member of the military, you are required by law (UCMJ) to obey every lawful order given to you. When you sew dissension in the ranks you are a threat to good order and discipline. You are violating a number of general orders and you can be prosecuted.

You seem to have a target painted on our military for some reason. Do you center your life around trying to find what you deem injustices in the military?

Under the UCMJ a soldier can be prosecuted for publicly criticizing superiors regarding illegal orders.

 

[CurveLight]

Can anyone justify the mistrial being based on the Judge's claim Watada was too dumb to understand what he signed? I gotta feeling nobody will make a serious effort.

 

[geauxtohell]

Can anyone justify the mistrial being based on the Judge's claim Watada was too dumb to understand what he signed? I gotta feeling nobody will make a serious effort.

No one is going to make a serious effort, because that requires us to make inferences that can't be proven either way.

You can either take what the judge said at face value and move on or you can quibble with it on the basis of a perceived conspiracy which can never be proven either way.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Yes. Here's why. No one forced the soldier to volunteer and sign the contract of enlistment. He should have read the fine print.

By that logic there should be no safety laws in a workplace. If people voluntarily show up for work then their employer can have any kind of conditions they want. It doesn't matter it is a volunteer military. That does not change the purpose of the question.

Why do people always use extreme and absurd examples in a way to justify their position?

When you enlist in the military, there are certain rights that are curtailed and for logical and sound reason. I'm sure that explaining those reasons to you is a waste of time, but lets try this one out for size.

As a member of the military, you are required by law (UCMJ) to obey every lawful order given to you. When you sew dissension in the ranks you are a threat to good order and discipline. You are violating a number of general orders and you can be prosecuted.

You seem to have a target painted on our military for some reason. Do you center your life around trying to find what you deem injustices in the military?

I would have to agree with this....I think he got kicked out for being a doper, a fat ass or a sexual harrasser. Those are the only 3 things I can see someone feeling like they got FUCKED by the military and cause them to focus their entire life on finding fault with it.

 

[CurveLight]

Here's another important piece:

"...military prosecutors had moved to quash all discussion of the war's legality at the court-martial. The military judge, Lieut. Col. John Head, sided with the prosecutors, ruling that questions about the war's legality were beyond his court's jurisdiction. But barring arguments about the war's legality created a disconnect that ultimately caused the military's case against Watada to unravel."
A Mistrial for Lieut. Watada - TIME

So right from the start the military was trying to avoid addressing the specific reason for refusing deployment. Two basic questions:

The best approach for convicting Watada was to show the war is legal. Why avoid the very issue that would be the most solid evidence for a conviction?

If the legality of the war was beyond that Judge's courtroom then where in the hell was Watada supposed to present his Defense?

They tried to court martial him for a crime they refused to admit happened.

 

[geauxtohell]

By that logic there should be no safety laws in a workplace. If people voluntarily show up for work then their employer can have any kind of conditions they want. It doesn't matter it is a volunteer military. That does not change the purpose of the question.

Why do people always use extreme and absurd examples in a way to justify their position?

When you enlist in the military, there are certain rights that are curtailed and for logical and sound reason. I'm sure that explaining those reasons to you is a waste of time, but lets try this one out for size.

As a member of the military, you are required by law (UCMJ) to obey every lawful order given to you. When you sew dissension in the ranks you are a threat to good order and discipline. You are violating a number of general orders and you can be prosecuted.

You seem to have a target painted on our military for some reason. Do you center your life around trying to find what you deem injustices in the military?

I would have to agree with this....I think he got kicked out for being a doper, a fat ass or a sexual harrasser. Those are the only 3 things I can see someone feeling like they got FUCKED by the military and cause them to focus their entire life on finding fault with it.

You don't know a damn thing about his service, and acting like you do and further stating that he was discharged under less than honorable circumstances only makes you look like an asshole.

Not every veteran has to share your views to have served honorably and vice versa.

Not every veteran has to be a cheerleader for the military at the end of their service.

This man certainly wasn't:

Smedley Butler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And with the retiring rank of Major General and two Medals of Honor and a "Brevet Medal (essentially a third medal of honor), I think we can agree that he served honorably.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Here's another important piece:

"...military prosecutors had moved to quash all discussion of the war's legality at the court-martial. The military judge, Lieut. Col. John Head, sided with the prosecutors, ruling that questions about the war's legality were beyond his court's jurisdiction. But barring arguments about the war's legality created a disconnect that ultimately caused the military's case against Watada to unravel."
A Mistrial for Lieut. Watada - TIME

So right from the start the military was trying to avoid addressing the specific reason for refusing deployment. Two basic questions:

The best approach for convicting Watada was to show the war is legal. Why avoid the very issue that would be the most solid evidence for a conviction?

If the legality of the war was beyond that Judge's courtroom then where in the hell was Watada supposed to present his Defense?

They tried to court martial him for a crime they refused to admit happened.

He refused an order to deploy that is missing a movement, they did not have to address his claim it was illegal at all. Further the facts do not support such a claim. Congress gave the President the AUTHORITY to conduct the actions he did and they CONTINUE to do so every time they pass a spending bill to pay for the war effort. Even the War Powers act was covered. Congress APPROVED the use and deployment of Combat troops into Hostile action. They approved the war. That is all that is required.

 

[geauxtohell]

Here's another important piece:

"...military prosecutors had moved to quash all discussion of the war's legality at the court-martial. The military judge, Lieut. Col. John Head, sided with the prosecutors, ruling that questions about the war's legality were beyond his court's jurisdiction. But barring arguments about the war's legality created a disconnect that ultimately caused the military's case against Watada to unravel."
A Mistrial for Lieut. Watada - TIME

So right from the start the military was trying to avoid addressing the specific reason for refusing deployment. Two basic questions:

The best approach for convicting Watada was to show the war is legal. Why avoid the very issue that would be the most solid evidence for a conviction?

If the legality of the war was beyond that Judge's courtroom then where in the hell was Watada supposed to present his Defense?

They tried to court martial him for a crime they refused to admit happened.

Like I said, this boils down to if you see conspiracy in the issue or not.

I would certainly agree with the court's holding that the "legality of the war" is beyond the jurisdictional reach of the court. That same statement has been made in other military and civil courts over this issue (and the issue of Obama's legtimacy).

 

[CurveLight]

By that logic there should be no safety laws in a workplace. If people voluntarily show up for work then their employer can have any kind of conditions they want. It doesn't matter it is a volunteer military. That does not change the purpose of the question.

Why do people always use extreme and absurd examples in a way to justify their position?

When you enlist in the military, there are certain rights that are curtailed and for logical and sound reason. I'm sure that explaining those reasons to you is a waste of time, but lets try this one out for size.

As a member of the military, you are required by law (UCMJ) to obey every lawful order given to you. When you sew dissension in the ranks you are a threat to good order and discipline. You are violating a number of general orders and you can be prosecuted.

You seem to have a target painted on our military for some reason. Do you center your life around trying to find what you deem injustices in the military?

I would have to agree with this....I think he got kicked out for being a doper, a fat ass or a sexual harrasser. Those are the only 3 things I can see someone feeling like they got FUCKED by the military and cause them to focus their entire life on finding fault with it.

Stop stalking.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Why do people always use extreme and absurd examples in a way to justify their position?

When you enlist in the military, there are certain rights that are curtailed and for logical and sound reason. I'm sure that explaining those reasons to you is a waste of time, but lets try this one out for size.

As a member of the military, you are required by law (UCMJ) to obey every lawful order given to you. When you sew dissension in the ranks you are a threat to good order and discipline. You are violating a number of general orders and you can be prosecuted.

You seem to have a target painted on our military for some reason. Do you center your life around trying to find what you deem injustices in the military?

I would have to agree with this....I think he got kicked out for being a doper, a fat ass or a sexual harrasser. Those are the only 3 things I can see someone feeling like they got FUCKED by the military and cause them to focus their entire life on finding fault with it.

You don't know a damn thing about his service, and acting like you do and further stating that he was discharged under less than honorable circumstances only makes you look like an asshole.

Not every veteran has to share your views to have served honorably and vice versa.

Not every veteran has to be a cheerleader for the military at the end of their service.

This man certainly wasn't:

Smedley Butler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And with the retiring rank of Major General and two Medals of Honor and a "Brevet Medal (essentially a third medal of honor), I think we can agree that he served honorably.

I'm entitled to my opinion just as you are and that's all I voiced was MY OPINION!! You got that! Smedley hasn't got shit to do with this guys constant attacks on the military justice system for the LAST 13 PAGES and Smedley DID serve honorably and voiced his opinions AFTER he was out of the service. The Judge acted correctly and speculating on whether the fucking Iraq War was illegal or not is just plain stupid as the LACK of any charges being brought by anyone AGAINST ANYONE in the previous Administration shows.

You clowns need to grow the fuck up!!!!!!!!

 

[CurveLight]

Here's another important piece:

"...military prosecutors had moved to quash all discussion of the war's legality at the court-martial. The military judge, Lieut. Col. John Head, sided with the prosecutors, ruling that questions about the war's legality were beyond his court's jurisdiction. But barring arguments about the war's legality created a disconnect that ultimately caused the military's case against Watada to unravel."
A Mistrial for Lieut. Watada - TIME

So right from the start the military was trying to avoid addressing the specific reason for refusing deployment. Two basic questions:

The best approach for convicting Watada was to show the war is legal. Why avoid the very issue that would be the most solid evidence for a conviction?

If the legality of the war was beyond that Judge's courtroom then where in the hell was Watada supposed to present his Defense?

They tried to court martial him for a crime they refused to admit happened.

He refused an order to deploy that is missing a movement, they did not have to address his claim it was illegal at all. Further the facts do not support such a claim. Congress gave the President the AUTHORITY to conduct the actions he did and they CONTINUE to do so every time they pass a spending bill to pay for the war effort. Even the War Powers act was covered. Congress APPROVED the use and deployment of Combat troops into Hostile action. They approved the war. That is all that is required.

They did not have to address his Defense? So they should just court martial those who contend the war is illegal without ever allowing Due Process? Where are we? Russia circa 1954?

The repeated referencing of HR 114 is quite bizarre. It does not prove Iraq is legal. It actually proves how it is illegal. I'm guessing that is a mystery.

 

[geauxtohell]

I'm entitled to my opinion just as you are and that's all I voiced was MY OPINION!! You got that! Smedley hasn't got shit to do with this guys constant attacks on the military justice system for the LAST 13 PAGES and Smedley DID serve honorably and voiced his opinions AFTER he was out of the service. The Judge acted correctly and speculating on whether the fucking Iraq War was illegal or not is just plain stupid as the LACK of any charges being brought by anyone AGAINST ANYONE in the previous Administration shows.

You clowns need to grow the fuck up!!!!!!!!

You are entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't make you any less of an asshole for making, what amounts to, a bunch of false claims about a poster.

Unless you've seen CL's 214, you don't know a fucking thing about his service. He could have a Silver Star, CIB or whatever. He's not even making an issue over his service. You are.

It's not at all germane to the issue, and basically amounts to you smearing him based on an internet disagreement.

This is basically par for the course for you. You questioned my service in the past when we disagreed.

Here's a news flash for you: no one appointed you OIC of sussing out our service records.

 

[CurveLight]

I would have to agree with this....I think he got kicked out for being a doper, a fat ass or a sexual harrasser. Those are the only 3 things I can see someone feeling like they got FUCKED by the military and cause them to focus their entire life on finding fault with it.

You don't know a damn thing about his service, and acting like you do and further stating that he was discharged under less than honorable circumstances only makes you look like an asshole.

Not every veteran has to share your views to have served honorably and vice versa.

Not every veteran has to be a cheerleader for the military at the end of their service.

This man certainly wasn't:

Smedley Butler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And with the retiring rank of Major General and two Medals of Honor and a "Brevet Medal (essentially a third medal of honor), I think we can agree that he served honorably.

I'm entitled to my opinion just as you are and that's all I voiced was MY OPINION!! You got that! Smedley hasn't got shit to do with this guys constant attacks on the military justice system for the LAST 13 PAGES and Smedley DID serve honorably and voiced his opinions AFTER he was out of the service. The Judge acted correctly and speculating on whether the fucking Iraq War was illegal or not is just plain stupid as the LACK of any charges being brought by anyone AGAINST ANYONE in the previous Administration shows.

You clowns need to grow the fuck up!!!!!!!!

Just opinions? So what "facts" were you talking about in post 169?

I'm quite used to certain kinds of groups making false accusations about my Service and in their hubris they are blind to the complimentary message they are sending. It basically says their super frustrated that an idiot like me can show some of their arguments are bullshit so in order to distract they attempt to make it strictly personal. I don't get upset by it because I will never be able to stop people from embarrassing themselves with empty accusations.

Iam attacking aspects of the military justice system. As a Combat Vet I have witnessed certain aspects and as a Citizen it is my duty and privilege to question actions taken by our government. What kind of an American repeatedly makes false accusations on another for simply trying to live by the Constitution?