Officer on Trial for Refusing Iraq

Officer on trial for refusing Iraq Army says lieutenant disgraced the service; lawyer says client acted in good conscience

Associated Press

February 7, 2007

FORT LEWIS, Wash. -- An Army lieutenant who refused to deploy to Iraq because he considers the war illegal abandoned his soldiers and disgraced himself and the service, prosecutors said yesterday at his court-martial.

A lawyer for 1st Lt. Ehren Watada argued that his client was acting in good conscience, based on his understanding of the war and military law. "At most, he engaged in an act or form of civil disobedience," defense attorney Eric Seitz said in opening remarks. "No way does that add up to conduct unbecoming an officer."

The military accuses Watada, 28, of Honolulu, of refusing to ship out with his unit and of conduct unbecoming an officer for accusing the Army of war crimes and for attacking the Bush administration's handling of the war. Though other officers have refused to deploy to Iraq, Watada is the first to be court-martialed.

The prosecutor, Capt. Scott Van Sweringen, told the court yesterday that by Jan. 1, 2006, Watada had concluded that the war was illegal and that he could not deploy.

Watada's commanding officer, Lt. Col. Bruce Antonia, testified that he learned of Watada's concerns soon after that and urged Watada not to make any public statements. Instead, Watada released a video statement at a June news conference in Tacoma.

"The wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of Iraqis is not only a terrible and moral injustice, but it's a contradiction to the Army's own law of land warfare. My participation would make me a party to war crimes," Watada said in the video, which was played in court yesterday.

"I was dismayed, probably a little bit betrayed," Antonia said. "I believe what he said was that the commander in chief made decisions based on lies, that he specifically deceived the American people. That is nowhere in the realm of a lieutenant in the United States Army."

Under cross-examination, Antonia said he believes that soldiers are obligated to determine for themselves whether they've been given an illegal order.

"I would expect him not to obey if the order was illegal," Antonia said, prompting murmurs from spectators watching from an overflow room.

Antonia stressed, however, that if the chain of command determined the order to be lawful, he would expect the officer to obey.

Lt. Col. William James, Watada's former brigade commander, said he counseled Watada against making "a young man's mistake, not making a decision based solely on emotion."

James said he wanted Watada to understand his responsibilities both as a citizen and as an officer who would lead soldiers.

Soldiers in Watada's unit, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, left for Iraq "absent a leader they had trained with. Absent a leader they had trusted," Van Sweringen told the seven-member panel of officers hearing the case.

Seitz argued that the officer had no choice but to go public after the Army refused his attempts for a solution other than going to Iraq.

Watada has admitted that he didn't get on the plane and that he made the statements in question, Seitz told the panel.

"The question is, why? What was his intent? How did he comport himself when he made those statements and took action?" Seitz asked.

Testimony was to resume Wednesday at this Army base south of Tacoma.

On Monday, a small group that included actor Sean Penn demonstrated outside the base in support of Watada. A few others demonstrated against him, including one man who carried a sign calling Watada a "weasel." 1.Are soldiers governed by different laws than civilians? If so, why?

2. What is civil disobedience?

3. According to Lt. Watada's lawyer, he "had no choice but to go public after the Army refused his attempts for a solution other than going to Iraq." Is this true? What did Watada hope to accomplish by making public statements against the war, the Army, and the Bush administration?

4. According to the article, the facts of the case are not in dispute. The defense attorney says, "The question is...why? What was his intent?" Is that what the trial is or should be about?

5. Do you think Lt. Watada's actions constitute "conduct unbecoming an officer?" Why or why not?