After several clashes of will, the judge, seemingly desperate to prevent this testimony declared a mistrial - over the refusal of the defendant.
Watada's fate remains now unclear. He may be indemnified due to double jeopardy rules, but could also be dishonorably discharged. Certainly this round goes to his supporters, but a conspicuous back-page burial or altogether media blackout has minimized impact during the immediate 24 hours.
The Army will have to deal with this issue backfiring badly - can you court martial an officer without allowing him his day in court? Apparently not.
Official post-trial statements were made by both sides, with the Army reiterating the stipulation agreement was the sticking point, but somewhat glossing over the details. Defense counsel Seitz announced he had no idea what the judge was thinking and felt that the Army had made a mess of the case.
For those that still may be confused, Bill Simpich's explanation might be the clearest available: The judge asserted that the statements in the pretrial stipulation agreement amounted to an admission of guilt by Watada, going so far to refer to it as a "confessional stipulation". He seemed to believe that signing the document precluded Watada from testifying further on the issue of missing the troop movement, as if anyone pleading innocent would sign such a document.
Faced with the reality that the statements were not necessarily a final finding of guilt, and that Watada had to be allowed by law to explain, the judge suggested Watada did not understand the stipulation, repeating this numerous times to no avail.
He then made the cryptic non-sequitur "I'm not seeing we have a meeting of the minds here. And if there is not a meeting of the minds, there's not a contract".
This, along with his anxious demeanor suggest the judge simply declared a mistrial to extricate himself from a sticky position, apparently wanting above all costs to avoid putting the legality of the Iraq war on trial in his courtroom.
GW is a proud American from NY State, concerned about media manipulation and overconsumption. He believes in fiscal responsibility, small government and strict ethics. He recently changed careers to become an inner city schoolteacher. A firm proponent of international adoption and curbing overpopulation, he hopes to adopt a third child and enjoys history, "honest" music and art and obscure vinyl records.
After the prosecution presented its three witnesses and they came off sounding more like defense witnesses I understand why Lt. Colonel Head panicked.
This whole farce was constructed by the military to make Lt. Watada an example. How dare a military officer refuse to fight in an illegal war! You go and die where we say you go and die! Illegal or not!
Can you image what type of milirary career Colonel Head would have if Lt Watada was found innocent in his court?
Lt. Colonel Head's career will be over post haste. His superiors will give him bad marks on his latest officer performance report. He'll never make full bird Colonel. He'll have to retire at Lt. Colonel pay, something like $4500 a month for life.
In the mean time our soldiers, who can't support their families back home, in Iraq are living and dying on $1500 to $2000 a month for this illegal war.
In conclusion I'd like to thank Lt. Watada for being a true officer and a gentleman.
The US needs more officers like Lt. Watada.
Troubled
by
TroubledTexan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 88 comments)
on Thursday, February 8, 2007 at 7:42:09 PM
Mister Watada has the support and respect of countless numbers of Americans (and others) for his courage and principled stand. Some of the letters featured on the 'Thank You Lt. Ehren Watada' website are from West Point Graduates, historian Howard Zinn, retired and active members of the armed services, members of congress and parents of active duty personnel.
While there, let's hope Judge Head would spend a few moments reading the words of (Republican) President and WWII General, Dwight Eisenhower who said:
"When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war."
"If all that Americans want is security, they can go to prison. They'll have enough to eat, a bed and a roof over their heads. But if an American wants to preserve his dignity and his equality as a human being, he must not bow his neck to any dictatorial government."
I rest my case...
by
mrk * (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 295 comments)
on Thursday, February 8, 2007 at 8:21:50 PM
Lt Watada has found himself in a very difficult position. One which many military officers have been in over the storied history of the US armed forces.
As a cadet I'm certain he was instructed in the Army's doctrine of "legitimate Dissent". This concept was developed after WWII to counter the enemies assertion that they were "just following orders". Having been an officer in the US Army for over a decade I also know for a fact that this same instruction was provided to the young Lt during his Branch specific school, and a number of other times during his service with the armed forces.
When I took the Commissioning oath it specifically said, and I repeated the words, "I will protect and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies both foriegn and domestic". My question for the Army is this.....If there is a policy of legitimate dissent....Why abuse an officer for exercising it? The worst thing that could happen is that the specific order in question would be carefully examined. If the order was illegal then the Army would recind that order....If the order was found to be lawful then the soldier would then be compelled to obey it or face the severe consequences.
Furthermore, who exactly are the enemies we are in a war against. Are they a foriegn enemy? (which country would that be). Are these ememies possibly domestic? (people that would risk our national security for very poorly thought out reasons)
When a country declares that they will go to war they elevate their enemies to a position in which there must be respect amoung combatants. Enemy combatants enjoy protection under the geneva conventions (foriegn criminals do not have this same protection). Our leaders screwed up when they began a war.....terrorists should have been relentlessly pursued as murderers (not members of a foriegn army).
The order to go to war and kill & maim others is a serious order and one which should be carefully considered by soldiers at all levels in the chain of command. When a soldier speaks out of concern for the legality of such a directive it must be taken seriously.
Hang in there young Officer....there are many out here who think you are doing the right thing.
Thank you for your attention
by
Brian Mathes (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 41 comments)
on Friday, February 9, 2007 at 8:37:52 AM
Who is following the rule of law here, Bush or Watada?
It is clear in hindsight that the order Watada disobeyed is going to be tougher to defend in court then his own actions. This is because Bush/Cheney did not follow procedure. A U.S. military invasion/occupation needs to first prove a clear and present danger and be authorized by Congress and the UN Security Council. This is mandated by the Constitution and by extension, the UN Charter.
The evidence presented to document a clear and present danger turns out to be ginned up propaganda. The Congressional AUMF had 10 conditions in it, 8 of which we know now have not been met. The AUMF also required a UN Resolution before a strike, but Bush rushed into Iraq without one for the first time in US and UN history.
This should have been investigated immediately but top cover was provided by the complicit, corrupt, vacation prone 109th Congress who turned a blind eye.
We see many signs of the raw power wielded by the White House - Rove has long threatened Congress members who don't fall in line with the withholding of reelection funding, which is why the NSA wiretap hearings, a seemingly open and shut case, fell apart abruptly.
On the White House's urging, the recent senate bill to oppose a surge was blocked by a Republican minority on procedural technicalities.
The hallmark of the neocon era has been a brand of solidarity that presents troubling conflict of interest questions between the executive and legislative branches of our government.
The question is, what can one individual do to oppose a president not following our country's laws? With a stacked Supreme Court, complicit Congress and intimidated media?
Take him to court! Ehren Watada is no less then a modern day Rosa Parks, as inspiring as the Tiananmen square resister who shook his fist at armored tanks.
We saw here a trial in which a defendant was being muscled by a judge who was likely not used to close scrutiny. If not for Watada's brilliant defense and the many supporters at this trial watching so closely he could have been bowled over. Watada's supporters by the way had to queue up at 5AM for security checks.
Perhps this judge's previous cases could use a litle closer scutiny as well.
by
Gustav Wynn (60 articles, 38 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 283 comments)
on Friday, February 9, 2007 at 12:00:06 PM
I expected as much and I can tell you from personal experience that I have witnessed dishonest judges pull this crap too many times to recount.
Btw, I shouted this article on shoutwire.com http://tinyurl.com/3774qp Please consider joining shoutwire for two great reasons: 1. To join in the discussion. 2. To help shout other important articles - since shoutwire does not allow people to shout their own articles. This is a great way that we can help each other...
by
RCG (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 348 comments)
on Friday, February 9, 2007 at 4:12:03 PM
6 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
