Eyewitness: Watada Judge Panicked and Bailed By Gustav Wynn

[Demeter]

OpEdNews

Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_gustav_w_070208_eyewitness_3a_watada_j.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 8, 2007

Eyewitness: Watada Judge Panicked and Bailed

By Gustav Wynn

According to reporter Bill Simpich in attendance at the trial, Lt. Ehren Watada exuded a calm and confidence that visibly shook the judge.

It's easy to see why - if he would allow the defendant to present a case that the war is illegal, it could open the flood gates for over 150,000 troops to follow suit.

...
Simpich and others feel the judge panicked and that there was no cause to call a mistrial. Judge Head was in a truly tough spot - he had already ruled that Watada's motive for resisting was irrelevant - in refusing to follow orders, the reasons why did not need be entered into evidence - or so the judge thought.

But this was highly controversial - several GIs in the past year have been sentenced to long prison terms for NOT disobeying orders, as in Abu Ghraib, Haditha and other massacres - obviously a soldier's understanding as to the legality of orders is paramount.

In this trial, this means the judge would have to allow the defendant to present for the first time anywhere in court the argument that the war is illegal.

For more details and the precedent for double jeopardy applying here, see http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020807A.shtml



Authors Website: http://www.opednews.com/author/author3098.html

Authors Bio: A concerned American from NY State

[havocmom]

1. Can we get some more Rs over here, please?

The good Lt has struck a chord. Send him some supportive energy.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Great article

It seemed to me that the judge was getting in over his head when he said Watada couldn't present his defense, and the article explained why my instincts were correct.

[xchrom]

3. in healthy democracy -- citizens correct the mistakes of their leaders -- soldiers are citizens --

[Morgana LaFey]

4. Finally.

Someone explains it in a way I can understand:

if he would allow the defendant to present a case that the war is illegal, it could open the flood gates for over 150,000 troops to follow suit.

But what I don't understand is that did this judge think that there's virtually no good defense of that? George Bush authorized it and Congress authorized that. What (in their minds) could be illegal? And wasn't it a military court martial, with military jurors??

[Joe Chi Minh]

5. Hilarious example of the mighty being hoist with their own petard!

Well, for one, it has been established that the putative grounds for going to war were all knowingly and mendaciously fabricated.

[diane in sf]

6. This is really interesting,

especially the comment re: the people going to jail for obeying illegal orders.

[ShortnFiery]

7. But their leaders get promoted in our upside-down Bush-World of America. n/t

[pberq]

8. Great article! - Lt. Watada is one smart guy

Here's the section about double jeopardy:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020807A.shtml

. . .Once the trial commenced, "jeopardy attached." Once jeopardy attaches, a second trial is generally not possible. This is known as "double jeopardy."

Like all maxims, there are exceptions to the rule of double jeopardy. For example, if a verdict cannot be reached by the finder of fact, defendant cannot object to the resulting mistrial. Nor can the defense create error in order to get the defendant off the hook.

But a mistrial caused by judicial or prosecutorial error is another story. Generally, the charges must be dismissed in order to ensure that the authorities are not tempted to commit error in order to obtain a second trial when events are not going their way.

This is what happened here. The prosecution knew that Lt. Watada was not waiving his right to defend himself against the charges. Again, the stipulation specifically stated that no such waiver was being made. . .

[pberq]

9. judge was trying to avoid fact finding on whether the war is illegal

". . .Any fair-minded review of this case will reveal that the defense was doing far better than anyone had expected; that Lt. Watada had protected his rights at every turn; and that the judge was scared of letting this case go to any factfinder who had any chance of being fully informed of Lt. Watada's belief that the war in Iraq is illegal."

[pberq]

10. Daily Kos diary on this

Another great resource. Many links and references.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/11/131634/944

<snip>

Watada's stand is based on fundamental constitutional principles and responsibilities. It goes to the heart of America's current political, moral and constitutional crisis. As he told Democracy Now!, "In our democracy, according to our Constitution, one person, one man, cannot hold absolute power, hold himself above the law, including in actions in declaring war or waging war on another country. And it is my belief that in deceiving the American people, through what a majority of us now know to be true, the leaders of our country were violating their oath to this country and violating constitutional law."

<snip>
. . .Military justice did not wish to provide a soapbox for Ehren Watada's powerful rhetoric and for obvious reasons. Declaring the war "illegal" and joining a not insignificant chorus of critical world leaders Watada intended to put "the war itself" on trial, just as judge Head had feared. And when the judge became tangled in his own maneuvers designed to stop Watada, the door was opened for judge Head's feared judicial nightmare to manifest. The mistrial declared for Lieut. Watada shut that door. But not before the cat got out.

Watada's intention, to mobilize people, especially other soldiers, is having its effect. Read Brecher and Smith for information about a variety of groups, including and most especially veterans, who are organizing important internal resistance within the ranks.

As the drum of a future war grows louder, there's not a moment to lose. A strong tide is building - Watada's victory, Cheney's deep-shit trouble, increased civil war violence, increased institutional resistance, continued losses in human and moral capital, congressional investigations of endless corruption. This tsunami could crash into Bush's beachhead, expose its fundamental weakness and wash away the bastard and all his pernicious warrior eunuchs with him. The panic in the WH is palpable.

[pberq]

11. Will the Watada Mistrial Spark an End to the War? - Nation article

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070226/brechersmith

article | posted February 9, 2007 (web only)
Will the Watada Mistrial Spark an End to the War?

Jeremy Brecher & Brendan Smith
<snip>
On the surface, the ruling by Lieut. Col. John Head appears to result from a procedural technicality, but in fact it is a defeat for the Army's central goal in prosecuting the 28-year-old officer. The judge had gone to extraordinary lengths to try to keep Watada from achieving his objective of "putting the war on trial," ruling that Watada's motivations for refusing to deploy with his unit were "irrelevant" and that no witnesses could testify on the illegality of the war.

But in its zeal to exclude the real meaning of the case, the court tied itself up in procedural knots. Prosecutors wanted the judge to find that Watada had agreed to pretrial stipulations that he had violated his duty when he refused to show up for movement to Iraq. But Watada made clear that he believed his duty, under his oath and military law, was to refuse to participate in an illegal war. As the underlying question of the war's illegality emerged like a family secret in the courtroom, the judge agreed to the prosecutor's motion to declare a mistrial. But Time.com reported that Watada's attorney, Eric Seitz, says he will file an immediate motion to dismiss the case on grounds of double jeopardy if the Army tries to resurrect it.

Watada maintained that his refusal to participate in an illegal war in Iraq was justified, indeed required, under the Army's own Uniform Code of Military Justice. Under Judge Head's rulings, however, there simply would be no way for a soldier to resist an illegal order. Indeed, an American military person could be ordered to commit mass murder or genocide and then be denied the right even to make a case for the lawfulness of his actions. The judge's rulings fly in the face of the Supreme Court's Hamdan v. Rumsfeld decision, which stood for the principle that all US officials are bound by national and international law not to commit war crimes. . .