pudge's Journal: Watada Supporters Who Favor Military Dictatorship

The Seattle P-I printed a guest column by writer Dean Paton, who claims that Watada should be able to claim in his court martial that the Iraq War is illegal.

Other geniuses like Sean Penn say the same thing.

But in order for a court martial to allow this defense, it would have to be able to rule that the defense is valid. And if a court martial rules the defense is valid -- that the war is illegal -- that would constitute the military overruling the civilian government, which has determined that the war is legal.

This sort of thing has another name: "military coup."

It's normally the sort of things liberals do not want ... or so I thought.

It's *exactly* what they want

[Bill Dog]

Why do you think they fawn so over Chavez and Castro? The people are too stupid to be persuaded over what's good for them, so it has to be imposed, for their own good, you see. And a powerful dictatorship is the best way. They tried just shouting down all dissent, but there's no time for that now with the earth boiling over. Fascism is a *good* thing when there's so much at stake.

So how do you resist an illegal order?

[Charbox]

I'm having trouble understanding how a defendant at a court marshal saying they believe an order was illegal is comparable to a military coup. Isn't that a little over the top? If a civilian judge rules that an accused peyote user is allowed to claim in his defense that his religious tradition requires the drug, does that become state sponsorship of religion? If a judge says it is proper for an accused murder to claim self-defense, is that the same as the government saying that he in fact did act in self

Re:

[pudge]

I'm having trouble understanding how a defendant at a court marshal [sic] saying they believe an order was illegal is comparable to a military coup.

It's not. I never said that, so maybe that is why you don't understand. You misunderstand two points.

First, it is not "an order." It is a specific order: one that says the war is illegal.

Second, it is not the defendant making the argument that is the problem, it is the court's agreement with the argument. Allowing the argument to be made necessarily means the court could agree with it, and that agreement would constitute overruling the civilian authority.

And the military overruling the civilian authori