Mistrial Declared in Lt. Watada Court Martial

U.S. Army First Lieutenant Ehren Watada finally had an opportunity to speak in his own defense Wednesday and in short order raised meaningful concerns about the prospect that he was being railroaded by prosecutors who had effectively limited his range of defense options. On a surprise motion from the prosecution, the judge then declared a mistrial in the high-profile court martial of the Army officer who refused to deploy to Iraq because he had come to the conclusion that U.S. invasion and occupation of that country was illegal.

The ruling by the military judge, Lt. Col. John Head, does not mean that Lt. Watada is off the hook. After moving for the mistrial, the prosecution asked for a new trial and the judge tentatively scheduled a one for mid-March. But it does mean that a new trial could offer Watada's defense team more flexibility in arguing that the officer had a legitimate reason for refusing to fight in Iraq.

This is significant because, as Richard Swain, a retired military officer who now teaches ethics at West Point, testified this week: Officers do not have to follow orders that they determine to be illegal. Of course, Swain explained, "if they make that determination, they have to be right. And if they're not right, they will be held accountable."

There is no guarantee that Watada's defense will succeed in convincing a military jury that the war in Iraq is illegal -- in fact, there is every reason to believe the officer and his lawyers will have a very hard time doing so -- but the prospect that they might be afforded more of an opportunity to mount such a defense could change the dynamic of a second trial.

Because of what is at stake -- not just for Watada but for the Army and for the Bush administration -- the trial has drawn international attention. And the scene in the courtroom on Wednesday was remarkable.

Under questioning from Head, Watada said that he did not believe the a pretrial stipulation he had signed -- in which he acknowledged that he had chosen not to follow orders and deploy with his unit to Iraq -- was an admission of guilt. Indeed, Watada explained, he felt he had a right to argue in his defense that the war is illegal and that serving in it would cause him to participate in war crimes.

Throughout the court martial proceeding, the prosecution had built its case against Watada around the argument that what was being determined was a simple question: Did Watada refuse to follow orders. The prosecution made the case that officers are not free to choose whether to serve in a particular war, and that they cannot question the actions and motivations of their commander-in-chief. "He bought shame and disgrace upon himself," Capt. Jeff Van Sweringen, the Army prosecutor, said of Watada.

According to Hal Bernton's detailed coverage in the Seattle Times -- the trial has taken place at Fort Lewis in Washington state -- Sweringen told the court: "The underlying facts to these grave charges are... unassailable."

That line of argument was complicated by the question of whether Watada had believed he was admitting guilt when he signed the statement acknowledging that he did not deploy with his unit to Iraq.

Under questioning by the judge, it became evident that the officer was not of the belief that he had signed away his right to defend himself.

"I'm not seeing we have a meeting of the minds, here," the judge finally said. "And if there is not a meeting of the minds, there's not a contract. Tell me where I'm missing something?"

The Army prosecutors made a last-ditch attempt to suggest that they were not arguing that the agreement represented an admission of guilt by Watada. But Head wasn't buying it. The judge told the courtroom that, because there was now a debate about the agreement's meaning, the prosecutors would have to move to reopen their case -- which they had finished Tuesday. That would have forced the prosecution to proceed in front of a jury that had been made aware of concerns about the meaning of the pretrial agreement.

That's when the request for the mistrial was made, and accepted.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (69)

1. hurrah! i thought he was going down, but suprise suprise suprise...

   even if he does go down, he has made history.

   my prediction - ultimate conviction of something and light punishment.

   LL

   you are soooo on the flipside of the zeitgeist here...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/07/2007 @ 6:49pm

2. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/07/2007 @ 6:43pm

   do you think he is motivated by cowardice?

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/07/2007 @ 6:51pm

3. Isn't it ODD....yes, odd, that Mr Nichols failed to mench the statement by Col. Head that the argument over the legality of the war is not a matter that can be settled in military court.

   Posted by Mask at 02/07/2007 @ 6:58pm

4. too bad this cant go to the supreme court. cant it? its under the ucmj - universal code of military justice. are their decisions reviewable by the supreme court? the military justice systom is as wierd as the military (a form of indentured serviture in all volunteer times and slavery in draft eras within a free country), in that one can in fact suffer double jeopardy in this country by being tried in civilian court, exhonerated, then convicted in military court thereby serving years in leavenworth...oh yeah, then you can get sued in civil court on top of that...triple jeopardy! (shit...we ARE a litigious society, arent we?)

   lawyers? any lawyers out there? paralegals?

   cause if it were reviewable by supremes court...that could get interesting...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/07/2007 @ 6:59pm

5. Watada is so much the opposite of CPT - he thinks for himself, goes his own way, doesn't live in his parents' basement and sees the problems of the world as being complex enough to deserve more than a stream of threats and bombs to achieve rectification, not to mention the right to be arbitrated and handled lawfully.

   And how great is LL with his regular abandonment of the 10 commandments if and only if it helps achieve the world he wants to preach in?

   Posted by chimichenga at 02/07/2007 @ 7:08pm

6. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/07/2007 @ 6:59pm

   Not really...Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas...the traditionalists would uphold the Military Court ruling.

   Plus, you'd probably atleast get Souter and Kennedy...possibly even one of the liberals.

   Again, you don't get to "choose" what wars to serve in if you volunteer. And the military can't over-ride a CIVILIAN decision on the "legality" of a war. If Congress won't step up (which they aren't), the war is legal and Watada is guilty.

   Posted by Mask at 02/07/2007 @ 7:36pm

7. Watada has only seen a delay in the conviction he deserves. Two years from now the only people who will even remember him (other than his family) will be those listening to Amy Goodman on Democracy Now interviewing Watada by phone from his prison cell.

   Posted by LVLIBERTY1 02/07/2007 @ 6:43pm

   You are a hateful piece of trash who will live in eternal resentment of those who posess manhood.

   Posted by fromredbird at 02/07/2007 @ 8:17pm

8. The only thing notable about you, LVLIBERTY1, much less memorable, is the pitiful swill that emerges from your character and is transmitted through your keyboard.

   Posted by fromredbird at 02/07/2007 @ 8:19pm

9. It's high time that the people who are cursed with fighting this shit war for the benefit of the Republican Party start engaging in some real, effective sedition and sabotage.

   Posted by fromredbird at 02/07/2007 @ 8:22pm

10. Watada belongs in the Army stockade, I'm really disappointed that he only faces 4 years in prison...Maybe in light of this mistrial, they can find some additional charges to bring him up on.....

    It seems pretty evident that he knew that he was being ordered to deploy, and refused to do so....His reasons why are irrelevant, as are his opinions about the legality of the war.

    The only question no one is asking is, why the hell didn't he join the peace corps instead of the army? After all, it's a free country.............

    Posted by davebarlett at 02/07/2007 @ 8:23pm

11. la révolte!

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/07/2007 @ 8:24pm

12. presented with a Congressional Medal of Honor for what he has done.

    Yeah..brilliant. Give him a military decoration for...not serving in the military. Zero must get promotions at work for not showing up. Civlians call it tenure.

    Zippo...how's that paying the homeless thing going up in Seattle?

    Posted by Sliver at 02/07/2007 @ 8:25pm

13. Only in ZERO's world does someone rate the congressional medal of honor for refusing to serve in combat...Truly pathetic....

    Posted by davebarlett at 02/07/2007 @ 8:25pm

14. It's high time that the people who are cursed with fighting this shit war for the benefit of the Republican Party start engaging in some real, effective sedition and sabotage.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD

    Why not pick up a rifle and do it yourself, red? Or are you just full of shit like all the other radical chic rabble rowsers?

    Posted by davebarlett at 02/07/2007 @ 8:30pm

15. presented with a Congressional Medal of Honor for what he has done.

    Now I understand how the liberal mental disorder found itself fit to award Jimmy Carter and Yassar Arafat with Nobel Peace Prizes.

    That's why we had to hang Saddam so quick...you goofy bastards would have given him one too.

    Posted by Sliver at 02/07/2007 @ 8:32pm

16. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/07/2007 @ 6:59pm | ignore this person

    The highest appeal for WATADA is the U.S Court of Military Appeals, although technically the matter could in theroy end at the Supreme Court, i think 99% of all military appeals stop at the US Court of Military Appeals.

    Posted by CPT at 02/07/2007 @ 8:45pm

17. It's high time that the people who are cursed with fighting this shit war for the benefit of the Republican Party start engaging in some real, effective sedition and sabotage.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 02/07/2007 @ 8:22pm | ignore this person

    When things get hard for looney libs they never mind using treason to suit their ends.

    Posted by CPT at 02/07/2007 @ 8:47pm

18. do you think he is motivated by cowardice?

    Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/07/2007 @ 6:51pm | ignore this person

    I dont really care, he is a cause celebre for the looney left, knowing his status as an officer he would get some attention...he is a DISGRACE.

    Posted by CPT at 02/07/2007 @ 8:50pm

19. Watada is a very brave young man and I know that, at the end of the day, the morally high ground will be defensible, somehow.

    Posted by ZERO 02/07/2007 @ 7:46pm | ignore this person

    Somehow??????????? Moral high ground????

    He surrendered ANY moral high ground when the men he led stepped forward as he stepped back.

    Watada is a coward and disgrace to the men he led and who counted on him. He is despicable piece of shit.

    Posted by CPT at 02/07/2007 @ 8:55pm

20. Less than ZERO

    Hey o learned one, go look up Medal of Honor citations from WWI forward. That is true heroism you monkey spunk

    Posted by CPT at 02/07/2007 @ 9:00pm

21. It's high time that the people who are cursed with fighting this shit war for the benefit of the Republican Party start engaging in some real, effective sedition and sabotage.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD

    Why not pick up a rifle and do it yourself, red? Or are you just full of shit like all the other radical chic rabble rowsers?

    Posted by DAVEBARLETT 02/07/2007 @ 8:30pm

    You have no idea you stupid f***. Accused but never charged. :)

    Going by prior experience with right-wing crud like you on this website the odds are 99 to 1 that you've never seen the inside of the US military.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/07/2007 @ 10:07pm

22. Less than ZERO

    Hey o learned one, go look up Medal of Honor citations from WWI forward. That is true heroism you monkey spunk

    Posted by CPT 02/07/2007 @ 9:00pm

    The invasion of Iraq is a "war" on the order of the German invasion of Eastern Europe and Hitler would have loved an ethically characterless order taker like you. You are a coward through and through.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/07/2007 @ 10:14pm

23. It's high time that the people who are cursed with fighting this shit war for the benefit of the Republican Party start engaging in some real, effective sedition and sabotage.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD 02/07/2007 @ 8:22pm

    When things get hard for looney libs they never mind using treason to suit their ends.

    Posted by CPT 02/07/2007 @ 8:47pm

    La révolte against unconstitutional government is not treason, you dolt. Failure to revolt is treason. You are a traitor and your Republican Party is a party of treason.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/07/2007 @ 10:26pm

24. Only in ZERO's world does someone rate the congressional medal of honor for refusing to serve in combat...Truly pathetic....

    Posted by DAVEBARLETT 02/07/2007 @ 8:25pm

    It's an even crazier world that gives the nation's highest civil award, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, to the likes of L. Paul Bremer III and George J. Tenet. CPT, take note. Are these men heroes to you?

    At any rate, and without Googling anything, I know this much: Watada is guilty under military law of refusing to obey a direct order. My guess is that he will almost surely be given a dishonorable discharge, and will very likely be incarcerated.

    Before my fellow liberals lose their minds and jump in my shit --

    I am not happy about that. I also think that the man is honorable for standing up for what he believes in. And I think, given that 70% of the country is trending against the continuation (and certainly the escalation) of the war, that Watada's position is the majority position and widely supported.

    Watada's circumstances outline EXACTLY why I did not join the military after college, and instead chose to pursue law enforcement. When a police captain asked me during an interview "Why do you want to join the police force?", I honestly answered:

    "I want to help people, sir. To help keep my city safe."

    "I want to help people", by the way, is the singlemost used response to this question by almost every doctor, nurse, medic, and cop who has ever applied for the job, and if you insert "country" for "city", I am certain you'll have the exact same fundamental reason that men and women join the military.

    I was a young boy when Vietnam ended. I knew from a very early age, even though my grandfather was a decorated WWII veteran (of which I am enormously awed and proud), that if I one day joined the military, I might get sent off to a foreign country to fight "the wrong war" at some point or another. So, when I came of age and the recruiters started hounding me, I made the choice not to join the military.

    I felt better about domestic service as a first responder, about protecting my own patch of the United States, my city, the neighborhoods and streets where my son and wife walked. The rules and laws and procedures and entrance and exit strategies from any given situation are well-documented and clear, and so were our objectives - to protect and serve, and to uphold the law. This was not going to significantly change over politics.

    However...

    I also think, especially nowadays, that you should damned well know that you surrender your free will (for the most part) when you join the miltary - you are to follow orders, period - this is drilled into you from Minute One.

    And everyone knows (now) that under this President, if you are military, you are most likely going to Iraq. What is truly unfortunate, then, is that Watada was in the right place (the military) at the wrong time (under Bush).

    Having volunteered (yes, he willingly volunteered) for military service as his vocation, Watada is now between the proverbial rock and the hard place - his sincere opposition to what he truly believes is an illegal war, and his honorbound oath to the military to follow orders.

    However, given that there was no possible way for him to know when he volunteered that he would soon be thrust into a war that he believed (as do I) was initiated and continued under false premises, how on earth does that make him "cowardly" or deserving of the kind of venom that Liberty and CPT spit at him?

    Liberty's first post was so callous and cold towards another human being that I was almost sick to my stomach.

    This man is simply far too pompous and spiteful and bigoted to be a preacher. I couldn't be convinced in a million years that Jesus would be in favor of a man being black-hole-incarcerated so fully and deeply that the entire world (other than his family - what a stunningly compassionate caveat Liberty threw in there) forgets his existence.

    CPT's posts were even worse.

    And he is EXACTLY the man I did not want to become if I joined the military. I know many military men, and I have met very, very few as robotic and callous as CPT.

    Both of you men seem like you mean well, though - I sincerely mean that.

    It's so sad.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/07/2007 @ 10:31pm

25. Watada is a very brave young man and I know that, at the end of the day, the morally high ground will be defensible, somehow.

    Posted by ZERO 02/07/2007 @ 7:46pm | ignore this person

    Somehow??????????? Moral high ground????

    He surrendered ANY moral high ground when the men he led stepped forward as he stepped back.

    Watada is a coward and disgrace to the men he led and who counted on him. He is despicable piece of shit.

    Posted by CPT 02/07/2007 @ 8:55pm

    He was on no battleground and his men were not under fire you clueless lifer. He missed movement because the Iraq "war" is illegal and it's his obligation to not obey illegal orders. The prosecution is entirely political. If he had missed movement because he was drunk it would have been treated far differently. Because it was for moral reasons it brings out baying hounds like you who absolutely despise anyone who displays any moral rectitude.

    He's more a leader than you could ever hope to be you wimp order taker. People like you should be at the takeout window ay McDonalds, not wearing an American uniform.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/07/2007 @ 10:36pm

26. MASK - good points. but the publicity would be interesting.

    CPT - i understand your point of view, but the illegal order thing is an interesting tactic...

    disgrace? mutinous perhaps...

    by the way i think you guys deserve a lot better than being thrown into an unnecessary meat grinder. necessary meatgrinders are bad enough...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/07/2007 @ 10:40pm

27. cause he seems like a fine young man with a little too much ideals for his own good and a martyr wish. but then he could be in the meatgrinder, so...

    military prison - not nice place...so he's not a coward.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/07/2007 @ 10:45pm

28. The heighth of sickening hypocrisy is these venomous traitors wishing here a dire outcome for a moral soldier who refused movement and then traipsing over to the other thread to excuse the slime who exposed the identity of an American CIA agent tasked with counter-proliferation for personal political gain. They are truly, all of them, pond scum.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/07/2007 @ 10:51pm

29. Posted by NEW DAWN 02/07/2007 @ 10:31pm

    ND, as I said when the Watada case first came up....he's no hero.

    The civil disobediance activists from Thoreau to Gandhi to King went to jail for their beliefs in a way to show that the law was unjust...they didn't try to get a court or a jury to decide it was, but tried to turn public opinion against the law or injustice.

    But Watada wants the court to decide the war is illegal and he is innocent....if not, then they wouldn't be mounting such a strong defense but pleading guilty to the charge, but saying that the charge is unfair and unjust.

    Watada in jail suffering what he (and others) might consider an injustice would show his moral authority...Watada freed would simply be "legal wrangling" and a pair of hot lawyers.

    Posted by Mask at 02/07/2007 @ 10:53pm

30. Going by prior experience with right-wing crud like you on this website the odds are 99 to 1 that you've never seen the inside of the US military.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD

    Red, Graduate of Parris Island, April 5th, 1983...And I can hit 10 out of 10 in the bull from 200 yards......

    But,I'll bet you were a shitbird who never made it past E-2... ....I'd sure like to be there if you ever grew some balls and backed up some of your bullshit, so I could get a possible on your face...Asshole.

    Posted by davebarlett at 02/07/2007 @ 10:56pm

31. Again, you don't get to "choose" what wars to serve in if you volunteer. And the military can't over-ride a CIVILIAN decision on the "legality" of a war. If Congress won't step up (which they aren't), the war is legal and Watada is guilty.

    Posted by MASK 02/07/2007 @ 7:36pm

    What a noodle head. The President and Congress are just as capable of violating the Constitution as any other level of government or any individual. The war is illegal and it's the duty of honorable soldiers to refuse illegal orders.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/07/2007 @ 10:57pm

32. But,I'll bet you were a shitbird who never made it past E-2... ....I'd sure like to be there if you ever grew some balls and backed up some of your bullshit, so I could get a possible on your face...Asshole.

    Posted by DAVEBARLETT 02/07/2007 @ 10:56pm

    my my...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/07/2007 @ 10:58pm

33. asshole with a capital A...yuk yuk

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/07/2007 @ 10:58pm

34. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/07/2007 @ 10:40pm

    See above for some explanation. But again, winning in court doesn't make the war in Iraq "illegal". The Congress can do that but they won't....so why should the US Supreme Court do it?

    Posted by Mask at 02/07/2007 @ 11:00pm

35. La révolte! you pasty-faced, obedient cowards! Your mothers didn't bear you to crawl before mammon like vermin.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/07/2007 @ 11:01pm

36. Damn, that red pisses me off...makes me want to apologize for my undisciplined behavior.......But since I'm a civilian now, Piss on him.....And I hope the rest of the gallery won't hold it against me....

    Posted by davebarlett at 02/07/2007 @ 11:02pm

37. La révolte! you pasty-faced, obedient cowards! Your mothers didn't bear you to crawl before mammon like vermin.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD

    Damnit, Red, you made me laugh...Stop that!

    Posted by davebarlett at 02/07/2007 @ 11:06pm

38. RIO, I think he's a PX commando, myself.....the kind that goes around wearing decorations, patches and medals he doesn't rate.......probably shows up at antilwar rallies in old military uniforms, claims he's an ex green beret, or some other heroic BS...(of course, the proper military term is special forces, never heard a real one call themselves a green beret)

    Posted by davebarlett at 02/07/2007 @ 11:43pm

39. Red, I mean....

    Posted by davebarlett at 02/07/2007 @ 11:46pm

40. O.K. to you Neo-Nuts out there, you know who you are.

    First, Lt. Watada didn't refuse combat. In fact, he asked to go to Afghanistan to fight the people that attacked us on 9/11. Do you nutjobs still remember who that was? Remember bin Laden?

    "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

    Lt. Watada believes the orders to deploy to Iraq are illegal and he wants his day in court to address the issues. Unfortunately, may not happen now. The Army might just give him orders to Afghanistan which he may dutifully follow.

    Now to the UCMJ, Lt. Watada has been charged with "Missing Movement", Article 87, "Contempt Towards Officials" Article 88, and two counts of "Conduct Unbecoming" Article 133 . For which he might, if convicted, be sentenced to four years in Leavenworth.

    Now take another article from the UCMJ. Now let's look at another article, a much more, to my mind, serious charge Article 85 "Desertion".

    885. ART. 85. DESERTION

    (a) Any member of the armed forces who--

    (1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;

    (2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or

    (3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another on of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States; is guilty of desertion.

    (b) Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently is guilty of desertion.

    (c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

    Might this article have been used on a cokehead, drunken frat boy from Connecticut, after being too afraid to pee in a cup, after having been bumped to the front of the line of a Champaign unit of an Air National Guard Unit by his congressmen dad?

    I don't want to name any names, but George W. Bush comes to mind.

    "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long I'm the dictator." December 18, 2000 George Bush - Yale Cheerleader

    Posted by COProgressive at 02/07/2007 @ 11:57pm

41. Posted by MASK 02/07/2007 @ 10:53pm

    As occasionally happens between you and me, I concur.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/08/2007 @ 12:48am

42. Damn, that red pisses me off...makes me want to apologize for my undisciplined behavior.......But since I'm a civilian now, Piss on him.....And I hope the rest of the gallery won't hold it against me....

    Posted by DAVEBARLETT 02/07/2007 @ 11:02pm

    Nice record on the range. I have a fine eye, too - some call it a skill, some call it a talent, some call it a lifesaver.

    You've served, so the measure of respect you sought is a given, Dave. And all civilians are undisciplined from time to time...

    Fancy this - so are some soldiers...

    We're all still human.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/08/2007 @ 12:53am

43. Posted by ZERO 02/08/2007 @ 12:32am

    CPT = CPA Constant Pain in everyones Ass. Ignore this person.

    As to honors, I'd rather see Lt. Watada get a medal for moral courage then L. Paul Bremmer get a medal for losing 8,800 million dollars when he was "Viceroy" of Iraq, or George Tennent for being asleep at the wheel before 9/11.

    This administration and those facepainters that still support them are nothing but a bunch of morons.

    "A democratic despotism is like a theocracy: it assumes its own correctness." Walter Bagehot

    Posted by COProgressive at 02/08/2007 @ 12:59am

44. Padilla - no trial Watada - no trial Bush - no impeachment

    All three ripe for a donnybrook of biblical proportions.

    Fertile ground for speculation, both measured and Plungerian.

    Posted by canaar at 02/08/2007 @ 01:22am

45. HEAR! HEAR! I'm so hopeful now - I hope I won't be disapointed in the ultimate outcome.

    Posted by Dale-Z at 02/08/2007 @ 02:02am

46. I feel I may have reason to believe in our country again.

    Posted by Dale-Z at 02/08/2007 @ 02:03am

47. If any of you imagine that the United States of America will allow its war to be found illegal (Watada's only way out) then you are deluded. Lieut Watada, a brave and honourable man, is dogmeat.

    Posted by mikecope at 02/08/2007 @ 04:15am

48. Posted by MIKECOPE 02/08/2007 @ 04:15am

    the United States of America will allow its war to be found illegal

    Mike, I sure you meant to say "Bush's War". Correct?

    "So easily do weak men put in high positions turn villains." Dmitry Pisarev

    Posted by COProgressive at 02/08/2007 @ 08:28am

49. NEW DAWN

    My sympathy lies with the men Watada abandoned at precisely the moment he should have been with them.

    I dont feel any sympathy for WATADA, he is not a beacon of moral courage.....he is the new Cindy Sheehan....no doubt he will get book deals and tour the enlightened liberal college circuit.

    But do NOT doubt that he is a disgrace and a self-serving coward.

    I hope Watada has a nice time in Leavenworth....it is not regular civilian prison....he will wallow in lockstep phase for 4 years, where you are not allowed to do ANYTHING without permisssion, not even reach for your glass of water at meal time without being told to do so.

    Posted by CPT at 02/08/2007 @ 09:02am

50. ZERO

    History will vindicate him? I think your understanding of history is flawed..

    Oh and FYI its knuckledragger...not knucklewalker

    Medal of Honor is for the highest form of courage.....it is the HIGHEST Award the United States can bestow.

    The requisites are VERY specific...

    -one MUST be engaged with an enemy of the United States

    -threat to ones physical life must NOT be in dispute

    WATADA does NOT meet the basic pre-requisites for this most honored of awards.

    Posted by CPT at 02/08/2007 @ 09:12am

51. Posted by DAVEBARLETT 02/07/2007 @ 11:02pm

    oh i have no problem at all with an honestly felt vernacular pejorative flung about here from time to time. as an avowed discordian, i actually revel in such, as well as other springeresque moments from time to time. i just found the asshole with a capital A funny. its refreshing to drop the three dollar latinate verbiage from time to time and call someone an asshole...

    honesty...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/08/2007 @ 09:24am

52. not that i'm calling red an asshole, just acknowledging a legitimately snarling human nature moment from dave...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/08/2007 @ 09:26am

53. I was only obeying orders.

    Posted by Harold F at 02/08/2007 @ 10:01am

54. Posted by HAROLD F 02/08/2007 @ 10:01am

    Watada can't apply some kind of "reverse Nuremburg Defense", HAROLD.

    Unless he thinks that all 150,000+ soldiers in Iraq are "war criminals" who would be prosecuted under some tribunal in the future...he can't make himself out as an "anti-Goering" who's refusing to go to Iraq so that he DOESN'T get brought up on war crimes.

    Nuremburg didnt prosecute the average German foot soldier who went to fight at the Bulge or Stalingrad. So Watada can't make a LEGAL argument that going to Iraq would put him at risk of being tried as a war criminal. He can make his MORAL case (even philosophic) that the war is "illegal" and therefore he refuses to go....but not one based on the idea that he'd be criminally prosecuted for simply being deployed in an "illegal war".

    Posted by Mask at 02/08/2007 @ 10:25am

55. ND, as I said when the Watada case first came up....he's no hero.

    The civil disobediance activists from Thoreau to Gandhi to King went to jail for their beliefs in a way to show that the law was unjust...they didn't try to get a court or a jury to decide it was, but tried to turn public opinion against the law or injustice.

    But Watada wants the court to decide the war is illegal and he is innocent....if not, then they wouldn't be mounting such a strong defense but pleading guilty to the charge, but saying that the charge is unfair and unjust.

    Watada in jail suffering what he (and others) might consider an injustice would show his moral authority...Watada freed would simply be "legal wrangling" and a pair of hot lawyers.

    Posted by MASK 02/07/2007 @ 10:53pm | ignore this person

    Mask has made this point several times, but I don't remember King willingly serving four years in prison for any single act of civil disobedience, and I rather doubt that Thoreau or Gandhi did either. Civil disobedience of the type that King and the Civil Rights protesters engaged in - trespassing in "Whites Only" establishments, for instance - were not the kinds of crimes that were going to result in long prison terms, so someone might plead guilty to them. But they might not; later generations of activists sometimes challenged the charges against them, so I'd really like to see you cite some sources for these assertions of yours, Mask, especially any cases that might have resulted in real jail time. Heck, I can't believe anyone as savvy as Gandhi or King would have traded the free stage of a trial for a year or more in jail!

    Posted by cka2nd at 02/08/2007 @ 10:35am

56. Posted by NEW DAWN 02/07/2007 @ 10:31pm | ignore this person

    ND, what a post. You are right on the money.

    Posted by chimichenga at 02/08/2007 @ 10:41am

57. Posted by FREIHEIT 02/08/2007 @ 10:26am

    Ok, so it's a pet peeve and all that, but it's the 'Medal of Honor;' there is no such thing as the "Congressional" Medal of Honor. The award is bestowed by act of Congress, true, but it's rightful name is Medal of Honor.

    Sorry to be such a pain in the ass, but that's how it is.

    The idolatry given over to a wiener who couldn't show up for Guard duty (he did fail to appear for a required annual physical and thus lost flight status as even you dead-enders will recall) against the vitriol belched forth against a man of conscience is both ironic and sad as it demonstrates just how far our country has been forced apart by this war and its witless author.

    Posted by skeletonman at 02/08/2007 @ 10:50am

58. Posted by CKA2ND 02/08/2007 @ 10:35am

    Thoreau was sent to jail for refusing to pay his poll taxes. Taxes he felt would go to support the Mexican-American war which he opposd. His aunt paid the tax, against Thoreau's wishes, and he was released. If she had not, likely he would have been in jail for atleast six months to a year.

    Gandhi was arrested on March 10, 1922, tried for sedition, and sentenced to six years. He only served about two years of the sentence, being released in February 1924 after an operation for appendicitis. But the sentence WAS six years.

    Dr King was arrested in April of '63 in Birmingham. He was released about a week later with Kennedy, as well as officials in Alabama, being pressured by his supporters. It also resulted in the famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail".

    In none of those cases was the attempt made to have the court "over-rule" the law and declare it null and void.

    Lt. Watada is attempting to get a military court to judge the war in Iraq "illegal" and therefore him innocent of disobeying orders to deploy under a view that it would be a violation of his oath to uphold the Constitution.

    If he wanted to be in the league of those other gentlemen, he would NOT be wanting that...but instead be going to jail (or in his case Leavenworth prison), essentially a "martyr to an unjust or illegal war and orders arising from it"....and his supporters would be pressuring Congress and even the White House for his pardon or commutation of sentence.

    But since as of just a day ago, the US Senate could not even pass a NON-binding resolution in opposition to a "Surge" in troops to Iraq....under our Constitutional/legal system of government, Watada has almost NO leg to stand on, since FIRST a military court cannot judge the "legality" of a war...and SECOND, it is obvious that even the CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES cannot declare such a war "distasteful"...much less "illegal"!

    If none of those restrictions held and Watada was somehow miraculously "freed" by the military court by some arbitrary decision (or an illegal decision that "the war in Iraq is illegal")....it wouldn't help Watada's MORAL AUTHORITY.

    Thoreau set the ground-work for future civil disobediance....Gandhi defeated the British Empire...and King freed millions. But Watada found "innocent" by a panel of judges, with a Congress too scared to even TALK about cutting funding for war in Iraq....solves nothing.

    Posted by Mask at 02/08/2007 @ 11:17am

59. Having a military background and growing up in and around military bases I share a certain perspective with miltary families and the challenges that entails.

    If Lt. Watada was a conscientious objector or even worse a deserter it would be easy to classify his actions as cowardice and motivated by shallow self interest...however by challenging the legality of the war in a Military court of Law, he has taken the unprecedented action of challenging the civilian masters at his own peril. If that is cowardice then look at early American patriots in our own revolutionary war with Britain. If Britain had won George Washington would have been hung as a traitor. Instead he is emblazoned on the Dollar bill and imortalized on Mt Rushmore.

    Before we cast this young man into the dustbin we should give him his day in court. I for one want to hear what he has to say.

    Posted by clark's view at 02/08/2007 @ 12:14pm

60. Going by prior experience with right-wing crud like you on this website the odds are 99 to 1 that you've never seen the inside of the US military.

    Posted by FROMREDBIRD

    Red, Graduate of Parris Island, April 5th, 1983...And I can hit 10 out of 10 in the bull from 200 yards......

    But,I'll bet you were a shitbird who never made it past E-2... ....I'd sure like to be there if you ever grew some balls and backed up some of your bullshit, so I could get a possible on your face...Asshole.

    Posted by DAVEBARLETT 02/07/2007 @ 10:56pm

    Very impressive, jarhead. Did you see combat against the mighty , though nonexistent, Grenadan army? Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

    Actually, I got a waiver for promotion to E-4 four months early and was an E-5 the entire last year, the highest rank achievable without reupping and becoming a lifer. I'm sure you did just as well, didn't you? Didn't you? ;)

    All your implications of physical violence aside (oooh, that's scary!), you don't strike me as the kind of person who has the moral courage or manhood to refuse any illegal order. You, in fact, sound like the kind of characterless creature who would relish illegal orders. I had several Marine buddies in the service, not one of whom displayed the invertebrate wimpiness that you regularly parade around here. Go pound some sand you pantywaist, obedient ordertaker.

    ``````

    Hey, RIO POLLO, up to your typical behavior of pretending that the combat bravery and fortitude of others has something to do with your chicken Republican Party? What a pitiful example of an American. Neither you, nor your party, ever saw a war you didn't love or wouldn't run in terror from fighting yourself.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/08/2007 @ 12:15pm

61. By the way, DAVEBARLETT, pantywaist jarhead, the 99 to 1 odds that the right-wing crud here has never seen the inside of the US military is still unchanged.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/08/2007 @ 12:16pm

62. Before we cast this young man into the dustbin we should give him his day in court. I for one want to hear what he has to say.

    Posted by CLARK'S VIEW 02/08/2007 @ 12:14am

    He isn't going into any dustbin. He'll live his life as a man. That's something that tens of millions of right-wing sacks of flesh like the trash that posts here could never even aspire to. They'll live out their pitiful, worthless lives crawling through the filth of cowardice.

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/08/2007 @ 12:22pm

63. Posted by NEW DAWN 02/07/2007 @ 10:31pm | ignore this person

    ND, what a post. You are right on the money.

    Posted by CHIMICHENGA 02/08/2007 @ 10:41am

    Thanks, Chimi.

    This once, I will take that and run with it, because I know I am right on the money.

    The knuckle-walking CPT (and yes, CPT, apes do walk on their knuckles, not just drag them - god, but you're bottomlessly ignorant sometimes) can vilify the man all he likes, but nothing is as simple as CPT ever tries to make it.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/08/2007 @ 12:39pm

64. It has become more likely that the prosecution of Lt. Watada will fail because the Republican's illegal war cannot withstand legal scrutiny.

    Since the start, Seitz was frustrated at seeing his defense, which included calling expert witnesses to testify about the legality of the war and the parameters of Watada's free speech rights, constricted to keep from putting the war on trial. Head has said he wanted the focus on the legality of Watada's actions, not on the legality of the war.

    Yet Seitz said after the court-martial ended in mistrial that Watada's intentions are a significant part of his defense.

    "There is no way around talking about why he didn't get on that plane, and that is the government's continuing dilemma in this case," Seitz said.

    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/302885_watada08.asp

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/08/2007 @ 1:59pm

65. I agree with Lt. Watada's defense. We had no right to invade a soveriegn nation(Iraq). This war will be found illegal in the international courts.Hopefully people will realize it's not to late to change course. Our president has mislead us. I would much rather of spent 400 billion dollars on alternative fuels to free us from oil dependancy instead of a war that has desomated a country.

    Posted by elsol07 at 02/08/2007 @ 2:17pm

66. DAVEBARLETT's kind of Marine:

    A U.S. Navy medic attached to a Marine unit accused in the murder of an Iraqi grandfather testified on Wednesday the unit leader congratulated his squad after the killing.

    After the Marines dragged the grandfather from his home in Hamdania, Iraq, bound him, put him in a bomb crater and killed him, the unit leader, Sgt. Lawrence Hutchins, told his troops, "Congratulations, we just got away with murder, gents," according to medic Melson Bacos.

    http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N07299422.htm

    Posted by fromredbird at 02/08/2007 @ 3:06pm

67. Red, did you stay up all night coming up with those witty responses? Go back to quoting French revolution slogans, they make more sense than your usual posts, and are at least good for a laugh.....

    And, for all your talk about sedition and sabotage, well, Show us, don't tell us...Asshole (capital A intentional)

    Posted by davebarlett at 02/08/2007 @ 5:51pm

68. Red, 'Course, it would take more than moral courage to do what you're advocating others do.....I sure don't expect you to lead by example.....Dipshit

    Posted by davebarlett at 02/08/2007 @ 5:55pm

69. The civil disobediance activists from Thoreau to Gandhi to King went to jail for their beliefs in a way to show that the law was unjust...they didn't try to get a court or a jury to decide it was, but tried to turn public opinion against the law or injustice.

    But Watada wants the court to decide the war is illegal and he is innocent....if not, then they wouldn't be mounting such a strong defense but pleading guilty to the charge, but saying that the charge is unfair and unjust.

    Watada in jail suffering what he (and others) might consider an injustice would show his moral authority...Watada freed would simply be "legal wrangling" and a pair of hot lawyers.

    Posted by MASK 02/07/2007 @ 10:53pm | ignore this person

    Mask, you tried to make that case before. I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now.

    I notice that, when pressed, you volunteered Thoreau, King, and Gandhi as examples. Yet, while they all of the examples you gave were of people jailed for making moral stands on laws with wich they disagreed, only Gandhi actually went to trial and pled guilty.

    Thoreau was jailed briefly for refusing to pay the poll tax (based on his objection to slavery, BTW). King was jailed briefly in Birmingham, basically for trespassing. Neither faced trial or court.

    Rosa Parks on the other hand, was also arrested and jailed. Except she was charged with violating Jim Crow laws and went to trial. Not only did she NOT simply and quietly accept her fate, in the way ou are saying Lt. Watada should be, her lawyers, Charles Langford and Fred Gray, entered a plea of "Not Guilty" for her. After she lost, Parks was found guilty and fined $10, plus $4 in court costs. She then appealed the case and, during the appeal, the boycott of the Montgomery public transit system continued for over a year, led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    Yet, if we are to apply the logic of YOUR argument here, Rosa Parks was simply engaged in "..."legal wrangling" and a pair of hot lawyers..." and had lost all "moral authority"...because she fought back.

    That may work for you Mask...but I'm not buying it!

    Posted by Lillian at 02/09/2007 @ 12:40am