- 5 Dec 2006
- Reaction score
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.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.
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.
articleThe 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.
wikithe 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."
wikiThe 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.
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”
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.
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.
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.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."
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...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.
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.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?