As activists in our communities, we are each day being pulled in different directions and struggling to keep our priorities straight. For those of us who believe it is important to play a role in trying to determine what laws are written and by whom, the election cycle adds yet more demands to our busy lives.
I have decided to make the re-election of Senator Daniel Akaka a priority for this election year. Akaka has been a consistent voice in opposing the worst excesses of the Bush Administration. The war in Iraq, which may be expanding into a regional war, must be stopped. Congress is one front and elections are one means for bringing that war to an end. But so are street actions. And individual acts of conscience, as Cindy Sheehan and others have shown us.
Hawaii-born Lt. Ehren Watada, as you probably know, has refused orders to deploy to Iraq and is facing a court-martial. I have heard from a number of liberals that they are sympathetic to Watada's motives, but he joined the military of his own free will and soldiers cannot be allowed to "pick and choose" which orders to obey.
If you find yourself in agreement with some of these arguments, I urge you to take a closer look at the moral, political and legal implications of Lt. Watada's choice.
There is a "common sense" understanding of a soldier's duty to obey orders. Such an understanding serves the interests of the militarists and the Right, but is not an accurate understanding of a soldier's LEGAL obligations.
A soldier (or sailor,airman, seaman. marine) takes an oath when sworn into the service. The oath is to obey all LEGAL orders. (The US Military Code of Justice and the oath were changed after WWII as a direct result of the Nuremberg Trials. In other words, respect for the Nuremberg Principles was incorporated into US Military Law. It is not simply something for pacifists and idealist to respect. It became an obligation of soldiers.)
The Nuremberg Judgment is itself poorly understood by American citizens some 60 years later. In broad outline, most people know that the Nazis were executed for murdering millions of Jews and others in concentration camps. And, we know that a soldier cannot commit crimes and hide behind the excuse, "I was just following orders."
But that common understanding also misses an essential point, one that is especially relevant for Americans during this historic period. The first charge against the high level German political and military officials in the dock at Nuremberg, was the charge of committing crimes against the peace, i.e., launching an unjustified war of aggression in violation of international law.
Every person concerned about matters of foreign policy, defense strategy, and international relations should familiarize themselves with the Nuremberg Judgment. Frankly, if there is a Canon of literature that every thinking person should be familar with in order to participate as an educated person, this document belongs in it. It is also extremely well-written literature.
It can be found online, in its entirety, here:
Yale.edu: Nuremberg Judgment
The oath Watada swore upon induction into the Army, also required that he "obey and defend the Constitution of the United States, from all enemies, foreign and domestic."
Ehren Watada, a young soldier trying to make sense of US policies in this turbulent time, immersed himself in history books and critiques of US foreign policy. He came to develop a a deep sense of personal responsibility and a heightened awareness of his LEGAL obligation, as an officer, to balance the military's need for "order and discipline" with his sworn obligations to disobey illegal orders and to defend our constitutional form of government. He became convinced that the war in Iraq violates international law, and that the Bush administration violated the constitutional system of checks and balances, lied to Congress and the American people in order to launch this war. Once he came to that realization, he felt his honor compelled him to refuse to participate in the Iraq war.
He requested a discharge. They declined. He requested alterantive service, including combat duty in Afghanistan. The brass refused. They prefer to make an example out of him and hit him with a court-martial.
Those who wish to decide for themselves about Watada's rationale for refusing to deploy can get a good sense of the man by viewing this video clip of a talk he gave at the Veterans for Peace convention, held August 12th in Seattle. I think you will be impressed: Watada Talk, VfP Convention, Seattle
So how does this relate to Ed Case?
Congressman Ed Case, and his opponent US Senator Daniel Akaka, also took an oath very similar to Watada's. Case swore to "obey and defend the Constitution" when he was sworn into office. The power to wage war, is one of the most awesome powers of a modern state, especially a military superpower like the United States. The "framers of the Constitution" very consciously placed the power to wage war in the hands of Congress, NOT the President. They wanted a decision to go to war to be debated thoroughly by the people's representatives and wanted to avoid concentrating "kingly powers" in the hands of the executive. They took deliberate steps to prevent the rise of an executive dictatorship.
For those who ask, "who is this young lieutenant to think he has the right to decide which orders might be "unconstitutional" or "violations of international law", I suggest that Watad would not be facing the awesome and unforgiving power of the US Army's legal system for honoring his obligations, if Ed Case (and many other members of Congress) had met their constitutional responsibilities and stopped this war.
I will point out that Ed was not in Congress at the time of the "authorization to use force" vote, but he won the office in a special election running on a pro-war platform. He has continued to rubberstamp the Bush gang's war policies. He has also been supportive of GOP efforts to prevent any meaningful debate or hearings on the war. When the GOP House leadership finally allowed a very restrictive and narrow debate on a resolution to set a timetable to bring the troops home, Ed publicly praised the GOP's limits on the discussion. He then voted to support the president and "complete the mission."
Ed's views on the war closely track with those of Joe Lieberman and the neo-cons. He will rail against hte Democratic opponents of the war for being "incredibly naive," but has only minor, stylistic quibbles with the Bush gang over the management of the war. His arguments are limited to pseudo-manly soundbite pronouncements about how we cannot simply "cut and run." And how he "refuses" to accept that a civil war "is inevitable." Once "the mission is completed," he would support "bringing the troops home."
How this deviates one iota from the position of the Bush Administration is not discernable to me. Ed's "position on Iraq" is that he "trusts the president" and his gang to bring the war to a successful conclusion. He trusted Bush's "evidence" for launching the war. Unchastened, he trusts Bush to "win" the war. A wouldn't mind having a young guy become a Senator IF I thought there was a chance he would acquire judgment and wisdom with experience. The war has gone on for over three years. Ed has been in congress the whole time, and has failed to learn the most simple truths about the war and the competence of the Bush gang.
He is NOT taking seriously his constitutional duty of legislative oversight of a runamuck, illegal administration. He is more comfortable assuming mock heroic poses alongside his "commander-in-chief." So the burden is falling upon young soldiers like Lt. Watada, who is mustering all the strength and courage he can under very difficult circumstances.
I urge people to support Lt. Watada; go to this site to learn more.
And to oppose Ed Case and help block his effort to enter the Senate on a pro-war platform. Go to Senator Daniel Akaka's website to learn more.
Support Watada, support Akaka. Let's bring the troops home.