Watada mistrial

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/302733_courtmartial07ww.html

Mistrial ends Watada court-martial
War objector may have to be tried again.

By MIKE BARBER
P-I REPORTER

FORT LEWIS -- The court-martial of 1st Lt. Ehren Watada ended in a mistrial Wednesday.

The case's judge, Lt. Col. John Head, declared the trial over after a day of wrangling over a stipulation of facts that Watada had signed before the trial and that would have been part of the instructions to the jury. The judge decided that Watada never intended when he signed the stipulation to mean that he had a duty to go to Iraq with his unit.

Again the issue was Watada's views on the Iraq war -- opinions that kept him from going with his unit to the conflict and that the judge didn't want brought up at the court-martial.

Watada, a Stryker Brigade soldier, is the first commissioned officer to refuse to be deployed to Iraq. Watada's unit left this sprawling base for Iraq in June, but Watada remained behind. He said he believes the war is illegal and that his duty is to not abide by illegal orders.

But Head tried to keep the court-martial from becoming a tribunal on the war and its legality and has ruled that Watada's attorney cannot present witnesses to question the war's legality. Outside the base, that has been the issue as peace activists from across the country have rallied to Watada's side.

Watada is charged with missing movement to Iraq and with two counts of conduct unbecoming an officer. Those last two charges result from statements Watada made against the war in a video tape released to reporters after he made his refusal to go to Iraq public and to a Veterans for Peace convention at the University of Washington.

He had been charged with two other counts of conduct unbecoming for interviews he gave. Prosecutors dropped those charged in return for Watada's signing a stipulation that he had given the interviews. He also acknowledged in the stipulation that he didn't go with his unit to Iraq, though he didn't admit his guilt to the missing movement charge.

With the jury of officers out of the courtroom Wednesday morning, Head wanted to question Watada about the stipulation to make sure that it was accurate and to protect the lieutenant against any mistakes in it.

But Eric Seitz, Watada's attorney, objected to the questioning. He said the stipulation should include Watada's reasons for not going to Iraq: His views that the war is illegal.



"It has always been his position that not only would he miss movement but he would not participate in a war he considered illegal" and not participate in war crimes, Seitz said.
"His specific intent was of a different character all together" than simply missing his unit's deployment to Iraq, Seitz said.

To prove a charge of missing movement, the prosecutors need to show that Watada did not report when he had a duty to do so. The disagreement that prompted the mistrial was about whether Watada admitted missing troop movement and having a duty to report, or only missing troop movement.

"I see there is an inconsistency in the stipulation of fact," the judge said Wednesday. "I don't know how I can accept (it) as we stand here now."

Because much of the Army's evidence was laid out in the document, rejecting it would hurt its case, Head acknowledged. He granted the prosecutors' request for a mistrial, which Watada's lawyer opposed.
 
He granted the prosecutors' request for a mistrial, which Watada's lawyer opposed.
Click to expand...

Which sounds like a nice way of saying the defense is going to get hammered in the next trial, since the Army will no longer be willing to offer up any deals.
 
Mistrial is appropriate if the stipulation has any room for interpretation. The reason legal documents are so darned complicated and require a lawyer to read is to ensure that there is no room for interpretation.

There has to be more in the stipulations that would cause the prosecutors to drop from 6 to 4 years.. Things like "talked to reporters" and "missed movement" are trivial to prove. It will be interesting to watch this case unfold.
 
Lt Watada is being denied his right to defend himself in his court martial. Regardless of what your view may be on the Iraq conflict, the fact remains that Lt Watada's defense rests SOLELY on the legality of this war. The Judge has told Lt Watada and his lawyer that the question of the legality of the war may NOT be introduced into the court martial. That denial has completely eliminated Lt Watada's ability to defend himself.

In point of fact, if the war in Iraq is illegal then Lt Watada had a duty and obligation to refuse to deploy. If the war is legal, then the government should not be reluctant to let the issue be argued in court.
 
In point of fact, if the war in Iraq is illegal then Lt Watada had a duty and obligation to refuse to deploy. If the war is legal, then the government should not be reluctant to let the issue be argued in court.
Click to expand...

Exac-ly! +1!!
 
Lt Watada is being denied his right to defend himself in his court martial
Click to expand...

Thats complete baloney. The UCMJ is different, but assuming that this is the same as civvie law, not allowing a particular line of argument is not denying someone the right to a defense. This is especially so if the defense isn't valid in the first place. (Army lieutenants are not qualified nor granted the authority to determine the legality of a war)
 
(Army lieutenants are not qualified nor granted the authority to determine the legality of a war)
Click to expand...

Isn't the legality determined by the court system? And how else does one get this into the court system?
 
Ummm....I believe that the Nuremberg trials obligated soldiers to question the legality of all orders. After all..it's OUR lives on the line if we follow an illegal order.
 
As I understand it, a court martial isn't really there to decide the legality of anything. It is there to decide if a military member subject to the UCMJ should be punished for their questionable actions. Lt. Watada will have his chance to question the legality of the war in court, but only after the Army convicts or acquits him for the violations they think he committed against the UCMJ. If he wanted to fight this in court, he should have done it before he joined the Army (the war was already kicking off), or he should have fulfilled his military commitment then taken the issue to court after he got out of the service.
 
Huchahucha, your argument is noted. However beliefs change and room must be allowed for that. A gung ho soldier starts our completely committed to destroying the enemies of the country, then he "finds Jesus" and now realizes that killing is killing, period and so becomes a conscientious objector.

It's very possible that Lt. Watada believed what the Bush administration said to get us into this war but that as time went by he began to believe (realize?) that the President and his administration are a bunch of liars. His new found knowledge has led him to the realization that the war in Iraq is illegal.

Beliefs change.
 
Danzig,
I understand your point completely. I served active duty in the Air Force from 1993 to 2001. Now I'm a civilian and my job has me working with some of the same enlisted folks that I served with. It is getting frustrating for me to watch them working their butts off, shipping out to Iraq or Afghanistan every six months, but I can't imagine a single one of them just flat out refusing to go. I don't think they could stand to let their fellow servicemen down - they have too much dignity.

I have no doubt people change, but if your beliefs are conflicting with your obligations, you pay your debt first and then move on to your new life.

Even if Bush is a liar and his lies got us into an illegal war (I'm not saying he is or has), he is still a civilian and therefore his actions can't be decided in a court martial. Unless the war is officially decided by whatever autority as legal or illegal, it is strictly a matter of opinion and not a very good foundation for a defense.
 
Ummm....I believe that the Nuremberg trials obligated soldiers to question the legality of all orders. After all..it's OUR lives on the line if we follow an illegal order.
Click to expand...

Yes. But a "war" is not an order. Its not the soldiers place to question it.

Aside from that, telling someone to ship off to Iraq is not an illegal order. Its one thing to disobey an order in refusing to kill people, but its a whole other thing to refuse to get on the plane. Never, nowhere has it ever been ruled that "get on the plane and go to whereever" was or is an illegal order.
 
It is every soldiers job to put Constitution before president.

I am ex-serviceman, and I support Watada 100%.

This war is based on manipulated un-intelligence, and war powers are constituionally in the hands of congress.

I personally, am appalled at the amount of LEO's who have no clue about the Constitution, the regressions in law that violate it, and unalienable rights.

I think all citizens, and LEO's should be backing Watada.

But then again, I think all people should be taught citizenship and government in school..... what right do I have to think that of course... I only pay for it.

:mad:
 
This war is based on manipulated un-intelligence, and war powers are constituionally in the hands of congress.
Click to expand...

Care to provide some proof? Does it matter to you that congress approved of the action in Iraq.

As for this puke, its not for him to decide foreign policy and nothing in the UCMJ or military protocol allows him to. The only order he recieved was to deploy to Iraq. Deployment isn't an invalid or unlawful order.

He's the one legged man in this legal ass kicking contest.
 
Stage2 said:
Care to provide some proof?
Click to expand...

Sure, what proof would you like to see? Any in particular? What specificly?

I will elaborate to your hearts content, and provide links and resources.

Stage2 said:
Does it matter to you that congress approved of the action in Iraq.
Click to expand...

Does it matter to you that none of them read it, while asking LEO's everywhere to lay their life down for it, should need be?

I view Congress and all of its currently seated officials as treasonous pigs, so, no, it doesn't much matter.

Stage2 said:
As for this puke, its not for him to decide foreign policy and nothing in the UCMJ or military protocol allows him to. The only order he recieved was to deploy to Iraq. Deployment isn't an invalid or unlawful order.
Click to expand...

BS. His oath is to CONSTITUTION first, and president and officers above him second. Is this not obvious? If that were not the case, could not a corrupt group use the military against their own, for their own purposes?

Stage2 said:
He's the one legged man in this legal ass kicking contest.
Click to expand...

Watada? Yes, he is, largely due to ignorance and apathy of my fellow American citizens who still believe this system is "acting in their best intrests" or "protecting their rights".
 
Sure, what proof would you like to see? Any in particular? What specificly?

I will elaborate to your hearts content, and provide links and resources.
Click to expand...

Anything to show the war was based on a lie will suffice.



Does it matter to you that none of them read it, while asking LEO's everywhere to lay their life down for it, should need be?
Click to expand...

Who read what? And what do LEO's have to do with Iraq. You said this puke soldier has a duty to the constitution. Well, the constotutional requirements were satisfied when congress approved Bush's actions.


I view Congress and all of its currently seated officials as treasonous pigs, so, no, it doesn't much matter.
Click to expand...

This is the clarification I was looking for. Ready to start the revolution all over again are we.


BS. His oath is to CONSTITUTION first, and president and officers above him second. Is this not obvious? If that were not the case, could not a corrupt group use the military against their own, for their own purposes?
Click to expand...

But once again, the constitution was satisfied in this case.



Watada? Yes, he is, largely due to ignorance and apathy of my fellow American citizens who still believe this system is "acting in their best intrests" or "protecting their rights".
Click to expand...

Apathy for what? An officer who deserts his troops in a time of war. They used to shoot people for that you know.
 
Stage2 said:
Anything to show the war was based on a lie will suffice.
Click to expand...

Firstly, don't put words in my mouth.

Did I use the word "lie"?

I said manipulated (un)intelligence, tongue in cheek.

Do you deny that intelligence was manipulated to present a strong case for war in Iraq, by the Administration? Do you also deny that this case has been being dismantled since the start of the war.

Here are some key points of intelligence manipulated to present the case for war.

*WMD in Iraq. (none)
*Yellow Cake from Niger (false)
*Aluminum Tubes for centrifuges (false)
*Mobile Bio-Chem Weapons Labs (false)

...among others, all proven false and misleading as presented by the Administration.

Care to check the facts? Here is a list of resources minus the media spin where YOU dear reader can investigate to your hearts content, if you value facts and not partisan spin, rights above gubbmint.

Federation of American Scientists:
http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp

The Reporters Committee on Freedom of the Press:
http://rcfp.org/behindthehomefront/

Memory Hole:
http://www.thememoryhole.org/

Cryptome:
http://cryptome.org/

Global Security:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/

Project on Government Oversight:
http://www.pogo.org/

Electronic Privacy Information Center:
http://www.epic.org/

Freedom information efforts-global:
http://www.freedominfo.org/

OMB watch:
http://www.ombwatch.org/

Freedom of Information Clearinghouse:
http://www.citizen.org/

Access Reports:
http://www.accessreports.com/

James Madison Project:
http://www.jamesmadisonproject.org/

Freedom of Inoformational Law:
http://foi.wikispaces.com/

FOIA documents:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/foia/index.html#foia.

CIA Center for the Study of Intelligence:
https://www.cia.gov/csi/


If you can't access this information and answer all of your own questions, please PM me.

Sorry I had to be one of those to "spill" truth all over the table.

Stage2 said:
Who read what? And what do LEO's have to do with Iraq. You said this puke soldier has a duty to the constitution. Well, the constotutional requirements were satisfied when congress approved Bush's actions.
Click to expand...

Puke soldier? As an ex-soldier, I take that quite offensively.

No, the Constitutional requirements were NOT met, by the Congress approving Bush's plan for war. Perhaps you should do some reading about what really happened, and why the plan backfired by those who were "pressured" in to voting the plan up, HINGING that approval on more information that was never provided by the administration?

Perhaps you should take quarrely with Congressmen who vote up issues without seeing all the evidence?

Perhaps, as a citizen, you may want to hold your government accountable for the BILLIONS of dollars used to finance a Unconstitutional war in your name, using your money?

Perhaps, a little study about what the Constitution says about war powers, and coining money, and taxation?

Obviously you are caught up in the world you live in, and not the Laws we claim to live by. :mad:

That is the equivalent of being a "tool" for the oppressor.

Stage2 said:
This is the clarification I was looking for. Ready to start the revolution all over again are we.
Click to expand...

Well, lets analyze that, shall we?

They have rigged our election system to allow two party domination of the four point political compass that is used to define ANY government.

They have systematicly infringed upon every single enumerated, unalienable right in the BOR, using law, which contradicts the very idea of CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS by the people, does it not?

They have ignored the peaceful protests that take place around the nation, and had the gall to pass laws describing "free speech zones" where you are "allowed" to speak freely. (conveniently away from any cameras, visiting dignataries, or any other assembly of lawmakers.)

They have ignored multiple "petitions for redress of grievance" by the citizens, as well as back-logging legitimate cases that the court refuses to hear, based on their bi-partisan appointment bias.

They have started using Federal and State LE agencies to imprison, harass and infiltrate peaceful, citizen political and religious organizations.



So, yea.... I am ready to invoke my right to revolt, once the sheeple get whiff of coffee.

Do you deny that the Constitution GUARANTEES a Republican form of government to the people of the United States?

Stage2 said:
But once again, the constitution was satisfied in this case.

Only to the ignorant and apathetic who hear what they "want" to hear.

“The public have an insatiable curiosity to know everything. Except what is worth knowing. Journalism, conscious of this, and having tradesman-like habits, supplies their demands.”
-Oscar Wilde

“Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have.”
-Richard Salant, former President of CBS News

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“Reason obeys itself; and ignorance does whatever is dictated to it.”
-Thomas Paine, Rights of Man ("Conclusion")


Stage 2 said:
Apathy for what? An officer who deserts his troops in a time of war. They used to shoot people for that you know.
Click to expand...

They also used to burn witches at the stake, keep slaves, and deny women a right to vote, should we bring those back for you too?

This Officer is STANDING UP for what is Constitutional, as opposed to the system in power. (rebloodlicans and democrips)

What you fail to see is how the citizens failed this soldier, and why he now must fight a two front-war. One against his government, and one against the citizens like you who turn their back on him, because YOU and other Americans failed to their JOB.

It is supposed to be us "voting with our feet" in the streets in protest.
It is supposed to be us "voting with our feet" on election day.
It is supposed to be us "voting with our feet" to keep the politicians REPRESENTATIVE of the people, to the FULLEST EXTENT that our rights allow.

Our rights allow protest, thousands did that.
Our rights allow a petition for redress, impeachment (of all members, not just the president). Who is doing this? Millions have signed various petitions.
Our rights allow for a lot more, if these fail to bring government " in line" with the public and the Constitution.

I think it is a lot to ask of brave men who already signed to put their life on the line, to fight a political war at home, while fighting a physical war in Iraq.

We the people, need to learn what the phrase means and take action to support these troops, by forcing our representatives to listen by literally blowing the circuits off the wall at the phone company due to the massive volumes of calls in protest. We should be surrounding the Capital with protesters in the range of 2,500,000 not 25,000 people. We should be doing a national one day protest of work, to really examine the support.

The American people haven't even changed their shopping habits, let alone their protesting or political awareness habits. Why?

The Illegal in Chief has been saying "stay the course", if you change the terrorists win.

The people are still trusting the boneheads that created the problems, and have proven their inability, disintrest in action.

(Osborn wiggles his finger at his fellow citizens, especially Sheriffs and LEO's who swear in to support the Constitution.)

Shame on you America. Support your troops, or is it inconvenient now that YOU have to sacrifice? :mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top