Soldier on trial for Iraq refusal

[Liebling:-)))]

but I told you already.... military does not abide by civilian laws. They are subjected to such cases like this especially during war time. it's pretty much a well-known fact. It does not matter if the lawyer was presented before you sign the contract. He will tell you that he can't help you if Stop Loss Policy is being issued. This Stop-Loss Policy will most likely ends by next year. Normally, this policy extends your service by about 6 months but they're being extended as far as 12 months... which is understandably disastrous.

Exactly, if the lawyer see "Stop-Loss" Policy then will say that he/she can´t do anything to against that "Stop-Loss" Policy and then explain what "Stop-Loss" Policy is about to help their clients´ decision. If they disagree then not sign...

 

[Liebling:-)))]

If you can't see the connection then you know nothing about warfare and logistical support.

It make no sense if you say that nurses and doctors who work in US Army base also involve war business as well. If yes, then you has no idea... They are doing to provide the life necassary for them which exactly same me as well, not involve war business.

 

[Jiro]

Yes, that´s right but really truth after sign the agreement contract. It´s really sad that they lead the people beleive and trust that it´s voluntary...

and how many people is that?

Exactly, if the lawyer see "Stop-Loss" Policy then will say that he/she can´t do anything to against that "Stop-Loss" Policy and then explain what "Stop-Loss" Policy is about to help their clients´ decision. If they disagree then not sign...

Do you want to assume that every people know and can read the clause? Do you mean ALL?

We have used this policy several times - Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Haiti. we live in a litigious country. Just about everything has contracts. If they can't understand the contract - then how they can deal with employment contract? or mortgage contract? You can even get screwed by your cell phone contract!! most of contracts say that you are subjected to some changes in future. It's no different.

Soliders decided to quit Army service and do not want to extend agreement contract but they forced them to sign extend agreement contract and ignore their decision for resign Army service. Get it?

As long as they're soldiers, that policy applies to them even if they want to resign. Sucks for Stop Loss Policy.... It's almost as bad as loophole but it's not illegal and it's always expected during war time. Even I knew that and I expected to fall under Stop Loss Policy if I signed up.

 

[Tousi]

Gotta interrupt here for just a sec.....so, Jiro, you're hearing?

 

[Jiro]

Gotta interrupt here for just a sec.....so, Jiro, you're hearing?

nope. I'm HOH. If I weren't, I'd head straight for Army Intelligence after college and then head to NYPD afterward. that was my dream.... oh well. I used to go to Virginia Tech for engineering - a half military school... and a huge rival of West Point.

 

[Jiro]

It make no sense if you say that nurses and doctors who work in US Army base also involve war business as well. If yes, then you has no idea... They are doing to provide the life necassary for them which exactly same me as well, not involve war business.

there is no war business if nurses/doctors do not work for US Army. US Army contracts civilians in order to function and to continue its warfare operations. Who you think who designed the weapons? civilians.... who do you think who feed the troops? civilians.... If the civilian has a strong belief against war, then he/she does not work for them or get paid by them - indirectly/directly.

 

[Tousi]

nope. I'm HOH. If I weren't, I'd head straight for Army Intelligence after college and then head to NYPD afterward. that was my dream.... oh well. I used to go to Virginia Tech for engineering - a half military school... and a huge rival of West Point.

Interesting, Jiro. I, too, had aspirations along much of those same lines you mentioned. I was born HoH and remain so altho I am fluent in ASL. What was the reason or genesis of your hearing loss?

Sorry for the off-topic...

 

[Liebling:-)))]

there is no war business if nurses/doctors do not work for US Army. US Army contracts civilians in order to function and to continue its warfare operations. Who you think who designed the weapons? civilians.... who do you think who feed the troops? civilians.... If the civilian has a strong belief against war, then he/she does not work for them or get paid by them - indirectly/directly.

Yes we have nurses/doctors in US Army hospitail at US Army where we work.

We do not involve with war business but it´s Army business. We only doing to provide their life necassary which mean that we support them.



I will be back for response your post#23 later.

 

[Jiro]

Interesting, Jiro. I, too, had aspirations along much of those same lines you mentioned. I was born HoH and remain so altho I am fluent in ASL. What was the reason or genesis of your hearing loss?

Sorry for the off-topic...

No idea. I was either born with it or had a progressive hearing loss when I was little. My parents found out about my hearing problem when I was age..... 3? I am severe-profound HOH. If there was a miracle technology like a new version of CI where all devices are shrunken to size of tiny microchip implanted inside your ear... I'm first to sign up and then next thing I'm going to do is join NYPD. I don't think I can do army... getting old.. lol but we're :topic:

 

[Reba]

Wars? Do you assumed that I said all wars are an illegal?

No.

I said soliders feel bad for kill inncoents is not a negative.

It is when you repeatedly state that American soldiers "kill innocents" as though it were their mission.

I never bring those word up or use those word "warmonger" to insult troops but you. You started to use those word to bring up here in my thread. What you use those word is a provoke...

OK, if it makes you feel any better I will change the wording:

You continue to work for and support an Army that you accuse of fighting an "illegal" war.

You brought it up first, "I don't blame him because I would never do illegal job..."

Whatever :roll: You can assume a lot what you want... and think I know nothing - you are right and I am wrong ...

You know lots; you just have a different viewpoint and draw different conclusions.

 

[Reba]

Do you want to assume that every people know and can read the clause? Do you mean ALL?

As far as I know, the American military doesn't accept illiterate people, so yes, I assume that they can all read that clause.

Out of curiosity, I looked up one of my old enlistment contracts. Sure enough, it was there in black and white, a whole page on my contract titled "IV. UNDERSTANDINGS", with a list of points that I had to agree to.

In part, it stated, "In connection with my enlistment, I understand that:
b. in time of war or national emergency, or when otherwise authorized by law, I shall be required to serve as ordered by competent authorities, notwithstanding the provisions of any Annex(es) attached hereto or any other promises made to me in connection with my enlistment (re-enlistment)

c. statutes and regulations applicable to personnel in the Armed Forces of the United States may change without notice to me and that such changes may affect my status, compensation, or obligations as member of the Armed Forces, the provisions of this enlistment agreement to the contrary notwithstanding; and

d. an enlistment in the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, Regular Marine Corps, or Regular Coast Guard in effect at the beginning of a war or entered into during a war continues in effect, unless sooner terminated by the President, until six months after the termination that war."

Before signing the contract:

"16. I hereby certify that I have read this agreement carefully..." (Underlines were on the contract.)

Please re-read my post to Jiro123 carefully and please don´t twist it. I talk about they DECIDED to resign Army service soon before their agreement contract ends. They forced them to sign the extend agreement contract. Get it?

Read the above reply.

Also, my contract said:

"13. a. my enlistment is more than an employment agreement, that I will, upon taking the oath of enlistment, become a member of the Armed Forces of the United States..."

Soliders decided to quit Army service and do not want to extend agreement contract but they forced them to sign extend agreement contract and ignore their decision for resign Army service. Get it?

You don't "get it." According to the conditions of their original contract, soldiers are obligated to extended war service whether or not they sign the extended agreement. The extended agreement just formalizes the specifics of the extended duty. But they are still obligated to perform that service based on the original contract.

Anyway, accord the article: He can say No to Iraq war when he FELT it´s not necassary war or illegal war. This is his right. Good thing is the court is on his side. Why? because he has no problem to serve at different countries except Iraq.

He can say "no" but he must understand that consequences are attached to that decision. If he believes he is morally right, then he must accept the consequences with a stiff upper lip.

This is the most bizarre idea that military people can pick and choose their assignments. Military service is NOT a "job".

 

[Byrdie714]

Question is: how many people actually read the clause?

 

[Reba]

Question is: how many people actually read the clause?

They are supposed to. It says, "I hereby certify that I have read this agreement carefully; it has been fully explained to me, and I understand it and the conditions under which I am enlisting."

That statement is in the paragraph above the signature.

It's possible that they don't all read it carefully. However, will that excuse stand up in court? If the clause about extended service is in the contract, and the service member signs the contract where it states that the member "read this agreement carefully" and had it "fully explained", then how can the service member argue that he or she didn't know about it? How can the member say that it's "unfair"?

 

[Byrdie714]

They are supposed to. It says, "I hereby certify that I have read this agreement carefully; it has been fully explained to me, and I understand it and the conditions under which I am enlisting."

That statement is in the paragraph above the signature.

It's possible that they don't all read it carefully. However, will that excuse stand up in court? If the clause about extended service is in the contract, and the service member signs the contract where it states that the member "read this agreement carefully" and had it "fully explained", then how can the service member argue that he or she didn't know about it? How can the member say that it's "unfair"?

Oh I agree with you! That is why I asked how many people actually read their contract? Apparently not many if they are protesting the extension of their contracts.

Just goes to show that people should read the entire contract before signing anything.

When you buy a car on a loan, do you read the entire contract? If not, it may come back and BITE YOU ON THE ASS!

 

[Jiro]

Oh I agree with you! That is why I asked how many people actually read their contract? Apparently not many if they are protesting the extension of their contracts.

Just goes to show that people should read the entire contract before signing anything.

When you buy a car on a loan, do you read the entire contract? If not, it may come back and BITE YOU ON THE ASS!

exactly. that's why they should not be bitching about it.

 

[Byrdie714]

exactly. that's why they should not be bitching about it.

Exactly.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

and how many people is that?

We have used this policy several times - Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Haiti. we live in a litigious country. Just about everything has contracts. If they can't understand the contract - then how they can deal with employment contract? or mortgage contract? You can even get screwed by your cell phone contract!! most of contracts say that you are subjected to some changes in future. It's no different.


As long as they're soldiers, that policy applies to them even if they want to resign. Sucks for Stop Loss Policy.... It's almost as bad as loophole but it's not illegal and it's always expected during war time. Even I knew that and I expected to fall under Stop Loss Policy if I signed up.

I work for many years to know soliders who have no problem to go different countries to defend against enemies until after Saddam's execution and then they knew it's wrong... and trapped because they sign quickly, assume that its about defense against enemies from any countries, they like to serve without realize what Stop Loss Policy is about. They thought Stop Loss Policy is about war on terror. That's it.

Many people overlook something before they sign the contract, it's not just soliders but many people in general way. Nobody are prefect. You can't expect we are prefect and know everything to 100%... It could be that we overlook something... Unfortunlately sadly, they were being misleading to beleive that what it's about before sign. Yes, some soliders questioned and make sure until they agreed then sign... then into different what they thought. Like what I said before that the word out of mouth doesn't count but check with Legal Advicer or lawyer before you agree to sign or disagree then not sign.

We were being recommend to not sign the contract if we doubt to understand fully or trust the contracter... but go to lawyer to aviod to get nightmare when you overlook something... You do not need to play as a lawyer to understand the contract, it could be tough to understand if you read the agreement contract for a first time because some words may foreign to you. No matter either you are smart or not...

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Watada is a joke. I been reading news on this guy on a daily basis since Ft. Lewis is near Seattle.

When you sign up for service-- you can't pick-n-choose where you want to go. His refusal to go to Iraq is clearly being insubordinate.

I say let's pack him up and ship him to Iraq instead of wasting taxpayer's money on a military trial.

1LT Watada,

I just read about your refusal to deploy with the men and women of
your unit. Perhaps you forgot but when you raised your right
hand and swore to obey the orders of those appointed over you, there was no caveat that said "as long as I agree with them".

You are a commisioned officer of the United States Army. That title brings responsibilities, responsibilities you have chosen to shirk. You will of course get your 15 minutes of fame and can probably join the Cindy Sheehan tour this summer that is if you are not sittling in Leavenworth. Lest you take me for a "ChickenHawk", I served for 12 months in theatre as the S4 of a military Police Bn, 10 of those in Baghdad and Balad Iraq. I found it to be one of the most rewarding years of my life and should I be told to do so, will go again. I suggest you think long and hard about your next step as it will seriously impact the rest of your life.

Michael XXXXXXXX

1LT Watada's response:

To 06/08/2006 07:06 Michael XXXXXXXXXX
PM

Subject Re:

Dear Sir,

I'm sorry you feel the way you do. But the fact is, I do remember what
I swore upon my oath of office: to protect and defend the Consitution
against all enemies foreign and domestic. The oath of an officer says nothing of obeying the unlawful orders of the President. Even though your experience was rewarding, it gives no credence to the legality of the war and occupation. Please sir, before you respond read the numerous articles by international and Consitutional law experts regarding the Iraq war. It takes a simple Google search. Read the accounts of Iraqis, vets, andindependent journalists who may not have been in your same AO. The responsibility of an officer is to evaluate the legality and truthfulness behind every order. We cannot blindly accept every order, especially one to go to war, based on faith and what our "political" leaders tell us. Many Germans went along with the Nazi's idea of racial superiority or because they were afraid of prison or execution if they didn't. Real leadership means first realizing what's wrong, finding everything there is to know about it, and finally acting upon it.

BLACKFIVE: An email from LT Watada

It must be good reason if he felt Iraq war is unlawful and want to stop it. I respect if he want to stand up to Right and Wrong issues. Yes, he has right to refuse to go to iraq because it's not war!

 

[Liebling:-)))]

No.

It is when you repeatedly state that American soldiers "kill innocents" as though it were their mission.

I am surprised that you denied it but soliders do not deny for kill innocents and feel bad for it.

I think links tell you. Some soliders share their experiences.
frontline: the soldier's heart: experts: the impact of killing & how to prepare the soldier | PBS

To my view, this link, the author wrote his view over soliders is too extreme but I am surprised that it doesn't affect soliders. Read solider's responses. Some soliders accept their knowledge that they killed the people and some soliders do not feel bad to kill the people.

I pick one of responses:

I am a professional soldier. My job is, indeed, to kill other humans, for whatever reason. But the important part comes next: the humans it is my job to kill, the ones that I train day and night to kill, the ones I will meet in combat are very specific ones. They are other professional soldiers. They are people who, given the chance, will kill me, who have trained to kill me, who know that I, given the chance, will kill them. The decision is, and always has been, theirs to make and they have chosen to enter into combat with me. We, my enemy and I, have, as professional soldiers, entered into an agreement to try to kill each other.

There's nothing noble about being a soldier@Everything2.com

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/02/03/general.shoot/index.html

Do you still deny it?

I got email today and decide to not post here because it's very disgusit to see... It's original pictures of US soliders made fun of Iraqi's corpses as the same as Iraq soliders made fun of US solider's corpses as well and also Iraqis and children. Yes, I was cried when I saw the pictures... It's very emotional pictures... which is the worst than I showed you the pictures of soliders and inncoent people including children at other thread and explain why anti-war group protesters were against Bush for send US troops to Iraq. I understood why many soliders refuse to go Iraq. It's not right war.

If anyone wants to see it then PM me.

OK, if it makes you feel any better I will change the wording:

No, it has nothing do to make me feel better but the fact is I never mention those word but you.

You continue to work for and support an Army that you accuse of fighting an "illegal" war.

You brought it up first, "I don't blame him because I would never do illegal job..."

Check the links, I provided and also link to response Brylie's post as well.

You know lots; you just have a different viewpoint and draw different conclusions.

Yes, we have different POV because I know the people's experience and also know US Army policy as well. I let you think I know a little about US Army policy like what you assumed at your thread. I have no more to say... Just let you think what you want.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

As far as I know, the American military doesn't accept illiterate people,

It has nothing do with illiterate people. Please check my response post #37 to Jiro123.

so yes, I assume that they can all read that clause.

Your comment does not surprise me because I know you always assume a lot without know the fact.

You said that you support soliders but to me, you take one side, not both side between Government and solider.

You need to look other side. I like her post and read further including comments.

End Stop Loss Now

Fight To Survive: SIGN THE "STOP-LOSS" PETITION!!!

You don't "get it." According to the conditions of their original contract, soldiers are obligated to extended war service whether or not they sign the extended agreement. The extended agreement just formalizes the specifics of the extended duty. But they are still obligated to perform that service based on the original contract.

No, you don't get it either. They want to get out of US Army few weeks before end of their agreement contract but they were being force to extend their contract... Yes, they were being push to extend until end then again extend...then again extend... extend... up to 8 years or more... You really has no idea but you only look one side.

Yes, it's the problem is their senseless for sign the contract quickly without read carefully because they thought they serve their country to defense foriegn countries against enemies and like it but it's not what they thought. They are being trap until they do not need them anymore then let them go ...

He can say "no" but he must understand that consequences are attached to that decision. If he believes he is morally right, then he must accept the consequences with a stiff upper lip.

This is the most bizarre idea that military people can pick and choose their assignments. Military service is NOT a "job".

You don't get it. Yes, they have no problem to follow that consequences for MANY YEARS and like to serve for their country for more years... and ask voluntarily to extend their agreement contract until after Saddam's execution... They saw it's wrong... and refuse to accept the order to do "illegal" for them. They received threatening and decided to quit but it trap them off when they remind them about their agreement... They feel being betrayal... It's their feeling... I can see that you don't care but point your finger to the agreement contract without consider solider's feeling. Sure, their mistakes but it would be nice to support them if they want to get out of US Army to start a new life.

I saw the pictures and understand totally why many soliders refuse to go Iraq War. The pictures shows that it's not really war.