Army officer court-martial tests free speech

[lligrd]

Army officer court-martial tests free speech By Daisuke Wakabayashi
17 minutes ago

SEATTLE (Reuters) - A U.S. Army officer, whose public refusal to go fight in Iraq made him a champion of the anti-war movement, faces a court-martial next week when a military panel could determine the limits of free-speech rights for officers.

First Lt. Ehren Watada faces up to four years in prison if convicted on a charge of missing movements and two charges of conduct unbecoming an officer when his court-martial starts on Monday at Fort Lewis, an Army base near Seattle.

Watada, a 28-year-old artillery officer, refused to deploy with his brigade to Iraq last summer and called the war illegal and immoral. He refused conscientious-objector status, saying he would fight in Afghanistan but not Iraq.

<<more>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070202/ts_nm/usa_iraq_officer_dc;_ylt=AuzJA6DDq9lCqFhQH3HfdvHMWM0F;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

[Kagemusha]

1. I'm sorry... where were these limits not determined before?

I didn't think the law was in dispute, only the degree to which the military would force this to a trial with criminal penalties. The law does not, to my knowledge, permit cherry-picking which war you prefer to be deployed to - though many things should have happened besides court-marshall, but the stop-loss stressed Army isn't entertaining them. Therefore, an example is being made of him, enforcing laws on the books that everyone knows exists and are not a surprise or shock to anyone.

Having said that.

Where on Earth were the limits of free speech for officers not well established prior to this?... this isn't a case of there being no judicial precedent for goodness sakes.

[Xithras]

2. Actually, the limits are well established.

Congress long ago declared that the military is ruled by the UCMJ and not by civil law, and the UCMJ implements certain speech limitations on soldiers. Are they necessary? Probably, there are very valid reasons to keep soldiers from divulging information and opinions during wartime. Are they Constitutional? I don't think they've ever been tested, but my gut feeling is that the answer is no.

My guess is that this is the "not well established" issue the article refers to. Soldiers are not allowed to speak out publicly about their uperior officers, ever, under the terms of the UCMJ. This is according to a law enacted by Congress, and supported by many court challenges. Whether this particular limitation would withstand Supreme Court scrutiny, however, is still an unsettled issue.

[Sgent]

4. They are constitutional

as long as the soldier / officer agrees to it when they sign up (which they did), they lose many of their rights -- especially while wearing a uniform.

[Kagemusha]

6. Officers are supposed to be different...

In a draft army, officers are volunteer careerists loyal to the chain of command and the political leadership. Having said that, the modern situation makes them more like higher paid, higher rank sergeants. That's how you get situations like this: a 'just follow orders' system used against an officer who should either be on board or outside the system. But since the Iraq war is being treated like a permanent emergency, they can't simply let him go, as they see it. Hence the court case.

[Monkeyman]

3. There is no free speech in the Military

Article 32 is what the LT. is facing other face Article 15's

[Kagemusha]

7. Enlisted men are supposed to have much more free speech

so long as it's not targeted at the military chain of command itself... Congress has passed laws to that effect but the military seems to be trying very hard to ensure everyone forgets they exist...

[hogwyld]

5. As the old saying goes

They're here to protect Democracy, not to practice it. I personally would like to see him win as that would bring down the whole establishment. A soldier signs up to protect the country, not to pillage war booty from others.

[Cha]

8. BEst of Luck, Lt

Watada! Standing up for yourself in the face of the unholy bushreich! What a CONCEPT!