IN THEORY:An objector’s conscience

First Lt. Ehren Watada is being court-martialed for refusing an order to deploy to Iraq. Watada, who pleaded not guilty this week, said he refuses the order because he believes the Bush administration purposefully manipulated intelligence to justify the war, meaning he considers the conflict illegal. Watada considered petitioning for conscientious objector status but decided against it because he is not opposed to taking up arms and asked his superiors to instead deploy him to Afghanistan. Iraq war supporters have called him a traitor while peace activists praise him. Did Watada make the right moral choice in his dilemma?

The compass of our humanistic being can only be found in the consciousness of our moral convictions. The most difficult thing for a person to commit is an act that he or she feels is unjustifiable and immoral.

First Lt. Ehren Watada has been battling his conscience for months. The weight of killing another human being without cause is haunting him. I applaud his pause and conviction.

We do not live in a country ruled by a tyrant leader. We appoint and elect people as our leaders and representatives to govern this nation rightfully, and if we feel that our government is acting wrongly then we must oppose.

We must stand firmly for justice, even if it means opposing those in the highest authority.

IMAM SAYED MOUSTAFA AL-QAZWINI

Islamic Educational Center

of Orange County

Costa Mesa

John Wayne said, “A man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do.” In modern, nongender specific terms this might translate to, “One does as one must,” which, clearly, doesn’t sound half as cool. Both are subject to abuse more than that with which they resonate: Polonius’ poetic advice to his son Laertes in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, “This above all: to thine own self be true.”

Watada made his choice after much thoughtful, and perhaps prayerful, consideration. Regardless of what we think about our involvement with the war in Iraq, we should respect Watada’s well-considered decision and admire his courage in being willing to suffer its consequences since he surely understood that the Army would try to court-martial him.

All of us make choices based on internal and deeply held beliefs that shape our outward behavior. Our actions reveal who we are. Somehow, Watada asked not only “What do I truly believe?” but also questions like, “Which choice will produce the most growth, require the most courage, provide the most real freedom and offer the most true witness?” I will pray that those who support the Iraq war will respect Watada’s choice and admire his courage. And I’ll hope that “peace activists” will support him and his family as he suffers the consequences of his actions; I will hold Ehren and the Watadas in my prayers.

(THE VERY REV’D CANON)

PETER D. HAYNES

Saint Michael & All Angels

Episcopal Church

Corona del Mar

Deuteronomy 20 discusses preparations for creating an army in ancient Israel: “And when you approach the time for battle … the officers shall say to the people: ‘Who is the person who has built a house and not yet dedicated it? He should return to his house lest he die in battle and another dedicate it. Who is the person who has planted a vineyard and never used the fruit? He should leave and return lest he die in battle and another use the fruit. Who is the person who is engaged to a woman and has not married her? He should leave and return home lest he die in battle and another marry her…. Who is the person who is scared and frightened in his heart? He should leave and return lest his neighbor’s heart grow weak as his has.’”

Those whose death would render an upcoming milestone unrealized, and those whose fearfulness might compromise their comrades’ fighting spirit are exempted. But as Professor Michael Broyde states, “While one could claim that this type of an exemption is a form of selective conscientious objection, such an understanding of the law would be in error. A person who ‘objects’ is not given an exemption; certainly a person who is physically and psychologically capable but who merely objects to this particular war can be compelled to fight. It is only a form of psychological unfitness that earns one this type of exemption.”

Can soldiers select which wars meet their particular moral standards or fall within the parameters of what they define as constitutional? Can an army function in the absence of a chain of command, affirming a soldier’s refusal to serve in this conflict but not in that battle? No, for a nation’s military would disintegrate if soldiers were permitted to obey only the orders they approved.

As Jerusalem author Haim Watzman wrote: “In a democracy, an army cannot be a parliament. It is composed of individual citizens, but its citizen-soldiers must act as a collective to carry out the decisions of the public’s elected representatives. This does not mean that soldiers should give up their opinions and beliefs when they enlist. There are times when a soldier receives an order so clearly evil or illegal that he must refuse to obey it. Soldiers have the right and the duty to fight for change — but only when they are out of uniform.”

Every war has a moral calculus. Why a nation goes to war (jus ad bellum) and the tactics employed in prosecuting that conflict (jus in bello) are open to legitimate scrutiny. What is deemed a just war by one may be judged an unwarranted invasion to another. But in the welter of competing arguments, those who wear the uniform are not entitled to pick and choose their wars. Raising a white flag to selective conscientious objection is an abject surrender to conduct unbecoming.

The destination for those who assert this right should not be the military theater of their choice, but Leavenworth.

RABBI MARK S. MILLER

Temple Bat Yahm

Newport Beach

First Lt. Ehren Watada is totally right in his claim that the Bush administration purposely manipulated intelligence to justify the Iraq war. How can there be any doubt about that? Bush and his neocon advisors, from the very start of his administration, had getting rid of Saddam’s regime as their No. 1 foreign policy goal. Ron Suskind’s 2004 book — “The Price of Loyalty,” about Paul O’Neill, the former U. S. Treasury secretary — clearly documents White House discussions in early 2001 about how to take Saddam out, and the president saying, “Go find me a way to do this.” Thus, following the president’s request, information got distorted to justify a war to the American people. If there were some kind of world court that could try the United States for creating such a devastating war with what had to be known to be false information (and against the wishes of most of the rest of the world), I am sure that there would be a lot of people high up in our government who would be spending some jail time — or worse, following the patterns and justifications of the Nuremberg trials after World War II.

But, of course, even if well-justified, that will never happen to the world’s current superpower. But it can surely inspire many to want to seriously harm us as an alternative. We are a hated country — all as a result of our government’s actions.

Unfortunately, Watada’s ethics place him in conflict with the Army’s unbending rules and our government’s directives. He will suffer, the Army is losing a good soldier, and somehow we are all diminished by this. But Army rules, as approved by our government, are often self-defeating.

A recent article in the news (“Military is mocked for policy on gays,” Los Angeles Times, Thursday) had to do with how the Army and the Bush administration are being mocked because the military had fired essential Arabic and Farsi translators after learning that they were gay. In our military, homosexuals are kicked out regardless of how well they perform their duties, and in spite of the fact that some of the greatest armies in history were led by or partly manned by homosexuals, and that in countries where homosexuals are welcomed in the army there have been no serious problems as a result.

So it seems clear that our government and our military need to get together and revise some of their arbitrary rules to make a bit more sense. Allowing Watada to fight in Afghanistan instead of Iraq because of his objections to the Iraq war should be considered, along with changing the absurd rules regarding gays. But above all, it should it be made more difficult for the government to start a war on a president’s whim, without any real proof that it is absolutely necessary.

JERRY PARKS

Member

Humanist Assn.

of Orange County

My impression is that 1st Lt. Ehren Watada has made the right moral choice because he is acting from his conscience. I strongly agree with Watada that the war in Iraq was unjustified. Watada is a representative for those who are in the military or support the military but who oppose this particular war in Iraq. When veterans came back from Vietnam and voiced their opposition to the war, it united those who were opposed to all wars with those who were opposed to that war.

I don’t view Watada as a traitor or a peace activist. He seems to be a young man who is learning, changing and doing his best to find his place in a difficult situation. He is not a conscientious objector or pacifist because he has chosen a military career, trained to become an officer and is willing to fight in Afghanistan. He is not a traitor, since he would prefer to serve his country by remaining in the military and fighting in Afghanistan.

A great deal of personal liberty is given up when someone decides to enlist. But the duty to obey officers and military law is not absolute. The lessons of Nuremburg stand as an unforgettable reminder that individuals remain responsible for their actions and that wrongdoing cannot be excused on the basis of “only obeying orders.”

Sophocles in 441 BC dramatized this recurring question when Antigone chose to properly bury her brother, slain in the war, in defiance of the king’s order. Shall the individual do what he or she thinks is right, even if it means going against king, state or society? We hope our life circumstances do not require us to answer this question very often, but Watada is faced with this dilemma now. I believe the controversy will cause people to continue to question U.S. involvement in the war and to find ways to bring about peace.

REV. DR. DEBORAH BARRETT

Zen Center of Orange County

Costa Mesa

I can see why some people might perceive this soldier’s choice as immoral. However, a moral choice is one that aligns with the fundamental beliefs of the one making the choice. My morality is not based on your morality. We might share some common ground, but we might also have some significant differences.

First Lt. Ehren Watada examined his fundamental beliefs and then examined how our country entered the war and decided the war was illegal and immoral. His choice was not easy, because he is laying everything on the line based on his convictions. He is obviously willing to fight, but not in a war he fundamentally believes is wrong.

This is why a citizen’s army is important. A citizen’s army, while it would fight to protect our country, might not fight a war that was illegal or immoral. It would appear that the people of Iraq are locked in a civil war and that our presence, although it might keep the lid on the internal conflict, will not stop it.

Those who opposed this war have regularly been accused of being unpatriotic. Such rhetoric has split our country and misdirected our energy. I believe our citizens are examining their moral beliefs and want to make sure we protect our basic fundamental constitutional freedoms, which include the right to dissent. I pray for all our troops and the people of Iraq. I pray that our country takes the highest moral position and does everything possible to find a peaceful solution. Peace is God’s way. Humanity invented war, not God!

PASTOR JIM TURRELL

Center for Spiritual Discovery

Costa Mesa

I am against sending troops to Iraq. However, the powers that be say it is the right decision. When you swear an oath as a soldier, especially, an officer, swearing on the Bible, in the name of God and country, it must be kept.

A similar situation occurs in biblical history. In accepting Joshua’s charge to perform their military duties, the tribes of Reuben and Gad declared according to Scripture, “Whoever shall rebel against your command and shall not hearken unto your word in all that you shall command him shall be put to death; only then be strong and of good courage” (Joshua 1:18). Although not a king or president, Joshua was the military commander about to embark upon a military campaign for the conquest of Israel. A military leader must be courageous and confident. Those qualities depend in part upon a sense of authority and assurance that orders will be carried out without demur.

Disobedience and breach of discipline, even if they do not affect military operations, are bound to have a demoralizing effect upon the leader responsible for waging war and will diminish his own courage and determination. That, in turn, would have been a disastrous effect upon the course of the armed conflict and resulted in an avoidable loss of life.

Thus, any person defying Joshua, would have endangered the entire nation.

Sanctions imposed upon the people by Joshua were designed to restore Joshua’s courage and confidence as a military leader by eliminating any challenge to his authority. That disobedience of Joshua constituted the capital crime and resulted in a forced punishment to be carried out that endangered the entire people.

An officer in any army must set an example of behavior for his men. That calls for Watada, in my opinion, to be found guilty of disobedience and breaking his military sacred oath and sacred vow to follow his commander-in-chief.

RABBI MARC RUBENSTEIN

Temple Isaiah

Newport Beach