Washblog

From the outset of Lt. Watada's refusal to deploy to Iraq, he has claimed that his decision was based on his determination that the invasion of that country by the United States was an illegal "Act of Aggression". He based his decision on his understanding of Army regulations and this country's obligations under the UN Charter. It has been the intention of Watada's defense team to call witnesses and admit documents that would help define this position. In his ruling, the military judge - Lt. Col. John Head - has determined that, ""whether the war is lawful" is a political question that could not be judged in a military court."

A political question? Perhaps if the accused were allowed to present his defense, the judge might find that, to the contrary, whether a war is deemed legal or illegal is specifically an issue for a court to decide. We only need to turn back to the Gulf War of 1991 to be reminded that the coalition that acted against Iraq did so because Iraq had committed an "Act of Aggression" against the country of Kuwait and, in so doing, violated the UN Charter prohibiting such acts. Obviously the Nuremberg Trials stand out as the prime example of a court defining legal orders versus illegal orders. To deny Lt. Watada the opportunity to defend his decision to refuse deployment based on legal precedent simply flies in the face of reason and, worse, sends the signal to others who would be wrestling with the same decision that "I was only following orders" is a sufficient defense if you are the United States.

Lt. Ehren Watada's court-martial is scheduled at Fort Lewis on February 5th.  The Citizens' Hearing on the Legality of US Actions in Iraq  will take place at the Evergreen State College Tacoma Campus on January 20th and 21st.

Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue