Iraq War Called Illegal by Hawai‘i Army Lieutenant

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Iraq War Called Illegal by Hawai‘i Army Lieutenant

And I really think that a statement like "People are less informed than they were 40 years ago" needs some sort of backup.

Here's another recent take on the topic:
As this writer phrases it: "Yes, there is more information available to us than ever, but I don't think we are better informed."
http://biz.yahoo.com/hftn/060712/071...tune.html?.v=2

[waioli kai]

Bastard Nations' wars and warriors

It’s really quite simple. Let me give you a quick refresher. In the 1960s, it was fashionable to be involved in politics because people respected, even loved their leaders. Then a president a.k.a the King of Camelot was assassinated. Then MLK. Then JFK’s brother. That alone was enough to disenchant an enormous amount of people from the entire political process. Then the Vietnam War ended (finally) and there was no reason to protest. Then came the ‘80s which ushered in light years of technology ... and numerous other distractions that created an entire Generation X and beyond of ignorant, obsessive-compulsive drug-baby A.D.D.-medicated robots far more cognizant of who’s Fantasy Football team rocks, than world or national affairs. A typical answer from these tens of millions of youngsters: “Like, who cares who the President is? I don’t give a f**k. Voting is mainly cool, ‘cause we get some extra time off from work.”

Isn't it impossible to be both ignorant and informed? The ignorance of the "silent majority" of the U.S. 1960's and 70's ...and 80's, 90's as well as now... is thunderingly obvious: pun intended, as USraelnazism has again{the past fifty yearshow many times now?... or ?, except for when Israel was refueling, rearming have the skies and waters of Palestine not been naziized?} opened the skies and lands of Palestine to the warfare on which rests the illegitimacy and immorality of the State of Israel in Palestine.

The Demorepublican election of Nixon over McGovern/McCarthy in 1968, followed by the landslide re-election of Nixon in 1972, the elections of US Puppetry:Reagan, the nomination of Lieberman for VP/election of wBush in 2000, the nomination of Kerry/re-election of wBush in 2004 prove that the United States majority is as willfully stupid, ignorant, self-possessed, conscience-free as ever.

Then, as now, there were those parents whose children were being sent by US corporatist militarist to kill, destroy, maim and be maimed, be killed or transformed into a shell of horrendous memories and conflicted morals, and, as now, parents and grandparents cheered their childrens' deployments in dogmatic, militarist "national defense" operations, nationalUSt$ crimes against humanity, with all the conviction of the capitalUSt$ mentality which created and nurtured the lies and paranoia on which virtually all US military campaigns are based --with possibly the single exception being the, late but at last, late-1990's Balkan's campaign: which cannot be attributed to US since they, via US's Congress and sycophants, fought Clinton's U.S. initiatives to stop genocide in the Tito-less Balkans.

[damontucker]

Re: Iraq War Called Illegal by Hawai‘i Army Lieutenant

It’s really quite simple. Let me give you a quick refresher. In the 1960s, it was fashionable to be involved in politics because people respected, even loved their leaders. Then a president a.k.a the King of Camelot was assassinated. Then MLK. Then JFK’s brother. That alone was enough to disenchant an enormous amount of people from the entire political process. Then the Vietnam War ended (finally) and there was no reason to protest. Then came the ‘80s which ushered in light years of technology that produced MTV, hip-hop culture, cocaine, Nintendo and Sega Genesis, morphing into 24-hour computer gaming (LAN parties anyone? See my avatar for more), crystal meth, the proliferation of the Internet (including eBay, chat rooms, mySpace, and P2P networking), and numerous other distractions that created an entire Generation X and beyond of ignorant, obsessive-compulsive drug-baby A.D.D.-medicated robots far more cognizant of who’s Fantasy Football team rocks, then world or national affairs. A typical answer from these tens of millions of youngsters: “Like, who cares who the President is? I don’t give a f**k. Voting is mainly cool, ‘cause we get some extra time off from work.”

Yes, anyone naïve enough to believe we are more informed today then four decades ago is the same person wondering how in the world their kid got kidnapped and raped by an online predator. Give me a break.

Thats pretty funny coming from a guy who wasn't even born until the late 70's!

[MadAzza]

Re: Iraq War Called Illegal by Hawai‘i Army Lieutenant

Yes, anyone naïve enough to believe we are more informed today then four decades ago is the same person wondering how in the world their kid got kidnapped and raped by an online predator. Give me a break.

Nice patronizing attitude.

I didn't say we are more informed that we were 40 years ago. I said, if you are going to say we are LESS informed, you'd better back it up with facts.

You failed to do that. However, I accept that that is your opinion, which of course you are entitled to. Naive as it is.

[TuNnL]

Re: Iraq War Called Illegal by Hawai‘i Army Lieutenant

However, I accept that that is your opinion, which of course you are entitled to. Naive as it is.

I accept it as fact. Like Leo Lakio quoted:

“Yes, there is more information available to us than ever, but I don’t think we are better informed.”

Couldn’t have put it better myself. Information revolution? Nah, more like information overload. I expected more from you then a cop out, Maddie. But no one including you has proven me wrong so far, so I rest my case.

Some more interesting facts: newspaper readership continues to decline, television news viewership continues to decline, radio station owners continue to try to rid themselves of their FCC-mandated news requirements. All this in the middle of the “Information Revolution.” Hey, if you have any shred of evidence to prove people are more informed, I’d be glad to hear it. It would actually restore at least a little of my faith in the American public.

If not, let’s get back on topic. Didn’t I hear something about a Watada hearing?

[MadAzza]

Re: Iraq War Called Illegal by Hawai‘i Army Lieutenant

I accept it as fact. Like Leo Lakio quoted:

“Yes, there is more information available to us than ever, but I don’t think we are better informed.”

OK, so you accept it as fact ... because Leo Lakio said ... huh?

You accept it as fact. I don't.

And saying, "I don't think we are better informed now" is NOT the same as saying, "We WERE better informed 40 years ago." I haven't seen anything, here or elsewhere, to back up the latter statement.

I expected more from you then a cop out, Maddie.

Then you're obviously not disappointed, because I'm not the one who copped out.

Didn’t I hear something about a Watada hearing?

Oh, no, you're not roping me into *that* one!

[Leo Lakio]

Re: Iraq War Called Illegal by Hawai‘i Army Lieutenant

OK, so you accept it as fact ... because Leo Lakio said ... huh?

But of course - shouldn't everyone? Bow down to my superior edumacation, all y'all!!!

Just to be clear, I posted the link to show that there was at least one other source I found (I wasn't actually looking - it came to me unsolicited) that supported TuNnL's position, primarily because MadAzza requested a citation. I had one, so I shared it. It appears to provide additional support from TuNnL's perspective, but not enough to convince MadAzza - I think that's where we will likely stay.

As for me, I haven't thought enough about the topic to have formed a personal view on it --- yet. For that reason, I enjoy an ongoing debate, as long as it involves evidence to support various positions. Carry on!

[Miulang]

Re: Iraq War Called Illegal by Hawai‘i Army Lieutenant

Well, here's a 2002 CNN story about how a survey done by National Geographic showed that high school kids didn't know where Iraq was.

And here's a very recent story in the Washington Post (July 5) about the gap between what Americans know about the world around them and the events that are occurring.

"...Explanations for the unwillingness of Americans citizens to live up to their civic responsibilities are many. One has to do with the supply and content of news. Driven by market pressures, news organizations across the globe are turning to more entertainment-centered forms of reporting, making it more difficult for lazy citizens to encounter substantive political information as a matter of course. An important consequence of the shift to "soft news" has been the scaling back of international bureaus and staff. Heavily "domesticated" news programming creates fewer opportunities for people to learn about overseas events. Even at the height of the Cold War, when international issues were front-page news, the American public displayed only superficial awareness of overseas events and foreign policy. In the post-Cold War era, despite massive increases in education and access to information, Americans continued to lag behind citizens of other industrialized democracies on measures of international affairs information. In 1994, for example, an eight-nation survey found that citizens of Mexico, Spain, Italy, Canada, Germany, Britain and France were more able than Americans to provide correct answers to a series of questions tapping foreign affairs. Whereas 37 percent of the American sample was unable to answer a single question, the comparable level of ignorance (averaged) for Italy, France, Britain, Germany and Canada was 19 percent...."

This study appears to imply that even with the abundance of "news", much of it is of the "soft" variety, which is presented to the audience in predigested form (i.e., no need to do any critical thinking), and very little emphasis is placed on what's going on outside this country.

I actually find this study fascinating, because personally, I do think that people nowadays are pretty much turned off to world events. I find it sad that the proliferation of "reality" shows on TV is numbing the minds of the people of this country. I rarely watch network TV anymore and cable TV gets boring after awhile, too, because it only has enough content for about 6 hours (the rest of the time it's repeating stuff).

Miulang

[TuNnL]

Re: Iraq War Called Illegal by Hawai‘i Army Lieutenant

Washington Post
“Driven by market pressures, news organizations across the globe are turning to more entertainment-centered forms of reporting, making it more difficult for lazy citizens to encounter substantive political information as a matter of course.”

Thanks, Miulang. As I said earlier, news interest is declining by leaps and bounds, despite it being more available then ever before (certainly far more than it ever was 40 years ago). Owners and marketing staff are trying desperately to hang on to the few diehards who are actually paying attention. Why read the New York Times when there’s Sports Illustrated? Why watch the evening news, when you can watch HBO in High Definition? This is the way the majority of the Under-55 crowd thinks, but unfortunately, the Over-55 crowd doesn’t seem to notice. Most of the audience for truly informative, cerebral programs like “Face the Nation,” “60 Minutes,” etc. have hearing aids, arthritis, and don’t have a computer, nor desire one.

[Miulang]

Re: Iraq War Called Illegal by Hawai‘i Army Lieutenant

Back onto the topic of Lt. Watada, The Nation believes that since the Pentagon and the Army insist on court martialing him, that it really will hurt the US more than it will hurt Lt. Watada because it will shine a very critical light on our occupation in Iraq and the actions of the White House.

"...Under military law, soldiers have the right to refuse to carry out illegal orders; in fact, they have a duty not to commit war crimes. According to Article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Watada retains the right to a preliminary hearing to "present anything he may desire in his own behalf, either in defense or mitigation." Under Article 46 defendants are allowed at trial to "compel witnesses to appear and testify and to compel the production of other evidence."

On its face the statute appears to allow a war crimes defense. In practice, however, defenses under international law are often denied, based on the military's "fundamental necessity for obedience," a principle affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1974. (Watada maintains he owes obedience to the Constitution--not to officials who are abusing it.) ...

"...The [Hamdan v. Rumsfeld Supreme Court] ruling also supports Watada's claim that the Administration is breaking international law. It found the President's conduct illegal because it violated international treaties--specifically, the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. This has ramifications far beyond Guantánamo: It means the government must obey the provisions of the Geneva Conventions--such as the ban on cruel and degrading treatment and the obligation of an occupying power to protect civilians. And it solidifies the incorporation of other treaties--notably, the UN Charter, with its ban on military aggression--into US law. (For a more extended discussion of the implications of the Hamdan decision for the Watada case, see our essay, Hamdan and Watada, on WarCrimesWatch.com.) ...

"...Watada's argument bridges the concerns of those who are horrified by the Iraq War and its conduct and those who are disturbed by the Bush Administration's abuse of the Constitution and the rule of law. It addresses the soft underbelly of the Bush project--the subversion of US government in the name of the "war on terror." Watada's action is perfectly positioned to galvanize a movement that, like the civil rights movement, answers official "massive resistance" to law and justice with a resolute insistence that no one is above the law.

"...Anyone who believes in justice should demand that Watada's court-martial provide him reasonable opportunity to prove the case for US war crimes in Iraq, including the right to subpoena witnesses and government documents. Without such rights, the court-martial will be nothing but a kangaroo court, violating the very national and international norms the Hamdan decision requires the government to respect. The many retired military officers and government officials who have questioned the legality of Bush Administration policies regarding torture and other criminal acts should feel a personal responsibility to lend their support to this officer's courageous defense of national and international law.

When Ehren Watada refused to deploy to Iraq, he struck a blow against the Iraq War. Bolstered by Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, his case could become a focal point in the effort to restore the rule of law in America, rein in executive power and spark a popular movement to end an unjust and illegal war...."

Miulang

[waioli kai]

No choice but immorality?

The main defense of military personnel who participate in warfare of dubious when not downright criminal premeditation and intent, morality and legality (pardon me, Howard Zinn, Gino Strada and others, my use of such qualifiers , for the sake of this discussion, which infer that war can be moral and/or legal) is basically "They made me do it. I had no choice." If Lt. Watada is not heavily prosecuted and maximally punishment by the U.S. Military, the U.S. Government, what could be the defense of those in U.S. uniform who serve to conduct illegal, immoral warfare on the commands of, on behalf of the U.S. Government for whatever foreign entity, as Israel, U.S. elitedom is beholden? How could such former and current military personnel continue to enjoy impunity behind "They made me do it" claims of incomplicity, claims of virtual innocence, if Lt. Watada can prove that it is not true that military personnel do not have such a choice?

[waioli kai]

America, Home of the Right , Re: Iraq War Called Illegal by Hawai‘i Army Lieutenant

"...the Over-55 crowd doesn’t seem to notice..."

TuNuL, you are a rare one for sure, I hope there are more like you than it appears in this society.

But for their still surviving parents, all of the Over-55 crowd first got on the race track of reality with the awareness that annihilation by nuclear war was often more a sense of the inevitable than merely the possible. Some of us in that crowd lived with the reality that there literally existed a paper-thin separation, and at times sheer luck of the draw, between a civilian life of humane pursuits and military conscription for immoral warfare and domestic and international subterfuge. We and those who similarily felt an oppression from which, but for seemingly rare to non-extistent individuals, only self-induced states of altered consciousness could free from oppressive homogeneity one's mind, had to seek some sort of essentially leaderless societal transformation.

You might ask why we had no leadership. Well, in some of your previous posts you hit on some of the reasons for our being leaderless. You brought up the facts of the assassinations of leaders in the United States by (though you didn't say it) the right wing of the United States. The McCarthyism of the 1950's empowered the U.S. right wing so effectively that they got to the point where they justified and most importantly got away with assassinations in the domestic arena the same way they did in the international sphere. There can be no doubt of the short and near term effectivenUS of statecraft by assassination: the U.S. today is a willing and complicit hostage of US right wing hijackers. Then there is Israel, the undisputed master of statecraft by assassination who is for all intents and purposes the leader of the world through default by the United States. The United States doesn't have a worldview except that Israel in Palestine is the highest priority, making Israel far and away the world's sole superpower to which all the power of the U.S. Government devolves, for which the United States has essentially become constituted.

The message of right wing ideologues who encompass politics by accusatorial defamation and assassination of opposition leadership specifically, opposition generally, was not lost on U.S. and foreign citizens of the Over-55 crowd. What is democracy if it's only survivable by one's not attracting the murderous, or otherwise incapacitating, attentions of the right wing? What is it? It is for decades now "America, Home of the Right, where the free live in fear and the brave are murdered".

It is not that most of the Over-55 crowd doesn't notice the self-centered, self-absorbed and hedonistic youth of the U.S. today. It is impossible not to notice such. However, given the political reality we have lived through, the same oppressive and stupifying political reality we live with today, I don't think any of us possess the beliefs to afford our encouragement of our children and grandchildren to even examine, G-d-forbid pursue, truly righteous, humanitarian ends beyond one's most immediate existence.

[nachodaddy]

Re: Iraq War Called Illegal by Hawai‘i Army Lieutenant

When Ehren Watada refused to deploy to Iraq, he struck a blow against the Iraq War. Bolstered by Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, his case could become a focal point in the effort to restore the rule of law in America, rein in executive power and spark a popular movement to end an unjust and illegal war...."

Nope.... he will be held accountable for his actions, he will do his time, he will learn a marketable skill in prison, he will rejoin the workforce, he will be forgotten.

I'll bet money on it if there are any takers. No "shoulds" or "woulds" here. This is pure bank.

"struck a blow", now that is funny...............

[Miulang]

Re: Iraq War Called Illegal by Hawai‘i Army Lieutenant

Lt. Watada's story made tomorrow's New York Times. There is some new information about what lead to his decision to defy his orders (including the titles of a couple of books he read that helped change his mind).

Miulang

[TuNnL]

Re: Iraq War Called Illegal by Hawai‘i Army Lieutenant

Thanks Miulang. Even though I don’t believe Watada will beat all of the charges against him, anyone who has all the facts in front of them has to feel some sympathy for the Lt. He’s doing what he believes is right. Sometimes being a man of principle means you have to break the rules. The United States was built on insubordination — of the King of England, no less.