As ex-Navy this saddens me. I sympathize with him 100% but orders are orders and the military only works with a strong chain of command. There are avenues within the Army to challenge his order to deploy, and if those are orders are upheld, he should go. Sorry. That's the way life works.

To refuse deployment is to me a mind boggling decision. He could go to prison and what will get out of it? A dishonorable discharge and no change in the way things are done.

Be active, be political, but obey orders.

"Be active, be political, but obey orders."

Not if they are illegal, RTFM

Bush is committing one crime on top of another crime. I sure as hell hope Barack can straighten out this whole disaster.

@navy guy:

If the orders are illegal or you will be forced to commit crimes by a deployment, then you are absolutely wrong. Disobeying orders is the only possible recourse. This isn't a case of someone on the battlefield disobeying orders and putting his fellow soldiers in danger. This is a guy who is saying, "I know this is wrong and illegal and I won't be party to it". Good for him.

It will take only a few minutes for the 'call-them-traitors-while-we-get-taxbreaks' crew to show up and denounce his lack of patriotism. Of course, few if any of those people will have ever served in the country's military.

Happy days. The GOP didn't hestitate to attack John Kerry who actually served with a draft-dodger incumbent. Only a damn fool would think that wouldn't happen here.

General_Rennenkampf @ 10:

Happy days. The GOP didn't hestitate to attack John Kerry who actually served with a draft-dodger incumbent. Only a damn fool would think that wouldn't happen here.

boosh wasn't a draft dodger but a deserter who never served a proper term in the brig.

ysbaddaden @ 11:

If he's still on reserve soldier status he has no choice, except perhaps by filing for conscientous objector status.

The only problem is I wouldn't be surprised that under our new fascist government and courts they'll go back to the pre-Vietnam war days definition that you can only file for such status if you belong to a recognized pacifist church like the Quakers.

Sgt York tried to file for CO status during WWI, but his church wasn't officially recognized. Then he turned into the greatest American hero of the war, but steadfastedly refused to cash in on it beyond accepting a nice farm from his state.

I don't know Y.
He has been Honorably Discharged.
I suppose it all depends on his contact. Mine was 3 active, 8 inactive. That's where they'll get him. On the inactive part.
Because, as I'm sure you know. They can call you back at anytime in the inactive phase of your contract.
But I have a feeling that the Military will let this slide,just to keep it quiet. They're not going to want this to blow up on them.

How many are in a similar situation?

right on! @ 13:

99Luf Balloons @ 4:

"Be active, be political, but obey orders."

Not if they are illegal, RTFM

Exactly!! I couldn't have said this better 99Luf Balloons...

And Sgt. Matthis Chiroux, I applaud your courage and integrity.

there is nothing illegal in your status going from inactive to active. that's just the way it is.

Illegal orders are not enforceable, and cannot be obeyed. Nuremberg precedents establish that "superior orders" are no defense. The defendant has the obligation to prove that the orders were illegal. That's the point of the article: The service member alleges the orders are illegal. A decision to ignore that conclusion would subject him to a claim, "Despite concluding the orders were illegal, he still deployed and committed subsequent war crimes by refusing to make reports of other war crimes."

Orders cannotbe blindly followed when the reasonable person concludes those orders are illegal. The means to "challenge" these orders is not isolated to the army, but includes the court. However, the problem is on the Army's back to prosecute, not for the service member to make their case. Refusing to deploy means the Army must take the next step. The Army cannot "uphold" an occupation which has not been legalized nor enforced as lawful. There is no precedent for the US Army successfully prosecuting Lt Watada.

This is wrong and could be construed as poor legal advice:

Chris @ 2:

As ex-Navy this saddens me. I sympathize with him 100% but orders are orders and the military only works with a strong chain of command. There are avenues within the Army to challenge his order to deploy, and if those are orders are upheld, he should go. Sorry. That's the way life works.

To refuse deployment is to me a mind boggling decision. He could go to prison and what will get out of it? A dishonorable discharge and no change in the way things are done. Be active, be political, but obey orders.

Disobey illegal orders. You can't argue that someone should, while in uniform, "be political". Active duty military personnel are not allowed to campaign on behalf of candidates. If you believe the war is lawful, why aren't you over there? He already has an honorable discharge. How many Nazis, out of fear of a "dishonorable" discharge continued to support war crimes?

Dave @ 15:

Chris:

orders are orders you say? it is precisely that kind of myopic thinking and blind servitude that allows abuses of all kinds to take place, whether in the military or in your job. it is always your duty to question authority, to challenge the thinking and decision making of those in higher positions. there are consequences to be sure, some severe, but in my own experience, I have yet to give even a seconds thought to what is of more import: my self respect, or following "orders." I have paid the price in terms of losing jobs, or failing to get deserved promotions. But my self respect remained intact, my ethics remained untarnished, and I could look myself in the mirror with a smile. and the consequences I have faced pale in comparison to some one like the Sgt. who is faced with the prospect of killing and being killed. He is a courageous man and should be applauded. with more like him in the world, the people in authority would soon learn their power goes only as far as it is lawful and moral.

orders are never orders. but sychophants are always sychophants.

Dave

Extremely well said. For a while, I had begun to wonder if I was the only one who realized that those in the military [as Justabill at #19 gives a nod to those who have said NO in the powerful film Sir! No Sir!] who have had the courage to say that they will no longer be a part of the war machine of the United States are the true heroes of this country, as opposed to those who blindly accept what the military and their government tells them to do, which is to kill innocent civilians in third world countries, all for the greater glory of the United States. As former Green Beret Donald Duncan eloquently stated in Sir! No Sir!: "I was doing it right but I wasn't doing right."

Haulin' Oates @ 18:

right on! @ 13:

99Luf Balloons @ 4:

"Be active, be political, but obey orders."

Not if they are illegal, RTFM

Exactly!! I couldn't have said this better 99Luf Balloons...

And Sgt. Matthis Chiroux, I applaud your courage and integrity.

there is nothing illegal in your status going from inactive to active. that's just the way it is.

Its the war in Iraq that is illegal. But you knew that was the point - smells like rhetoric.

Listen! you can hear the death threats against this guy at the rightwing sites.

Haulin' Oates @ 18:

right on! @ 13:

99Luf Balloons @ 4:

"Be active, be political, but obey orders."

Not if they are illegal, RTFM

Exactly!! I couldn't have said this better 99Luf Balloons...

And Sgt. Matthis Chiroux, I applaud your courage and integrity.

there is nothing illegal in your status going from inactive to active. that's just the way it is.

The critical part is following illegal orders, ie doing actions that break the word or spirit of the Geneva Convention,
its possible in a legal sense that merely deploying to Iraq is a 'War Crime', as the unprovoked invasion of Iraq was illegal in the first place.

Give Me Convenience @ 25:

Wow - the young man seems to show a great deal of conviction, courage, and as some might say stupidity, dishonor, or disloyalty. He's walking into the teeth of the machine. Does anyone care to wager just how much coverage his story won't get in the rest of the media?

Hes a US photo journalist ie media, I suspect the US MSM will cover this big time,
theres only a mere six months left for this lame duck abortion of a toothless administration, everybodys eagerly anticipating a new broom (to clean sweep) is the order of the day now.
At the very least the IRE (Investigative Reporters and Editors org) and associates will, too many journalists have died under suspicious circumstances in Iraq and Afghanistan.

anon @ 29:

ferrofluid @ 28:

Haulin' Oates @ 18:

right on! @ 13:

there is nothing illegal in your status going from inactive to active. that's just the way it is.

The critical part is following illegal orders, ie doing actions that break the word or spirit of the Geneva Convention,
its possible in a legal sense that merely deploying to Iraq is a 'War Crime', as the unprovoked invasion of Iraq was illegal in the first place.

You are assuming that an illegal war ever ends. I would argue an illegal war ends when the invader is removed.

When the money runs out they all leave, no matter what the most rabid racist republican or war mongering neocon wants, no money no pay no army.

Of course McCain and the Republicans have a more subtle 'leaving' strategy,

one thousand troops per year is the way they plan on doing it.

Chris @ 2:

As ex-Navy this saddens me. I sympathize with him 100% but orders are orders and the military only works with a strong chain of command. There are avenues within the Army to challenge his order to deploy, and if those are orders are upheld, he should go. Sorry. That's the way life works.

To refuse deployment is to me a mind boggling decision. He could go to prison and what will get out of it? A dishonorable discharge and no change in the way things are done.

Be active, be political, but obey orders.

Playing online videogames and masturbating to the Military Channel is not the same as serving in the armed forces.

I really *hate* it when people make shit like this up.

And BTW as the Nüremberg trials showed, soldiers have the responsibility to disobey illegal orders. The "the boss told me to do it" defense did not apply then, and no matter how much Bush et al try to mimic their Nazi ancestors... it will not apply now.

General_Rennenkampf @ 33:

ysbaddaden @ 12:

General_Rennenkampf @ 10:

Happy days. The GOP didn't hestitate to attack John Kerry who actually served with a draft-dodger incumbent. Only a damn fool would think that wouldn't happen here.

boosh wasn't a draft dodger but a deserter who never served a proper term in the brig.

Either way, he never left the Lower 48, which Kerry emphatically did while serving in 'Nam.

as soon as the drug screen came in in the medical examinations, he tried to transfer to a state with no combat jets,
that failing he plain ol went missing ie deserted.
Its something like two years MIA.
Then you have the farcical situation where a drunken Chimpy is interviewed at the 1988 Republican conevention, and waffles on about how if the Texas ANG had been in in Vietnam , maybe maybe it might have turned out better.
As the deserter-in-chief didnt know as he want there much or at all int he latter days of his ANG duty, the US ANG was in Vietnam and so was his unit the 147th or at least qualifiying pilots from his unit, heck if GWB had finished his training he might have ended up there too.

PS; The video of a drunken Chimpy making a fool of himself at the 1988 RNC convention is up there on Youtube.
If this video clip had been played on US TV in 2000, he would have sunk without trace, back to Texas to clear up brush and pig muck.

ferrofluid @ 38:

General_Rennenkampf @ 33:

ysbaddaden @ 12:

General_Rennenkampf @ 10:

boosh wasn't a draft dodger but a deserter who never served a proper term in the brig.

Either way, he never left the Lower 48, which Kerry emphatically did while serving in 'Nam.

as soon as the drug screen came in in the medical examinations, he tried to transfer to a state with no combat jets,
that failing he plain ol went missing ie deserted.
Its something like two years MIA.
Then you have the farcical situation where a drunken Chimpy is interviewed at the 1988 Republican conevention, and waffles on about how if the Texas ANG had been in in Vietnam , maybe maybe it might have turned out better.
As the deserter-in-chief didnt know as he want there much or at all int he latter days of his ANG duty, the US ANG was in Vietnam and so was his unit the 147th or at least qualifiying pilots from his unit, heck if GWB had finished his training he might have ended up there too.

PS; The video of a drunken Chimpy making a fool of himself at the 1988 RNC convention is up there on Youtube.
If this video clip had been played on US TV in 2000, he would have sunk without trace, back to Texas to clear up brush and pig muck.

Considering the historical US policy to letting rich white kids serve in a war, I'm not surprised the Chimp got away with it. What did surprise me was the kerfluffle created when that was outright stated.

Oh jeez, this is going to piss the gun toting rethugligans off. I hope this guy is good at dodging bullets since the rethugligans would rather use their guns at home than join the army and go fight in foreign lands.

emphasa @ 42:

Oh jeez, this is going to piss the gun toting rethugligans off. I hope this guy is good at dodging bullets since the rethugligans would rather use their guns at home than join the army and go fight in foreign lands.

there are three types of Republican, first you have the teenygopper basement dwellers, then the active scum, then the has been regretful and rose tinted world view types.
The active types are also interchangeable with the wider criminal sociopath element in society.

ron Ft lauderale @ 45:

Chris @ 2:

As ex-Navy this saddens me. I sympathize with him 100% but orders are orders and the military only works with a strong chain of command. There are avenues within the Army to challenge his order to deploy, and if those are orders are upheld, he should go. Sorry. That's the way life works.

To refuse deployment is to me a mind boggling decision. He could go to prison and what will get out of it? A dishonorable discharge and no change in the way things are done.

Be active, be political, but obey orders.

While I appreciate the care and effort you made in presenting your side of the argument, I couldn't disagree more with your stand. There are times when obeying orders is absolutely the right thing to do: in the heat of battle is one.

But to say there are avenues within the army to challenge an order is ridiculous!  Any military person knows how useless that is!! If he kept quiet he would be in Iraq without hesitation by his superiors.

The Nazi soldiers followed their "chain of command" without hesitation. Look where that got the world!!

This is an illegal war waged by an irresponsible Administration. Why should soldiers, who know this war is wrong, have to follow orders that make them feel like they are criminals too?

I salute Sgt Matthis Chiroux for his courage and bravery to take stand up to this war-mongering machine in Washington!!! He served 4 years and survived. He has done his share!! 

The soldiers in the My Lai incident were following their orders fervently - until US pilot Hugh Thompson turned his helicopters M60 machine guns on the US forces.

THAT is what an American soldier is.

right on! @ 13:

99Luf Balloons @ 4:

"Be active, be political, but obey orders."

Not if they are illegal, RTFM

Exactly!! I couldn't have said this better 99Luf Balloons...

And Sgt. Matthis Chiroux, I applaud your courage and integrity.

Let's harkon back to Abu Ghariab, Those soldiers were tried and found guilty of following illegal orders. He is doing what he feels is right by not following what he feels is an unjust order. Let the army bring him to trial and have them prove the validity of the order to go fight in this war.

But he was honorably discharged. I don't know anything about the military, but doesn't that mean he is no longer a soldier? And thus isn't subject to being sent back to Iraq?

zugzug @ 8:

@navy guy:

If the orders are illegal or you will be forced to commit crimes by a deployment, then you are absolutely wrong. Disobeying orders is the only possible recourse. This isn't a case of someone on the battlefield disobeying orders and putting his fellow soldiers in danger. This is a guy who is saying, "I know this is wrong and illegal and I won't be party to it". Good for him.

It will take only a few minutes for the 'call-them-traitors-while-we-get-taxbreaks' crew to show up and denounce his lack of patriotism. Of course, few if any of those people will have ever served in the country's military.

i feel bad for this guy but he just screwed himself for life. He's not gonna get a pardon; he gonna serve a couple of years in prison and have a record when he gets out. He making a dumb decision...he volunteered he wasn't drafted...maybe you pray for him, go see him in prison and help him get his life together when he gets out.

Has the MSM mentioned this guy at all? (I don't watch TV these days so you all will have to fill me in...)

Chris @ 2:

As ex-Navy this saddens me. I sympathize with him 100% but orders are orders and the military only works with a strong chain of command. There are avenues within the Army to challenge his order to deploy, and if those are orders are upheld, he should go. Sorry. That's the way life works.

To refuse deployment is to me a mind boggling decision. He could go to prison and what will get out of it? A dishonorable discharge and no change in the way things are done.

Be active, be political, but obey orders.

Obeying a Warcriminal and participating in Warcrimes is itself no excuse. This kid is doing the right thing. These crimes only can continue if we are Civil and Obedient.

Fuck that. We need to dissent, to disagree, and not obey tyrants who rule through fear.

The Military of the US has the duty to have a coup on this government as they are removing democracy from the people and building camps, they torture and maim and murder. This is a warcrime and on the floor od the DoD these is a plaque that states that should the Geneva Conventions be broken it is a crime and the order must not be followed.

They WALK on the pledge they made. Sad.

Chris @ 2:

As ex-Navy this saddens me. I sympathize with him 100% but orders are orders and the military only works with a strong chain of command. There are avenues within the Army to challenge his order to deploy, and if those are orders are upheld, he should go. Sorry. That's the way life works.

To refuse deployment is to me a mind boggling decision. He could go to prison and what will get out of it? A dishonorable discharge and no change in the way things are done.

Be active, be political, but obey orders.

Hitler gave orders. Lots of orders. As a result over 50,000,000 people died in the War that followed.

Never again.

Stop loss is like credit card interest. The contract is fulfilled, but the big guy can change the terms on a whim, and the little guy has no leverage with which to bargain.

Stop loss is slavery.

justabill @ 17:

Sir! No Sir!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jULC3SCX9wE

That video is awesome! Thanks for posting. I hope everyone takes a moment to watch it.

This is the reason the elite have not called martial law yet! Most military soldiers would revolt and they know it.

mudshark @ 27:

ysbaddaden @ 23:

Oh yes, my contract was four active, two inactive. Total six years, but for some strange reason they wanted to know where I was for the next ten years after my discharge. Some people have suggested it may've been due to my security clearance.

Shortly after I got out, The Iranian Hostage Crisis happened. I mean , Like less than 6 months after I got out.
Yeah, I was concerned.Very Concerned.

That happened in the middle of my enlistment, and we were all setting up appointments with the JAG's office to draw up wills.

When the war we expected didn't happen we partied for at least a week alternatly relieved we weren't going to war, but also saying, "I can't believe we're letting those 'ragheads' get away with this."

I was discharged just six days before Grenada. But at the VA hospital one guy said it was still the Cold War when I was there, so technically I could be considered a Cold War Veteran.

Over the years though I have given somewhere between 3-5 gallons of blood though to blood banks. I'm AB-.

Lt. Watada refused to deploy to Iraq.

Lt Watada today is a free man. More power to this kid here. I am quite sure the press will be very silent on this one, same as they are on
Lt Watada's victory.

Meanwhile, the administration and the MIC have once again moved the goalposts for "victory" in Iraq...

CNN
McCain said he's not giving a timetable for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq. But he says by January 2013, most of them will have been brought home. Video Watch more of McCain's view on Iraq »

But any kind of timeline for withdrawal is a stunning departure for McCain. Pressed about it on his "Straight Talk Express" bus, McCain repeatedly insisted he is not setting a date.

"It could be next year. It could three years from now ... but I'm confident that we will have victory in Iraq," he said.

Analyst Doug MacGregor, a decorated combat veteran, said for victory to be achieved, several other complications have to be ironed out.

"Winning, from the American vantage point, really consists of coming to arrangements with Iraq's neighbors concerning what will happen in that country when we leave it. That's the most important thing," he said.

MacGregor said making those arrangements with Iraq's neighbors is possible. He believes they all have an interest in a secure and stable Iraq and says they're not likely to cooperate with the United States until they decide to leave the country.

So, let me get this straight. Now we will have achieved military "victory" in Iraq if we come "to arrangements concerning what will happen in [Iraq] when we leave it"??? Never mind the Catch-22 of that logic (we invaded Iraq with the goal of coming to arrangements with its neighbors about what happens when we leave it). How does having the U.S. military occupying Iraq achieve this goal? What "mission" do you give the troops that will chart a path toward this vague definition of victory ("Operation Pout and Whine to the Iranians"). McSame and the Bushies (what a band name that would be) need to come to grips with the fact that the U.S. military no longer has a purpose in Iraq, and that if they don't get them out ASAP then the American people will elect somebody who will.

Erroll @ 22:

Dave @ 15:

Chris:

orders are orders you say? it is precisely that kind of myopic thinking and blind servitude that allows abuses of all kinds to take place, whether in the military or in your job. it is always your duty to question authority, to challenge the thinking and decision making of those in higher positions. there are consequences to be sure, some severe, but in my own experience, I have yet to give even a seconds thought to what is of more import: my self respect, or following "orders." I have paid the price in terms of losing jobs, or failing to get deserved promotions. But my self respect remained intact, my ethics remained untarnished, and I could look myself in the mirror with a smile. and the consequences I have faced pale in comparison to some one like the Sgt. who is faced with the prospect of killing and being killed. He is a courageous man and should be applauded. with more like him in the world, the people in authority would soon learn their power goes only as far as it is lawful and moral.

orders are never orders. but sychophants are always sychophants.

Dave

Extremely well said. For a while, I had begun to wonder if I was the only one who realized that those in the military [as Justabill at #19 gives a nod to those who have said NO in the powerful film Sir! No Sir!] who have had the courage to say that they will no longer be a part of the war machine of the United States are the true heroes of this country, as opposed to those who blindly accept what the military and their government tells them to do, which is to kill innocent civilians in third world countries, all for the greater glory of the United States. As former Green Beret Donald Duncan eloquently stated in Sir! No Sir!: "I was doing it right but I wasn't doing right."

This is how truly sane and good people see reality. Anyone who does not understand or agree with the above comments should stay out of this conversation.

KUDOS to the folks above whom I have quoted in this comment.

uncle joe hussein mccarthy @ 67:

this would only work if all the stop loss vets choose not to go back

im glad he is standing on principle...but he hasnt a chance in hell to get out of being tossed into jail

Neither did MLK.

Heroes become heroes for standing on principle and making a change, not being sheep who are frightened of the consequences.

The only way out of Iraq is if dissent comes from within.