Online only letters to the editor

Ehren Watada

Editor, The Times:

"Officer at Fort Lewis calls Iraq war illegal, refuses order to go," [Times, News, June 7] discusses one of the few military heroes of the Iraq war. Only those who stand up to higher authority and refuse higher orders that go all the way up the chain of command are doing anything to defend this country and its Constitution.

1st Lt. Ehren Watada brings us honor we were once known for.

— Duane Grindstaff, Kent

I wonder if The Times would push for Ehren Watada's dishonorable discharge ["Dishonorable discharge, not prison, for Watada," editorial, June 25] if this were 1940s Germany and his unit ran the gas chambers and ovens at Auschwitz or Dachau.

Watada believes the Iraq "war" is both illegal and immoral and wants nothing to do with it. His assessment is shared by a large part of the world as well as a substantial share of his fellow Americans.

Before we string up Watada for "not following through with his commitment," let's make sure the Bush administration moves to the head of the "failed commitment" line. It's time to hang the real outlaws in this matter. Actually, it's way past time. The real dishonor lies on the heads of all of us who allow this travesty in Iraq to go on.

— Bob Wojtyna, Woodinville

It was Bertrand Russell who said those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Watada has obviously studied enough history to know that ordering one's men to commit war crimes is itself a war crime, and that following orders is not an excuse for committing such a crime.

Whether one agrees with Watada or not, it is unusual and refreshing to see a man whose beliefs have been altered by experience willing to risk punishment for acting on those altered beliefs.

As a parent, I hope that my children would, in a similar situation, be people of such integrity and strength of character.

— Leslie Sirag, Olympia

I cannot understand the logic of some people whose letters you've published regarding Ehren Watada ["Officer's core," Northwest Voices, June 26].

One writer said, "I am proud that we have a president who wants out of Iraq..." Huh? Did the writer forget that it was George Bush who knowingly lied and sent us there in the first place? Why should we believe Bush now? We've built — and continue to build — permanent installations in Iraq. We're there to stay just as we are in Vietnam and Korea and dozens of other countries throughout the world.

Or the writer that refers to those of us who prefer peace to war as "peaceniks." Is killing others the only way to stop warfare? I don't think so.

— Matt Nadler, Seattle

The Times' "Dishonorable discharge, not prison, for Watada" [editorial, June 25] almost looks like shooting from the hip, or a knee-jerk reaction, to a very sad and unfortunate situation.

While it is true that Ehren Watada joined the military, and agreed to abide by the rules, clearly the Army is to blame for not letting him resign. If someone has a change of mind, as in "been there, done that, don't want to do it any longer," there is no point in keeping the person in the military. Also, instead of the Army's "it's-our-way-or-the-highway" approach, the Army could reassign Watada to different job duties, thereby letting him complete his term. That would put an end to all the fuss.

What about his service up to his refusal to deploy? Did he have good and honorable conduct up to that point? If he did, then the Times recommendation for a dishonorable discharge might be a tad harsh.

Sometimes, the U.S. military acts in a punitive way to hand out bad conduct, dishonorable, and undesirable discharges, for seemingly insignificant offenses; without giving more thought and consideration to the person's service up to the point of the offense or problem.

There are other forms of discharge, such as a "general discharge." If both sides no longer want anything to do with each other, a general discharge would more than likely be more appropriate in Watada's situation.

I am a U.S. military veteran, but I am not a supporter of Watada. I write to clarify the issue, hoping The Times will reconsider its recommendation, to allow for and recognize Lt. Watada's previously good and honorable service to his country.

— Gary Clark, Marysville

Defining marriage

Reader Reader Brendan Payne ["Respect the other's views," Northwest Voices, June 9] claims that "keeping marriage the way it has always been — between a husband and wife — is common sense, not a bigoted restriction."

Perhaps he should look a little closer at the way marriage "has always been." In the Bible, polygamy was a common form of marriage. It was — and still is — practiced in many parts of the world. In biblical times, wives were treated as their husband's property and adultery was punishable by stoning.

Marriage has already changed a lot since then, and the world has produced a stunning array of forms, definitions and customs of marriage. People are, of course, free to believe that gay marriage is sinful or disturbing, but it's clear that those beliefs are not based on the Bible or on an understanding of the way(s) marriage "has always been."

— Ben Grossblatt, Seattle

University Presbyterian Church

"Church Finds Strength in Numbers" [News, June 11] states that [University Presbyterian Church] "has been criticized for not taking strong stances on critical issues such as the Iraq war." I found that to be interesting because as a member of UPC, that is what I enjoy so much about Rev. Earl Palmer's sermons — the focus on the Bible rather than on politics.

Over the years of walking through UPC's parking garages and lots, I've noticed many cars with the UPC parking sticker decal as well as a bumper sticker for Bush or Kerry, "Support Our Troops" or "No Iraq War." To quote another bumper sticker I've seen: "God is not a Republican. Or a Democrat." Regardless of how we vote in the privacy of our own homes or at the polling station, we attend UPC because we want to hear Pastor Earl preach from the Bible.

— Linda Glas, Seattle

Gen X dads

The Times' Father's Day article, "Gen X Dads: Many young fathers more involved than baby boomers before them" [News, June 17] took me back in time, and gave me pause.

Ten years ago I, too, was in the joyful throes of being a daytime, stay-at-home dad — a rare bird on the mom-filled playgrounds where my son and I spent hours gleefully goofing off. My wife and I worked opposite hours by design, so as to lavish our son with parental time. It was a wondrous time, but I became so enamored of building a dad-son relationship that my marriage suffered mightily. Now I am a single dad, and while I have a fun and loving relationship with my son, I'd offer a caution that I learned too late: Dads, the best thing you can do for your kids is love their mother.

— Brian Donohue, Seattle

Bush in Europe

When asked about America being the greatest threat to peace in the world, President George W. Bush, slouched on one elbow over his podium like a lazy student, simply shrugged his shoulders. Europe is livid over the chaos caused by America around the globe, and he shrugs his shoulders?

I was taught in school that one treats a bully by ignoring him.

Are we becoming a pariah nation?

— Lars Pardo, Seattle