Lt. Ehren Watada. a junior Army officer refused being deployed to Iraq based on his belief that the war is immoral and illegal. He was charged with losing motion and Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman. The legal proceeding about the instance was accompanied by public argument on the military’s responsibility to obey versus their pick to decline orders they believe to be against their moral rules and legal duties. The instance convened in July 2006 and was dropped by the US Justice Department on May 6. 2009. Duty or Choice In every war. there are casualties- people who are at the incorrect topographic point at the incorrect clip.

The instance of Lt. Watada teaches us that we do non hold to be at the center of the war zone to go a casualty. Background Lt. Ehren Watada joined the Army in 2003 in response to the 9/11 bombardment. He viewed the military as a baronial profession and his four old ages of service includes a twelvemonth in Korea. Harmonizing to him. one of the things he learned from his officer preparation commanding officer is the importance of cognizing “everything about the mission. non merely where you’re hiting the missiles but why you’re hiting the missiles” ( Mckelvey. 2008 ) . This was a lesson he took to his bosom.

In 2005. while preparation in the Firing Center Road. the Army’s preparation land located in Yakima County. Washington for possible assignment to Iraq or Afghanistan. he spent his free clip reading books about these missions. He read Bamford’s A Pretext for War: 9/11. Iraq. and the Abuse of America’s Intelligence Agencies and was convinced that the Iraq war is unneeded. illegal and immoral. On June 22. 2006. his unit. the Third Stryker Brigade of the Second Infantry Division. left for Mozul. Iraq. Watada refused the assignment. Faced with the chance of being forced to deploy. he decided to engage a attorney and travel public.

The Army filed a instance against him on July 2006. He was charged with five misdemeanors of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. With these allegations. Watada faces the chance of dishonourable discharge and six old ages of imprisonment. Duty to Obey In the instance filed against Lt. Watada on July 5. 2006. he was accused of five misdemeanors of the Uniform Code of Military Justice viz. : Missing motion of Flight Number BMYA91111173 and four counts of Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman detailing interviews and public addresss he made after his refusal to deploy.

For the military. Watada failed to continue the curse he took when he joined the Army. Military functionaries have the responsibility to obey the bids of their senior officers. By declining his assignment. he dishonored his superior’s orders and neglected his responsibility as an officer of the Army and violated his duties to the American people. Furthermore. talking out in public against the war and the government’s misrepresentation is an even bigger discourtesy. Military officers do non publically knock a war or voice their grudges about the authorities.

Harmonizing to the armed forces. this violates the Uniform Code of the Military on the proper behavior of an functionary. In his testimony for the prosecution. retired military officer Richard Swain said America and the armed forces has Torahs and misdemeanors of these Torahs have answerability. Even Paul D. Eaton. a 53-year-old retired Army major general known for his public base against the war agreed with Swain. Harmonizing to him. talking out against the armed forces may be the right thing to make but non from the ranks. He justified his ain stance by his surrender.

However. he believes officers in active responsibility like Watada do non hold the right to disobey orders from their higher-ups or express sentiments in public ( Mckelvey. 2008 ) . In the armed forces. obeisance is an look of nationalism. Failure to continue the duty to follow with orders is tantamount to the disregard of responsibility and misdemeanor of military Torahs. Watada’s disobedience to his commander’s orders has a corresponding answerability and the Army is determined to punish Watada. The tribunal proceeding was besides a manner of the military to continue the codification and recover control of their members.

The Iraq war has cast uncertainties in the ranks about the extent of their obeisance and Watada’s public instance is a large menace to the armed forces. Right to Refuse In his defence. Watada contends that his research showed the Iraq war is unneeded and illegal. He considered it as a offense of aggression initiated by the Bush disposal and it breaches international and domestic Torahs. Harmonizing to Watada. what the authorities was inquiring them is black and violative to the aristocracy of the military profession. Knowing he wanted no portion of the Iraq war. he offered to travel to Afghanistan but was turned down by his commanding officers.

Early on 2006. he submitted a surrender missive to his senior commanding officer showing the gravitation of his place against the Iraq war. He signified his willingness to fix and develop other soldiers bound for Iraq but affirmed his refusal to acquire involved in it. In his missive he mentioned willingness to travel to prison in exchange of the mission ( Mckelvey. 2008 ) . While his petition was being reviewed. his unit spent 30 yearss developing in Yakima County. In June 2006. the order for deployment was signed and Watada’s unit left for Iraq.

Watada. determined to follow his scruples deliberately missed his plane. Reacting to the unfavorable judgments about his misdemeanor of his military responsibility to obey. he cited that the military curse upholds to protect the Constitution non to follow orders blindly. Harmonizing to him. it is non his responsibility to follow bids that violates his moral beliefs. His biggest defence is the Nuremberg rule. Nuremberg is a post World War II homo rights jurisprudence that emerged from the horrors of the Holocaust and set Forth in the United Nations Charter and Geneva Convention.

It establishes an officer’s responsibility to decline military orders he considers against human rights. Harmonizing to Robert H. Jackson. Associate Justice of the US Supreme tribunal who served as prosecuting officer of the Nuremberg court of the test of Nazi military functionaries. persons are accountable for their actions even in response to superior orders ( Yamamoto and Kaho’omino’ . 2007 ) . Following orders is non an alibi to perpetrate illegal Acts of the Apostless and soldiers are accountable for their actions.

The US authorities had demonstrated their support of the Nuremberg rule in the test of the instance of US Army Lieutenant William Calley. Calley was convicted for the slaughter of 500 100 inexperienced person of civilians. largely adult females. kids. babies and aged during Vietnam War ( Yamamoto and Kaho’omino’ . 2007 ) . General Antonio Taguba. in his probe of the Abu Ghraib anguish of Iraqi captives confirmed the alleged aggression of the American authorities and military in Iraq. He mentioned that senior officers forgot values of “duty. award and integrity” ( Yamamoto and Kaho’omino’ . 2007 ) .

Yamamoto and Kaho’omino’ ( 2007 ) wrote that he believes America violated the Torahs of warfare. the dogmas of Geneva Convention and the values and rules of the military. This belief was corroborated by Richard Falk. a taking expert on international jurisprudence of warfare. Harmonizing to Falk. many bookmans agree that the Iraq war is illegal. He added that if Lt. Watada believes so. his refusal to take part in the said war is plausible. Col. Ann Wright. a former U. S. diplomat who served 13 old ages in the U. S.

Army and another 16 old ages in the Army Reserves besides opposed the Army’s Conduct Unbecoming of an Officer and a Gentleman charges against Watada. Harmonizing to Wright. the Army should drop these allegations because all Watada’s interviews were done out of uniform and non on authorities clip ( Solomon. 2007 ) . The freedom of look defence besides came up when the authorities issued subpoena for two journalists. Sarah Olson and Gregg Kakesako inquiring them to attest against Watada based on their interviews with him. This drew attending of the freedom of look lobbyists.

Officials of the PEN American Center. a venerable organisation that works to protect freedom of look. opposed the subpoena keeping that newsmans should non be obligated to attest against their beginnings because it compromises the imperativeness and violates the freedom of address ( Solomon. 2007 ) . Court Proceedings On July 5. 2006. the Army filed charges against Lt. Watada for a court-martial. Watada and the Government entered into a pretrial understanding on January 29. 2007. In the pretrial understanding. Watada signed a Stipulation of Fact detailing his knowing refusal to deploy to Iraq with his unit.

The tribunal Martial presided by Military Judge Lt. Col. John Head. convened on February 6. 2007. The Stipulation of Fact was accepted as grounds. Lt. Col. John Head declared that by subscribing the statement stating he had non been with his unit on the Kuwait-bound aircraft on June 22. 2006. Watada had already admitted his guilt. He ruled that the order to deploy was lawful therefore. barred the defence from showing its instance on the rationality of Watada’s belief about the war and his refusal to take part in it.

This opinion raised inquiries about the military’s right to oppugn the legality of war. Colonel Daniel Baggio. Army’s main media dealingss officer opined that such determinations are political and the armed forces can non let their people to take part in some runs and garbage others based on their personal judgement. Two yearss after the court-martial was convened. the Judge Head declared a mistrial observing the job of the pretrial understanding. The authorities continued to prosecute the instance and pushed for a 2nd court-martial. In November 2007. a federal justice Benjamin H.

Settle ruled that Judge Head erred in naming for a mistrial and that his determination may hold jeopardized the instance against Watada. This opened the possibility of a 2nd tribunal test. Watada’s legal defence squad appealed to the U. S. civilian tribunal system to forestall the Army officer from being tried twice on the footing of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Judge Benjamin H. Settle found the virtue of the request and granted Emergency Motion for a Stay of Court Martial Proceedings until farther proceedings consequence in a alteration or disintegration of the preliminary injunction.

The Army maintained that a 2nd test would non number for dual hazard because Watada was non able to show his instance in the first test. They filed a instance to turn over Settle’s opinion. After reappraisal of the instance. the Justice Department under the Obama Administration opted to disregard the entreaty. The instance was discharged May 6. 2009 and Watada hopes to return to civilian life and attend jurisprudence school ( Bernton. 2009 ) . Supporters and Critics The instance of Watada elicited conflicting public sentiment. Many people against the Iraq war expressed their support to Lt. Watada.

Members of Courage to Resist. an anti-war organisation based in Oakland. California. created the Web site back uping Lt. Ehren Watada. Even famous persons like Susan Sarandon. Martin Sheen. and Ed Asner took notice added their names to a list of protagonists on the site. Sean Penn called Watada to talk with him about his state of affairs ( Mckelvey. 2008 ) . The instance besides affected the military. Reports of turning dissatisfaction and low morale in the ranks leaked. Mckelvey ( 2008 ) reported that a turning figure of military dissidents who oppose the Iraq war had opted to go forth the service.

He mentioned that more than 25. 000 soldiers and officers have deserted since 2003 ; more than 200 have sought safety in Canada. Some of those who remained in the armed forces are voicing their grudges in web logs. The Appeal for Redress Project. a Washington. D. C. -based organisation of military forces opposed to the war noted the support of 100 nameless officers. Chief Master Sergeant Jeff Slocum inspired by Watada. left the US Air Force. He agrees with Watada’s stance that military officers have the responsibility to decline illegal orders.

Harmonizing to him. the authorities uses military nationalism to repress them but officers need to talk to protect the work forces and adult females contending the war. He added. “There is no bravery or award in silence” ( Solomon. 2007 ) . Cooley ( 2007 ) wrote that Amnesty International ( AI ) believes Watada’s expostulation to the war for grounds of his moral and legal responsibility to defy orders he believes to be illegal is protected under international human rights criterions. including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ( ICCPR ) . which the U.

S. has ratified. Among Watada’s protagonists are the JACL Honolulu Chapter. Asiatic American Vietnam Veterans Organization. American Civil Liberties Union. Iraq Veterans against the War and Veterans for Peace. The two of the leaders of the Heart Mountain World War II opposition. Frank Emi and Yosh Kuromiya besides expressed support for Watada. They recognized the correspondence of their predicament with Watada’s instance. Emi and Kuromiya spearheaded opposition to the bill of exchange telling the hitch of all male internees at the Heart Mountain during WWII.

Harmonizing to them. being forced to subscribe the bill of exchange on history of their race is unconstitutional and against their equal rights as US citizens. The obstructionists were convicted and imprisoned in Heart Mountain until 1946. Despite the outpour of support. Yamamoto and Kaho’omino’ ( 2007 ) reported some of the critics who accused Watada of pretermiting his responsibility. The laminitis of Military Families Voice of Victory called him “coward” and “traitor” who sacrificed his fellow soldiers to salvage himself.

They consider Watada’s determination to travel public as a desire to derive celebrity. Nine other Nipponese American Veterans Group criticized Watada for disgracing the long-standing bequest of Nipponese soldiers. Conclusion Watada’s instance presented the quandary of the military in relation to their responsibility and moral beliefs. Their profession calls for blind obeisance to the bids of their higher-ups and the disposal. However. Nuremberg rule provinces that they have the duty to decline what they believe to be illegal orders.

Watada professed to hold followed the dictates of his scruples in declining to take part in the Iraq War. To his protagonists. this is an look of nationalism to the United States Constitution. His disparagers on the other manus. labeled him as coward and treasonist to the military’s codification of behavior. The military hoped to continue the award of the military codification and recover control of its disgruntled members through the tribunal test against Watada. However. the authorities stepped in and on May 6. 2009. the Justice Department of the Obama Administration decided to drop the instance.

As a consequence. Watada escaped imprisonment and dishonourable discharge and was released from responsibility to return to his civilian life. Mentions Bernton. Hal. ( 2009. May 6 ) . Justice Department Drops Appeal on Watada Case. The Seattle Times Company. Retrieved July 20. 2009 from hypertext transfer protocol: //seattletimes. nwsource. com/html/politics/2009187681_watada07m. hypertext markup language Cooley. Laura. ( 2007 ) . Lt. Ehren Watada Still Faces Possibility of a Second Court Martial. Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. 26:9. 24-25. Retrieved July 2. 2009 from Military & A ; Government Collection. Mckelvey. T.

( 2008 June 3 ) . The Officers’ War. The American Prospect. 27. 4. Retrieved July 3. 2009. from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. chance. org/cs/articles? article=the_officers_war Solomon. Norman. ( 2007. March-April ) . The Pentagon vs. imperativeness freedom. The Humanist. 37. 1. Retrieved June 25. 2009 from Academic OneFile. Gale. European Regional Lib – US Army Lib 466. Watada v. Head. 2008 U. S. Dist. LEXIS 83572 ( W. D. Wash. . 2008 ) Yamamoto. E. K. and Kaho’omino’ . A. ( 2007 ) . From Heart Mountain to Iraq: Lieutenant Watada and a Long Line of Resistance. Amerasia Journal. 33:3. 73-94.