Army Charges Officer Who Refused Iraq Duty

A US Army lieutenant who refused to serve in Iraq because he believes the war there to be illegal, has been charged with three counts which could see him serving up to eight years in jail and being kicked out the army with a dishonourable discharge.

1st Lt. Ehren Watada, 28, has not applied to be treated as a conscientious objector because he does not object to war in general, just to the war in Iraq in particular. He has been charged with conduct unbecoming an officer, missing movement and contempt toward officials.

Watada had offered to serve in Afghanistan or elsewhere but the US Army refused to consider relocating him and refused to allow him to resign his commission.

Cases such as this raise an interesting legal predicament that both Bush and Blair are skewering themselves on.

I reported the case of Flight Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith, the British soldier who was jailed for eight months for taking a similarly principled stance here in the UK.

The charging of these men seems to go against the principles which were established at Nuremberg. Namely, that one is not allowed to later rely on the defence of, "I was only following orders" if you are being asked to carry out an action that is clearly illegal.

Under those same rules established at Nuremberg it is quite easy to argue that the war in Iraq is an illegal one.

At the Nuremberg trials, the principles of international law identified by the tribunal and subsequently accepted unanimously by the General Assembly of the United Nations included that the planning, preparation or initiation of a war contrary to the terms of an international treaty was "a crime against peace". The tribunal further stated "that to initiate a war of aggression... is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime".

It was for this crime that the German foreign minister Von Ribbentrop was tried, convicted and hanged.

Both these men can argue with good conscience that fundamental international law allows military intervention only in cases of self defence, or, if specifically authorised by the Security Council.

The US was not under attack at the time that it invaded Iraq, so any claim of self defence is redundant, and the Security Council certainly did not authorise intervention.

1441 asked that any alleged Iraqi violations be reported to the Security Council, which would then "convene immediately ... in order to consider the situation." So quite clearly any violation was to be decided upon by the Security Council. As we all know, Bush and Blair refused to approach the Council for the famed second resolution because they knew it would not be granted.

Also, 1441 did not authorise the use of "all necessary means"--the only language recognised as authorizing the use of force. Indeed, the U.S. and U.K. governments attempted to have this phrase inserted, but other Security Council members rejected it specifically because they did not, at that stage, want to authorise war.

Based on the above, the two soldiers have a very strong case for arguing that their respective governments are taking part in an unsanctioned war and that they will not have any part in such illegality.

As Bush and Rummy recently discovered in the case of Hamdan versus Rumsfeld, international law has a way of catching up with you.

Both Watada and Kendall-Smith have not objected to fighting, but have both - on principle - refused to fight in Iraq. If Watada joins Kendall-Smith behind bars, there may come a day when both men can sue for wrongful imprisonment.

It's a forlorn hope, but I would also like to see the perpetrators of this illegal war facing charges for their crimes. However, as most of us understand, people like Molosovic stand trial whilst people like Bush walk free.

'Twas ever thus.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Watada, Malcolm Kendall-Smith, Iraq war, conscientious, objector, objections, Nuremberg, refuse, fight, illegal,