January 5, 2007 at 2:00 pm #20156
First Lieutenant Ehren Watada still refuses Iraq deployment orders, calling the war illegal. A six-year prison term could result. Preliminary hearings are set for Thursday.January 5, 2007 at 2:56 pm #20157
Soldiers do not get to decide when and where to fight. They follow orders. He should never have signed up if he had a problem with that. Too bad, so sad. Go directly to jail.
If he really believes the war is unjust he should be willing to go to jail and encourage others to follow suit. Going to court so that individual soldiers can decide when and where to fight without penalty has no honor and is a disgrace.
He should and will get slapped down. It is the way it is.January 5, 2007 at 4:46 pm #20159January 5, 2007 at 7:51 pm #20161
So I’m saying that a man should keep his word and your saying a man’s word is only as good as his temporal feelings.January 6, 2007 at 10:10 pm #20163
> Soldiers do not get to decide when and where to fight. They follow orders. He should never have signed up if he had a problem with that. >
That’s the general premise, but I think there are limits…
I’m not a military legal expert, but I think that’s the law up to just short of participating in war crimes. And it’s Watanabe’s assertion that the war in Iraq is illegal, by international as well as US law.
On a separate issue – one that might not be bound by law, or perhaps even explicitly spoken – I agree that there is a mutual deal that soldiers put their lives at their superior’s orders and their country’s service, and the superiors have an obligation to lead responsibly. If the reasons put forth to go to war were fabrications by the administration, that breaks the mutual bargain. (Again, I doubt that this 2nd is a point of legality, but put it forth as a moral point.)January 6, 2007 at 11:48 pm #20165
I will add to your post my 2 cents; Most of my family has served including my father; when you join it is crystal clear what is expected & the posssible unexpected hence the code below & the oath that you take with “take one step forward” at the miltary processing center.
dependability,bearing,courage,decisiveness,endurance,enthusiasm,initiative, integrity,judgment,justice,knowledge,unselfishness,loyalty, are all quality’s of what each soldier should exibit. Everyone should be grateful for the sacrifice of the Men & Women that dedicate their time, life & their energy to their Country’s cause.
This really doesn’t relate to iraq, it’s what our loved ones in the service stand for no matter what’s the crisis’ war time or peace time.
6 Articles Code of Conduct
I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.
I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.
If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and to aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.
If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information nor take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them in every way.
When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country or its allies or harmful to their cause.
I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free
I will trust in my God and in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
I am the backbone of the United States Marine Corps, I am a Marine Non-Commissioned Officer. I serve as part of the vital link between my commander (and all officers) and enlisted Marines. I will never forget who I am or what I represent. I will challenge myself to the limit and be ever attentive to duty. I am now, more than ever, committed to excellence in all that I do, so that I can set the proper example for other Marines. I will demand of myself all the energy, knowledge and skills I possess, so that I can instill confidence in those I teach. I will constantly strive to perfect my own skills and to become a good leader. Above all I will be truthful in all I say or do. My integrity shall be impeccable as my appearance. I will be honest with myself, with those under my charge and with my superiors. I pledge to do my best to incorporate all the leadership traits into my character. For such is the heritage I have received from that long, illustrious line of professionals who have worn the bloodstripe so proudly before me. I must give the very best I have for my Marines, my Corps and my Country for though today I instruct and supervise in peace, tomorrow, I may lead in war.
Oath Of A U.S. Marines
Enlisted: I (state your name) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
Almighty Father, whose command is over all and whose love never fails, make me aware of Thy presence and obedient to Thy will. Keep me true to my best self, guarding me against dishonesty in purpose and deed and helping me to live so that I can face my fellow Marines, my loved ones, and Thee without shame or fear. Protect my family.
Give me the will to do the work of a Marine and to accept my share of responsibilities with vigor and enthusiasm. Grant me the courage to be proficient in my daily performance. Keep me loyal and faithful to my superiors and to the duties my Country and the Marine Corps have entrusted to me. Help me to wear my uniform with dignity, and let it remind me daily of the traditions which I must uphold.
If I am inclined to doubt, steady my faith; if I am tempted, make me strong to resist; if I should miss the mark, give me courage to try again.
Guide me with the light of truth and grant me wisdom by which I may understand the answer to my prayer.January 7, 2007 at 1:17 pm #20167
I don’t understand why a soldier’s opinion of the validity of the war is taken in the least bit seriously. Understanding the law is not a trivial matter. Ultimately in the USA, 9 individuals get to decide what is legal and what is not. The amount of education and experience needed to fill this post responsibly is astounding. The position is more of an art form than science.
What legal education and experience does this soldier have? He read a blog on the internet? He heard people chanting?
The best case senario is that he feels the war is illegal and he hired someone compotent to argue for him. He would be lost and incoherent if he had to argue himself in court.
For now the war is legal and is happening. It’d be the same if I tried to stop paying taxes because I thought they were illegal.
And what does international law have to do with a soldiers life? International law is for diplomats and politicians. A soldier swears an oath to fight for his country. Ultimately, a soldiers job is to kill people and break things.
And finally, Joni Mitchell help kill over 43 million people with here anti DDT song. And so I’ll ask a question, “What does a singers opinion of scientific matters have to do with a soldiers opinion of the law?”January 9, 2007 at 4:19 am #20169
1. Gift is a bilateral contract. So is a vow. Societas leonina (where one gets all the benefits, while other all the obligations) is null.
2. No contract is bounding if it is against morality.~
3. Contract exists no more, if the circumstances have changed so much, that the very essential cause of contract is disabled.
4. Roman law applies only for the elite (elite are citizens, subjects of government). It does not apply to slaves(slaves are property of elite). They do not have right of individual will or integrity, and are allowed quasi rights of property and body protection when and until appropriate for elite. Not more then 10% of people is elite.
5. Napoleon code institutionalized calling servants ‘individuals’ and alloted them individual rights. Individual rights were fully subjugated to the collective will of elite. Individual life and property is sacred until it is against ‘public interest’.
In the eternal now, the linear progress becomes cyclical.January 9, 2007 at 2:54 pm #20171
Apart from any details about the person in question, or any other specific situation you could pick at, few basics only apply.
People make agreements between each other. If one party no longer wants to follow the agreement s/he has the right to end it if the other party doesn’t want to make the suggested changes. This is a right, not a priviledge.
“God” bestows rights so people can experience themselves freely and therefore grow. People make up rules and priviledges to control each other out of fear, confusion and desire to dominate (which comes from fear). Free will is our unalienable right.
No one has the right to control the destiny of another person.
Basic Daoism: Non-infringement policy
Because of unresolved psycho-spiritual issues people as a whole have concluded that they can control others if they feel they might be thwarted in their endeavors or harmed in some way by an individual. This is blatantly criminal as well as stupid and sets things up for “pre-emptive strikes.” This is the insanity that the currently playing American legal system (statutory law, commercial law, military law, “color of law,”) is based upon, as opposed to “True Law” which is how it originally was created.
True law says: “If there is no harm, there is no crime.”
Not: “We have the right to stop you from what you are doing or planning to do because we are afraid that somehow it might eventually hurt us.”
From the strict spiritual standpoint there is no justification for trying to control a person’s behavior. It is counter to all that is good in us and disturbs or destroys the natural order, The Way of things. If we do not allow things or people to function as they are determined to function then we are interfering with the natural flow of and creating imbalance. This kind of behavior does not stem from the Heart.
The stated purpose of Inner Alchemy is to transmute whatever in us is not unconditional love. All judgments that one makes toward anyone for anything they seem to be doing should be an indicator to us that we are stuck and need to shift; that we have moved into the vibration of vitimization and have to come back to our senses.
Who would Jesus judge?
In the end, as always, the question to ask about anything we are engaged in is:
Toward an all-inclusive viewpoint, AlexanderJanuary 9, 2007 at 3:59 pm #20173
AA wrote… : “If one party no longer wants to follow the agreement s/he has the right to end it if the other party doesn’t want to make the suggested changes. This is a right, not a privilege.”
There is a big difference between ending an agreement and breaking an agreement. I have the right to end an agreement at any time. However, I do not have the right to break an agreement at any time. When an agreement is broken, there are penalties and consequences. In the case of this soldier, he does not want to end the agreement, he wants to break it.
The idea that it’s OK to break an agreement without penalty or consequence is anathema to western civilization.
AA wrote… “True law says: ‘If there is no harm, there is no crime.'”
What constitutes harm? Not an easy answer if you really ponder the question. A threat may or may not cause harm. If someone kept telling me that they were going to kill me, would that be harm? I might be able to shrug it off, I might not. What if they increase the threat level by walking around me waving a gun while saying they were going to kill me?
It reminds me of the term “peace”. It is such an overused word that many don’t really know what it means. I define peace as the absence of threat and the presence of justice.
So if I am being threatened and there is no actual physical hostility, that is not peace and the situation may be harmful.January 10, 2007 at 12:45 am #20175
Yi Tao, I knew this would not sit well with you.
Please look at the fact that you do not address what I say in your response, though no response is actually necessary or asked for. You do not have the right to tell another what to do. This is a given. “Broken” or “ended,” what’s the difference? The only true (that is, viable) answer to any situation like this is acceptance.
The essential point is that we do not profit from judging this man or anyone else. If fact, we lose when we do so because we feed our ego’s need to dominate what it perceives as a threat, and we keep the duality game going. Why should we care if he wants to change his relationship with anything? Whether it is his newfound moral belief or cowardice or whatever – who cares and why?
Your attitude towards him, which you have displayed before in many other conversations, is one of revenge. You don’t like what he is doing and want to see him punished. But, really, what business is it of yours what he does?
My views were meant to bring thinking on this particular incident into a larger perspective to elucidate what is underneath. I do not want a political discussion.
In a greater light,
AlexanderJanuary 10, 2007 at 11:47 am #20177
I have an agreement that I’ll go to a restaurant once a week, they’ll give me food and I’ll give them money.
I can end the agreement if I stop going. I break the agreement if I eat the food and then decide not to pay. Big difference. Huge difference. One is healthy, the other is cancer.
AA wrote: “You do not have the right to tell another what to do.”
I never said I had this right. However, as a citizen of the USA, I do have the right to expect a volunteer soldier to uphold his oath and not encourage sedition. The idea that a soldier can decide when and where to fight is a dangerous idea. What if we scheduled a war and no one showed up?
I’m not sure why, but you’ve mistaken my desire for justice as a desire for revenge. My goals are for harmony, rather than injury.January 10, 2007 at 1:37 pm #20179January 10, 2007 at 5:49 pm #20181
Yi Tao, I am coming from an entirely different level of thinking about this. One that endeavors to rise above the normal imprisoning kind of thinking which has kept creating the same kind of world at war with itself for several thousand years.
“The idea that a soldier can decide when and where to fight is a dangerous idea.”
Dangerous to who, and why?
What is really dangerous here is the thought that an individual created and given the right and power to think for himself by the Dao should be forced instead to think and act like the rest of the sleepwalking sheep in the world or be bar-b-qued for being different.
You are not addressing my points and I think it is because they are too threatening to you. You are advocating the right to force people to do what they do not want to do and you are calling it “justice.” Justice is what people want when they are not willing to take responsibility for having created the experience they are complaining about. There is no need for justice.
That soldier is a reflection for the entire country to look at. He represents something going on in the national psyche. And just like with anything going on in the individual psyche, if you try to control it rather than to embrace it, you lose in the end because the energy has to go somewhere and it will keep coming up in different forms until it is accepted and allowed to mature and integrate. He represents something in us that wants to change our lives. If you lay a stupid rule on him you lay it on your own future.
The proper thing to do in this specific situation is for those around him to say, “OK.” But they do not want to do that because of what that will mean. It will mean that they give up. It will be their resignation. It will be the end of their job.
I asked you why you care about what he does and you do not answer except to ask-
“What if we scheduled a war and no one showed up?”
Are you kidding? This is exactly what many people want. A world in which, when the few decide to go to war for profit and control (which is the predominant motive all the time), most everyone else says, “No.” Suddenly, there is no war anymore.
“I’m not sure why, but you’ve mistaken my desire for justice as a desire for revenge. My goals are for harmony, rather than injury.”
You cannot have harmony as long as you’re willing to force people to do what they do not want to do. When you “expect” that people will do something and they don’t, how many positive choices do you have as far as healthy action goes?
You want to maintain a status quo system in which people follow rules and everything is kept tidy but in which no one is free to move otherwise. This creates a false feeling of security and limits growth. It is the illusion which has kept this country from being what it set out to be originally. It is based on fear of trusting that if everything is left alone everything will be alright. Life balances itself. Our primitive survival fears call for us to try to control what we think will hurt us. Daoism offers the alternative belief that if we align with the natural way and develop our connection with the source a harmonious world will result.
It is my opinion that we are now at the point on earth, all of us, where this kind of thinking (unity consciousness)is inevitable, is being instilled into the field now for over twenty years, and which no longer allows the dinosaur thinking of separation, fear and control to rule us. That is why we are seeing so much old hidden stuff becoming apparent now. Coversion is not allowed in a free world. Fear, hording and controlling are being replaced by openness, sharing, and cooperation. It is because of my intention to support the growth of such a world that I put out the statements I have.
I think it is time for us to grow up.
Blessings, AlexanderJanuary 10, 2007 at 8:03 pm #20183
AA wrote “You are advocating the right to force people to do what they do not want to do and you are calling it ‘justice.'”
You don’t get it. He volunteered. He signed a document. He signed away part of his liberty. He knew what he was getting. The military invests time and money in training and they require a multi-year commitment. I’m not forcing him to do anything, he forced himself. Even after he’s finished with his multi-year commitment, the military can still call him back to active duty if they need his services. It’s right there in the contract he signed. I’m not sure why you’re ignoring his responsibility for creating his own reality.
Just like ending a contract is different than breaking a contract, a libertarian is different than an anarchist.
I’m a libertarian. I think people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they are not harming others. But for some reason you don’t understand that breaking a contract does cause harm.
I’m not sure what I’m ignoring in your posts? If you can sum it up in a simple statement or question, I’d appreciate it.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.