Dishonorable Support For A Dishonorable Act
It really is no surprise that the ACLU has decided to attempt to insert itself into legal proceedings against lieutenant (soon-to-be private) Ehren Watada. (I've written about the dishonorable soldier before here and here.) For those who don't know the history of this, Watada refused orders to deploy to Iraq with his unit, then got a bunch of "peace activists" to try to help get him off. (Do I sound contemptuous of Watada? Good.)
TACOMA, WA — In a military justice case that has drawn wide attention, the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington is backing the free speech rights of a soldier facing court martial for refusing to serve in the war in Iraq. The ACLU today submitted a friend-of-the-court brief contending that Lt. Ehren Watada should not be punished for his public statements expressing legal and moral objections to the war in Iraq.
The military is holding a hearing on August 17 to determine whether to go forward with court martial proceedings against Watada. The ACLU takes no position on his challenge to the lawfulness of the orders to report for duty in Iraq.
“Soldiers should not be court-martialed for explaining their views on important political issues when doing so does not adversely affect military functioning. Lt. Watada was exercising his free speech rights as a citizen in a democratic society,” said Kathleen Taylor, Executive Director of the ACLU of Washington.
The ACLU knows full well their brief is total bull. As an officer and a gentleman, Watada did not have complete freedom of speech and the UCMJ is very specific indeed about that. I read his statements (included in the ACLU press release) as extremely contemptuous of the president. And a refusal to lead his unit most assuredly effects military functioning (although his former unit is much better off without the likes of him, frankly).
I also see him as a physical coward who is trying to get out of the consequences of his refusal to obey what he full well knows were lawful orders. The most serious charge Watada is facing is, of course, missing movement. That carries a potential two year prison sentence. Which none of Watada's enablers or ACLU people will be serving at his side. It's going to be a lonely couple of years for him to reflect on the friends he kept company with.
Other Links to this Post
-
Stop The ACLU — August 23, 2006 @ 12:33 pm
By Blackhawk, August 23, 2006 @ 2:23 pm
“Soldiers should not be court-martialed for explaining their views on important political issues when doing so does not adversely affect military functioning. Lt. Watada was exercising his free speech rights as a citizen in a democratic society,†said Kathleen Taylor, Executive Director of the ACLU of Washington.
Um…and how does refusing a deployment NOT adversely affect military functioning? How does Bush-bashing NOT adversely affect military functioning? Just curious.
By Gaius, August 23, 2006 @ 2:35 pm
Hey, it’s the ACLU – why in the world would it make sense?