'Dayside' Uses Audience Against Officer Refusing Order to Iraq
Reported by Judy - June 16, 2006
The co-hosts of Fox News' "Dayside" proved they have a very narrow definition of courage Friday (June 16, 2006) when they interviewed the first U.S. Army officer to refuse orders to serve in Iraq.
Lt. Ehren Watada of the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, has received orders for Iraq, but has told his commanding officer that he will not go because he considers the war illegal and immoral. Watada, who enlisted in June 2003, says he would be willing to go fo Afghanistan, so he is not seeking conscientious objector status.
"Like millions of Americans I believed (it) when the administration told us that Iraq had stockpiles of wapons of mass destruction, ties to 9/11 and ties to Al Qaeda," he said. Now that he is convinced those things were all untrue, Watada said he believes the war in Iraq is illegal and immoral.
“It’s the responsibility and the duty of every officer, every member of the military to really look at the truithfulness and the legality behind every order, including the order to go to war, and they have to look within themselves and make the right decision regardless of the consequences," Watada said.
Jerrick attempted to argue with Watada, insisting that the military is "not like shopping at the Gap. … You can’t pick and choose, do you think?”
But Watada insisted: “We can pick and choose which orders are lawful, and which orders are unlawful. It’s our duty as Americans and members of the military and to not do so, just to obey every order given to us without thought, without looking into the legality or the truthfulness behind it, it’s a very dangerous path that we’ve taken.”
Jerrick then went into the audience to interview a retired navy officer who, rather than acknowledge that Watada is correct about the duty to ignore illegal orders, said, "You make a commitment to your country and to your other fellow officers and enlisted personnel to serve, and then you say, oh, I don’t want to because it’s not convenient for your philosophy. Well that’s a dangerous philosophy and I think what he’s doing is wrong.”
Then Jerrick and co-host Juliet Huddy went to retired marine and Fox News military analyst Col. David Hunt, who admitted that, "He’s right. Ethically and morally, you’re not supposed to obey an order you think is illegal.” But then Hunt insisted that the war was not illegal (but if Bush is ever impeached that may change), and warned that Watada "is going to be called a coward for the rest of your life."
Jerrick then asked the audience to applaud if they thought Watada is a coward or not a coward, and interviewed only someone who thought he was. "I think a lot of people are going to call you a coward, " Jerrick said.
Watada stuck to his guns. "I would tell those people to step in my shoes and stand up for what you believe in, what you believe is the right thing, not only for yourself, but for America as a whole.” He started to say something further about "all the members of the military who have died for this war" but he was cut off.
For Jerrick and Huddy, "courage" is only about following orders into battle. Moral courage does not exist in their universe. And of course, they ignored the duty of troops to determine if an order is legal. That is the type of calculation Americans wish Nazi death camp workers would have made but didn't, choosing to follow orders blindly instead.
Watada is demonstrating true courage -- standing up for what he believes in. Isn't that what Americans want people to do?
I saw this segment and was disgusted.
Lt. Ehren Watada stated he was quite willing to go to Afghanistan and yet they still ask the audience if he's a coward.
Clap, clap, clap, like mindless robots. This garbage sickens me.
Posted by: Celia at June 16, 2006 10:47 PM
Watada should have laid them both flat and demanded that they get up for some more.
Man, I frigging HATE these two "newscasters"
Posted by: Keg at June 16, 2006 10:56 PM
So just what would be the position of the US if China decided that Israel posed a threat and invaded. We know the have WMD.
Posted by: Canadian Paul at June 16, 2006 11:01 PM
At the Nazi war crime trials at Nuremberg, soldiers who gassed Jews said they were "only following orders". The world was not buying it, including Americans who said they should have refused to carry out orders that were IMMORAL and ILLEGAL.
................................
A little bit of the sixties:
UNIVERSAL SOLDIER
(song) by Buffy Ste.-Marie
He's five foot-two, and he's six feet-four,
He fights with missiles and with spears.
He's all of thirty-one, and he's only seventeen,
Been a soldier for a thousand years.
He'a a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain,
A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew.
And he knows he shouldn't kill,
And he knows he always will,
Kill you for me my friend and me for you.
And he's fighting for Canada,
He's fighting for France,
He's fighting for the USA,
And he's fighting for the Russians,
And he's fighting for Japan,
And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way.
And he's fighting for Democracy,
He's fighting for the Reds,
He says it's for the peace of all.
He's the one who must decide,
Who's to live and who's to die,
And he never sees the writing on the wall.
But without him,
How would Hitler have condemned him at Dachau?
Without him Caesar would have stood alone,
He's the one who gives his body
As a weapon of the war,
And without him all this killing can't go on.
He's the Universal Soldier and he really is to blame,
His orders come from far away no more,
They come from here and there and you and me,
And brothers can't you see,
This is not the way we put the end to war.
Posted by: nightowl at June 16, 2006 11:25 PM
I actually saw this and was absolutely appalled. When people raised their hands in support of deeming Lt. Watada a coward, Jerrick gave them the mike to voice their disgust with him. When people raised their hands to say he was NOT a coward (which of course was a miniscule amount in a Fox studio audience) JERRICK DID NOT GIVE ANY OF THEM THE MIKE, HE *AGAIN* GAVE IT TO A MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE WHO WAS AGAINST THE LIEUTENANT!
This whole segment was absolutely shameful and disgusting. Mike and Juliet would give affirmative, 'yeah, that's right', and 'I agree' statements each time someone said something against this American soldier.
When Mike Jerrick classified Lt. Watada's views to 'shopping at the Gap', I literally became sick to my stomach.
On Fox, whether it's 'Dayside' or any other of their absurd shows, IT IS FOX'S POLICY to have their Fox Hosts cut people off when they are making points that are against this war and against this President that CANNOT be disputed. They are even more agressive when a non-Bush supporter is saying something that their Fox News audience/viewers may actually agree with. That's exactly what they did to this American soldier that they invited to be their 'guest'.
I would easily say this is one of the most vile displays of Fox's philosophy/tactics which is 'attack anyone who disagrees with Bush or his administration' that I have EVER seen on this reprehensible "News" Channel. Of course, when their friendly/pro-Bush guests appear on any of their programs, they are given carte blanche to say whatever they want to say for as long as they want to say it without interruption. When their hosts are forced to go to a commercial break and a Fox friendly guest is still speaking, the hosts ever so gently and almost with a pouty regret, cut in to let them know that 'they have to pay their bills'.
Give Mike Jerrick and Juliet Huddy some Fatigues and a couple of weapons, throw them on a plane to fight this war in Iraq and I guarantee you that the expressions on their faces would demonstrate just as much, if not more, fear than Dan Bartlett's expression revealed while on the helicopter heading for the Green Zone in Iraq. Who am I kidding, these idiots would NEVER even consider going to Iraq or any other war for that matter, even as 'journalists'.
I would love to see someone with Photo Shop or a similar computer program replace Tony Snow's and Dan Bartlett's faces with those of Juliet Huddy's and Mike Jerrick's.
Posted by: Paige at June 16, 2006 11:30 PM
oh paige, you need to come over to the ot forum
we have a thread devoted to photoshop.
Posted by: Keg at June 16, 2006 11:36 PM
I am in complete agreement with keg
Paige please join us in the o/t. Love your post! And I personal guaranty you will thoroughly enjoy the freedom of the o/t forum
Posted by: theroachman at June 16, 2006 11:54 PM
I don't know Paige, that Keg can get rowdy sometimes.
But I LOOOOOOOVE her.
Posted by: john t at June 17, 2006 12:03 AM
Is there 5 of the same topic on here or is my computer screwed up?
Posted by: john t at June 17, 2006 12:06 AM
OT ?
Posted by: Paige at June 17, 2006 12:32 AM
click the forum link on the top nav bar :)
Posted by: deeeeeez at June 17, 2006 12:39 AM
Paige please join us in the o/t. Love your post! And I personal guaranty you will thoroughly enjoy the freedom of the o/t forum
--
Ranger Bob says the o/t fourm is only for lonely people with no life.
The 'Pot/Kettle' entry in Websters has a new standard definition.
Posted by: max webster at June 17, 2006 12:39 AM
"I saw this segment and was disgusted.
Lt. Ehren Watada stated he was quite willing to go to Afghanistan and yet they still ask the audience if he's a coward.
Clap, clap, clap, like mindless robots. This garbage sickens me.
Posted by: Celia "
I don't think you quite "get" that volunteers in the military serve not as they wish, but where they are needed. Officer or enlisted, you don't get to specify that you will serve as long as you stay in "gainful employment and military work" in the USA and your personally preferred countries, but will not serve elsewhere. Or serve in a tank, but not a Bradley. A helo but not a truck convoy. This war, but not that war...
No one will put up with an ER doctor who says he will be a great servant and treat almost everyone - except AIDs patients, as a personal thing.
No one would accept a cop continuing in employment if she said she would do all police assignments but domestic disputes, drunk patrol, and armed intruders...
You don't get to pick your duty when you take your oath of service. A friend once wondered who the hell he pissed off after being in the top 5% of his class to draw a 2-year assignment as an African craphole embassy detachment commander. The answer was nothing. It was an assignment hole and he was convenient and thus got 2 years of dangerous, 90 hour workweek, misery duty.
Watada has a choice in this. Do the service he volunteered for, duty as assigned by his commander - or disobey the lawful order of a superior officer to serve in wartime combat zone duty his CiC and Congress say is needed then (1) accept hard time, (2)loss of commission, (3)military equivalent of a felony conviction, (4) dishonorable discharge papers when his jailtime is up.
Wataba gets little or no sympathy from the troops.
Posted by: Chris Ford at June 17, 2006 01:33 AM
No one will put up with an ER doctor who says he will be a great servant and treat almost everyone - except AIDs patients, as a personal thing.
____________________
Or a pharmacist who refuses to fill a Plan-B prescription or birth control? It's a personal thing.
Check your misguided morals at the door. A doctor choosing to disobey his boss is different from a soldier choosing to disobey an unlawful order. A doctor is not violating the law, the soldier would be.
Posted by: faust at June 17, 2006 02:03 AM
Chris,
Do you outrank Col. Hunt? Didn't think so.
As to your examples, please take your peeve up with pharmacists who refuse to dispense prescribed and legal pregnancy-control. It is much more widespread and could actually affect someone you care about (assuming you care about anyone).
Posted by: mom22 at June 17, 2006 02:03 AM
"Absolutely disgusting. I have very little love for Mr. Murtha - and I recently agreed with his opponent Diana Irey when she said his words and actions of late were not that of a patriot. But there's no excuse - NONE - for the allusion to soldiers who kill other soldiers. It's despicable - and frankly, so is Coulter."
Posted by: Paige at June 17, 2006 05:59 AM
"Is there 5 of the same topic on here or is my computer screwed up?"
I'll bet "Right Stuff" did it somehow.
Posted by: geezer at June 17, 2006 07:22 AM
Nah...Clintons fault
Posted by: uk_dave at June 17, 2006 08:30 AM
The quote that I cite above about Coulter wanting the military to kill John Murtha is FROM REDSTATE.ORG not mine! whoops. I forgot to c&p; the link...
Posted by: Paige at June 17, 2006 09:26 AM
Church declares itself sanctuary for soldiers refusing Iraq tour
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: June 15th, 2006 09:42 AM
"TACOMA -- The 300-member congregation's administrative council of the First United Methodist Church of Tacoma has declared itself to be a sanctuary for servicemen and servicewomen who don't want to go to Iraq..."
Now these people are true Christians who, unlike others who are busy trying to ban gay marriage and abortion, understand the real message of the
"Prince of Peace."
Fox is already on this. Gibson mentioned the story yesterday, scowled, and said that there might be some "church/state issues" here - but it's OK to plaster the 10 commandments all over public buildings and force prayer in public school? He said that Julie Banderas will be doing a segment tonight. It should be interesting to see Fox bash a mainstream, liberal, Protestant church - hey, orders from the office of America's "Christian-in-chief."
Posted by: claudo at June 17, 2006 09:30 AM
Geezer...no, it's not your computer. I am hoping someone at Newshounds discovers the multiple posts on the same story soon.
Also, for all of you...does it take an unusual amount of time for your comments to post here? I have seen many double posts over time from readers (as well as myself).
I'll hit 'post' and it sometimes takes more than a minute for it to be visable. Sometimes I hit post an get a 'this page cannot be displayed'..so I have hit post again on a couple of occassions and than see a double post. Does that happen to you guys?
Posted by: Paige at June 17, 2006 09:31 AM
Yes it does Paige, I have the same trouble.
Posted by: john t at June 17, 2006 09:41 AM
The reason for the slow posting is that our system is overloaded with thousands of old comments from the last two years. One choice would be to delete them, but we don't have the heart to do that just yet.
Posted by: judy at June 17, 2006 10:18 AM
That sounds like inefficient software, since I dunno why it should have to process the unrelated old crap to add new comments. Or is the site being run on a 386? ;)
Posted by: Assassin at June 17, 2006 11:09 AM
I have mixed feelings about the matter at hand. As for Jerrick and Huddy, they were over-the-top ambushing and manipulating the discussion on this lieutenant. But that's not exactly news - just business as usual at the most successful current propaganda network in the world.
As for the Lieutenant, there clearly must be room for soldiers, "volunteer" or otherwise, to exercise critical thinking in matters of direct orders, as Col. Hunt also spoke. And to say that an officer is a coward for a decision of conscience and principles, a decision that also happens to reflect the belief of a solid number of those he has volunteered to defend, is the journalistic equivalent of pornography. It's exploitative and reduces the human quotient at work in this issue.
That being said, I believe that there were a great number of ways that this man could have chosen to exercise his opposition. There have been countless objectors who, as documented by Howard Zinn during his service in WWII, took their abhorrence and dissent with them onto the field of battle and embraced it as an opportunity to truly move the hearts and minds of others. Sort of a "missionary" position, if you will.
Also, I know that there is the "C.O." position that can be taken. I find it a little perplexing that this man sees Iraq as Illegal and immoral, yet the same gang of thugs and chickenhawks who got us into Iraq are suddenly "correct" and "right" on Afghanistan. I think if this Lieutenant looked around a bit, and realized how much of the invasion was about Karzai and Unocal, he may want to claim that C.O. status, after all.
Personally, given that the administration basically left the troops in Afghanistan hanging out to dry for a year or so while they obliterated Iraq, I can't see wanting to go to either setting.
The phrase "volunteer" is another interesting one. We do not have a draft. But for hundreds of thousands of young men and women, the options are to work a service job your whole life, go to college, which thanks to the cuts in higher education that have been happening for the last 20 years or so means taking on enormous debts. Or, you can give body and soul to Uncle Sam for a 2-20 year sentence in the military in exchange for college money. They dangle that carrot very adeptly in front of tons of young men and women in the interest of supporting the military industrial complex, and given the choices we have, especially as our industries are sold off to the highest bidder and moved to third world countries, they "volunteer." Given the limited options for so many, "volunteer" should have a permanent asterisk.
I grew up working class and went the route of borrowing and scrapping for scholarships. I have been tremendously fortunate. The dilemma this lieutenant faces now as a military officer is precisely the reason why I did not accept the navy, air force, and marine invites to join them. Ultimately, in so many ways, your life, your decisions, and your actions are no longer your own.
Any organization where your conscience, faith, and values can be so summarily dismissed and compromised is not something I want to be a part of. I think more people need to keep this in mind before gambling on the big payoff of "education for now, strength for later," that the ARMY offers. What does it profit a man to gain earthly wealth and authority, but lose his soul?
Posted by: Pastor Bill at June 17, 2006 11:20 AM
You are so right, Pastor Bill. The military now draws mainly from the ranks of white, red state youth who were left behind in this "booming" economy. The promises of the military recruiters mean nothing if you're yet another casualty in Bush's failed crusade.
Posted by: claudo at June 17, 2006 11:43 AM
Gerorge Bush during a time of war refused an order for a Physical so he could be certified combat ready and able to fly, something the government spent serval 100K training him to do. Of course it was the first physical where there was mandatory drug testing!
... and yet some how was honorable discharged which is a good trick and it was even an early discharge at that!
Do you think this guy will get an honorable discharge? NOT!
Regards
Posted by: Viper at June 17, 2006 12:41 PM
There are many wannabe stimulants out there hoping to arouse a Vietnam era anti-war style anti-war movement, wishing they would be cast as heroes for the next generation of college history textbooks.
Fox News Alert: The monopoly controlled by the MSM that once gloryfied these deserters has been squashed and crushed. There's a new order in town where fairness and balance rules and the people have a better say.
Watada must have been shocked by the less-than-ethusiatic embrace by the anti-war left or any credible American institution.
But as much as I find his change of heart dishonest, I sincerely pray and hope this Bush administration appreciates and respects our growing apetite for isolationism. There's an anti-interventionist build-up. We have serious problems in this country, and we need an American leader to address our American problems.
AN AMERICAN LEADER - not a "leader of the free world" or a "world leader," not someone who pay attention to "world opinion" or some lingo used by globalists who strive to Americanize foreign conflicts that should not be our business and globalize domestic American issues.
We just want a graceful exit from Iraq and the middle East in general. Bush's new found interest in Somalia MUST STOP! Our troops in Djibouti, South Korea, Japan should be brought home to secure our porous border with Mexico.
Real Security is securing our borders, our ports. Real economic security is making sure our high schools are producing more kids destined for science and engineering and less for journalism or law profession. While our engineers and scientists are working hard to make things Americans are proud of, the politicians, spin lawyers and globalists are looking for how to deplete America's manufacturing capacity and turn us into a third world country
Global capitalism = Socialism and wealth redistribution.
Domestic Capitalism = American capitalism thats more fair for American workers and American-based producers.
Posted by: Jelly at June 17, 2006 02:54 PM
Article for June 16, 2006
What’s wrong with Watada?
First Lieutenant Ehren Watada, 28, of Hawaii refuses to go to Iraq because: 1) he has an obligation to justice and the Constitution; 2) he would be forced to commit war crimes if he went; and 3) Iraq is an unjust and illegal war. Watada would exude more credibility if he merely stated his position and then obeyed his lawful orders.
Statements of general ideals of justice are disingenuous when Watada is merely running a political campaign. The lieutenant is aligned with the political group, “Not in My Name.” His website, thankyoult.org, is set up for contributions which will be used to publish his platform through the courts. He has scheduled press releases, T-shirts, volunteers to wave signs, and networks with politicians like Neil Abercrombie, the spit-on-returning-combat-veterans protester of the 1960’s.
Watada did not state which war crimes he would be required to commit. One can guess he thinks he would be required to abuse or beat naked POW’s at Abu Ghraib, but the US punished those soldiers for war crimes. Perhaps he thinks that he would be required to massacre unarmed women and children, however, the US agrees this is wrong and is investigating the allegations of the so called Haditha Massacre. Perhaps he thinks he would be required to throw people from third stories, gas hundreds of thousands of civilians, or make orphans run across mine fields, but that is what Saddam Hussein’s forces did and were rewarded for. US military personnel individually and rarely violate the law of war, but these are punished severely.
The 28 year old silver bar claims that the war in Iraq is unjust and illegal; however, he is already supporting it even if he does not go. Good officers are committed to the development of their troops. Good officers realize that the soldiers under them have a long and diverse career ahead of them and that a present assignment is also a training opportunity to prepare for more complex tasks later in their career. Good officers realize that their participation in any aspect of the military supports all other operations of the military. These can all be summed up by saying good officers understand the rest of the military is their ohana, an important value that Watada missed.
Watada should have used the John Kerry model of war protesting. Kerry volunteered and went to Vietnam. The future senator brought along a movie camera and used his free time to write his future war protesting scripts. After received his third purple-heart, the future presidential candidate left his command with honors. Watada should have stated his position, packed some extra film, and kept the promises he made three years earlier when he joined the army that was already preparing to fight in Iraq.
Mark Beatty MA, THM, PHD, MBA, JD is the Republican candidate for the US Senate in Hawaii (www.electmarkbeatty.com) For Mark’s other articles see www.bestideashawaii.com.
Posted by: MarkBeatty at June 17, 2006 03:07 PM
You know, Mark, this blog should not be a platform for your political advertising (and free at that). I would suggest that you go elsewhere with your weak ass republican propaganda.
Posted by: claudo at June 17, 2006 03:15 PM
Jelly - "Our troops in Djibouti, South Korea, Japan should be brought home to secure our porous border with Mexico."
Border guards require a lower set of skills than our elite, modern troops. Our troops are forward-based because their impact is greater that way, and their skills are optimized - both as a shock troop reserve force in Djibouti less than 500 miles away from any radical Muslim threat that could break out, any African mess we care to intervene in and fix or just protect endangered US citizens - or as troops integrated in with superb ROK and Japanese SDF, as periodic Leftist animosity to them is on the wane on both Japan and ROK.
Watching for Pedro and Juanita or hard enemy threats like MS-13 thugs or radical Muslims really requires just an auxiliary force that could be drafted, or recruited and made a civilian force with powers of arrest. 3 months of training vs. a year and a half the typical modern soldier needs. The Borders depend more on defeating the Ruling elites than border staffing - once you block the corporatists and open borders ideologues and introduce secure ID, end birthright citizenship for illegal spawn, plus free school, welfare, and medical care - and put a 10,000 dollar fine on employers of illegals and 1,000 dollar snitch rewards - you eliminate 95% of the motivation to invade our country.
I do like your view on how we are being destroyed competively by globalization. We need less lawyers and social services people and more scientists, engineers, and teachers in those fields. But we have to have a country where we can create and produce high tech, high value goods. We cannot just export all our ideas for others to make money off of - China makes all iPods. Workers there put in 90 hour workweeks and make just 5 dollars a day, with no pensions, no worker protections, no environmental laws, limited health care. No way can we compete with that level of dirt cheap skilled worker with little overhead.
I do disagree about "securing our ports". Having 3,000 McDonalds rejects in new government jobs in brand-spanking TSA type polyester uniforms in NYC Harbor does nothing if the ship or airplane coming into port just sets off their nuke or cargo of nerve gas right at the harbor or at the airport. Better we know what is coming in to the US as it is loaded in foreign ports than having a pile of Federal grunts waiting for a ship or airplane with totally unknown cargo to land in the Homeland. DPW is an excellent port operator. Dubai is an ally, a modern Muslim country of moderation. They do host Al Jazeera, which has strong anti-US views and frequently serves the enemy cause - but Al Jazeera is no worse than the NYTimes, the ACLU, and many on the American Left...who side more with Al Jazeera's views than mainstream America.
Posted by: Chris Ford at June 17, 2006 04:32 PM
Chris Ford - good evenhanded analysis above. You've put some thought into it.
"He’s right. Ethically and morally, you’re not supposed to obey an order you think is illegal.”
Flip side it, if it were a German soldier in WWII who refused an order he thought was illegal we'd call him a hero. In Bush's administration that person is a "coward". I wonder how history will see that?
Posted by: Robrob at June 17, 2006 06:31 PM
Chrissy, dubyah is close friends Dubai. He and faux fought tooth-and-nail to save the Dubai ports deal. So, dubyah, the GOPigs, faux, and yourself side Al Jazeera's views. Why do you hate America?
Posted by: Dr. Matt at June 17, 2006 06:36 PM
