![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
According to this article from AP, 1st Lt. Watada is being court-martialed for refusing to obey what he perceived as an illegal order -- to deploy to Iraq. Unfortunately the judge is refusing to allow his defense witnesses (several experts in international and constitutional law) to testify regarding the legality of the war.
It almost seems to me that they're crossing two issues. Whether or not the war itself is legal is moot -- by international law, any war of aggression is illegal. What matters is whether or not Watada's orders to deploy were legal, and to me that is a perfectly valid point to raise in a case like this. If not, then where should it be debated?
Unfortunately, he's done something else that means he's probably going to be completely screwed. He has apparently been publicly accusing the US Army of war crimes and denouncing the administration for conducting an illegal war founded on lies. For this, he faces charges of conduct unbecoming an officer. His prosecutors are arguing that his actions were dangerous to the mission and morale of soldiers in Iraq, and unless I'm mistaken, that pretty much means he might as well grab his ankles and brace himself, and hope that they're feeling kind enough to use some KY.
But I have to wonder -- if it is determined that the war itself is illegal, how will those officers who've been punished for refusing to deploy have their punishments revoked, inasmuch as they can be?
It almost seems to me that they're crossing two issues. Whether or not the war itself is legal is moot -- by international law, any war of aggression is illegal. What matters is whether or not Watada's orders to deploy were legal, and to me that is a perfectly valid point to raise in a case like this. If not, then where should it be debated?
Unfortunately, he's done something else that means he's probably going to be completely screwed. He has apparently been publicly accusing the US Army of war crimes and denouncing the administration for conducting an illegal war founded on lies. For this, he faces charges of conduct unbecoming an officer. His prosecutors are arguing that his actions were dangerous to the mission and morale of soldiers in Iraq, and unless I'm mistaken, that pretty much means he might as well grab his ankles and brace himself, and hope that they're feeling kind enough to use some KY.
But I have to wonder -- if it is determined that the war itself is illegal, how will those officers who've been punished for refusing to deploy have their punishments revoked, inasmuch as they can be?
