What's new

Japanese-American is first officer to refuse to go to Iraq

Welcome to our Japan community!

A discussion forum for all Things Japanese. Join Today! It is fast, simple, and FREE!

Register Log in
looks like that answers a lot of questions; interesting that the ones who mention his ethnicity refer to him as Hawaiian, and not Japanese. Also, it seems that he is willing to accept his punishment, which makes seeking asylum a moot point.
 
nice gaijin said:
looks like that answers a lot of questions; interesting that the ones who mention his ethnicity refer to him as Hawaiian, and not Japanese. Also, it seems that he is willing to accept his punishment, which makes seeking asylum a moot point.
Click to expand...
No, I want to tell him to take up Japanese nationality. I want to convince him that this is a good idea. To this effect, I even opened up an account on Hawaiiforums, and told them about this idea. I want them to come here and join us on the discussion. People such as Craigwatanabe, 1stwhinie, Miulang, and the whole entire gang, on that forum. I want to just talk to him about it. It is more about the child having a father. The baby deserves a father that is there, be it in Canada or in Japan. I only say Japan because it would be the easiest for him to get under political problems. I would be just as happy to see him get a Swiss passport, but that would be too hard for him at this point.
 
hmmm...if I break the law as a US citizen, can I get an Irish passport, a Danish passport, a German Passport...that's my heritage. I am an American, right or wrong, not just when it's convenient for me.
 
Goldiegirl said:
hmmm...if I break the law as a US citizen, can I get an Irish passport, a Danish passport, a German Passport...that's my heritage. I am an American, right or wrong, not just when it's convenient for me.
Click to expand...

That is true. But Japanese law is to offer nationality via Lex Sangulis, not Lex Soil. Not all countries practice Lex Sangulis, so every country has its own individual policies. In some cases, yes you can. In Watadasan's case, it would be possible. I am not talking morally, or should or ought to be or not to be able to, I am saying he can legally do it.
 
bexchurnside-
The site
Thank You Life & Travel - Travel. Love. Life. Grattitude.
I believe is run by Lt Erin Watada's mother.



Military personal take an oath to defend the constitution and actually have a legal obligation to refuse illegal orders. Not just 'follow orders'.
By refusing to follow illegal orders he is actually obeying international, US, and military law.



The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.
Click to expand...
article
 
please let me know when the us's invasion of iraq was found to be illegal? I would be interested to know. Maybe I missed that on tv or the internet. Sure I have heard opinions but as of yet, please let me know in what court this situation has been tried in?
 
People are indeed innocent until found guilty in a court of law.


acts such as genocide or a wars of aggression are illegal.

wars of aggression
the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg following World War II,... called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
Click to expand...
wiki


preventive war is by definition a war of aggression:

The concepts of preventive war and preemptive war differ only in the certainty of an attack ﾂ―the latter concerns an imminent attack, while the former requires no military provocation. The rationale for preventive war is the claimed prevention of a possible future attack, which international law considered to be indistinguishable from a forbidden war of aggression.
Click to expand...
wiki


The Bush adminstration attacked Iraq on the grounds of the claim that they had WMD and might one day attack the US.
This was not preemptive, but preventive.


It is like,
is stabbing someone illegal?
yes.
is preventive war illegal?
yes.

It is Bush & Co as people who are legally innocent until found guilty before a court of law.
The court of public opinion.
The more people realize they conducted an illegal war....
the more will support impeachment and/or war crimes tribunals.

It is just observation that tells us the war is illegal.
 
You are anti-war and that's great, I would defend your rights to feel that way even if it meant war.

Hmmm...anyway...I don't need definitions spent enough time in University with a Poli Sci degree...minor in History...

I think if someone has a knife and swings it at me I would like for someone to stop it before it stabs me. Is that not preventive?

Anyway, as much as I don't like the war in Iraq, I don't believe that when you sign up in the military you get to pick and choose what war you will or won't fight in. Armed forces are armed for a reason...it's not to make friends.
 
You're pro-war and that's great.
ha. just kidding.....just kidding.

Iraq did not, nor was imminently about to attack the US.
Thus it was not preemptive.

The administration attacked Iraq on the theory that they might someday in the future attack the US (with presum... claimed, fabricated words of WMDs)


Going on the basis that Iraq is an illegal war, no soldier has an obligation to obey any order to fight in it. In fact might even have a legal obligation not to. Since soldiers have a legal obligation to disobey illegal orders. They are not legally obligated to "just follow orders". (I am not a lawyer, so do not listen to me. objector.org - objector Resources and Information. GIRIghts hotline for such free advice)

Ah, circles....

If you don't like the war in Iraq why do believe US soldiers should be there, "not make friends", and kill people who are not their/our enemy?
 
Hmm...I don't see it as illegal, at least not yet. I don't like it. I took my opinions to the election booth and I think that my votes made a difference. Look at the balance of Republicans/Democrats. I guess I'll see more after the new year. I do believe the Iraq did have some weapons of mass destruction, but they were used on the Kurds.
 
No imminent threat? No UN Sanction? If that is true, then the invasion would be an illegal act of agression.
 
It isn't really necessary for a court to declare it illegal, for it to be illegal...but if you must have one - how about The World Tribunal on Iraq which was held in Istanbul in June 2005.

Modelled on Bertrand Russell’s tribunal on the US invasion of Vietnam, the tribunal consisted of hearings into numerous aspects of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. A jury of conscience from ten different countries listened to the testimony of 54 advocates. This jury declared the war one of the most unjust in history:

ﾂ“The Bush and Blair administrations blatantly ignored the massive opposition to the war expressed by millions of people around the world. They embarked upon one of the most unjust, immoral, and cowardly wars in history. The Anglo-American occupation of Iraq of the last 27 months has led to the destruction and devastation of the Iraqi state and society.

Law and order have broken down completely, resulting in a pervasive lack of human security; the physical infrastructure is in shambles; the health care delivery system is a mess; the education system has ceased to function; there is massive environmental and ecological devastation; and, the cultural and archeological heritage of the Iraqi people has been desecrated.ﾂ”
Click to expand...

(World Tribunal on Iraq, ﾂ‘Press Release about Jury Statement,' June 27, 2005)

The jury presented 13 findings against the US and UK governments that included:

* Planning, preparing, and waging the supreme crime of a war of aggression in contravention of the United Nations Charter and the Nuremberg Principles.
* Targeting the civilian population of Iraq and civilian infrastructure.
* Using disproportionate force and indiscriminate weapon systems.
* Failing to safeguard the lives of civilians during military activities and during the occupation period thereafter.
* Using deadly violence against peaceful protestors.

The jury also levelled charges against the security council of the United Nations for ﾂ“failing to stop war crimes amongst other crimesﾂ”. It also charged ﾂ“private corporations for profiting from the warﾂ” and accused the corporate media of ﾂ“disseminating deliberate falsehoods and failing to report atrocitiesﾂ”. (ibid.)

Seeing as the result was so damning - you probably wouldn't have come across this court on the news in the US or UK. It would be uncomfortable viewing/reading.
 
I think it would be obvious that the US will never be able to have a fair trial as most countries hate us...but when there is a natural disaster or money is needed we are the first they come to. It's frustrating. I will also say I have no use for the UN. It's as useless as the League of Nations was. As for anything the Middle East says about the US I truly could care less. Sorry, but that's honesty for ya. Back to Watada, let him get his day in court as well, thank God he is in America...I wonder what would have happened to him if he refused to gas the Kurds in Iraq had he been in their army?
 
But Goldie it was quite literally a fair trial. From all over the world respected diplomats, academicians, reporters and human rights lawyers came together with international experts from various fields. There was no anti-US rhetoric. It was simply a court of law. The UK, the US, the UN and private corporations were all accused. Don't forget that it isn't only the US.

http://www.worldtribunal.org/main/?b=1

And to answer your question - well - yes I think we all know what would happen to him if he were an Iraqi soldier but....I wonder if he would have noticed the 'made in America' or 'made in Britain' sticker under the gas bomb in his hand!!!?
 
I don't believe in world tribunals, the un or any other group...means nothing to me. As for Americans not agreeing with the war...I think I have written this a few times...I don't like it. My point is I don't care if Watada is Japanese heritage, African Heritage, Chinese, Mexican, Irish, it wasn't his choice to decided where he wanted to go to war. When you join the military you go where you are sent...voila...that's it. My family has been in the military and in every war since WW1 and they did the duty that they were signed up for.
 
Goldiegirl said:
I don't believe in world tribunals, the un or any other group...means nothing to me. As for Americans not agreeing with the war...I think I have written this a few times...I don't like it. My point is I don't care if Watada is Japanese heritage, African Heritage, Chinese, Mexican, Irish, it wasn't his choice to decided where he wanted to go to war. When you join the military you go where you are sent...voila...that's it. My family has been in the military and in every war since WW1 and they did the duty that they were signed up for.
Click to expand...


I don't mean to sound like a jerk (although if it is definately known to about to happen, it is by definition not unintentional - like so-callled "collateral damage"), anyway,

when people sign up for the military, regardless of ethnic, cultural, or religious background, they have a duty, they take an oath to preserve and protect the us AND its constitution and obey legal orders. For example if one were ordered to shoot down a group of unarmed children who are playing hop scotch, it is clear that that would be an illegal order. That's the more obvious since children are more commonly in our minds than things like the constitution, military law, or international law (which we are constitutionally bound by, btw. Article VI "and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;"


In these matters of war is that of command responsibility.
Those that make war or torture (illegal under any circumstance via the Treaty prohibiting Torture) policy have primary responsibility.

I'm guessing Lt Watada is willing to do prison time to stand up for what is right. That is a part of civil disobedience. If one breaks a law they believe unjust, they generally do their time anyway.
Likewise, if a president, especially those with power, say Bill Clinton were to break a law he believed unjust he should too be held accountable.
For wars and crimes against humanity we can just act conservatively with pre-existing laws.

There were flaws in after WW2 causing many to claim there was "victor's justice", which of course isn't really justice but more like retribution, but Nuremburg set the standard. Perhaps Saddam Hussein should not be put on trial for gassing Kurds or Iranians (and perhaps US officials should not be held accountable for aiding and abetting)? I disagree and instead agree with Bush, "By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder." -George W Bush, September 20, 2001

Or maybe the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, for Milosovic. That trial should keep going forward as well. If it is left dead as Milosovic than we can be certain it really was nothing more than a show-trial after all.

Watada is willing to suffer the consequences for breaking the law, why shouldn't someone like Bush? It might be embarrassing for us to have such
criminals for a rulers, but if we are a nation of laws?


i don't mean to sound like a jerk,
but "doing one's duty" doesn't mean "just following orders".
That got the people like the Germans in big trouble.
 
Sukotto said:
I don't mean to sound like a jerk (although if it is definately known to about to happen, it is by definition not unintentional - like so-callled "collateral damage"), anyway,
when people sign up for the military, regardless of ethnic, cultural, or religious background, they have a duty, they take an oath to preserve and protect the us AND its constitution and obey legal orders. For example if one were ordered to shoot down a group of unarmed children who are playing hop scotch, it is clear that that would be an illegal order. That's the more obvious since children are more commonly in our minds than things like the constitution, military law, or international law (which we are constitutionally bound by, btw. Article VI "and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;"
In these matters of war is that of command responsibility.
Those that make war or torture (illegal under any circumstance via the Treaty prohibiting Torture) policy have primary responsibility.
I'm guessing Lt Watada is willing to do prison time to stand up for what is right. That is a part of civil disobedience. If one breaks a law they believe unjust, they generally do their time anyway.
Likewise, if a president, especially those with power, say Bill Clinton were to break a law he believed unjust he should too be held accountable.
For wars and crimes against humanity we can just act conservatively with pre-existing laws.
There were flaws in after WW2 causing many to claim there was "victor's justice", which of course isn't really justice but more like retribution, but Nuremburg set the standard. Perhaps Saddam Hussein should not be put on trial for gassing Kurds or Iranians (and perhaps US officials should not be held accountable for aiding and abetting)? I disagree and instead agree with Bush, "By aiding and abetting murder, the Taliban regime is committing murder." -George W Bush, September 20, 2001
Or maybe the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, for Milosovic. That trial should keep going forward as well. If it is left dead as Milosovic than we can be certain it really was nothing more than a show-trial after all.
Watada is willing to suffer the consequences for breaking the law, why shouldn't someone like Bush? It might be embarrassing for us to have such
criminals for a rulers, but if we are a nation of laws?
i don't mean to sound like a jerk,
but "doing one's duty" doesn't mean "just following orders".
That got the people like the Germans in big trouble.
Click to expand...

Yes, Bush should be put to trial. I was shocked how oblivious you folks here were in not seeing that Watada might want to take Japanese citizenship. This idea, I will admit comes from an actuality of some Japanese high ranking individual who was not a military officer, but taking the highest position in the country, called President. Guess who? You guessed it, Alberto Kenya Fujimori, the Peruvian President who ran from 1990-2000. He left Peru in 2000and fled to Japan getting a Japanese citizenship. Like Watada, he too was oversea born. As you can see in Fujimori case, Japan was reluctant to even etradite a former president of their nation, there is no discussion that an officer of such junior rank, whose actions killed no one, would be in danger of extradition if he became Japanese.

So folks, if watada did become from a republican perspective, a coward, he wont be the first Japanese to become one. Fujimori's case would dwarf Watada.

I know that if Watada tried to become English, even if successful both England, and Canada (and all commonwealth nations) would co-operate with the United States.
 
wikipedia said:
At the time of these initial charges, Lt. Watada faced the possibility of a court-martial and up to seven years in prison as well as a dismissal if convicted. About this eventuality, Watada says that he does not regret his decision and is willing to face the consequences, citing it as what he believes is a moral responsibility: "When you are looking your children in the eye in the future, or when you are at the end of your life, you want to look back on your life and know that at a very important moment, when I had the opportunity to make the right decisions, I did so, even knowing there were negative consequences."
Click to expand...
As it stands, Watada is standing up for what he believes in, and is willing to accept the consequences for it. I do not think that he would accept your 'option' even if it were presented to him. I'm not sure why you think this is such a great idea.

furthermore, after perusing the wiki article on Fujimori, I noticed this paragraph about his exile in Japan:
wikipedia said:
After submitting his resignation initially by fax and later in hard copy, Fujimori remained in self-imposed exile in Japan, where his citizenship as foreign-born Japanese was confirmed because his parents had registered him with the Japanese consular authorities in Peru as an infant, and he had not given it up under the 1985 citizenship law revision. Several senior Japanese politicians have supported Fujimori, partly because of what they consider his decisive action in ending the 1997 Japanese embassy hostage crisis.
Click to expand...
Note the part in bold. Fujimori was not granted citizenship when he fled to Japan, he already held it. I have found no mention of Watada holding any passport other than his American one. So it seems that he couldn't run to Japan even if he wanted to. Also, if you note the last sentence in the quote, Fujimora was an influencial man, with influencial people on his side. In all actuality, Watada is a nobody, and while there might have been some Japanese figures 5 years ago willing to support a Peruvian political figure in self-imposed exile (also please note that Fujimori was still arrested and is currently awaiting the ruling of an extradition hearing in Chile), I don't think there are too many who are going to stick their neck out to aid someone who would essentially be a fugitive from Japan's biggest ally...
 
If Fujimori didn't leave Japan to go to Chilie in the first place, he would have never gotten arrested. Lt. Watada could still get his citizenship. It is just that it takes more paperwork to do so. Doing it this way, he would have to lose is US citizenship, however, and not necessarily have the luxury of being a dual national.

There will be a time for Lt. Watada to as the marines wearing their proud Eagle, Globe and Anchor, to "Bug Out!"

Also, if they are willing to give David Arwinkle (Adrudo Debito) Japanese citizenship being fully gaijin, someone with Japanese ancestry should be given his citizenship.
 
Watada could also join the French Foreign Legion and become a Frenchmen. Kepi Blanc. But then, he would have to become an enlisted man. Having a former commissioned officer will make him more competent than some junior corporal or a sergeant.
 
Again, Watada is not trying to run from his country. He did his homework and made his decision knowing full well that it would land him a court martial. Why are you so adamant that he should be so willing to give up his own citizenship and nationality and flee to another country?
 
Because if things get rough and if his life is going to be in danger, seeking exile is the right thing to do? Do you really believe that he would go so far as to make himself a martyr for this cause? Do you really nice gaijin think that if he had a choice of being free in Japan to live his whole life with a fresh start vs. dying but having people believe that the US is corrupt? Do you really believe he has the same courage with an american upbringing? Because nice gaijin, you are telling me that Watada would be willing to become a Kamikaze pilot to get his cause right now. I don't think a third generation Japanese-American would carry that kind of sentiment over 3 genertions being raised in the USA! I actually doubt that even modern Japanese would have enough honour to become a Kamikaze pilot today after McArthianism arrived to Japan. Nice Gaijin, I have not been to Japan before, but I am a fiance to a westernized Japanese, and I know that he said to me that as a Canadian, he would cover his *** if the **** hits the fan! His parents even told me that Kamikaze and Japanese pride days are long over!

After Watada does his thing, why would it be wrong to seek exile, after he gets his message across? It is normal for anyone to chose life over death.
 
nice gaijin said:
Again, Watada is not trying to run from his country. He did his homework and made his decision knowing full well that it would land him a court martial. Why are you so adamant that he should be so willing to give up his own citizenship and nationality and flee to another country?
Click to expand...
I want to tell you that I would not die for England or Canada myself. You know Nice gaijin, it may be that my fiance's pespective is coloured by the fact that he is Canadian. (And I am aware that Americans think Canadians are cowards too). I am amazed that Canada doesn't have a union jack on the corner of its flag especially when Canada never rebelled against the British, and have been "Semper Fi" to the Crown! New Zeland, Australia, still have it, as England is still all Canadian's grandmother.

But even in all this, let's say something got tough politically, and hypothetically, if I had to become American and renounce being English to live a life of safety, I would do so in an instant! I am sure that you Americans would come crying back to the crown when the **** hits the fan! Americans even being proud of their declaration of independence, still would come crying back to the Commonwealth when some draft comes in, so I would give Watada a break if he choses to do the same except he is chosing Japan. It is the same logic, as many Americans who fled up north during Vietnam War? They cried back to Grandma! Wanted to declare interdependence instead of independence!
 

Similar threads

engalaa
  • Poll
Is it time for US Force to leave Japan?
17 18 19
Replies
459
Views
77K
Kreator san
K
W
Why do only few Japanese men go for Western women?
2 3
Replies
66
Views
93K
think_too_mut
think_too_mut
Pachipro
Japanese Housewives Flock To Thailand for Sex
Replies
19
Views
60K
Azuma_Fujin
Azuma_Fujin
C
Notion of ALL LOOK SAME (ALLLOOKSAME.com). Is it really true?
6 7 8
Replies
196
Views
161K
Trollhattan
Trollhattan
Astroboy
Japanese SDF not to go to Afghanistan
2 3 4
Replies
83
Views
26K
Hezam
Hezam
Back
Top Bottom