Deserter Ehren Watada - Expose The Truth

It looks like the Hollywood Left is circling the wagons around a deserter who looks more like a set up than the real thing.

The 28-year-old Hawaii-born officer and Kalani High School graduate is being tried in refusing to accept his deployment orders to Iraq this past June. The charges include conduct unbecoming an officer.

I blogged on Watada's Father here - did peace activist Dad influence his son - who claims he'll go to afghanistan, but not Iraq. Riight. He'd last a real long time over there. He'll be safer locked up for the next few years.

I am a RPCV 1964 Peru. Last year I visited Peru twice and wherever I went, friends, relatives, and people of all walks of life expressed disgust with "Bushy" and it was impossible to disagree. Their perception of the USA is like a "Rambo".

See Gateway Pundit for updates to this story from today.

Comments

[Zifnab]

Zifnab - I don't mind if you excerpt or explain and link - but I'd appreciate co-operation in not posting whole wiki entries, etc. It's the Internet - Link! Thanks.

[The Liberal Avenger]

Is "deserter" the proper word for him? He has reported to his CO and is on base. Refusing to follow an order is something emtirely different than deserting.

[Legalize]

Of course "deserter" isn't the accurate term. Consider the source of its use.

[V the K]

Is "deserter" the proper word for him?

It's much more polite than "coward," "pussywillow," or "hippie."

[91B30]

His court martial started today, so probably by the end of the week he will be on his way to Kansas for the next six years. I wonder whether his lefty pals will remember him when he gets out. He joined up after the war in Iraq started "you take up the King's coin and you does his bidding".

[Kite]

Desertion? no no no. Insubordination? yes.

Someone needs to tell the poor idiot that the military isn't there for a free ride to college and fun in the sun on some base in Hawaii. Sometimes you gotta get your hands dirty. What he needs to do is suck it up and go play in the sand :P

[seekeronos]

Article 92 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) covers the more generic issue of disobeying a lawful order or regulation. Depending upon whether or not he failed to report for a deployment (troop movement) he might also face prosecution under Article 87 "Missed Movement". That generally seems to be more equivalent to an offense along the lines of incurring an additional cost to the government to transport him to the field of duty.

More likely, he might also be found guilty under Article 86 "Absent without leave", if he failed to report for his deployment.

Desertion, covered under Article 85, is established when the servicemember disappears for a considerable length of time (with the intent to permamently evade military service). Since Desertion carries a considerably more harsh penalty than AWOL, current military law tends to be lenient to those servicemembers who return to duty (or show intent to return) within anywhere from 30 days to ten years.

Of course, deserting a combat station or compounding the desertion with particularly contemptible conduct may disincline the Court-Martial to be merciful (especially during declared hostilities/war).

Since Lt. Watada has not suddenly departed his station, chargin him under Article 85 would not be sound. He might face a "Big Chicken Dinner" (Bad Conduct Discharge) at worst, under Articles 86 and 92, or with reduction in pay and confinement to quarters in a better case. Time at Laevenworth would likely be ruled out if he shows signs of complying with future commands.

Of course, were he an NCO or a junior enlisted, he would probably get a worse deal, with time at Leavenworth and reduction to E1 Private. For an officer to get jail time, he REALLY has to go out of his way and do something stupid like rape or murder... or actual wartime desertion.

[seekeronos]

Looks like Lt. Watada is getting a mistrial for the Article 92 charge "refusal to obey a lawful order".

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/07/war.objector.ap/index.html

It seems that the prosecuters had him sign some documents where he admitted to not deploying, and admitting to that he had a duty to deploy.

That he said "had a duty to deploy" is under dispute, and the court-martial has declared a mistrial.

The defense will file for a dismissal of charges (with prejudice) to avoid a double-jeopardy trial if one is sought, since he still has open charges pending under Article 87 "Missing Movement", and "Conduct unbecoming..." for comments alledgedly made against the Army, the President, and the case.

Gonna be interesting to see how this works out, especially since he is an officer. Typically, the Army is very unfriendly toward personnel who rock the boat too hard... especially if they bring forth evidence that Lt. Watada accused the Army of war crimes or denouncd the CinC (Bush), and moreso if they try to come off as "anti-heroes". I am sure "Mama Surrender Sheehan" and her ilk are going to be all over this like maggots in an overfilled garbage bin in July.

[Sgt.York]

I don't understand why the Dems are using Watada as their anti-war poster boy. He isn't a Conscientions Objector and he didn't file for CO-status. Rather, he is claiming that the Iraq war - in his non-legal opinion - isn't a legal war based on his personal understanding.

Guys who have been re-called to duty after their discharge have reported and been deployed while at the same time hiring lawyers to fight for their cause back in the states. Seems to me Watada should have take the same course of action. Also there are REAL Conscientions Objectors who properly filed for CO-status and were denied; but nobody is fighting for their cause. Seems to me since the USA is engaged in foreign occupation and nation building rather than actually defending the USA that those who file for CO-status should be given the benefit of the doubt (of course, this doesn't apply to Watada).

==================