Watada has said that under the US constitution he has the right to refuse an illegal order

[NNN0LHI]

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iqi-bL48Kgmp9XkZpj86EwIqH0IA

US judge blocks second court martial for Iraq war objector
9 hours ago

TACOMA, United States (AFP) — A federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked a second court martial for a US military officer who openly refused to go to war in Iraq.

Judge Benjamin Settle issued a preliminary injunction saying a second court martial for First Lieutenant Ehren Watada might violate his constitutional rights to avoid legal double jeopardy, or being tried for the same crime twice. snip

Watanda, who has accused President George W. Bush of betraying the public trust, refused to deploy with his unit to Iraq because he argued the war was illegal and immoral. He said taking part would make him a "party to war crimes."

Although the US military says a soldier must respect the chain of command and cannot choose which war to fight in, Watada has said that under the US constitution he has the right to refuse an illegal order.

[WGS]

1. Poor guy

has been through hell already, I hope he wins out on this.I am sure the chimpster has already put out the word that he wants a conviction......

[MrCoffee]

2. that's an interesting argument...i have no idea what it is, but it's interesting

anyone have any idea which Article and Section of the Constitution allows a military officer to refuse an illegal order? What's an "illegal" order, anyway?

[Annces]

9. Maybe he means Geneva Convention

Torture is illegal even if you are ordered to do it.

[MrCoffee]

10. he wasn't asked to interrogate anyone, just to deploy to Iraq

[VenusRising]

3. I hope the judge's ruling sticks.

Lt. Watada has been through enough. He knew his rights and stood up for them. He is a true patriot.

:patriot:

[Ganja Ninja]

4. And he has the same right under the UCMJ.

The catch is that you aren't allowed to decide if an order is illegal or not.

[MrCoffee]

5. the UCMJ allows a subordinate officer to refuse an order?

i had no idea.

[Squatch]

7. If such an order is unlawful, then yes.

From the Manual for Courts Martial:

"An order requiring the performance of a military duty or act may be inferred to be lawful and it is disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate. This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime."

[Squatch]

6. Actually, you are.

But, then you'll probably wind up in a Court Martial defending that decision if it's at odds with the command issued.

[Zywiec]

8. What was the order he refused?

I would like to know more about his defense other than the war is illegal.

[MrCoffee]

11. he was ordered to deploy to Iraq, and refused

[Zywiec]

12. Not sure what's illegal about being ordered to deploy to Iraq

I could understand if when he got there he was ordered to fire on civilians, but simply being ordered to go somewhere is not a violation of the law of war.

[Squatch]

13. His defense is tenuous, at best, in my non-lawyer opinion.

He didn't want to go to war to be "party to war crimes". Well, then don't commit war crimes, asshole.

So far as I can determine, our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have not been deemed illegal by any international, multi-national, or domestic court.

[MrCoffee]

14. that's why i'm really confused about his defense

i haven't memorized the UCMJ, but i'm fairly sure that it does not permit a 1st Lt. to refuse a deployment order because of a question of the legality of a war.

i know Constitutional law pretty well, and his claim that he has a constitutional right to refuse an illegal order don't make no kind of sense.

[NNN0LHI]

15. War crimes are being committed in Iraq every day the USA is there

I would consider people who assisted in this odious occupation to be exposing themselves to future charges. Especially for an officer like Watanda. Officers should know better. This one does.

Don

[ljm2002]

16. Under the precedents laid down at Nuremberg...

...he not only has the right, he has the obligation not to obey an illegal order.

Remember, for the Nazi war criminals, "I was just following orders" was not considered a valid defense.

So a soldier who is ordered to commit a war crime MUST refuse.

And participating in an illegal invasion and occupation is ipso facto a war crime.

Well that's my take, anyway. I'm sure there are a lot of judges, lawyers and military brass who would disagree. :-)