<\body> Stories in America: Thank You Lt. Ehren Watada For Refusing an Illegal War

Thursday, June 22, 2006

Thank You Lt. Ehren Watada For Refusing an Illegal War


U.S. Army First Lieutenant Ehren Watada, 28,reported to duty at 2:00 this morning and became the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse orders to go to Iraq.

"It is my conclusion as an officer of the Armed Forces that the war in Iraq is not only morally wrong but a horrible breach of American law. Although I have tried to resign out of protest, I am forced to participate in a war that is manifestly illegal. As the order to take part in an illegal act is ultimately unlawful as well, I must as an officer of honor and integrity refuse that order," said Watada on June 7.

Watada is now restricted to the McChord Air Force Base and has been ordered to refrain from communication with non-military personnel.

Lt. Watada's mother, Carolyn Ho, who flew in from Honolulu, Hawaii to support her son, said today, "My son's decision to refrain from deploying to Iraq comes through much soul searching. It is an act of patriotism. It is a statement to all Americans, to men and women in uniform, that they need not remain silent out of fear, that that they have the power to turn the tide of history: to stop the destruction of a country and the killing of untold numbers of innocent men, women, and children. It is a message that states unequivocally that blindly following orders is no longer an option. My son, Lt. Watada's stance is clear. He will stay the course. I urge you to join him in this effort."

On June 27, a national day of action in support of Lt. Watada will take place in dozens of US cities, including: Ft. Lewis, WA; Tacoma, WA; Honolulu, HI; Charlotte, NC; Cleveland, OH; Harrisburg, PA; San Francisco, CA; Oklahoma City, OK; Atlanta, GA; Corvallis, OR; Medford, OR; New York City, NY; and Pittsburgh, PA.

2 Comments:

At 6/25/2006 8:35 PM, Anonymous timmy said...

Illegal war? When someone is in violation of his cease-fire agreement (which you'd think would lead to nullification of that agreement and resumption of firing), and umpteen UNSC resolutions, how can they say it is an "illegal" war?

And please don't tell me that wars are all "illegal" unless the Security Council approves them - i.e every single war in the history of the world was illegal except the 1991 Gulf War and the 2001 Afghanistan War. According to some Lefties, war only potentially became legal in 1947 with the creation of the Security Council, and even then it's only legal when communist China gives it the thumbs up.

Um, okay....

Question: "If China invaded Taiwan and then used its position on the Security Council to veto any military response, would any response thereafter be "illegal"?

 
At 7/07/2006 3:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Invasion of Iraq is an act of terrorism

Union leader Faruque Ahmed's question extended further due to some inelegant interjection from his documentary maker friend and another lovely lady who is not known to me. Therefore I am re-writing his question again.

I would like to ask you a question based on the following observations:

1. Three successive UN Assistant Secretary Generals responsible for Iraq prior to the 1993 invasion resigned in protest. All of them basically said 1.5 million Iraqi deaths resulted due to the sanction regimes are in essence genocide.

2. Three successive UN Weapons Inspectors like Scott Ritta, Hans Blix and Richard Butler fell from the grace by disagreeing with the "coalition of the willing" over the so called WMD in Iraq.

3. Many experts around the world are basically saying governments of USA, UK, and Australia are ignoring the advice of technocrats, bureaucrats and intelligence agencies resulting in disasters all around and all types.

4. It took seven serving US Generals to gang up and speak out for five minutes and then they were silenced for ever within 24 hours!

5. The big democracy (The UN General Assembly), little clique (the Security Council) and the ultimate democracy (millions of people around the world) opposed the invasion of Iraq with tragic failure!

Therefore the question ought to be asked, "who is running the government of USA, Australia or any where for that matter"?

Source: Chasing the Lying War Criminals
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shonar-bangla/message/3037

Here are some solutions!
1. De-Zionise United Zionist Kingdom first!
2. British culture, media, politics, bureaucracy and legal system must reject baseless sectarianism and racism against Muslims and Arabs as they are no good for anyone apart from Nazi Zionists or Israelites!!.



http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19677223-2,00.html
He finds his moral guidance from the toilet block of London while he incites sectarian and racial hatred without any fear of prosecution! His mate stacked up the ABC board too. So he is safe and untouchable in the zionised Australia

Union Leader Faruque Ahmed is under attack! Israelis and their supporters are very angry at him indeed. These fascist groups are attacking him mercilessly because he has proven in front of distinguished academics:
1. Zionism is worse than Nazism,
2. Muslims and Arabs can't be anti-Semite,
3. Using the excuse of anti-Semitism itself is racist, fascist and ill-motivated as well as
4. Invasion of Iraq was an act of terrorism!



Zionism vs Nazism

The Zionism is worse than Nazism as one was the product of a few mad people during a difficult period of time comparing Zionsm - which is the product of millions of Israelis and their supporters stretching across half a century with a stamp of infinity!

The Nazism is based on German nationalism and Zionism is based on Jewish nationalism. The Nazism subscribes on racial purity and supremacy. The Zionism subscribes on religious purity and supremacy and eventually ends up with racial supremacy and purity like Nazism!

The Zionists are milking the "Holocaust Cow" while conducting war crimes, massacres and genocides in the longest running concentration of the universe located in the occupied Palestine with a stamp of infinity!
Abridged from: Zionism vs Nazism
http://sydney.indymedia.org/node/35885
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/freeamericanow/message/28520


Muslims and Arabs can't be anti-Semite

Further to Australian Tradition and ozcabs heroes http://sydney.indymedia.org/node/37377 most Muslims and Arabs are Semites http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semite and therefore the Arabs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian and Muslims http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam can not be accused as "anti-Semites". Nonetheless, you people have been doing so for a long time without any valid reason and ground. The so called Israelis and their supporters are only 25% Semites and therefore the false `defense shield' called "anti-Semitism" is totally absurd and idiotic.
Abridged from: Nazi Zionist Criminals Exposed
http://sydney.indymedia.org/node/37391
http://adelaide.indymedia.org/newswire/display/15806/index.php (Final)




Anti-Semitism!

Could you and your learned academic guest tell me;
1. Who are Semites?
2. Who is superior or inferior among Semites and non-Semites and if there is such a difference - under what law, moral or authority?
3. Why anti-Semitism is the cardinal sin of the century?
4. Why anti-Arabism, anti-Americanism etc are not cardinal sins like anti-Semitism?
5. Given your stated disgust at the cartoon depictions of the Drefus affair of nearly two centuries ago - are you of similar mind regarding the recent cartoons depictions of the Islamic faith in Europe (depicting Muslims and Prophet Mohammad as terrorists)?
Abridged from: Anti-Semitism
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/freeamericanow/message/31978

Source: Union leader Faruque Ahmed
Adelaide, Melbourne, Jakarta, South Africa, Canada, America and Sydney under Zionist Feet

 

Post a Comment

<< Home