Text 12871, 97 rader
Skriven 2007-03-04 11:07:42 av Rob Perkins (16314.babylon5)
     Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: Interesting story to follow for B5 fans
===================================================
On 3/3/07 11:26 PM, in article
1172993168.689602.324990@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com, "Matthew Vincent"
<mbvincent@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

> On Feb 10, 4:58 am, "Lance Corporal \"Hammer\" Schultz"
> <starf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 7 Feb 2007 22:08:02 -0800, Bill wrote:
>> 
>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17032609/?GT1=9033
>> 
>> Others have already commented on the absurdity of
>> calling it an "illegal war,"
> 
> "Absurdity" is too strong a claim.

No, it really isn't. However foolish the actual invasion turned out to be,
the Bush Administration acted within the framework of the War Powers Act. To
say otherwise after all this time, and all the analysis that has gone into
it, really is absurd.

Further, I think the judge really is correct about considering that question
out of order for a military court. Having a court which is subservient to
the President's war powers declare a war illegal makes hash of certain
constitutional separation of powers issues.

But for my money, if it really was Lt. Watada's conscientious belief that
the war was an illegal military action, then his behavior in refusing to
move was consistent with the conduct of an officer. But I don't think that's
what the Army meant when they charged him with it. I recall that it had
something to do with stuff he said at an anti-war rally. I don't know if he
was in uniform or not, but that might not make a difference to the Army;
I've been told before not to say certain things while in uniform, for
example, since press reporters treat uniformed military officers as
spokespeople. 

> 
>> but what interests me is that this story doesn't give
>> me enough information.

The other articles in the sidebar intimate negotiations between Watada and
military prosecutors *before* he went public. The Lt. even went so far as to
declare the punishment by which he would "go quietly": dishonorable
discharge, or six months imprisonment. According to one of the articles the
government refused that deal.

>> For example, how long has he been in the
>> military?  When did he join? Etc, etc.
> 
> These issues are not relevant material facts, and in fact would be the
> sort of thing that could prejudice a jury.

Quite to the contrary, information like that is usually presented as
evidence before every jury. (The jury I served on was thick with that sort
of information.) It permits the accused's own context a day in court.

> However, I do agree that
> there's some more information that it'd be nice to have. The main
> thing I'd like to know is what the consequence is if he's found guilty
> of this supposed crime.

It's the equivalent of a criminal case, but it is subject to automatic
review by civilian judges if the sentence is more than a year of
imprisonment. 

> Now, there are several material facts in this case that I think should
> be noted. Firstly, it reads as though the soldier was at home in the
> US when he refused deployment, rather than already engaged in a
> current mission or project, so this situation doesn't sound comparable
> to a lighthouse operator suddenly quitting.

Incorrect, I think. He was with his unit. The training builds esprit de
corps and gets a unit used to its commander, which in turn improves
efficiency and effectiveness. If you lose that commander, the lives of the
troops under him are in greater danger. So the analogue with a lighthouse
operator is not entirely inappropriate.

> Secondly, the Bush
> Administration have told numerous lies to the US public and the world
> in order to fraudulently present a case for the Iraq war.

Irrelevant. The President has the authority to move the Army for any reason,
including a bad one. Democratic and Republican Presidents have both asserted
that right. The tools used to sway public opinion are not directly relevant.

> For another thing, if a war is truly necessary in self-defence or
> otherwise for a good cause, then why would a government need to
> *force* anyone to fight in it?

We don't have a conscription draft in the United States. Arguably, Watada's
disposition was considered settled by the Army when he signed his commission
contract, for eight years of service. The perspective of the U.S. Military
is generally that the volunteering and conscience-wringing is done, when the
contract is signed.

Rob
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)