Talk:Ehren Watada

ethnicity

It says he is from Hawaii. Is he of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, etc descent or is he mixed?

• Most Asian Americans in Hawaii are descendents of Chinese and Japanese immigrant laborers of the 19th and 20th century. The "native" Hawaiians are of south east asians/polynesian, which Watada is not.

-intranetusa

Karada's reverts

Okay, what the hell, I was using exactly the defn:

A conscientious objector is an individual following the religious, moral or ethical dictates of their conscience that are incompatible: (1) with being a combatant in military service, or (2) being part of the armed forces as a combatant organization. In the first case, conscientious objectors may be willing to accept non-combatant roles during conscription or military service.

And my rationale:

(Watada by his own words is neither opposed to combatant status or participation in a combatant organization - he is not a consencious objector)

Watada has no general objection to war or combatant status - he would have been happy to go to Afghanistan. However, he has a specific dispute with the Iraq War, which does not qualify for conscientious objector. Moreover, you reverted my copyedits - have you any dispute with those? --Mmx1 16:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Changed

However, unlike enlistments, officers' commissions may be extended indefinitely at the discretion of the service; a well-known fact in the military.

to

However, the US Army may choose to extend its officers' commission at its discretion.

The "Well-known fact" label is very POV. I'm a Veteran of the Navy, and I never knew this until this case. How often have officers' commissions been involuntarily extended in, say, the last 50 years? If this happens often, perhaps it can be worded to say, "a common practice in war time." If this is rare, it should be stricken, as I'd say not much that is never practiced is ever "well-known."

Plus, considering all the stop-loss measures of late, the statement as made ("unlike enlistments") was not true. However, it is worth noting that the extensions are at the discretion of the military. WallyCuddeford 05:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll find the answers in the Oath...I'll look it up tomorrow but basically at commissioning and thereafter untill officers reach retirement age they "serve at the pleasure of the President" essentially means that the President can call back to federal service any former officers. It's not just limited to wartime. Interestingly, the soon to be former Army Chief of Staff, General Schoomaker (spelling?) was recalled to Active Duty after two and half years on retirement. TurboManiacal 19:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Officer and enlisted extensions are different. When a person enlists into the military, there is a clause on the DD4 (I am summarizing) that states that their enlistment may extended in war or national emergencies as needed, we call this Stop loss, John Kerry called it, erroneously, a "back-door draft." It is legal, it is a portion of the contract signed by every service member when the enlist, and re-enlist. Remember, any entry into service, enlisted or Officer, is for a period of 8 years the first time. This is called the Military Service Obligation. That 8 years of service can be any combination of Active Duty, drilling reserve, and Individual Ready Reserve. For enlisted members, when that 8 years passes, if they do not reenlist/extend their service, then their obligation ends. For Officers, on the other hand, they must undertake resigning their Commission to be obligated, beyond the MSO. Many do not resign, since a Commission is for life, and the title may be retained so long as the person's commission is active. But, the danger is the possibility of being recalled. Because Officers do not reenlist, instead they go on Voluntary Indefinite status, there is no need to require a contractual agreement that they may be extended, since indefinite means indefinite. Sorry for the ramble. Andrew 14:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Consciencious Objector

As stated above, from the wiki article:

A conscientious objector is an individual following the religious, moral or ethical dictates of their conscience that are incompatible: (1) with being a combatant in military service, or (2) being part of the armed forces as a combatant organization. In the first case, conscientious objectors may be willing to accept non-combatant roles during conscription or military service.

Which from his own statements is not true. He is neither opposed to being a combatant nor being part of a combatant organization - he states he would have been happy being deployed to Afghanistan. His reasons for resignation are legal principles related to Iraq only, not ethical principles related to war. --Mmx1 02:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, I consider the distinction made as immaterial. The decision to kill someone is always a question of morality. IMO a conscientious objector may object to the morality based on the specific circumstances of the conflict. In this case, the legality of the war has played a substantial role in the right to kill another human.

You may consider the distinction immaterial, but the law doesn't. The article needs to be accurate. Watada didn't apply for CO status, which changes the way his case gets handled. -- MiguelMunoz 23:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This article mentions ... [he] applied for conscientious objector status. My intent was to group military staff who had chosen to make a stand against this war specifically. Maybe a different, more specific, category would be appropriate. Jayvdb 03:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he and his lawyers claim he didn't apply for CO status.[1]

Watada did not apply for conscientious objector status, according to his lawyer.

“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.

Also, [2] and a few others on google news. The current statement should remain in there as there's opposing POV....he claims he didn't want to apply but the Pentagon has stated that he did. Best to mention both view points.

There's a distinct difference between someone generally opposed to war on a moral basis and someone opposed to a specific war. --Mmx1 03:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

A pentagon spokesman got his facts wrong when speaking to the press. This happens all the time. Aside from that one misstatement, there's no evidence Lt. Watada applied for CO status. If you want to put him in a category with CO applicants, you could say they all "refused orders" or something like that. There are many ways to refuse orders. Check out the Documentary Sir! No Sir! about soldiers who refused orders in Vietnam. -- MiguelMunoz 23:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I think this page was vandalized here Qrc2006 20:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I also think that the page has been vandalised - quote: "He was born in a big fat bathroom like a fat gay girl becuse he is a liar and a cowrad who only went to korea and had his pensi sucked for 50 dollars when he got drunk.... but most army fags do that in korea that is why they hate the army". I assume this consists vandalism and thus I removed it. If you have evidence then it would be reinstated although chances are evidence (fabricated or not) and even the event in question would be debateable.

UCMJ

All the discussion on his guilt or innocence is moot until one reads the actual wording of the first set of laws he is subject to. He is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and will be tried in accordance with the Manual for Courts Marshall. Google these or look for them on Wikipedia. If you go by the letter of the law, he is 100% in the wrong. Accusations in the article of politicizing the charges are in effect, trying to politicize them in the reverse, favorable way for the defendant. His 'Constitutional Rights' are not an issue, they are trying to make it one. Civilian lawyers such as those in the ACLU, do not have a grasp on the real issue, only the political one. If this man truely believes in what he is saying, he will take his punishment for his offences, which are real. This article is so heavily biased it's not funny. Without a true opposing point of view, how can it have ANY credibility? Joe in Maine

This is not your blog, Joe in Maine. Your own conclusions on Ehren's case don't belong here (not even in the discussion page).

The article itself should not make its own cases about guilt or innocence, but rather should be an overview of both sides' cases, citing actual publicized arguments (as in, this is what experts are saying about Watada). I think the article does that well.

Please, either cite some instances of POV, or do not bring it up.WallyCuddeford 05:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

==

I haven't really seen a compelling reason for the NPOV tag in the article- The only argument in favor thus far seems to be that it doesn't make a case for his is guilt. The article presents published arguments from both sides in the case, as well as the subject's own statements regarding the issue. Unless somebody offers a more convincing argument, I'm in favor of deleting the tag. Thoughts? Thrugbhat 08:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Content Separation

Hello--I would suggest possibly separating the passage

"The Army refused his resignation. Watada has said he is not a conscientious objector because he is not opposed to war as a principle, only the war in Iraq, and so offered to serve in Afghanistan,[7] which he regarded as "an unambiguous war linked to the Sept. 11 attacks." This was also refused. Watada, in turn, refused an offer for a desk job in Iraq without direct combat involvement.[4] Lt. Watada's initial term of service ends on December 3, 2006; however, the US Army may choose to extend its officers' tours of duty at its discretion."

from the education section of this listing, as it doesn't seem that this information properly fills out the education portion of this biographical entry.

--J.C., Tacoma, WA

Desouragons 11:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Jan 16. 2007 Rulings

I've posted links to the 1/16/2007 rulings; the Nuremberg defence ruling in particular is notable. However I hope another editor can upgrade those links to a more official site; the document I linked to came straight to me (on request) from the defense attorney, who got it from the court, but it would be better to link straight to the court. Unfortunately, cts don't always keep their websites up to the minute. rewinn 20:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Image, use if you wish

I got a (decent, but I'm afraid not great) photo of Watada addressing a rally for Martin Luther King Day in Seattle. I leave it to someone else to decide whether it would be a positive addition to the article. - Jmabel | Talk 06:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

An interesting link

Also, I found a potentially interesting link, probably the most extensive interview with Watada that I've seen. Rather than just add it to the external links, I'm mentioning it here in case anyone wants to "mine" it for material. After a brief introduction, it is apparently a verbatim transcript:

• Ken Mochizuki, Lt. Watada explains his risky stand in extensive interview, International Examiner, Jan. 17 – Feb. 6, 2007 (Volume 34 No. 02). p. 1, 6–7.

The International Examiner, calls itself the "Journal of the Northwest Asican Pacific American Communities" and pretty much lives up to the self-designation. It's pretty serious newspaper; I'd certainly consider it a reliable source. It's been around over 30 years, has a paid staff, and has even published a couple of books. - Jmabel | Talk 20:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

International reactions

I heard about Lt Watada on the radio in Sweden today and read this article. I am guessing there must have been a lot of international reactions to this sort of man/trial/event/thing. I have also noticed that many similar articles have a section called something like International Reactions. Perhaps there haven't been many reactions yet but as the trial starts I guess there will be quite a few.

I also noticed on the homepage his mother created (?) that the Nobel peace laureate Desmond Tutu has commented Lt Watada - perhaps this is of relevance? But I have only found positive comments yet so I will not add anything yet since the topic seems highly infected.

/PER9000 07:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What Mr Tutu said can be found here http://www.thankyoult.org/content/view/1007/11/ / PER9000

Illegal orders

The judge dismissed the argument that the war itself is illegal and under numerous laws he is obliged to refuse orders that violate them. Since establishing whether or not the war is illegal, would establish whether or not his orders were illegal, which would make his refusal comply with the law. On what legal ground is he not allowed to make that argument.? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

A judge in a military has wide lattitude to make decisions in a court-martial. As such, and because they are Officers chosen from a population at large based on rank not legal qualification, military judges are provided with their own legal counsel to guide their decision making. In this case, Lt. Col. Head decided to disallow these arguments because they are (1) not valid in defense of disobeying an order to deploy, and (2) he was concerned that the trial would beocme a case about Bush administration policies, and not the alleged violations of the UCMJ being considered. On that note, the trial is now a mistrial, go reread the "Court-Martial" section of Watada's wiki. Tnkr111 01:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you said, but fail to see why the Nuremberg Principles would not apply. Let me restate the question in the form of an example.

1. A commander orders his soldiers to rape all women in a certain village, and to aftwerwards kill all witnesses.
2. One soldier refuses to comply with that order.
3. That soldier is then court-martialed for not obeying orders as is mandatory in the chain of command.
4. The soldier responds by commenting that indeed he did not comply with his orders but that those orders were illegal following the Nuremberg trials where the "I was only following orders" defense was determined to be insufficient when charged with war crimes.
5. The judge says that the legality of the order is not relevant so he refuses to allow the defense to argue that his orders were illegal

If the legality of this order cannot be disputed how does one act when confronted with the order to commit a war crime? And, if not allowed to refuse, what exactly is the possible criminal liabilty a soldier has when he stands in front of a modern day Nuremberg? Remember, he is not allowed to argue that he was simply following orders, yet he is also not allowed to disobey said orders (i.e. Watada). Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 16:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Deploying in and of itself to a theater of war, if it were an illegal war, would not constitute a war crime. German officers, even many high ranking ones, were not charged at Nuremburg just for being part of the military leadership in a war of aggression. For specific acts that constituted war crimes, lower ranking members were held accountable. But for the prosecution of a war of aggression, the senior leadership, military and civilian, is held accountable. Watada hasn't been ordered to commit specific criminal acts, but rather to deploy. Unfortunately, I think he has a limited understanding about what constitutes an illegal order, at least by how the U.S. military defines it. Individual German soldiers, by following orders to attack a country, were not committing war crimes - the leaders waging the war of aggression were. On the other hand, if those same soldiers rape, kill POWs, etc, they were prosecuted for war crimes. Watada has followed his conscience, but I don't think under the UCMJ or US law that he has a leg to stand on.--Nobunaga24 11:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for answering, but I still have trouble understanding. First of all does international law not trump the UCMJ or US law? In other words UCMJ or US law are subject to the command responsibility, developed in international law, when considering the questions related to Nuremberg. Second, although I agree that simply going to Iraq would not constitute a crime I fail to see how one can take part in a war of aggression (just assume for sake of argument that is the case) without violating international law (which I think is binding to any US citizen). If a war of aggression is a war crime, then ipso facto taking part in such a war is also a war crime and would make any person liable for legal challenges regarding war crimes. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

In a perfect world, their would be some agency to hold countries accountable for their actions. But the US uses international law when it is convenient for them, and ignores it when it is not. But I think all countries do this, because states always act in their own interests, not what is best for the world at large. There is no enforcement agency for international law, so it is up to every country to interpret international law how it sees fit, and that is virtually always in their own favor. As far as I know, and I am no lawyer, the US Constitution is the penultimate authority as far as US jurisprudence goes. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.--Nobunaga24 15:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a Conflict of laws issue. A thing can be legal/illegal in one legal system and the opposite in the another; the question is then which law applies in which court. For example, a national legislature could legalize (under its own laws) while a state legislature or an international body does the opposite. The problem is then, in each court, not only which law to apply, but which law governing "which law to apply" is to apply. As to the US Constitution, it is indeed the "penultimate" authority, in the sense of "not quite the ultimate"; as a document limiting the powers of the government to act, it is embedded in a matrix of fundamental assumption about what law is (see jus cogens). How this all plays out in the Watada case remains to be seen; as a practical matter, judges usually prefer to avoid difficult issues like this. I hope this discussion has not strayed too far from improving the article. rewinn 16:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The Constitution makes treaties the "law of the land." Although I appreciate that one law may contradict another I think any US law is subject to the Nuremberg Principle since technically international law is binding to the US, i.e. UNCAT, Geneva Conventions, Human Rights, etc. Hence the current case in Germany involving allegations of promoting/allowing torture. Whether or not some global policeforce exists, it does not negate the fact that following illegal orders makes one culpable for war crimes. Hence my question remains, why is Watada not allowed (the judge called it irrelevant) to argue the legallity, under international law, of the order he disobeyed? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to stray too far from the topic of improving the article, as opposed to understanding the actions of the parties. However, yours is a great question. I, personally, probably agree with your analysis and I can't speak for Judge Head; however the reasoning (with which you may or may not agree) that Judge Head provided in his Jan 16 ruling is that our Supreme Ct ruled in a Vietnam-era case that whether a war is legal or not is a non-justiciable political question. rewinn 18:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I too don't want to stray too far off the topic, but maybe the best way to put it is this: for Americans who are awake, these are strange days. We have an Attorney General who went in front of Congress and said the Constitution doesn't guarantee habeas corpus, an executive which doesn't realize that only Congress can declare war, and a Congress too timid to flex its muscles as far as Iraq is concerned. Meanwhile, my friends are paying the price, through divorces, time lost watching their children grow up, getting wounded, and in one case dying. As someone who was in and familiar with the system, Watada chose the wrong time and the wrong point to make his stand. Prosecution for waging a war of aggression doesn't extend down to the troops, and never has. Specific acts will get you prosecuted. The long and the short of it is this - the military will never let its junior officers and enlisted decide for themselves whether or not a military action violates international law. It opens a whole Pandora's Box if they do. You also have to keep in mind the military is subordinate to the civilian political structure, therefore they will not rule on the war's legality or illegality. That too would open a Pandora's Box of the military deciding which wars it will fight, and which one's it will not. --Nobunaga24 01:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually I am considering adding a paragraph discussing exactly that. Since this is his defense it is more than reasonable to have a paragraph outlining the duties under Nuremberg and whether or not the logic of discounting "a political defense" is cdorrect. Therefore I was trying to get some info as to the rationale behind disallowing that defense. Reading your comments I think it is relevant to discuss

1. Why ruling on the legality of something is a political ruling. Its inference being that any ruling about ordering somebody to rape (or any other action) being illegal is also a political question. As an aside I realise that any ruling determining that Iraq is an illegal war has devastating political ramifications. However, that should not be a valid argument in denying a legal determination of fact. In other words, the rule of law is not equal to the rule of politics, notwithstanding the fact that politics do influence controversial cases such as this.
2. Why individuals are or are not subject to the Nuremberg Principle. AFAIK a war crime is a violation of the laws of war, and nowhere is there any requisite of multiple victims or multiple suspects. So, every single individual, military and civilian, is personally responsible and criminally liable under Nuremberg and the command responsibility.
3. If individuals are not allowed to disobey orders violating the Nuremberg Principles what the possible legal challenges would be in a modern day Nuremberg. In other words, if someone is ordered to commit a war crime what recourse does such an individual have if he does not want to take part in such an action?

Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 19:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

An interesting topic, this might best be handled in the article by referring to Nuremberg Defense and then fleshing out the topic there. Also, please note Judge Head in his Jan 16 rulling (with whom I may not agree) limited his ruling to the question of the legality of the war; he didn't rule on any other sort of order; indeed as Lt. Calley discovered, our military justice system will address that sort of illegal order (whether or not one likes they way it works). rewinn 06:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Referring to the Nuremberg defense doesn't work for this case. Even if one wishes to believe that the war was illegal because of lack of U.N authorization (and that's a big "if"), it's irrelevant to this case. Watada wasn't ordered to go to Iraq until after United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546 sanctioned the U.S. presence to support the new Iraqi government.

-- Randy2063 19:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the above questions:

Why ruling on the legality of something is a political ruling. Its inference being that any ruling about ordering somebody to rape (or any other action) being illegal is also a political question.

Why are you confusing deployment with rape? There is no law, statute, or regulation that forbids a soldier to deploy to the theatre and engage in military operations. The UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions both spell out what actions are and are not legal in war. There is likewise no law that I am aware of that specifies whether an entire war is declared "legal" or "illegal." In America, all law and political powers are granted by the Constitution. The President asked for war and Congress concurred, in accordance with those laws. Therefore, according to every law in America, the war is "legal." If Congress wishes to end the war and impeach the President, they also have the power to do that. However, as of this date they have not done so. Nowhere in any law does it state that the UN must concur with Congress.

Why individuals are or are not subject to the Nuremberg Principle. AFAIK a war crime is a violation of the laws of war, and nowhere is there any requisite of multiple victims or multiple suspects. So, every single individual, military and civilian, is personally responsible and criminally liable under Nuremberg and the command responsibility.

When a soldier is ordered to violate the Geneva Convention or the UCMJ, they will be able to invoke the Nuremburg Principle. Possible violations include murder, rape, pillage, attacking protected persons or places, abuse of prisoners, use of prohibited weapons, or treachery. At no point is deployment to the war zone and attacking military targets considered a war crime. The BASIS of the war is NOT a consideration of the Conventions or the UCMJ. This is why Lt. Watada cannot use this as a defense. However, SPECIFIC ACTIONS taken during war CAN be used as a basis for the Nuremburg Principle. Again, these actions have been very explicitly spelled out in the Convention and the UCMJ, and nowhere do I see Lt. Watada being ordered to commit such an act. If you can find the specific paragraph of the law Lt. Watada was being asked to violate, please show it to me.

If individuals are not allowed to disobey orders violating the Nuremberg Principles what the possible legal challenges would be in a modern day Nuremberg. In other words, if someone is ordered to commit a war crime what recourse does such an individual have if he does not want to take part in such an action?

Again, the problem is resting on the definition of what constitutes a war crime. All war crimes are spelled out very explicitly in the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions. If a person believes they may be committing a war crime they are required to inform their commander, seek clarification of the order, and then refuse if they still believe the order to be illegal. After that, you can bet there will be an investigation, and someone will be punished. If the order was found to be legal, the soldier may be punished for disobedience, but if the order was found to be illegal, the commander will by punished for ordering it. Commanders have a great degree of latitude in administering justice, so if they believe that the problem was a result of simple miscommunication and objections were made in good faith, there is likely to be little punishment.

However, I must reiterate that it is vital to read and understand the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions. Again, I cannot find any law or statute that Lt. Watada was said to be violating in deploying to Iraq. The crux of the argument is that the ENTIRE WAR is illegal. The war may be ill-conceived, poorly-executed, and based on premises that were later found to be false, but I cannot find any law that declares those things to be illegal. The war will be illegal when Congress acts to stop it, and so far they have not done so.

Now, if Congress were to order the troops to withdraw and they kept fighting, THEN they would be in violation of the UCMJ. Until that day comes, they have committed no crime.

72.178.131.225 06:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism, 'Coward'

Please, let's be reasonable here and realize that the word 'coward' is a loaded term and shouldn't be used in the article., your personal beliefs aside. Someone's been littering this guy's article with that word. Let's take a measured approach.

I disagree. The man is being labeled a "coward" by many in the military as well as the public. It is a fact, not a value judgement, to include this.

It's go without saying that American "patriots", like panzertank (seems like a neo-nazi handle to me), are preventing this page to stay on a NPOV level of quality, that is, this article is highly biased towards the past and current American foreign policy, and must be considered as partial unless someone step forward and lock indefinitely the page. (Anonymous Coward) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.19.141.77 (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Why are some people so afraid to include the FACT that Watada has been called a "coward" by many people, both civilian and military? We aqren't saying he IS a coward, simply that he is being CALLED such. It seems that PC has run amok on this site.63.211.139.170 00:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of fear, but wikiPolicy concerning biographies of living people. If you don't like that policy, start your own site. rewinn 00:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, to the war-hawks and opponents, I am a US Army Officer, I serve proudly, will go when called, and do not approve of Watada's actions. But, I do believe Lt. Watada deserves a fair and unbiased accounting of his actions. You can make your decisions privately- whether you agree or disagree with the war-please do not do it by defacing the wiki page for Lt. Watada. Specifically to 63.211.139.170, your sloppy insertion of the word "coward" to make your point was in no way in keeping with the NPOV of Wikipedia. It is you who are paranoid about PC, rather than liberal bias running amok here. If you would like to engage me in a shouting match, feel free, it will be one sided, since I have already said my piece. Andrew 01:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If "coward" is to go in, then "hero" should as well, as many people have put him forward as such.

Any time somebody refuses to take part in a war, for whatever reasons (principled or selfish) they will be called a hero by some and a coward by others. I think it's a valid use of these words to state objectively that Lt. Watada is called a hero by his supporters and a coward by his detractors without violating NPOV. But the article certainly shouldn't be littered with either term. But when the words are used properly, it helps put it into more perspective when a detractor (the prosecutor, in this case) claims the defendant is sincere in his beliefs. --MiguelMunoz 03:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It's less a question of NPOV or of libel, but of noteworthiness. For balance, if the article mentions that some call him a hero it should also mention that some call him a coward; however, neither fact is notable. Public figures get called a lot of things, and if wikipedia were to list them all, the entries for George W Bush or Michael Moore would be unmanagably long. rewinn 03:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I can follow the argument that a first-time draft-dodger might be considered a possible coward, but since Lt. Watada has served several hitches in battle prior to refusing the Iraq deployment, and has said he'd willingly serve in Afghanistan, it's clear that he is NOT a coward; while people ignorant of this fact-- or simple noisemakers-- might label him a coward, this would be a very obvious misnomer and lend an undeserved respectability to the people trying to attach the label to him. This would be akin to Wikipedia endorsing the math skills of children by saying that "some people think 2+2=5". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sethnessatwikipedia (talk • contribs) 11:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

How is he not a coward? He refused to do what he signed up for, and was paid to do! He has brought shame to his race and is definately a coward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.224.228 (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Original research concerning the state of mind of the Lt. is not encyclopedic. The article is a biography of a living person; this Talk page is about that biography, not about your feelings about the Lt. Please confine your remarks to ways to improve the article with verifiable facts. If you don't like that policy, start your own site. rewinn 23:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protection and Watada's right to unbiased accounting

I added the semi-protection tag. I realize it should be discussed first, but since this is a "lesser known personality" and the page was frequently being vandalized, I added it, to prevent any more defacing that would potentially destroy the page. For instance, I had to "void" several edits, due to a slew of vandalizing statements being inserted this evening February 7. Tnkr111 01:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine someone decided to remove the "semi-protection tag," <sprotect2>. Can and admin add it. The vandalism on this page is getting ridiculous. And it seems to primarily originate from users who are not "logged in." Andrew 14:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this article should be protected. Wikipedia should not be a place where people are allowed to voice their bias and hate. Bernhard --62.245.160.16 00:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can request page protection at WP:RPP. RJASE1 ^Talk 01:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

SamiKaero added the NPOV tag with an edit summary of "yeah, he learnt history of Iraq, and got interested in iraq's culture and that's why he is far more intelligent than every other people(and general) and why it's normal to contradict his superiors..." with no further discussion. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to whomever removed the frivolously added NPOV tag, however, the tag being added may beg a larger question. Can this article truly remain neutral when a great deal of the information is supported by references that point to clearly biased sources (peace advocacy groups and a website set up by his own mother)? Despite the bias of the majority of the media tending to be supprotive of his claims, despite the clear illegality of them under UCMJ, I would tend to think that they are much better at conveying the facts of this case sans editorial comment like that found at places like Common Dreams, Truthout, and ThankYouLt. Andrew 17:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur absolutely about the need to maintain a NPOV for this article, an issue made all the more difficult because it seems that in this case there is little agreement about just what constitutes a NPOV. I made a number of changes to the article that I thought improved it; however, all changes were reverted by Tnkr111/Andrew.

In the introduction it was only mentioned that the first had ended in a mistrial on Feb. 7th, which could mislead the reader into thinking that the issue had been concluded. I therefore added that a new trial date had been set for March. This was deleted.

In the "background" section, I deleted that he had been reassigned to CONUS, because the reader may not know what this means and find it distracting (I myself had to look it up). I also reinserted what his officers had to say about him in his executive officer fitness report, as stated in a New York Times article. This is relevant because it is biographical information related to his military career. It was deleted.

In another paragraph, I deleted the section that reads "His Chain of Command disputes his claim that he offered to serve in Afghanistan, but they confirmed that he was offered administrative duty in a non-combat role while deployed to Iraq." This was news to me, and upon reading the article that is cited (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/302733_courtmartial07ww.html?source=mypi ) I found nothing of the sort. If one is going to claim the right to paraphrase somebody else's statement, then it should be accurately cited. Unfortunately, this was restored.

In the "Charges" section, I mentioned, for clarity's sake, that he had initially been charged with additional counts in addition to the three mentioned. This is because as it stood, it gave the appearance that the Army had initially charged him with only the three counts which actually made it to the court-martial, which is incorrect. I also changed "dishonorable discharge" to "dismissal," because Watada is a commissioned officer.

In short, there were a number of improvements made to the article, and they were deleted unilaterally.

Now, I would also like to raise attention to the following paragraph:

The judge decided to throw out the stipulation; and, recognizing that the document was the basis of the prosecution's case, granted their request for a mistrial. Under the rules for courts-martial (MCM Rule 915(c))the Army may represent their case and try Watada again, because a declared mistrial is not considered a decision (double jeopardy does not apply), and because the mistrial was not due to prosecutorial misconduct. A new court martial has been set for March 19, 2007.

This is manifestly NOT NPOV, because it explicitly is making an argument, namely, that the Army has the right to set a new court martial and that double jeopardy doesn't apply. It is not within the authority of Wikipedia editors to determine this. Second, it is debatable- there are several authorities who dispute this. They may or may not be correct, but it is in any case still a matter dispute, and needs to be presented as such. When one editor mentioned that, it was deleted to preserve NPOV.

Are there thoughts on any of this? Is this normal for Wikipedia?

Lassiter500 10:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I am in agreeance with the most recent edits you have made, with one exception (see your Talk page), which I see you had addressed here, I'll find the reference, perhaps I linked the wrong article. IIRC, the original edits you had made seemed to discount the fact that there are manifestly different, albeit similar, rules under the UCMJ. I would contend however that stating that "double jeopardy does not apply" is not an opinion, it is a matter of fact, the judge said no prosecutorial misconduct, and therefore, the MCCM allows for a retrial. If your issue is the wording of double jeopardy, fine, however, the fact is that he may be tried again if the Army wishes, and with the setting of a date for a new CM, I guess they've done just that. I am not a lawyer, but I am reasonably familiar with the UCMJ and the MCM, as I am bound by it, and use it in the discharge of my official command duties. As fro reverting some of the previous edits, the words "leveled charge against" seem pretty weaselish to me, and some of your earlier edits seemed to indicate a bias against the military justice system. I could be wrong, please forgive me if I have misinterpreted them. — Andrew 12:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I linked the wrong article. However, the statements correctly referenced in the Court-Martial section do convey the same idea. Whether the chain of command disputes his "claim of an offer to serve in Afghanistan" or that they find it in opposition to his written statement, is the same thing. Good catch, it removed redundant material, improperly cited.— Andrew 13:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Much of what you folks have discussed are not really POV issues. For example, I was considering changing CONUS to US with a wikilink to CONUS. I would not count "it leveled another charge against Watada of" as a weasel phrase, but the sentence does seem awkward- I would change it to "Watada was also charged with".

Please take a look at the Neutral point of view policy. It is pretty straight forward- when there are opposing views, then both should be presented with equal weight. Take a look at Boy Scouts of America membership controversies and see how it is written. This is a highly controversial subject that was highly edited and vandalized. Both sides came to a consensus and created a balanced article (it became the first featured Scouting article).

Lets look at the mistrial issue. There is one POV that the mistrial resulted in double jeporday and he cannot be retried and another POV that double jeopardy does not apply. Both points should be illustrated equally and with the proper references.

Some people think his actions are wrong, others believe he is right- both sides need to be equally represented. If his fellow officers have made public and verifiable statements, then these need to be included, good and bad equally. Ditto for the public. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Malcolm Kendall-Smith

Should we mention the very similar trial of Malcolm Kendall-Smith, the RAF medic who refused to serve a second tour in Iraq and was sentenced to eight months imprisonment in 2006? The issues seem to be largely identical. Lisiate 20:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. Asabbagh 07:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to but I'm not sure where to put it. In the opening paragraph or in the charges or court martial parts?Lisiate 21:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Legality of War?

Watada objected going to war not only because it was based on false information, but it was also not approved by the United Nations Security Council. He said this makes it a war of aggression and thus, illegal. So, is the war really illegal and one of aggression? If so, who is to blame? The soldiers who follow orders, or the leadership that ordered the nation to go to war? Couldn't he reason himself to serve in the belief that it's too late to turn back and the country needs help in stabilizing Iraq?--141.213.198.142 12:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

How is the asking of philosophical questions germane to the improvement of this article? Andrew 17:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The rationalization offered is weak at best-- and goes back to the Nuremberg Defense ("I was only following orders") listed earlier on this discussion page. Clearly, for a man of conscience like Watada, the Nuremberg Defense is amoral at best; toolishness at worst. There must be SOME point at which a citizen, even a soldier, must be allowed to refuse an illegal order.

Further, as I understand it, Watada claims that the invasion of Iraq is not merely illegal because of the lack of U.N. sanction-- he also (IIRC) claims that it is unconstitutional.

As for "stabilizing the country", this seems more an excuse to stay in Iraq than a real reason. It's not necessary for the attackers to stay-- the country's policing and other stabilization efforts could be turned over to a coalition force which did not contain the original invasion force. This would undoubtedly be greeted with less hostility from Iraqis than the continued presence of American forces in Iraq. It seems clear, then, that user 141.213.... is offering weak arguments to attack Watada, rather than to present a NPOV stance for the Wikipedia article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sethnessatwikipedia (talk • contribs) 11:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

There must be SOME point at which a citizen, even a soldier, must be allowed to refuse an illegal order.

An order is illegal when it violates the UCMJ or the Geneva Conventions. Can someone please point out to me what specific statute, law, paragraph, or amendment Lt. Watada was asked to violate? In America, the President asks for war and if Congress concurs, it happens. I know of no law nor any paragraph of the Constitution that says the UN has to agree. If he thinks the basis of the war is flawed or immoral, then he can think that all he wants, but PLEASE point out the part of the Geneva Convention, the UCMJ, or the Constitution that he was asked to violate. So far, I'm not seeing it. 72.178.131.225 06:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

w/r/t the article (and not a general discussion, which would be inappropriate here) Watada's argument is made in an early section:

He used as justification for his request that the war violated the Constitution and War Powers Act which "limits the president in his role as Commander in Chief from using the armed forces in any way he sees fit." He also cited the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and the Nuremberg Principles, which "bar wars of aggression." He argued the command responsibility would make him personally responsible and liable for legal challenges for violating international law. Further, he asserted that the war was based on misleading or false premises such as the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, and that the occupation itself did not follow the Army's own legal rules of conduct for occupying a country.

Whether we agree or disagree with his argument does not improve the article, and is therefore not appropriate to this talk page. rewinn 01:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, yes it is appropriate. Would you allow an article to repeatedly state that gravity doesn't exist or the Sun orbits the Earth, just because someone made that statement? It has repeatedly been illustrated that this is not an 'illegal' war, as there is no grounds for determining its legality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.2.209.2 (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Style issues

• "Ehren Watada (born 1978) is a First Lieutenant in the United States Army"

In this instance, "first lieutenant" should be in lower case, as it is not referring to a specific person. Reference: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Titles

• Similarly:

"as a Second Lieutenant of Field Artillery"

"ten Officers down to seven, holding the rank of Captain through Lieutenant Colonel."

• For consistency, if we abbreviate one rank, then all should be abbreviated, thus:

"Lieutenant Colonel Mark Keith presided" should be "Lt. Col. Mark Keith presided"

And the same for "Colonel Ann Wright"

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

All valid points. I did not consult the manual of style. I simply capitalized the rank, due to the habits I have as a US Army Officer. As for abbreviating the rank, I would disagree. They should be spelled out in full the first time mentioned, and then abbreviated thereafter. However, I would not belabor the point, if you feel abbreviation is better. As for the entire, article, I am of the mind that it needs a complete and thorough edit. There is a lot of information present but it is sloppily compiled, as it appears the article has been a patchwork affair as the case develops- leading to gaps, choppy reading, and redundancy in some cases. Thoughts? — Andrew 21:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It does need work- there seems to have been a lot of additions and reverts. AP style is to abbreviate (I have had to change my ways as well). I do belive that AP and others have started to capitalize Soldiers. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure about AP, but the U.S. Army now requires Soldiers to be capitalized in any correspondence, similar to the Marine Corps requirement of Marine. I am in agreement to do so, if we can achieve consensus. I am fine with abbreviation, since many of the sources will do so as well, and in the lexicon of written English, these abbreviations are not "foreign." — Andrew 01:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Layout

If I may propose some changes to the organization of this article. I beleive this would present the information in a more logical manner:

• Background
• Iraq
• Charges and hearing
• Court-martial
• Mistrial

Include positions on retrial

• Public response

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "Public Response" should be its own section and come last, since it does not directly describe the subject of the article. Quotes by supporters & detractors that are basically describing their own beliefs & feelings aren't really about the subject, although they may be noteworthy. I will try to make at least that small change --- deleting nothing, just rearranging. rewinn 18:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

See also and External links

• All of the See Also references are already linked in the article, so these are redundant.
• Most of the External links are actually references that should either be worked into the article or deleted. The Manual for Courts-Martial is linked in both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual for Courts-Martial articles.

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

See Also's list of Iraq War Resisters is getting unwieldy so I created List of Iraq War Resisters and added a link. rewinn 04:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeopardy

For the sake of clarity, I separated the objective fact that a new hearing has been set from the controversy over double jeopardy. The former is an indisputed fact; the latter is a controvery for which both sides should be presented (if either side is) in a brief way. I would suggest not devoting too much space to the issue since (a) it would be better to link to double jeopardy and similar resources, and (b) in any event the Army could simply order Watada to join his unit a 2nd time, and try him on that. rewinn 17:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Public reaction section

Ehren Watada was in Seattle on January 27, 2007 giving a speech at the Langston Hughes Center around 3 p.m. pacific time. This article claims he was in D.C. on that day. I don't think so. this unsigned comment on 20:34, 18 February 2007 by 65.249.52.125

I have editted the text to make it more clear that the reference is to Lt. Watada's father, not to Lt. Watada himself. rewinn 22:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Not preferred but proffered

Preferred is wrongly used throughout. Different word, different meaning. It should be corrected ASAP as it just looks awful and discredits the entire article.Gs3 17 May 2007

 Done Neut Nuttinbutter (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

United States Army Rank

The Army's rank is ALWAYS capitalized, and abbreviated to three letters (except Brigadier [BG], Major General [MG], and the frozen rank of General of the Army [GA]), i.e. 1LT Watada (First Lieutenant Watada). Here are some more examples: PVT, PV2, PFC, SPC, CPL, SGT, SSG, SFC, MSG, 1SG, SGM, CSM, SMA, WO1, WO2, WO3, WO4, CW5, 2LT, 1LT, CPT, MAJ, LTC, COL, BG, MG, LTG, GEN, GA.

So, spread the word, it's annoying! preceding unsigned comment by 71.197.191.90 at 04:39, 1 July 2007

I do not doubt that this may be so in Army communications; however, wikipedia is intended for a general audience and does not have the mission of changing English practice. The common abbreviation, e.g. Lt. General, is therefore better, perhaps followed, if an editor prefers, with the official abbreviation in parenthesis (LTG). rewinn 04:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Untrue, it's not only Army Communications. It's complacency on the part of the general public because it's easy to express rank as such. That perpetuates ignorance. Ignorance is unncessary in this case because I have shown readers Army Rank. Additionally, it's disprectful to those who bear military rank. A First Lieutenant of the United States Army is not a cop, and should therefore not be referred to as Lt. People can learn.

1. Let me urge you to get a logon so that you can sign your work. This will make it easier to discuss how to improve this wikipedia article.
2. No disrespect is intended nor shown in using the common English spelling in articles such as this, or Lieutenant Colonel (United States) ("While written as "Lt. Colonel" in orders and signature blocks, as a courtesy, Lieutenant Colonels are addressed as "Colonel" verbally and in the salutation of correspondence."), or in White House press releases: [3] rewinn 06:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why you are giving me an Army Regulation lesson. Thank you, but I am well aware of the Army Command Policy (600-20) and TRADOC Pam 600-4 Chapter 1-13 Paragraph 2, sub-paragraphs C-E, which state that Generals of all rank are referred to as General, Lieutenant Colonels and Colonels, alike, are called Colonel while being adressed, as well as First and Second Lietenants as Lieutenants. Also, these orders and signature blocks you're speaking of... When I used to write signature blocks for the Batallion Commander (A Lieutenant Colonel), I always used either his full rank (depending on the Memo or purpose) or LTC, then, of course, his branch seperated by a comma. I surely hope I wasn't wrong this whole time. By the way, it was a simple request. If abbreviation is going to occur, abbreviate the entire rank, not just a part. Also, the Terminology section of the Wiki Page on LTC's gave no reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garzj019 (talk • contribs)

You are, of course, correct on the regulations. However, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not written just for the military community but for a global community, and the global community will understand Lt. General much more readily than LTG, and Lieutenant General is even clearer. Let's stick with clarity. If you wish to educate folks then follow the full rank with the official abbreviation, e.g. Lieutenant General (LTG). Rklawton 14:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Garzj019: I did not give you a military regulation lesson. I cited a White House press release, and another wikipedia article, to demonstrate that [n]o disrespect is intended nor shown in using the common English spelling . rewinn 03:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Associated Press style is to use abbreviated titles - Lt., Maj., Col., Brig. Gen., Sgt., etc. The military three-letter codes are neither common use nor easily understood by a general audience. FCYTravis 18:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

AP vs. pww.org

I think most people will agree that AP is a more NPOV news sources than http://pww.org and such. PWW.org is proudly partisan (its motto is "We take sides...Yours!") and there's nothing wrong with that, but when it comes to an encyclopedia, AP is a better citation since it's less likely to introduce questions of politics. rewinn 15:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Latest Developments

Does anyone know what's happened in this case? The entry says that the case was put back to October 26th, but that's a month and bit ago now. What's happening about the trial? Darkmind1970 13:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The second trial is being postponed until they rule on his double-jeopardy claim.

If he wins that, it's a partial victory for him in that he wouldn't be doing the time for his crime, but his stated goal of wanting to put the war itself on trial would vanish.

-- Randy2063 19:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No Charges of Desertion.

It appears that the first paragraph contains a serious error. Erhen Watada failed to make shipment, he was present at all times, agreed to alternative duties and was never charged with either desertion or absence without leave. EdEKit (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC) EdEKit

Other US military against the war (prior history)

Louis Font became the first West Point graduate to refuse to serve in a war. Army Special Forces officer Donald Duncan gained brief fame in 1966 when he refused to participate further in "sickening" practices.

Howard Levy, an Army dermatologist, tired of training Green Beret troops to treat Vietnamese children while the U.S. was daily bombing villages and killing untold numbers of civilians. Levy was court-martialed and spent three years in prison. Bnguyen (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)