U.S. Military Officers violate Lt. Ehren Watada' Freedom of Religion

[divinemission]

August 30, 2006

[FONT=&quot]Lt. General James M. Dubik[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Commanding General[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Fort Lewis and I Corps[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Bldg 2025 Stop 1[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Forth Lewis, WA 98433[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Re: Request for Compliance with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, by immediately dropping charges against Lt. Ehren Watada.[/FONT]


Dear Lt. General Dubik:

[FONT=&quot]As you well know in the war zones, if soldiers do not kill enemies, enemies will likely kill them! Therefore, Lt Ehren Watada and all soldiers whose religions are based on Old Testament religious laws have a right to exercise freedom of religion, by refusing to enter the war zones. The entire country of Iraq is a war zone, and soldiers and Iraqis people have been murdered daily in Iraq for over two years.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The facts of the United States Constitution and the Almighty God’s Laws:[/FONT]

The first amendment of the United States Constitution states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


[FONT=&quot]The following are Old Testament scriptures and an explanation of the Almighty Eternal God’s laws for religions that are based on Old Testament teachings: [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]God created man in his image, in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them, saying: “Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it (Genesis 1:27-28).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You shall not kill (Exodus 20:13).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]When a man is burning over a field or a vineyard, if he lets the fire spread so that it burns in another’s field, he must make restitution with the best produce of his own field or vineyard (Exodus 22:4).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Old Testament records that the Israelites came to God and begged God to win over their enemy, and God allowed them to win. Israel exercised its right to disobey God’s commandment because God always respects the human right to exercise free will. Today’s earthly government leaders act in the same way, exercising their free will, engaging in wars, and ignoring God the Master and sole owner of the universe’s laws.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I understand that the charges brought against Lt. Ehren Watada are based on military laws, but this military law is badly violating the First Amendment of the United States Constitution that protects freedom of religion. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Lt. Ehren Watada is a Christian, and he has the full right to exercise his freedom of religion that is protected in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. He is obeying his God’s laws that prohibit killing people and indicate that he should multiply human life on earth, and not to destroy other people structures. Therefore, Lt. Ehren Watada cannot go to the Iraqi War Zone without breaking his covenant with his God and his religion. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I think you must have complied with all the United States Constitutional Amendments, Federal and State laws, as well as all military rules before you became the Commanding General of Fort Lewis and I Corps! [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Therefore, I request that you should immediately comply with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and understand that Lt. Ehren Watada is exercising his freedom of religion, and therefore, you must immediately drop the illegal charges against him, and the military leaders shall apologize to him for wrongly pressed charges against him.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I request that this letter and the attached documents “Lack of Holiness Causes Destruction, and The Almighty’s call for correction” shall be evidence in Lt. Ehren Watada’s matter, and shall be filed with the Court Marshall if you refuse to drop the charges against Lt. Ehren Watada. I also submit myself as a religious expert witness to Lt. Ehren Watada’s Court Martial trial.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If you have any questions or need more information, please contact me.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Sincerely,[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]D. Q. Mariette Do-Nguyen
Kingdom of Heaven World Divine Mission

[/FONT]

 

[MaddLlama]

This makes no logical sense.

Listen to me and listen to me well.....if you do not want to enter a war zone, and/or see what goes on in war THEN DON'T JOIN THE FRIKKIN ARMY. This has nothing to do with freedom of religion. If you have a weak stomach or a weak conscience, then take off your camo and go the **** home.

Seriously, the government has better things to do with it's time than pander to whinning idiots who joined the army and didn't realize they may have to shoot somebody. Nobody is forcing these people to join the army, so that whole "my religion says "blah blah blah" just doesn't wash. Sure, you can join and stand in the sidelines doing computer work, it's not all about being in the infantry, but you can't expect that if you make a career out of war that during wartime in enemy territory you'll never face a situation where you might have to fight. Cry me a river, go home and get a job as a software engineer.

I'm sick of this crybaby garbage.

 

[BFD_Zayl]

This makes no logical sense.

Listen to me and listen to me well.....if you do not want to enter a war zone, and/or see what goes on in war THEN DON'T JOIN THE FRIKKIN ARMY. This has nothing to do with freedom of religion. If you have a weak stomach or a weak conscience, then take off your camo and go the **** home.

Seriously, the government has better things to do with it's time than pander to whinning idiots who joined the army and didn't realize they may have to shoot somebody. Nobody is forcing these people to join the army, so that whole "my religion says "blah blah blah" just doesn't wash. Sure, you can join and stand in the sidelines doing computer work, it's not all about being in the infantry, but you can't expect that if you make a career out of war that during wartime in enemy territory you'll never face a situation where you might have to fight. Cry me a river, go home and get a job as a software engineer.

I'm sick of this crybaby garbage.

i agree, 100%!:jam:

 

[robtex]

So if we could turn this into a more acute debate D.M. would it be fair to say you are advocating that people in the armed services who object to war should be excused from battle due to religious beliefs?

As a footnote, wouldn't the miltary's acknowledgement of religion in choice of duties be a violation of seperation of church and state as unequal treatment by a goverment entitity would be given to one faith over another?

 

[Pah]

So if we could turn this into a more acute debate D.M. would it be fair to say you are advocating that people in the armed services who object to war should be excused from battle due to religious beliefs?

As a footnote, wouldn't the miltary's acknowledgement of religion in choice of duties be a violation of seperation of church and state as unequal treatment by a goverment entitity would be given to one faith over another?

Yes. There is a body of law that deals with consciencious objection. which is based on a faith and not necessarily a mainline faith. The petition to the court should have been couched in those terms.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

A soldiers duties should be explained to him before he signs on, and takes the Oath. ( in the UK anyway.)
There-after he should have to prove and register any change in faith, that might render his contract with the army valueless.
Contentious objectors do not get so far as joining the army.

 

[robtex]

A soldiers duties should be explained to him before he signs on, and takes the Oath. ( in the UK anyway.)

Terry, in the USA there is. The person joining the armed services signs a contract detailing what they are doing and why. Once in the services if they request a job change or interview for another position the position is layed out for them in writing beforehand. Ambiguity over job roles and duties isn't gonna be an issue in this thread.

 

[Quiddity]

As a footnote, wouldn't the miltary's acknowledgement of religion in choice of duties be a violation of seperation of church and state as unequal treatment by a goverment entitity would be given to one faith over another?

Over another? I thought this was being done with anybody who is religious/non-religious?

One is one to do with people who simply don't want to be there for X reason? Is it only going to be turned down if there is a connection to religious institution?

 

[robtex]

Over another? I thought this was being done with anybody who is religious/non-religious?

One is one to do with people who simply don't want to be there for X reason? Is it only going to be turned down if there is a connection to religious institution?

I am afraid of derailing the topic if we go this way. I was asking in that post to clairfy my understanding of the issue.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

...As a footnote, wouldn't the miltary's acknowledgement of religion in choice of duties be a violation of seperation of church and state as unequal treatment by a goverment entitity would be given to one faith over another?

:clap That's what I was thinking.

I did a little reading, and found out that this guy is no conscientious objector.

...In January, Watada told his commanders that he believed that the war was unlawful, and therefore, so were his deployment orders. He did not, however, consider himself a conscientious objector, since he was willing to fight in wars that were justified, legal and in defense of the nation...

Source. His religious status is merely a ruse he is throwing up to try and avoid a court martial for failure to obey orders.

I think this quote sums up my belief on this guy.

..."He has an obligation to fulfill, and it is not up to the individual officer to decide when he is going to deploy or not deploy," said Jerry Newberry, a Vietnam veteran and director of communications for the Veterans of Foreign Wars...

 

[Booko]

So if we could turn this into a more acute debate D.M. would it be fair to say you are advocating that people in the armed services who object to war should be excused from battle due to religious beliefs?

As a footnote, wouldn't the miltary's acknowledgement of religion in choice of duties be a violation of seperation of church and state as unequal treatment by a goverment entitity would be given to one faith over another?

I know Baha'is who join the armed services, but as non-coms, and that's the deal when they sign up. That doesn't mean they won't go into war zones -- if they're medics and such they probably will.

I'm not getting the point of the person in the OP. If you join the armed services, surely you realize you might end up in a war zone, even if your a non-combatant? It seems rather silly (to put it nicely) to then object to being sent into a war zone.

 

[Booko]

Yes. There is a body of law that deals with consciencious objection. which is based on a faith and not necessarily a mainline faith. The petition to the court should have been couched in those terms.

In what ways would that apply to someone who volunteers?

I can see how it would apply to someone who's drafted.

 

[Majikthise]

Lt. (an officer!?) Watada should never have joined the military in the first place. As one who has served active duty and reserve terms in the U.S. military myself ,I find this whole situation to be over the top B.S..
I don't know Lt. Watada's situation or how the military is handling it so I will reserve any judgement of her, but the person who penned this letter has no earthly clue what they are talking about. This is what happens when you live in a fairytale.

 

[Majikthise]

Thanks for the clarification CX (post#10).
This guy should be jailed IMO.

 

[Draka]

I'm a bit confused here. Are they saying that they would go to say, Afghanistan, because that is "lawful", but not Iraq because they believe the war itself to be "unlawful"? If that be the case, I agree with the opinion, but that doesn't really matter. You sign the contract and take your oath and that's that. You do what your told. If you are told to go to the war zone, you go to the war zone.

There's a difference between obeying an order to go to your new duty station and obeying an order to torture a prisoner. One is legal and one isn't. You have the right to disobey an order that is illegal to give, and orders to a war zone are not illegal.

 

[ayani]

ok. i can understand a person freaking out in a war zone and not wanting to kill / hurt anyone. i can.

"**** this, i'm not shooting anyone."

i think i would be inclined to be sympathetic to that person, regardless of military law.

but that wouldn't hold up very well in a court, of course. i would also hope that one's ethical objections to killing would be something the individual would realize before they sign an agreement to go into battle.

at the same time, someone's sense of horror and objection could spring upon them in battle, and not when faced with the mere idea of killing.

 

[BFD_Zayl]

ok, when you join the military, on your first few days you get a gun, explosives, armor, a knife, camo, ammunition, training on how to kill, and possibly an armoured vehicle to drive in...if you get all this you gotta realize "...holy crap, i think i might have to fight" its sort of obvious isnt it?

 

[Djamila]

Wouldn't the miltary's acknowledgement of religion in choice of duties be a violation of seperation of church and state as unequal treatment by a goverment entitity would be given to one faith over another?

Not really. The American military is fairly religious already. You have the Air Force where Evangelical Christians are apparently very influential. You also have a lot religious, rather than scientific, rules such as the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and so on.

There's the religious...I'll say leaders, I don't know the actual term...for every faith who travel with the soldiers?

 

[Djamila]

At the same time, someone's sense of horror and objection could spring upon them in battle, and not when faced with the mere idea of killing.

That's very true. It's always very different in a war zone than it appears to those outside of it, looking in.

Has he been to Iraq already? If so, I can understand it.

To offer one example... when the Americans took control of Iraq, they largely based their troops at Saddam Hussein's former palace compounds - they're big, lots of open space, relatively easy to defend. So, this is where the checkpoints and US Army roadblocks are.

No one bothered to think about things:

1) The public relations disaster that was in Iraq, for a foreign army to come and visually assume the same role as Saddam Hussein.

2) Iraqis have been trained for decades never to so much as look at these palaces. When they drive past them, they look straight ahead, and speed by - watch aerial footage of Baghdad and just watch how the traffic ZOOMS past castles and then slows down again. This is why so many hundreds of Iraqi civilians have been killed at checkpoints, shot because they didn't "listen", didn't "stop".

Well, if you put a pit under a "welcome mat" and you can't blame those who fall in for the whole thing.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

For those interested, here's some more information on Lt. Watada.

On Thursday, August 24, Investigating Officer Lieutenant Colonel Mark Keith recommended that the Army pursue its case against First Lieutenant Ehren Watada on all pending charges: missing movement, two counts of contempt toward officials (specifically President G. W. Bush), and three counts of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.

However, Ltc. Keith also stated that he thinks "[Lt.] Watada is sincere in his beliefs," adding that "this is relevant in determining whether this case should go forward to General Court Martial and should mitigate any future punishment." Complete Article 32 report with hearing transcript (PDF). Defense rebuttal to Article 32 report (PDF), August 28, 2006...​

Source

As a fellow Christian I commend his beliefs, and I cannot completely disagree with his opinions on the Iraq War. However, I think Draka summed it up best.

I'm a bit confused here. Are they saying that they would go to say, Afghanistan, because that is "lawful", but not Iraq because they believe the war itself to be "unlawful"? If that be the case, I agree with the opinion, but that doesn't really matter. You sign the contract and take your oath and that's that. You do what your told. If you are told to go to the war zone, you go to the war zone...

Now that the battle lines have been drawn in the case, I believe he will be convicted and receive a rather harsh sentence.​