1-11-07, 8:39 am

As the U.S. government continues its tragic misadventure in Iraq, more and more soldiers are seeing the illegality and immorality of the war and are deserting. One outspoken soldier who refused deployment to Iraq, Lt. Ehren Watada, is being charged with ‘contempt of government officials.’ This charge falls under the larger category of ‘conduct unbecoming of an officer and gentleman’ as documented in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Much of the evidence against Lt. Watada is taken from speeches he made critical of the war.

During a pre-trial hearing, in response to a question from Judge Lt. Col. Head, prosecutor Capt. Kuecker conceded that freedom of speech is a right to which members of the military are entitled. However, he also stated that “Lt. Watada’s speech was offensive to the military,” and as such was illegal. This appears to make freedom of speech for military personnel restricted to the point of being non-existent.

Unfortunately for proponents of civil rights, Capt. Keucker’s statement is not without precedent. When joining the military to fight for the basic rights Americans hold dear, soldiers unknowingly surrender those rights.

“American constitutionalism is premised on the belief that its fundamental principles should extend to all citizens. The independence of the military legal system, however, under conditions of both war and peace, typically places military personnel beyond the reach of the most important constitutional provisions, to their detriment.”

It is indeed true that the military legal system operates with a tremendous degree of independence. Military personnel who are charged with a crime are tried by a judge who is a member of the military. For a jury trial, the ‘members’ (they are not called jurors in the military), are also all military personnel. Appeals are all made through military channels, with the only exception being the ability of the soldier to appeal eventually to the Supreme Court.

Activities, such as giving a speech critical to a government policy, that are perfectly legal for a civilian are prevented and even become crimes when performed by a soldier. This is not a new concept for the U.S. government.

During the Mexican-American War, an American soldier in Mexico City stated the following: “We are worse off than slaves; confined within narrow walls; very few liberties allowed us. There is a great deal to be seen in this city and much to please the fancy of any free man; but as a soldier I can appreciate nothing.” And it was not only in the area of entertainment that soldiers were restricted. . “The army tried to keep them isolated as much as possible from mainstream society, with its expectations of political and economic rights.” This deprivation has manifested itself in several ways throughout American military history.

As America entered a new period of imperialism, wherein it purported to free oppressed peoples from the yoke of repressive regimes, U.S. soldiers continued to be viewed by the military as second-class citizens. Military personnel of every rank were subjected to this attitude.

In 1966, retired Admiral Arnold True was called to a meeting with Rear Admiral John E. Clark, commandant of the Twelfth Navel District in San Francisco, California. As Mr. True, an outspoken opponent of the Vietnam War, entered the building he saw a poster on the wall with these words: ‘Let it be clear that this administration recognizes the value of daring and dissent — that we greet healthy controversy as the hallmark of healthy change.’ It was signed by President John F. Kennedy. As Mr. Clark warned Mr. True that continued vocal opposition to the war would result in unpleasant consequences, Mr. True asked about the poster and was told, “it doesn’t apply to members of the naval service.” Mr. True remained undaunted and continued to oppose the war.

On August 16, 1991, Marine Cpl. Jeff Paterson held a press conference, in which he said the following: “I will not be a pawn in America’s power play for profits and oil in the Middle East.” Mr. Paterson was jailed and harassed before finally being dishonorably discharged. One wonders whether it was his refusal to deploy to the Gulf or his honest assessment of the war that brought down the might of the military justice system upon him.

When men and women enlist in the military, they accept certain risks and conditions. They may be sent to war with all its chances of death, mutilation and all the hardships and unspeakable horrors attendant to any war. Sometimes they enlist due to love of country and a sincere desire to defend cherished freedoms that they feel are threatened. Sometimes they accept those risks and conditions not for any great feelings of patriot fervor, but for promised benefits such as college tuition. In either case, the individual is devoting a certain period of his or her life to the country, and in all cases the soldier should enjoy the same rights and privileges he or she has sworn to defend. This includes not only the freedom to speak out against injustice, but also the ability to leave the military should conditions warrant that decision. Lt. Watada has stated the following:

“Widespread torture and inhumane treatment of detainees is a war crime. A war of aggression born through an unofficial policy of prevention is a crime against the peace. An occupation violating the very essence of international humanitarian law and sovereignty is a crime against humanity.” His obligation is not to blindly follow the orders that constitute crimes against humanity, but to resist those crimes by refusal to participate in them. Yet his ‘reward’ for speaking out for truth and justice is prosecution. Sadly, Lt. Watada is only the latest in a long list of the U.S. government’s victims of military oppression.