An issue that, regretfully, will never be resolved within the ranks of the JACL is the issue of 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, whether his actions are those of a man of courage and conscience, or one of a soldier guilty of disobeying orders. He has become a cause celebre and a lightening rod for those who support or condemn him for his actions.
As the JACL's national director, I crafted the language of the organization's public statement, one which reflected the conflicting views of the board. The only board members who initiated conversations with me at that time (July 2006) were Larry Oda, newly elected national president, with whom I had numerous conversations on this topic, and Ron Katsuyama, MDC governor, in a long and very intense exchange of ideas. Theirs were thoughtful but differing views which were reflected in the statement I ultimately issued.
It was a statement that toed the line, stating that the JACL would be silent on the issue of Watada's refusal to deploy with his unit to Iraq, but raised questions about the two other charges filed against him, noting:
"We agree with those who argue that soldiers must obey orders as part of the discipline of the military. On the other hand, one cannot ignore the lessons of Nuremberg and the personal and moral responsibility of soldiers to question orders that raise grave moral questions. No individual should ever be silenced in this regard."
Ultimately, it was a statement that expressed my view of the issue; or rather, it expressed what I felt was a fair and balanced view that would reasonably articulate the JACL's position on the issue.
This was the statement that the national board officially adopted at its meeting in August 2006.
During the next two months, I researched the issue, talked to attorneys on both sides of the argument, read endlessly on military law and articles relevant to this type of case, and thought about it at length. I was bothered by the position I had written because it did not consider the one factor that I thought we should consider, the First Amendment issue. More than that even, it did not consider the moral implications of Watada's position and what he stood for.
Consequently, it was I who brought this issue before the national board again at its November 2006 meeting, this time asking the board to consider this as a civil rights issue, as a First Amendment issue, and as a moral issue. My position would have taken the organization beyond just the civil rights and legal positions because it ventured into the moral implications of the war.
In the final analysis, I believe that what Watada did was what every soldier should do, and that is to question the morality of orders when they should be questioned. It was in recalling Nuremberg in the original statement that I raised this issue, the excuse Nazi soldiers used in the systematic extermination of over six million Jews during WWII: "I was only following orders." That cannot stand the test of reason, as the Nuremburg courts decided, not in any verisimilitude of truth, not in any profundity of moral righteousness, and certainly not when we send troops to a war without honor. One need only recall the horror of My Lai to know that a soldier who truly believes orders questionable in their morality must challenge them.
If they are not, then who are we as defenders of morality and democracy, and what are we as a nation?
* * *
I know that just raising this issue is a bloodletting and I regret that. I respect the opinions of the veterans who disagree with my point of view, especially those who faced death in battle and shed tears for those they left behind. For many of them, Watada's action is a personal affront, and I understand that.
This issue will never rest easily in our community or in the JACL because there's no easy resolution. There's no right or wrong answer, and maybe we'll have to agree to disagree.
So why bring the issue up again? Because the national board faced this issue at its August meeting. Also because this is something we have to deal with, despite its controversy. It's a military issue, yes, but it's also a civil rights issue. We cannot ignore the lessons of Nuremburg and the injunctions of its moral imperative.
Print This Article-
Email This Article