The following is an editorial written by my brother, Dave, which appeared in the Austin American-Statesman (Austin, TX) on Tuesday, January 23. His comment follows an editorial published in the Monday edition of the paper which basically refers to Lt. Watada as a traitor.
On January 17th, Lt. Col. John Head ruled on a motion in the court martial of Lt. Ehren Watada. Watada refused deployment to Iraq on the grounds that the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) requires military personnel to refuse illegal orders. Watada’s attorneys intended to argue that since the invasion of Iraq is a crime under international law and the UN Charter, Watada was carrying out his duty to refuse an illegal order. Judge Head ruled that "whether the war is lawful" is a political question that cannot be decided by a military court.
In 1945, when the US-led Nuremberg Tribunal began, the jurists turned first to the invasion of Poland by Germany in 1939. The Tribunal found an invasion based on allegations of a threat posed at some future time to be a war crime. This ruling provided the legal foundation for subsequent prosecution and conviction of German officers and officials whose defense was "I was only following orders". Rejection of the defense by the Tribunal led to the requirement that US military personnel follow only lawful orders.
The Nuremberg ruling established the concept of preventive war, as contrasted with preemptive war. The UN Charter makes clear that preemptive war, one in which the threat by another country is clear and immediate, is within the rights of a nation. Preventive war is not.
Lt. Col. Head’s ruling, denying Lt. Watada the ability to lodge his defense on grounds that it is not a matter for a military court, flies in the face of the critical precedents established by the Nuremberg Tribunal; itself a military court.
Another Army Lieutenant stood trial before a military court 36 years ago. Charged with 6 counts of murdering civilians at the massacre in the village of My Lai, Lt. William Calley offered the defense that he had "just been following orders". That court martial rejected his defense, ruling in accordance with UCMJ provisions.
It is clear the Army applied a double standard in the case of Lt. Watada. The invasion of Iraq has not come before an international court. However legal experts from around the world and former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan have condemned it as illegal. Clearly, Lt. Watada had a sound basis for his sincere belief that to follow his deployment orders would be an act in furtherance of a war crime. That the court has denied him the right to argue his innocence at his February 5th court martial on that basis is a travesty of justice, makes a mockery of the rule of law and places all US service personnel at great legal risk.
Lt. Watada did what he has sworn to do and now faces the wrath of the US Army for so doing.
Dave C—
USMC 1967-71
No comments:
Post a Comment