Watada Court-Martial Ends in Mistrial

[nadinbrzezinski]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020707Z.shtml

Watada Court-Martial Ends in Mistrial
By Scott Galindez and Geoffrey Millard
t r u t h o u t | Report

Wednesday 07 February 2007

Fort Lewis, Washington - The court-martial of First Lt. Ehren Watada, a commissioned US Army officer who refused deployment to Iraq on the basis that he believed the war was illegal, has ended in a mistrial, a military court judge ruled Wednesday.

In a stunning defeat for military prosecutors, Lt. Col. John Head, the military judge presiding over Watada's court-martial, said he had no choice but to declare a mistrial because military prosecutors and Watada's defense attorney could not reach an agreement regarding the characterization of a stipulation agreement Watada signed before the start of his court-martial. The government characterizes the stipulation agreement as an admission of guilt by Watada for "missing movement" and making statements against the Iraq war that resulted in charges of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.

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

All I can say is WOW!

The prosecutor really screwed up on this one... and this was a mission critical trial for the Army.

Folks there is a slight opening here

[Breeze54]

1. Wow! Indeed!!!

This has to be torture for him and his family....

[Faryn Balyncd]

155. Lt. Ehren Watada honors the RULE OF LAW in refusing an UNLAWFUL ORDER - - - Lt. Watada is a PATRIOT.

[mrdmk]

2. Of course AP is reporting something completely different

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17032609/?GT1=9033

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Of course

but you are shocked about that?

The many misconducts from the judge and they'd drop it on the Lt. lack of understanding?

Something is telling me that they will want to just relieve the Lt of his commision and dismiss him from the service with a less than honorable discharge, or even an honorable if he promises to keep quiet.

Yeah right

[uppityperson]

16. I was thinking of that also

First I laughed and yelled in joy and ironic humor. Then I began to wonder if they want to just let this go away rather than let him use his defense that he was doing his duty by disobeying and unlawful order. How could they try him and NOT have his defense be put forward. Shhhhh, just turn him loose and let him go away. This will be interesting to continue to watch and I wish I were around in 50 yrs to read about now in history books then.

[karlrschneider]

3. Dupe.......with

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x151811

[Greyhound]

4. Great news, thanks.

It is so rare these days to hear of good things happening in regard to issues of importance.
:kick: & R

[Robbien]

5. An eye-witness account of Lt. Watada's first day in court

by Jane Stillwater



Here is an e-mail that a friend just sent me. It came from an eye-witness to the first day of this highly-orchestrated trial -- that appears to have been designed specifically to defeat the principles of Nuremberg. Here is my friend's e-mail. I hope he doesn't mind me passing it along -- but it is just too important to keep to myself:

What a day! I got to Ft. Lewis by 7:30 am and at 8:30 all the people who had gotten passes or were military were allowed to go into the building. There were approximately 40 civilians and a whole parking lot of media. The media were put in a lottery and 7 were selected to be allowed into the courtroom. There were 20 seats in the courtroom which was occupied by the family, military police and the media, leaving three seats for civilians.


All the people ahead of me went to an over flow room where they could hear what was said in the courtroom but could only see the judge. I was taken to the courtroom along with two other civilians. I have no idea why but there I was sitting by Lt. Watada's mother and through out the day we became friends. She was getting sick and I just happened to have much needed medication.

I also got to talk to Ehren Watada and the civilian attorney. I was invited to a press meeting at a motel after the day was over where the attorney answered questions from all the news people. It was quite large. Most of the media had not been in the court room and since I was, I got to ask questions that related to what had happened during the day.

The military judge seemed to lack experience at dealing with such a high-powered civilian attorney...this guy for Watada is good. He has been dealing with military law for 40 years. He called the court martial proceedings an atrocity and it did appear to be just that. The judge allowed the defense no witnesses, calling them all irrelevant and then deeming 11 witnesses for the army relevant, one witness being the same one that the defense had asked for and the judge said no, but yes to the army. It didn't make sense since the relevancy was military law for both sides.

Ultimately the defense made it known that this court martial was not just and that they will put all their effort into an appeal when this travesty of a hearing is over. The defense attorney kept pointing out all the errors he perceived so that it all would be in the court record for appeal.

It was a long day and if it all continues Watada will be found guilty of not deploying with his soldiers to Iraq and conduct unfitting an officer for speaking at different gatherings ie, Veterans for Peace in August. The jurors were selected and that is a bit brighter because they were all very well educated, some PhDs and all with at least masters from non-military universities. There was only one officer from West Point. Two were divinity graduates, two had MBAs and two had degrees in psychology, one therapist and one with a degree in history.

I felt okay about these guys and although I think they will have to say he is guilty because of the limited scope of military law, I think they will be open to lenient punishment and then the case will go to appeals where hopefully a more experienced judge will preside.

The court martial is expected to go at least until Thursday with Lt. Watada speaking for himself on Wednesday. I think Wednesday will be an important day. Lt. Watada is extraordinary, very clear, no ego, uncanny in his ability to be present and connected.

Goodnight. I'll write more tomorrow night when I get home.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jane_sti_070206_an_eye_witness_accou.htm

The blog was so interesting I felt I just had to post the whole entry.

[uppityperson]

18. Thanks for that, very interesting. Edited to add bit/link from yahoo news

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 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.
(clip)


Under tense questioning from Head, Watada said that he did not believe the agreement he had signed -- in which he acknowledged that he had chosen not to 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...(more@link)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070207/cm_thenation/15164054

[ColdboyinStPaul]

20. Agree - I hope he can just get out and get his life back.

[uppityperson]

26. Welcome to DU

[classof56]

127. Welcome to DU, Coldboy!

Stay warm!

[TellTheTruth82]

148. unfortunately

Thats not the case (as far as following an illegal order). Even assuming it could be proved that the war was illegal, the case was for missing movement, which is certainly not an illegal order. In simpler terms, an illegal order is to go and murder someone. Telling someone to go somewhere where illegal activity may be present is not illegal.

[jsamuel]

6. "he would allow the government to reopen the case against Watada, but it's unclear whether"they will

[sam sarrha]

7. it all depends on how they feel about their children reading about this in the history books

[Zhade]

8. WOOHOO!

Keep fighting, Watada, you are a real hero!

SO happy to give this #5!

[glitch]

10. Happy to K & R!! nt

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[ClayZ]

11. Judge ends case in MISTRIAL.

I hope they do not retrial~


Lt. Watada's speech from Feb 3rd.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=15717&mesg_id=15717

[flyarm]

12. oh wonderful..that makes me sooo happy!!..wonderful wonderful news!! n/t

[flyarm]

13. oh wonderful..that makes me sooo happy!!..wonderful wonderful n/t

[autorank]

14. Amazing...the the WH needs to be worried. K&R

I'll await analysis on this one but I bet it's very interesting.

[windbreeze]

64. you betcha someone needs to be worried

wonder how many of our guys and gals IN Iraq are aware of this story? and how many of them are watching how it plays out....mass mutiny in the near future?...I stand corrected, I was thinking of the military of the 60's/70's...and that he didn't stand a chance of getting out of this..apparently things have changed...and this will NOT be a good thing for those who would send our guys/gals to fight the "war on terror" around the world...or pre-emptive wars...
wb

[sanskritwarrior]

68. I think you misunderstand what happened today

The prosecution asked for the mistrail, Watada's lawyers didn't want this to happen. This is very not good news for the LT.

[windbreeze]

96. I gather that...

after reading further through the thread...
wb

[uppityperson]

15. Trial reset for March 12, not sure if it'll happen though yet

http://www.komotv.com/news/5640216.html
He signed a paper saying, he thought, he didn't get on the plane. He didn't mean to stipulate dereliction of duty since he felt his duty was to refuse an illegal order. They weren't supposed to bring up legality of Iraq debacle, but it is why he didn't get on the plane. Wow, mistrial. Too funny and I hope that if it goes to trial again he gets a really good lawyer (don't know abut the one he has now, but he needs a great one).

Conduct was to disobey illegal orders. But he signed he'd not bring up legality. But that was the defense and he didn't sign that away, just that he did not get on the plane. :crazy: :applause: :rofl:

[Joey Liberal]

17. The Army could let it all go away

The Army could give the Lt. a discharge for the good of the service and the whole thing would go away. But the Army is not known for using common sense:)........ Not only that, but they (the Army) are probably worried that many other officers and NCO's would do the same thing the Lt. did in order to get out of the Army. What a shame that it has come to this. It's all part of the "Curse of Bush".

[sanskritwarrior]

19. I'm not sure what you guys are smoking

I'm very familiar with Courts Martial, this is the worst possible outcome for Watada. His plea deal that erased two other charges is now gone, the Army can now bring more charges against him as there is some dispute that he ever intended to follow the orders to deploy. The Army was going light on him, now they will bring more. Truthout couldn't be more wrong, the mistrial was asked for by the Prosecution, the defense tried to keep the court martial going as the defense lawyer understood what was happening. This is now worse for LT Watada then it was before......Oy vey, some people do not understand the UCMJ and how it works......

[sanskritwarrior]

21. Also

I'm not sure where Watada's attorney went to law school but he doesn't seem to understand how double jeopardy works. There are three essential protections included in double jeopardy: protection from being retried for the same crime after an acquittal; protection from retrial after a conviction; and protection from being punished multiple times for the same offense. As double jeopardy applies only to charges that were the subject of an earlier final judgment, there are many situations in which it does not apply despite the appearance of a retrial. For example, a second trial held after a mistrial does not violate the double jeopardy clause, because a mistrial ends a trial prematurely without a judgment of guilty or not guilty. Since this was a mistrial - double jeopardy does not apply!

I sympathize with the LT but he is in the same Army I am in, and the UCMJ works differently.......

[Bonobo]

23. Sanskrit, thanks for the info. This is terrible.

BTW, have you seen his tremendous speech. It's in the Political Video forum.

[DemoTex]

29. Thanks for the shot of cold water "sanskritwarrior."

I fear that you are correct. I was in the Army that you are in and that the Eltee is in. UCMJ does prevail. Max, Nix .. justice is suspended elsewhere, too.

[Radio_Lady]

30. Sanskrit, are you in the military? You suggest that you are with your quote:

"...but he is in the same Army I am in, and the UCMJ works differently..."

I heard Lt. Watada on the Thom Hartman show this morning and I wish him well, whatever the outcome.

Of course, whatever the outcome, this case is a military hot potato, and I couldn't predict what the prosecutor will do. Watada sounded articulate and quite resigned to going to prison for his infraction.

Yesterday, Randi Rhodes suggested on her show that a National Guard recruit who was just assigned for the first time to go to Iraq... could do what Watada did and refuse to go. She's been in the military, too. I know nothing about military justice, although my father was a practicing civil lawyer.

Another Grandmother for Peace.

Radio Lady in Oregon.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. Remember though due to the nature of the case

this is a hot potato

They were not going that light on him, though I expect them to throw the book at him

After all he is guilty... (napoleonic system)

But this is not, for poltiical reasons, the outcome they wanted. They are having way too much exposure in the media

Now one last thing... as to Rhandi Rhodes... in her defense of Watada suposedly as his defense of the Constitution, she does not get it, at all. And she is a civilian, and served in a PEACE TIME military. You do NOT have the right to choose and pick what theater you go to, and this war is very legal... thanks to the IWR... and until the US Congrss takes away its permission, as it were, the war remains legal, and any order to deploy is legal. The other choice would be for the war to be taken over at the docket in the Hague which has two problems

1.- We don't recognize the International Court system
2.- Given the UN Security Council gave its blessing you all think security council members want to do that? After all they would have to face the music too...



I have said it before and I will say it again, Randi is not doing anybody any favors, let alone the Guard troops she advises so badly.

But for political reasons that is why this is a WOW, they are doing what?

The last thing they need is more publicity and that is exactly what they will get

And the LTEE, he'd better make reservations to Leavenworth, in that I agree... not for six years. I will not be shocked if they add every charge, and make him serve time individually. (He may be looking at 10 years easy, assuming they do not decide to add mutiny to the charges) What is at stake is nothing less than good order and discipline.



That said, he's a very couragous young man.

[sanskritwarrior]

40. Yeah

that's what I'm seeing as well. He could have at least 4 more charges added that I can think of off the top of my head. Disobeying a direct order (2) counts, Making a false statement, and mutiny perhaps......Ok maybe 3 more.

So many people don't understand how UCMJ works against the defense. The prosecution smelled blood and they quickly asked for a mistrial, the LT's lawyers did not want this.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. Well if the army is that concerned about good order

and discipline, I would not be shocked if they go for mutiny... in time of war

We both know what that means.

That is why in the OP I went WOW.

(Translation, mutiny in time of war has one mandatory outcome, death by firing squad, the last time any major army did this was 1916, and hostilities ceased while the
Italian and French armies executed ring leaders in formation)

[SeattleGirl]

55. What do you think the reaction would be, if, God forbid, it came to that?

I think it would enrage a lot of people, myself included. Especially if one compares what the Lt. did with what Bush and company have done, and are doing, and yet they continue to get away with it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

59. Ouside the military unpredicable

inside the military... message received.

Remember, troops truly don't have a choice to go where they pick and choose, but where their orders send them to

He received a legal order to deploy with his troops to a war zone deemed such by actions of the civilian leadership.

I am sorry to say it, but his ass is in a slng, becasue his reason to refuse the order is a statement of policy and troops don't make policy.

Do I respect him for the Cajones it takes? Yes

[sanskritwarrior]

62. Agree with every word

I don't get to pick and choose. I'm glad someone else here understands why. I have argued this very point about 20 times now with various posters and been called things from a robot to a proto fascist by someone now on my ignore list.

[SeattleGirl]

63. How can something be legal if it is based on lies?

Given how many times the reasons for going to war have been changed by the Administration, given that we know they lied many times, and continue to do so, how does that make for a legal war? Not being sarcastic or anything; it's just that it doesn't make any sense to me (but them, I'm not Dubya...I actually THINK about things, and try to inform myself with something other than my gut feelings).

I do understand that troops can't pick and choose their assignments, but again, if a war is based on lies, is it truly legal?

I'l like to hear your thoughts on this.

[sanskritwarrior]

66. How is the war illegal?

Honestly and truthfully, what statue holds this to be true. Saying something does not make that something true. There is a chain of command and that chain goes up through to President. So far the congress has not revoked the War resolution and no court has ruled the war illegal. So again how according to the LAW is the war illegal. Based on what criteria? And remember it has to be a criteria that applies to military members. The nuremberg principles are nice but they aren't congress.....

[SeattleGirl]

73. Again, pardon my ignorance of most things military.

I'm looking at it this way: it was based on lies, made up stories, etc. So even though no one in the Bush administration has said it is illegal (and pigs will fly before they do), and Congress has not revoked the war resolution (more pigs flying?), the reason for it in the first place were lies.

And believe me, I'm not trying to start an argument or anything; I'm just really trying to understand what's going on with this trial, in the small picture, and the difference between civilian justice and military justice.

I really appreciate your information and insights.

[sanskritwarrior]

80. What court of law

has ruled that lies and made up stories formed the basis for the Iraq war. The jury of public opinion carries no weight in determining what is legal and what is illegal. I know you aren't trying to start a fight maam, I'm just trying to be an nonobtuse as possible.

the war is legal because congress gave the President power. Until such time as that power is taken away the war is legal and no amount of internet articles, downing street memo's etc. changes the legality derived from Congress by Congress giving the power in the first place.

[SeattleGirl]

89. You aren't being obtuse at all.

Again, it is my lack of knowledge of things military that is creating my struggle in understanding this whole thing.

You are helping to further my understanding, actually.

BTW, check your PM.

[uppityperson]

74. Congress didn't declare war. They passed the resolution, but

that vote was based on lies and so does that make it legal? Does Congress continue to give them authority by not calling them on it, by not making them stop? Sort of like if you don't protest and stop it, if you let it happen you are agreeing to it? I'd like to see the administration, the war's legality on trial.

[Zhade]

116. The U.N. charter and Geneva Conventions, for two examples.

Aggressive war, which is what this was as there WAS NO THREAT TO PREEMPT (which they knew, hence the Office of Special Plans LIE factory Cheney created), is illegal under international (and thus our own) law.

[nadinbrzezinski]

117. Remember the UN Security Council gave

its blessing too.

So we do have that cover too

[Solly Mack]

137. They sure did...and under GC '49

when the CPA "dissolved the occupation" and turned over "control" to Iraq on June 30,2004, the UN recognized Iraq has having sovereignty, the occupation as ended, and the coalition forces in Iraq as per request of the sovereign state of Iraq...the UN gave the US complete cover for the entire invasion with that

Now, I think it is a bunch of bullshit and lies dressed up as CYA diplomacy....but no court of law has said as much. Well, no court of law the US is a signatory to...and even with customary law, the UN has given its blessing, so....



I think the "war" is and was illegal and I believe one day such will be said of America's invasion of Iraq...but until that day...when enough time has gone by that people will say "oh well, can't do anything about that now - let's look forward" (same MO governments use for all their crimes and outrages)

My outrage stems from knowing America will get away with it all...even the war crimes committed after the invasion and in Afghanistan/GTMO/secret prisons, etc. So I rage against it all... but my rage is mostly steeped in knowing how this will play out because of all the "legalities"

You're also correct, and I know you know that, about troop movement...Congress sanctioned the war -whether anyone wants to accept that or not...and as such, troop movement was legal...making the missing of troops movement a violation of the UCMJ and subject to punishment.

And under the War Powers Act, the President can issue orders to move troops regardless of Congress(though certain "benchmarks" are required)...and as such, missing troop movement in that case is also a violation of the UCMJ.

People also don't seem to understand that a signatory to an international treaty can sign with conditions..and the US usually does. Or a state can elect to not take part in certain aspects of additional protocols...so they can be a signatory to the treaty but not accept the authority of the additional protocols or commissions. And if a state does not recognize that authority, that means they don't follow it - nor are they legally bound to.

A treaty in the US only because the "law of the land" once Congress sends a declaration to the UN on whether or not they accept the conditions and the objections, if any, to the treaty....If people read the treaties there is always a small number next to the signatories signature that stipulates the conditions, if any, by which they "accept" the authority of the treaty. It's the "fine print"
and like any fine print, people tend to neglect reading it.

As for the Nazis...they lost. And if anyone thinks that didn't play a huge role in how Nuremberg played out..well, uh..damn. Guess the saying about the victors writing the history escaped notice...Sure, without doubt, the Nazis deserved the trials for their crimes...but don't ever think losing didn't aid in those trials taking place.

Now, even if the US is seen as losing in Iraq..and I don't see how it can't be...Iraq isn't WWII. The "world" isn't aligned against a common enemy, try as the US might to make it seem so...and the "world" isn't joined together on Iraq. No one is going to seriously challenge the US for its actions....there will be lies and cover up and diplomatic cover granted under the guise of UN "blessings"..the US will NEVER see the inside of the Hague as a defendent...never...too many countries involved in our war crimes for that. Member states of the UN , who housed our secret prisons and who allowed extraordinary rendition flights to land, really going to open that can of worms? Not without making themselves complicit..and they will not do that.

Yes, the EU will posture a stern finger at those nations involved...but the end result won't be a war crimes trial or the US ending up in trouble for it.

I'll continue to rage against the criminal actions of my government but that in no way means the "legalities" of it all escape me...for they do not...they sicken me more.


I want Bush Inc imprisoned for their crimes...but it ain't gonna happen.

[Solly Mack]

139. Links added

UN Security Council Resolution recognizing Iraqs sovereignty
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/381/16/PDF/N0438116.pdf?OpenElement

The above resolution affords the US all the cover it needs for the invasion/occupation. Yeah, it stinks...but isn't it better to know exactly what you're dealing with? Just how big the problem really is...





additional commentary that aids in the explanation
Legality of a Request by the Interim Iraqi Government for the Continued Presence of United States Military Forces
http://www.asil.org/insights/insigh135.htm

[nadinbrzezinski]

151. I agre withj you the war is a bullshit war

but on the most technical of points it is legal.

[uppityperson]

71. That's my question too.

No doubt he didn't go. Buy his defense is legality, so, is this occupation legal or have they just not been called on it yet.

[sanskritwarrior]

72. It is legal

because congress authorized it and the President signed off on it. That's all the military needs to make this legal. Remember there is legality legal and morality legal and they are very different things.

[uppityperson]

82. It will be interesting to watch. Lt.Watada is a brave man, a moral man, no matter what else.

[mike_c]

92. I will respectfully disagree with you....

Remember that the invasion of Europe was "legal" under German law, and the U.S. helped establish the precedence at Nuremberg that international law superseded domestic laws regarding war. The invasion of Iraq was a war of aggression, and under the Nuremberg Protocols-- to which we are signatories-- neither the president nor congress can convey legality upon an aggressive war.

[nadinbrzezinski]

94. That will have to be establised in a court of law

post conflict... again

We do not recognize the Hague, so the only way to test that would be for defeat and trial of civilian and military leaders.

[sanskritwarrior]

95. Do you ever get tired

of trying to explain to people how this works........

[nadinbrzezinski]

97. Yes, but then again it is fun to e-mail CNN

at the begining of the mess and tell them,

boys under the Geneva convention you cannot show faces.... article such and such

And see them not do it 12 hours later repeating essentially the reason I gave them.

:-)

[SeattleGirl]

100. LOL! I bet you do get tired of it, sanskrit.

But this non-military person sure appreciates the fact that you DO!

[sanskritwarrior]

103. No problem

you are delightful to talk to. So far you haven't called me a Proto-fascist for following legal orders, so you are a vast improvement over whom I usually get to talk to here.

[SeattleGirl]

105. That's not my style, believe me.

Personal attacks have no place in a good discussion anyway. (Wish more people felt that way.....)

[sanskritwarrior]

108. If I knew how to make the beer mug

smiley, I would raise one to you.....

[nadinbrzezinski]

110. Ok point browser to smiles look up table

above the reply header and just point and click

:toast:

Or write colontoastcolon

[SeattleGirl]

112. Well, thanks!

And you don't have to make the smiley. When you post, look just above the subject box, and you will see "Smilies lookup table". Click on that, and viola! Lots of smilies to choose from!

:toast:

[coznfx]

134. Thanx to all

for the great info and the smiley learin'!

:dunce: no more!

[mike_c]

111. right-- I think that was the essence of Goebbels' defense, too....

"That's just the way things worked here." Sorry-- I don't buy it. Neither did the prosecutors at Nuremberg.

"We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy."

Robert H. Jackson, U.S. Supreme Court

[nadinbrzezinski]

115. We don't recognzie the International Court system

and if we are defeated you can bet some very high ranking officers will have their asses on the docket, as well as the civilian leadership

Now... whether you buy it or not the fact is that for the moment the law of this country, the one that the army recognizes, states that as long as the CIC has the authority, and he does... the order to deploy is legal

Now have war crimes been commited in this war?

Yes

Have they been brought to trial?

NO

Will they be brought to trial?

Good question.

I truly beleive it depends on what happens in this country and just how badly we loose the war, assuming we loose (and there are strong indicators that we will)

Will every troop be tried for deploying to a theater of war? Or for that matter officer? no... for the same reason they never did that with E-3 and bellow at Nuremberg under any cirucmstance and why the lower level officer corp was left alone.

No military wants troops that essentially will question the order to sneeze on command, period

And yes, I expect a jurist to repeat those words, and this time to have somebody like LtGen Sanches squirming in the docket.

But that will only happen ex post facto...

Oh and to add, where is former under secretary for defense Paul Wolfowitz seating right now?

Oh yes... the world bank... yep we are pariahs alright

[mike_c]

118. did it matter in 1945 whether any of the parties on trial accepted...

...international jurisdiction? Is the ability to dismiss justice by force of arms all that's necessary to get away with murdering a nation? I simply cannot accept that. The fact that the U.S. does not recognize the authority of the ICC only underscores the importance of our own responsibilities as citizens to reject the illegal actions of our leadership.

[nadinbrzezinski]

120. Crucial difference

you can... please continue to do such

I can... and I continue to do such

But a service member cannot

There are many reasons

And for the sake of argument lets assume that a significant number of the officer corp followed watada

There are two outcomes to that one

1.- They are arrested, summarily tried in summary court martials and shot for mutiny

2.- Military coup

Those are the two outcomes

The way the system works the responsibility to stop this madness is truly with us... CIVILIANS

Oh and to add

the IMT was a creation of the victors and though necessary, was at times victor's justice since we were guilty of some of the same offenses as the ones on the dockett, and why Doenits was let go, since Nimitz actually reminded the court WE engaged in unrestricted submarine warfare, and bomber harris should have joined Goering on the docket for unrestricted bombing of civilian targets.

Now two of the indictments were unique to the Germans, such as planneing for agreesive war and engaging in such.

Oh and I do believe that these CIVILIAN leadership is guilty of such, but a court has yet to agree with me

[mike_c]

122. Article IV of the Nuremberg Protocols addresses that point specifically....

The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

Note that only a moral choice is necessary-- not an easy one, and not a practical one.

This is U.S. law under our treaty obligations as signatories of the U.N. Charter.

I agree with you that it's unlikely that WE will uphold our own laws in this regard, which is why we need international prosecutions of U.S. leaders more than ever.

on edit: thought I'd better mention Article II as well:

The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.

[nadinbrzezinski]

125. I will point to you that war crimes are

war crmes under the UCMJ, since Geneva and UN Charter are US Law and were incorporated into the UCMJ

But once again, movement orders, deployment orders are not ilegal.

The war has not even been questioned to any standard of legality

We may beleive it is ilegal (and give me enough time before a court and I think I can prove it)

but here are the wickets that hit both International requirements and national ones

1.- US Congress authorized this action, not by a declaration of war, but the IWR... unprecedented, yes... but until challenged legally that wicket was hit

2.- UN Security Council gave its blessing.

Until one or both of these bodies starts the process to qusetion the legality of this war, or the war is brought to the Hague, the war is still legal under the strictest of interpretations

there are actions, as in individual actions, that break both national law and international law

Guantamo, listening to your converastions sans warrant, et al.

But the war itself has not been questioned in any legally binding body, and why I think the Lt decided to do it in the military court system, which was a very bad choice of venue on his part.

Should it be questioned? Yes

Will it be quetioned? Perhaps... it truly depends on how badly we loose, I'm serious on that one

But a statemenmt by the Secretary General that in his opinion the war is ilegal IS NOT legally binding.

So I wait with baited breath for two actions that will start the ball rolling in this regard, one of them internal the other external

1.- The begining of discusions in the Hill over the war, innevitably questions of legality will come up and why the Pukes are doing all they can procedurally to stop it

2.- The indictment of Herr Rumsfeld in a German Court.. though not the IC, that alone will get the ball rolling at the international level.

as to us needing international prosecutors, I'd like to think that we can take care of our traitors on our own, but perhaps we shan't be able to and the next Pres should turn bush et al over... but given some of the stances of some of our candidatse, doubt it, or pigs will fly

[mike_c]

130. again, I will respectfully disagree....

With regard to your point #1, Article II is unambiguous-- internal law cannot supersede international law. Congress does not have the authority to "authorize" crimes against humanity. Recall that the Reichstag tried that dodge too, and unsuccessfully. As for the war's criminality not having been decided, a crime occurs when the crime is committed, not when it is challenged in court. The role of the court is simply to establish the facts of what happened--crimes are defined by statutes, treaties, criminal codes, and so on, not by courts. One commits a crime at the moment one violates the law.

As for your point #2, the SC did not give it's blessing to the invasion or to the occupation until after the current Iraqi government, which is entirely beholden to the U.S., requested U.S. military protection. To suggest that such action legitimizes the occupation is tantamount to suggesting that the German occupation of France was fine because the Vichy government acquiesced.

[nadinbrzezinski]

131. Point number one

the IWR did NOT authorize war crimes, or genocide... what it authorized was military operations against both Iraq and Afghanistan. We can discuss the legality of the IWR and I suspect in a post conflict situation it will be hotly argued.

Point nubmer 2 the SC of the United Nations authorized the operations in both Afghanistan and in Iraq BEFORE the shooting started... giving if you will that fig leave of legality... and they have yet to discuss the ocupation or other legal matters regarding it.

Point number three, and I forgot to mention that one as well, on Sept 11 NATO invoked article five of the NATO chart

We can disagree on the technicalities, but the fact is... where is undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz serving? Oh yes, world bank

A country that is seen as breaking internaional law in a blatant way is treated as a pariah... we have yet to truly be terated as pariahs (even if we deserve it)

But we can agree to disagree.

[TheBaldyMan]

141. I disagree on the substance of your post as to what constitutes war crimes etc.

Any serving soldier in the armed forces of a signatory to the Geneva conventions has a duty to abide by them.

On Congressional agreement on the use of troops abroad. This decision was extorted by means of outright lying and arm-twisting. The media wholly complicit with the neo-con controlled White House silenced dissent. That shameful and disgraceful episode cannot be used as justification to persecute consciencious objection.

The UN OK'ed the invasion after it happened, after the 'co-alition of the willing' had acted in violation of international law without UNSC sanction. This did not and never will make the invasion or the subsequent occupation legal. Retrospectively using the UN's meek aquiesence as justification of an order that was illegal from the outset won't wash.

The war is illegal and the occupation is illegal, always has been, still is. Incidently, that's the main reason for a US withdrawal, quite apart from the many other valid pressing reasons. It was the main reason not to go to war in the first place.

[nadinbrzezinski]

152. Until this war is declared ilegal

or found to be such

The wickets were hit.

I hate it, you may hate it, obviously Lt Wataada hates it, but in many ways it is like Nam.

It was never declared ilegal, hence all orders were legal (to deploy that is)

Now there are individual actions on the ground that are clearly ilegal and that troops should have known better, especially an MP Unit (Abu Graib), or that troops should have refused to participate in (Haditha). By the way, I fear those are but tips of huge icebrrgs, and that once this madensss is over we will find those orders that led to those actions originaed in the civilian command authority.

[Peace Patriot]

156. Yes, yes, yes, Mike_c, you are so right! "Neither the president nor congress

can convey legality upon an aggressive war." Furthermore, Congress VIOLATED THE U.S. CONSTITUTION by signing away their power to declare war to George Bush!

And every Congress member who voted for the IWR violated their oath of office to uphold the Constitution!

We should have taken care of this way back in Vietnam, and we never did. The same thing happened. There was never a declaration of war by Congress, in which the American people would have been involved in a debate about whether or not Vietnam was our "enemy," and whether or not we should attack them, and in which the truth about the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and other matters might have come out. The war was done by stealth--by letting the President decide when and by how much to escalate our already illegal and provocative presence, into a full scale war, starting with the escalation after the trumped up Gulf of Tonkin incident. Same with this one. The debate was NOT about declaring war. It was about giving Bush the power to act if peace initiatives failed. But THAT'S WHEN he should have had to COME BACK to Congress for a declaration of war--when his totally phony UN efforts, and totally fabricated case for war, had been exposed. Instead, Congress UNCONSTITUTIONALLY gave away their power to make that decision.

Vietnam was a terrible precedent that we should have never allowed to stand unchallenged. But because it was not challenged does not make it legal NOW.

The Constitution is very clear about this. Congress violated the law of the land. ONLY Congress can declare war. And ONLY Congress can fund it. Bush DID NOT HAVE THE POWER to declare war on Iraq, and decide to bomb and invade it. No such power existed. So, when people here say that, however tenuous it is, it was legal, that is not true.

And this is WHY the Founders gave that power to Congress and Congress alone. Think about it: If Bush had had to COME BACK to Congress, after the UN and major allies had declined to participate and had seriously questioned the case for war, and while the UN weapons inspectors were still in Iraq, asking for only one month to finish their inspections--would Congress have declared war on Iraq?

Or perhaps the question would be better phrased: COULD Congress have declared war on Iraq, given those facts, and maintained any credibility with the American people? And that is the crucial "balance of power" on war. Is it a just cause? Do the people agree? That's what the Founders built into our Constitution, as a check on Presidential war. In Feb. '03, before the invasion, FIFTY-SIX PERCENT of the American people ALREADY opposed the war, and that number would only have grown with debate and the exposure of the Bushites' lies.

The IWR, in addition to being unconstitutional, on its face, was perhaps the most cowardly and two-faced resolution ever passed by Congress. Congress CANNOT transfer its power to declare war to the President! And those who voted for it, did so in order to worm out of responsibility for the war, later, in the political arena.

As for the UN resolution that put the US in charge of the occupation, that was solely for the purpose of the US TAKING RESPONSIBILITY for the disaster that it had created. SOMEBODY had to be in charge, after Bush/Rumsfeld broke the civil structure of the country. It was NOT an endorsement of the war!

THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR THIS WAR. NONE.

Hitler invaded dozens of countries using flimsy legal premises like these. That doesn't make them legal. And that doesn't make them right.

[Spoonerian]

159. Well said Peace Patriot.

Every congressman and soldier swears an oath to defend the constitution. But the government's lawyers tell them that their oaths don't mean jack.

Every congressman who voted for the IWR should be impeached. Every soldier who obeyed orders instead of defending the constitution should be charged in a court martial.

Its one thing for you or me to "forgive" these congressman and soldiers, but what about the victims of their crimes? Its up to them and their families to extend mercy, not us. At a minimum, judgements should be rendered against these congressman and soldiers so that they have to turn over every penny they earn for the rest of their lives to the victims of their crimes.

[sanskritwarrior]

161. Forgive me

if I tell you to shove it......I'm a soldier and I followed legal orders. Go back and read my posts, I'm not a war supporter, I am a supporter of following legal correct orders. So far no congressional vote or judicial ruling has ruled the war illegal. To the military it does not matter what Nurmeberg says, it doesn't really matter what Constitutional experts say. Congress, the President and the Courts matter, until such time as they rule the war is illegal any soldier not following legal orders to deploy is violating UCMJ and his oath. Don't try and convince me otherwise, that is the reality in the military. So again forgive me if I tell you to shove it when you say I need to pay people back for doing my duty in accordance with what congress and the President ordered us to do. This is getting old really fast........I have explained 21 times now why the war is legal as of today. The military will never decide on its own what is legal and illegal, that is not our job and the first officer of mine that tried to do something like that would be arrested, because that my friend is the beginning of a coup......

[Peace Patriot]

162. Sanskritwarrior, I don't agree with Spoonerian that "every soldier" should be

held responsible for war crimes, because he obeyed orders that he thought were legal. That is much too extreme and unfair, in my opinion. As for lower order soldiers, I think it is completely out of line to state that they are personally liable for the Bush Junta's war crimes. As a matter of fact, I believe that Bush & Co. owe THEM reparations--they owe money and penance and apologies to every soldier they have ordered to Iraq. I think the soldiers in Iraq are being terribly abused and misused, and placed in impossible positions. As for officers and generals, I think they have an oblgation to disobey illegal commands, according to their consciences. They are being asked to give orders to others --to kill, and to be placed in danger--and if they judge the mission to be illegal, unjust and wrong, they must not give those orders. At the top of the military command, there has been much collusion between the brass and war profiteers, on manufacturing war for profitable purposes. I would like to see those commanders removed and disgraced. There has also been courage--in generals and other high commanders who have spoken the truth about this war, before, and during--and individual acts of heroism among the officer corps, for instance the jag lawyers who fought against torture policies, and other people who have refused to be Bush/Rumsfeld toadies and yes-men. I would like to see them rewarded and vindicated. But, on the whole, the Iraq War being a war crime is not the fault of the military. It is the fault of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and cronies (including the CEOs of the oil corporations), and the members Congress who sold out the American people--AND our soldiers--and violated their oath of office for political expediency. They knew it was wrong. They knew that WMDs and all the other accusations were hooey. And they let the stupidest leader in the history of civilization alone decide to go to war, with no justification whatsoever for doing so.

[Spoonerian]

163. Peace Patriot:

It is the fault of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and cronies (including the CEOs of the oil corporations), and the members Congress...

Yes, and I think we agree that justice requires that they should be forced to compensate their victims, unless they are forgiven by their victims.

...who sold out the American people--AND our soldiers--...

I have to respectfully disagree with this. Look at it this way. What if a refugee from Fallujah somehow shows up on my doorstep and demands reparations from me. And what if he points out that:

1. I once voted for a democratic congresswomen who voted to finance the destruction of Iraq and still won't even mention cutting off further financing.

2. I pay and continue to pay taxes to the U.S. government which I know will be used to finance the destruction of Iraq.

I'd have absolutely no defense. The city, house, and family of the Iraqi man on my doorstep were destroyed and I clearly had a hand in it.

I could plead that I was coerced or couldn't think of a better strategy to stop the murder of his family than to roll the dice and hope for a long shot to pay off in the voting booth, but the fact would remain that the damage has been done, and now the only question is am I man enough to accept responsibility. And by "accept responsibility" I don't mean like Janet Reno did at Waco, I mean righting the wrong: repairing the damage done to my victims to the furthest extent possible.

A nation of sheep begets a government of wolves. Hence the crimes of the government are in the end the responsibility of the sheep. Until the U.S. of American people own up to their responsibility involving the crimes of their hired hitmen, cops, and soldiers, nothing is going to change.

* * *

Speaking of cops and soldiers. They are ALL un-constitutional. Article I, Section 8 only allows for the raising of armies on a temporary emergency basis. The 2nd Amendment contains nearly the same language as most of the states' bills of rights--which declare that it is dangerous to trust the government with armed soldiers and that a militia composed of the people is the only safe defense of a free state.

* * *

One other thing. When I discuss these matters with cops and soldiers on various message boards, all I ask of them is that--when they come to take me away (for whatever reason, not paying enough war taxes, disobeying a police command, whatever)--I demand that they be prepared to tell me how they've reasoned in their own minds how what they're doing does not violate my 9th Amendment or any other constitutional rights.

In the U.S. of America, the cops and soldiers swear oaths to defend the constitution. If I want to hear the troops say that they're just following orders when they're loading me onto the boxcar, I can move to someplace like Germany. The only redeeming feature of living in a constitutional democratic republic, is that the government's goons swear allegiance to a bill of rights that acknowledges (in the 9th Amendment) that the people retain an infinite number of rights.

So, all I ask of soldiers and cops like sanskritwarrior is that they don't give me the "just following orders" b.s. I want them to tell me how they've thought about the justice and constitutionality of what they're about to do like a human being with a conscience as their oaths require of them.

These are necessary first steps if we're ever going to rollback the police state. We all (citizens, cops, soldiers, congressman) have to acknowledge our duties to think, use our consciences, and take individual responsibility for the damages that we inflict on our victims.

[TexasLinda]

129. You are correct.

It's important to understand that the concepts of "right" and "wrong" are only very loosely connected to the concepts of "legal" and "illegal". Remember, at one time slavery was legal in this country -- but it certainly wasn't right or moral. I'm afraid the young LT is royally screwed.

Yes, we have an all volunteer military. But these folks enlisted to defend their country, not to do nation building (which candidate Bush said he was against in 2000) or to invade another country for their oil. The "all volunteer" part ends the minute you sign the enlistment papers. Then the government owns your butt, apparently for as long as they want. Military members give up a lot of freedoms that many of their fellow citizens take for granted. There are good reasons for this, but they depend on not having a whack job for a Commander-in-Chief.

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. The war was authorized by the US Congress

even though they did not declare war, they did give the authority to the Commander in Chief to deploy troops

As long as Bush has that authority the war, and the orders for troops to deploy are legal... since the war is deemed legal by policy makers.

That is why the non binding resolution is such a big deal and why the republicans have gone out of their way to stop it.

They know it is the FIRST STEP in removing that authority. Notice I did not write legality, since legality can only be proven or disproven in a court of law.

Now a Service Member cannot sue in a court of law to get the ball rolling, one of the things you loose as a service member is your right to sue the US Government, the other is your right to an opinion... but, and it has never been done anywhere in the world, conceivably US Citizens could sue the US Governemtn for taking the country ilegally to war.

Alternatevly if Bush were impeached tomorrow for the lies... the war would enter that gray zone of legality.

The closest we have come to anybody saying it is illegal, and it is not binding since it is not legally binding, is when the US Secretary General said that in his opinion it is ilegal

Now IMHO I could tell you what are the grounds for this war to be ilegal, such as no WMDs, the Casus Belli and the fact that is wsa done as a preemtive war, which violates the UN Charter, alas I'm not a lawyer, though have taken courses in international law.

That is why his ass is in a sling. And why the defense that this war is ilegal will not be allowed in... the defense itself is a statement of policy, and a violatiion of the UCMJ. The defense is part of the charges... especially since he brought disgrace to the service by going to the press...

[uppityperson]

77. Seems this is something he is trying to do, get the legality issue in a court.

[nadinbrzezinski]

81. And the court will allow that in

when pigs fly.

Serious

They are not going to allow that discusion in, for two reasons

1.- It is a discusion of policy, service members don't make policy... at a very high level JCS, they may advise on policy, but they don't make it

2.- The Army cannot allow that disscusion to happen in a military setting due to the issue of good order and discipline

[uppityperson]

I know, they way do not want that in.

[sanskritwarrior]

83. In a court martial

it does not matter at all. It would be a "propaganda victory" The courts martial would not be swayed by such testimony as it is not at issue here at all. the war's legality has no bearing whatsoever on what the LT did........In the eyes of the Courts martial that is....

[uppityperson]

88. So the reason for disobeying an order makes no difference?

I thought officers were duty bound to disobey illegal orders? Are you saying that, in a court martial, there is not difference between an officer disobeying an illegal order and an enlisted soldier just not wanting to do something? I know, they don't want that in this court martial, but that is the basis of what he did.

I am trying to understand, thank you and Nadin for continuing the discussion.

[sanskritwarrior]

90. I am saying that

you have not demonstrated who in a position of authority over the military has said the war is illegal......Look, i know you are just asking questions to gain information, I get frustrated sometimes because to me a soldier these rules make perfct sense. If Congress and the President put us in motion to go there, only they can remove us. No amount of evidence to the contrary should persuade me to not deploy. That would be a breakdown of good order and discipline.

As for legal/illegal orders. Deployment orders are not illegal, asking me to shoot a small child, yeah illegal. asking me to get on a plane and go to Iraq, not illegal, asking me to get on a plane and go rape Iraqi schoolgirls, yeah illegal....See the difference?

[Thothmes]

142. Illegal Order

All U.S. Service personnel have a right and duty to refuse an illegal order. Whether an order is or is not legal will be determined at their General Court Marshal.

[SeattleGirl]

86. But doesn't someone have to speak out?

Going back to the military vs. civiilian worlds, it's one thing for protestors to take to the streets, carry signs, etc (and I'm not putting down those who do -- I am one of them), but it seems that it makes a whole lot of difference if it's an "insider" doing the protesting, in whatever shape that takes.

To me, it's like a family keeping quiet about the alcoholic mom or dad, so the family isn't embarassed. Things can only get worse, and if those who are actually in the midst of the situation remain quiet, nothing is going to change for the better.

I don't believe Lt. Watada wanted to disgrace the military, though I understand how some members of the military may believe he did just that. I think he finally just said, "Enough!" and decided to speak out. And, he did so knowing that his ass was going to be in a sling.

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. Here is the critical difference between the civilian world

and any military I am familiar with (two in fact)

As a civie you have the right to protest, write to your congressman, raise bloody hell, call the radio show

As a military member your rights to state your opinion are very limited, and if you choose to do such you'd better be out of uniform.

Why I took exception to General Boykin doing what he did... in unform... and that precedent is going to come back to byte the army.

But essentially as a military person you stand IN FRONT of the Constitution and your rights are essentially limited to voting... and some have even suggested that active duty troops should not be able to vote.

Some officers of an older school only registered to vote when they left the military, but never did while in uniform.

That is why the arguments of first amendment rights by his lawyer were to a point laughable.

What are my credentials?

I am married to a retired USN Chief

I was (nominally that is until the civil war started in Mexico) an officer, since the Red Cross was part of the reserves.

And it never ceases to amaze me just how similar my instructions were regarding an opinion to those of my husband

Now in the US the Military is truly under civi control, to the point that the countries to both the North and the South can have Ministers of Defense who are part of the military. In the US SecDef and all undersecretaries can be FORMER military, but never ACTIVE military... that wall is theoretically there for a reason

[SeattleGirl]

98. I hope you don't think I was questionning your credentials to speak

on this subject; that never entered my mind, in fact, as you seem very well versed in the military courts.

And you know, while I understand some of the restrictions on the military in terms of voicing their opinions, it also strikes me as odd that so many people say the military fights for our rights, our freedoms, etc., and yet, they have so little of either.

[nadinbrzezinski]

101. I mentioned them since other people will be readying

that said,

In some ways people are always shocked of how few righs military members have

that was done by design by the founders and Washington

One blessing in disguise is that you have a military that is truly fully under civilian control, why we have never had a coup in the history of this country. I cannot guarantee that we will never have one, but the fact that the military follows policy, and does not make it, helps to keep them out of this coup memtality

The system is strong enough that if an officer said such, he'd be pounded

Now military services that do not have such a strong separation between the civilian world and the military tend to have a little coup problem

But essentially that is the reason

[sanskritwarrior]

107. If my company commander

told me we were going to rebel against the Govt. (even bush) I would arrest him on the spot.....That is good order and discipline.

[sanskritwarrior]

99. Oy vey

just heard something on CNN, I think???

watada's lawyers will have to prove that the war is illegal to the next Court.........UGH that is not possible given the way the military views these matters. They would be better off proving that the Sun revolves arond the Earth......

[nadinbrzezinski]

104. Or the earth is flat

the only way the war could become illegal is if the US Congress withdraws authorization, but then again it would still be legal when his deployment orders were received

His ass is cooked

Yep, they are going for good order... now doubt in my mind now

[sanskritwarrior]

93. Speak out about what?

n/t?

[SeattleGirl]

102. About what I originally said, about the war being illegal (in my

civilian mind).

I'm understanding more of what you've been saying about the military justice system, though (but I don't have to like it, right?). :)

[sanskritwarrior]

106. Not at all

I don't have to like it either, I just have to do it, if it is legal to do in the first place.

I understood what you were asking about, but today Feb. 7th 2007, the military does not in any way shape or form view the war in Iraq as illegal. That is my whole point......thank you for being polite

[SeattleGirl]

109. Just having to do it is the reason I ended up not joining the USAF

I had seriously considered joining after I left high school, but while I am not a person who bucks the system just to be an ass, I also know that I am the kind of person who questions many things (as you can tell by now!). The military was probably better off without me. :7


....and, you are quite welcome. There is no reason in the world to treat you in any other way.

[nadinbrzezinski]

113. I buck the system

and they were silly enough to give me railroad tracks

Just becuase you are in the service does not mean you cannot ask, or for that matter read.

Midwatches, according to my hubbie, were always fun becauae they discussed all from local whore houses at the local port of call to quantum physics and yes the Constitution and history (he is a retired bubblehead aka submariner)

And while waiting for calls we used to do the same

[bpeale]

147. last one executed was

Private Slovik, which I believe was during WWII

[Big Pappa]

56. On

top of that, The Army has unlimited resources. I am sure this is only the beginning.

[cui bono]

132. Don't list things they may not have thought of!

Shhh... tiny voices.

[autorank]

123. Thanks for the clafirication!

Good luck and keep the good information coming.

[SeattleGirl]

22. Of course some people -- a lot of people, I bet -- do not understand

the UCMJ. They aren't or haven't been, in the military. I would also bet that not everyone IN the military fully understands it. That doesn't make us bad or anything, so please cut some slack here.

As to the rest of your post, could you elaborate more? This is not a sarcastic question at all; it's just that since you said you are very familiar with Courts Martial, I would be interested in knowing more, particularly as it relates to Lt. Watada's mistrial and what may lie ahead for him. I have picked up some knowledge, but don't completely understand it by any means.

[uppityperson]

24. I haven't read Truthout, just MSM and I am going to be watching with interest

You know what, there are nicer ways of sharing info than being patronizing and vaguely insulting. Just a suggestion.

You are right, I do not have Court Martial experience, but am amused and happy about what has happened so far. He signed an agreement which each side seems to hold a different view of what that agreement is. He wants to be able to defend himself. Will be watching and seeing what happens. They could just let him go, kick him out, whatever the legal military jargon is that I, with my lesser experience and wisdom, cannot think of.

[sanskritwarrior]

27. Sorry

How many times does Truthout have to burn people.......I should have said that.

A mistrial is not allowed under UCMJ, there has been no verdict rendered, so according to the Army the trial must still be completed. Now Lt Watada's plea deal is gone, those other two charges are going to resurface. Also it is now unclear he every intended to follow any orders given on that day June 26th. A case can be made he also willfully disobeyed a direct order, and that is another charge. That is also a serious charge and if he says no he never intended to obey he is caught, if he says yes he meant to obey, then he must answer why he didn't.....His lawyer is playing a dangerous game with the military. I hope he knows what he is doing, because the stakes and the jail time just got raised.

[uppityperson]

28. Thank you for your info and I still haven't read Truthout, just MSM today.

If the trial must be completed, why are MSM, including PBS radio saying they do not know if they will have another trial? Seems they didn't want to bring up the war's illegality, so cut him a deal. However, since his defense rests on that, the deal made was thought of differently by defense/prosecution. If they bring him to trial, he will bring Invasion/Occupation of Iraq legality questions up. I think he knows what he is doing, and there are worse things than going to prison by standing on his honor.

[sanskritwarrior]

35. I don't know why

perhaps not understanding how UCMJ works. A mistrial with no verdict rendered doesn't mean this is over.....It is just beginning as far as the Army is concerned. I see more charges brought against the LT. Just my .02 cents from 13 years in the Army and a lot of courts martial that I have seen.

[sanskritwarrior]

36. This is what I'm hearing too

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003561301_webwatada07.html

[SeattleGirl]

31. sanskrit, do you think the military is deliberately trying to set

Lt. Watada up for even worse punishment? Given that the judge said he would not allow any testimony regarding the legality of the war, which was Watada's basic defense (that he didn't go back to Iraq because he came to believe the war is illegal), he got his legs knocked out from under him right off the bat.

I'm not promoting any conspiracy theories here, but again, that is my impression. And now, with what you are saying about how this mistrial call by the judge is going to make things even worse for the Lt., it does make me wonder if the military is going out if its way to find more ways to punish him.

Also, his primary attorney is a civilian, correct? But doesn't he have a second attorney who is military? If so, it would seem that the military attorney should be speaking out, or at least talking to the civilian attorney about what's going on.

[sanskritwarrior]

39. It could be

the Army does what the Army wants in regards to UCMJ. It could be dismissed entirely, but that would be very strange as the Army's case is still "good" in their eyes. LT Watada's lawyer is not helping by saying there will be a mistrial, things like this happen very often in Courts Martial and the case is reworked and then goes to trial.

[SeattleGirl]

49. Thank you,.

I do know that the military court IS different from civilian courts, but am not well versed in all the ways this is true.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. Think about it this way

and how different it is

The Military system is Napoleonic in nature... in effect this means teh Judge does not need to prove the LTee is guilty...

On the other hand, the LTee has to prove his innocence to the court.

Hope that helps

[uppityperson]

57. Guilty until proven innocent.

[SeattleGirl]

58. Oy. Given what you and nadin have been saying, I can see that.

Thanks again.

[qazplm]

153. speaking as a trial defense attorney

that just isnt true.

I have never, EVER seen a client of mine in an Army C-M who had to prove their own innocence.

In many ways, not all, but many, the military, at least the Army, court system is better for defendants than the civilian system is.

The Military TDS attorneys are almost always more experienced, and often very much more experienced.

[nadinbrzezinski]

154. Yet the system in the UCMJ assumes guilt

it is Napoloeonic, I did not make this up

[nadinbrzezinski]

38. The report of mistrial was not only used by Truthout

it was also used by all major media outlets including AP

[sanskritwarrior]

41. That's exactly what it is

It is a mistrial but without a verdict rendered there can be no double jeopardy claim. And UCMJ allows for mistrials, it also resets the "game" to strip away all plea bargains, deals, etc.....

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. In civilian cases mistrials also set everything back in

motion, that is not unique to the military.

That is why they are using the term.

In the civilian world your chances of the case being refiled by the prosecutor depends on how badly they want to go out for blood.

In the military, they are not on any body's clock

Oh and to add... mistrials in a civiilan high profile case usually lead to refiling and recharging.

[sanskritwarrior]

44. The military is definitely out for blood

now, they wanted this to end this week. This has the potential to get even worse for the young LT. Again, I'm not sure I would have doubled down like his lawyers did today.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. Of course they are

worst case this is about good order and discipline, pure and simple.

[sanskritwarrior]

46. Yeah but it seemed like

they were going easy, offering the plea deal and knocking off two charges. I feel the Army will now feel it has egg on its face and if there is anything the Army hates more is being made to look like fools. In that regard, I now see them pulling out charges from everywhere. I see CID getting involved in his personal life and perhaps MI Counter Intel folks as well. A month is a long time to dig up "dirt" on anyone the LT has been seen with, spoken with or dealt with in his antiwar activities. The more I think about it, it starts to sound worse and worse....

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. Depends

this case is taking on political overtones outside the Army.

Mitchell's trial in the 1930s comes to mind

He gave the army some egg, and the trial had two mistrials... in the end they threw him out

After he was proven right by Pearl Harbor (which was the reason for the court martial to begin with, he thought an attack of that nature was possible) he got recalled, and he served with distinction

Why am I gong back to that one? It looked they were getting ready to throw the book at him, until the public exposure was so great the army essentially gave him a very neutral discharge and dismissed him

to his credit when recalled in '41 he did not tell them where to stuff it.

Just one correction the officer was Billy Mitchell, not Doolittle.

Damn this memory is starting to fail me

;-)

[sanskritwarrior]

50. I can't find any info

on doolittle's trial........

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. My mistake

Billy Mitchel

[SeattleGirl]

53. Interesting comparison, nadin

Lt. Watada said he WOULD serve in Afghanistan, and I think if he got sent there, he would also serve with distinction.

I also see it taking on political overtones. More and more people are turning against the war, are getting fed up with it, and that brings the "Hawks vs Doves" scenario from the civilian to the military world.

[sanskritwarrior]

60. According to Wiki

In 1925 he was court-martialed at the direct order of President Calvin Coolidge, found guilty of insubordination, and suspended from active duty for five years without pay. He died in 1936......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Mitchell

:) My memory sucks too.....

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. Yep it is startng to go

my first exposure to the case was the actual movie

But yes, he was suspended...

As to an order by the CiC... I could foresee parallels... in fact I am starting to see them.

[SeattleGirl]

67. So, nadin and sanskrit, this is starting to look more and more like

the Army is going to pull out all stops and throw every book in the library at Lt. Watada, not so much because of what he did, but because of the media exposure, and the "egg on their face".

I do know the military is a different world than the civilian one; I was married for a time to a military guy, but not having served myself, I confess to a lot of ignorance about the military. Only one who has been in it can truly understand it.

What do you two think? Is this becoming more and more about the Army saving face? (And I acknowledge that he disobeyed an order, regardless of the reason he did it.)

[sanskritwarrior]

70. Not saving face

Good order and discipline. We cannot tolerate a military where people pick and choose to follow what orders they like and which ones they don't like. This is about maintaining 220 years of good order and discipline.

[SeattleGirl]

78. I absolutely agree that the military depends on good order and

discipline; otherwise, it wouldn't work at all. I totally understand that. But it seems as if you are saying that the military (upper eschelon, plus the CinC) are always right, regardless of what they do. If I misinterpreted what you are saying, then straighten me out, because I truly am struggling with all of this, and do want to understand.

[sanskritwarrior]

84. The upper echelon is

always right until they are proven wrong......That is exactly how the military works.

now if you will excuse me, I need some dinner. I will answer anymore questions you have when I have a little free time.

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. The whole issue is good order and discipline

you cannot have troops questioning legal orders (this one is a legal order)

Now if the Lt had stopped I don't know, a troop from lining up civies adn shooting them... then he would have stoped a war crime... and he'd be the hero of the day... maybe

That is where service politics do come in.


He is the hero to civilians since he is voicing what a lot of people thing and believe... that is for sure

And it is not about being right, but about keeping that discipline that is critical to any military. That is why when the French and the Italians executed their mutineers in WW I, the Gernams suspended hostilities and had their troops watch too.

[uppityperson]

79. Officers are supposed to pick and chose, but not by "like" "dislike"

picking and choosing by if an order is legal or not, that is good discipline.

[nadinbrzezinski]

87. But deployment orders are not ilegal

Actually let me correct myself, they can be ilegal under cirumstances that are so special they usually don't repeat... and rare... oh so rare it is not even funny.

And trust me, I don't think Lt. Watada even aproaches even the outer reaches of that rare circumstance.

[Crabby Appleton]

133. You are completely correct

[DesertRat]

25. self delete

[ColdboyinStPaul]

32. What does self delete mean?

[uppityperson]

33. means poster wrote something, posted it. Went back in edit, removed it.

[file83]

54. That's be funny if you self deleted that so others would be left wondering...

..."wtf?"

Sorry - I have a wierd sense of humor tonight.

[uppityperson]

65. self delete

like this?

[file83]

69. self delete

;)

[uppityperson]

76. you will never know.

[Radio_Lady]

34. Hi, ColdboyinStPaul, and welcome to the DU!!!

Hopefully, your screen name will have to be changed in the summer! I understand Minnesota is beautiful, but I've never been there.

I'm in Portland, Oregon, with a moderate climate. My husband and I moved here in 1998.

Here's one for the books -- spring begins here in February. I saw our first crocus shoots coming up. They will be blooming by the last week in February and we'll even have some protected cherry trees open. It's been this way for the past eight years. Of course, we could blame this on global warming.

We're a great bunch. Ask any questions and you'll usually get helpful answers.

In peace,

Radio Lady in Oregon

[sanskritwarrior]

47. One final thing most of this

is covered in Rules for Courts Martial 915

[SeattleGirl]

114. Thanks again!

I assume I can find this online, so will check it out.

[Monkeyman]

119. Only one bad thing about this these pukes will go after him again and again

[SeattleGirl]

121. I'm sure you're right, Monkeyman, and the ones leading the charge

will be the chickenhawks who wouldn't put their feet in combat boots and stand a post for anything.

[colorado_ufo]

124. A man of honor.

[autorank]

126. Two issues here: 1) Civil disobedience and 2) Legal factors, (i.e. Nuremberg)

Civil disobedience.

This tradition is central to our ability to give hope to those treated unjustly and to function as a collective state instead of a collection of warring factions.

Plato's account of the Trial of Socrates was, to my knowledge, the first enunciation of civil disobedience. Socrates, a proud citizen of Athens, took his punishment after the trial because making
the moral and ethical point of a higher order than prevailing law was important AND because to make that point, you had to take the consequences.

Martin Luther King and the great civil rights activists did the same in the 60's and ultimately prevailed, to a large degree.

Watada is in that great tradition and needs to be admired. The case needs a brighter light too.

Legal Issues

The legal issues operate at a practical level concerning the Army, the trial judges, the likely outcome. This may or may not comport with the law.

Whether or not the Nuremberg charter agreed to by the United States is admitted as a defense is not relevant to the question of its applicability. It applies. Take a look

The Nuremberg Principles of Law
http://tinyurl.com/2y3dlw

The individual defendants are indicted under Article 6 of the Charter, which is as follows:

" Article 6. The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organisations, committed any of the following crimes:

" The following acts, or any of them, are crimes, coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:

" (a) Crimes against Peace: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing:

" (b) War Crimes: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder ill-treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity:

" (c) Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

" Leaders, organisers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan."

These provisions are binding upon the Tribunal as the law to be applied to the case. The Tribunal will later discuss them in more detail; but before doing so, it is necessary to review the facts. For the purpose of showing the background of the aggressive war and war crimes charged in the Indictment, the Tribunal will begin by reviewing some of the events that followed the first world war, and in particular, by tracing the growth of the Nazi Party under Hitler's leadership to a position of supreme power from which it controlled the destiny of the whole German people, and paved the way for the alleged commission of all the crimes charged against the defendants.

So Watada is engaged in Civil Disobedience of the highest order, he is arguing from international law put forward by the United States of America, and he may very well get screwed.

On a practical level, he will be pardoned and freed. Just wait for the virtual walk through of Iraq when this all falls out, the horror we'll experience, and the anger at the true perpetrators, the President, his supporters, and those who enabled this tragedy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

128. See post 125

and I will add, a miligtary member does not have a right to his opinion or civil disobedience, that is one of the rights you give up

[autorank]

160. Nadin, civil disobedience is not allowed in any law. It's of a higher order

...you can't define away civil disobedience, which means defying the law, by invoking a law.

He's defining human rights, those which the Nuremberg declarations clearly cover. That's international
law according to our signature, the signature of the United States of America.

[Swamp Rat]

135. Good for Ehren Watada!

:patriot:

[ClayZ]

138. Hi Swamp Rat! His Speech on Citizen Responsibility.....

is astounding!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=15717&mesg_id=15717

He is a TRUE PATRIOT!

[ClayZ]

150. DU this Seattle PI Poll Support Watada!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3101358&mesg_id=3101358

[133724]

136. Watada case mistrial declared

FORT LEWIS — Before his court-martial began this week, 1st Lt. Ehren Watada was packing boxes at his Olympia apartment in preparation for a guilty verdict and prison term.

Instead, the trial ended Wednesday as a mistrial when a judge rejected statements in a crucial pretrial agreement as unintended admissions of Watada's guilt. It is now unclear when — or even if — the 28-year-old Army officer will be tried on charges of missing a troop deployment to Iraq and officer misconduct.

Watada could face a new court-martial as early as mid-March and up to six years in prison rather than the four years at risk in this week's trial.

But Watada's defense team hopes the mistrial will give ample legal ammunition to get the case dismissed or to reach a settlement with Army prosecutors.

"It is our fervent hope that we can resolve this case without ever going back to court," said Eric Seitz, Watada's civilian counsel.

It was a surprise conclusion to a three-day trial marked by sharp clashes between Seitz and Military Judge John Head, who made a concerted effort to head off what he ruled was irrelevant testimony about the legality of the Iraq war.

Army officials portrayed the outcome as evidence of the military's effort to ensure a fair trial for the accused. Seitz said the government's case was deeply flawed because the judge had ruled that Watada could not fully explain his views to the panel.

Watada entered a plea of not guilty to all charges.

The court-martial unraveled over Head's misgiving about a 12-page agreement that Watada signed in January in a deal that cut two years off his possible sentence. In that agreement, Watada confirmed that he intentionally missed his brigade's deployment and signed a counseling agreement that acknowledged the "requirement to deploy," according to a copy of the agreement obtained by The Seattle Times.

The defense and prosecution teams both believed the agreement did not constitute an admission of guilt. But the judge on Wednesday said the agreement included all the elements required to find Watada guilty. It was more than an agreement, Head said: It was what he termed a "confessional stipulation," with whatever reasons behind the action irrelevant to the question of guilt.
advertising

The judge was troubled by Seitz's request to put the motivation for Watada's action — his belief that the war was illegal — into instructions that would be sent to the jury.

While the panel remained outside the courtroom, the judge asked for permission to question Watada for a second time — the first time was Monday — about the agreement.

"You are not authorized to ask my client questions any time you choose to do so," Seitz said as he leaped to his feet to rebuff the judge's request.

Head said he needed to talk to Watada, otherwise he might void the agreement. He told Seitz to sit down.

"You are talking to me, I'll stand," Seitz said.

"Sit down," the judge said.

Seitz took his seat. Then, after the break, he agreed to allow the judge to ask about the agreement.

"What do you mean, you intentionally missed the troop movement?" Head asked, referring to the agreement.

"What I was saying was that I intentionally missed the movement because I felt like participating in that movement would make me a participant in war crimes and an illegal war. ... I have always believed that I had a legal and moral defense," Watada told the judge. "I realize that what the government is arguing is contrary, but that does not negate that belief."

The judge was troubled by Watada's refusal to accept the statement as admitting all the elements of the charge.

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

A prosecutor, Capt. Scott Van Sweringen, asked for the judge to accept the agreement. The court-martial would then have moved on with the final phases of the trial — the defense case, closing arguments and deliberations by the panel.

But the judge rejected the agreement.

Prosecutors could have tried to move ahead with a disputed document that already had been handed out to the jury panel.

Instead, they chose to request a mistrial, which the judge quickly granted.

After the trial, Watada returned to his desk job at Fort Lewis, while his family joined supporters at a hotel gathering near the base.

"I am relieved because we were prepared for incarceration," said Carolyn Ho, Watada's mother. "That was pretty much the expectation by week's end."





http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003562133_watada8m.html

[strategery blunder]

140. DU copyright rules

Please limit your quotation of the article to four paragraphs.

Thank you :)

[scarface2004]

143. the war is illegal!! let the war crimes trials begin!

first up....richard q cheney! for crimes against humanity. death by hanging if found guilty!!

[halobeam]

144. This thread is really incredible.. what valuable information

for those of us so lucky to have such great people here in DU.


Thanks to all of you for your contribution of knowledge and for you time to discuss such important issues.

[Spoonerian]

145. Here's whats important:

What's important is that noone acknowledge the obvious contradiction of a soldier or cop on one hand swearing an oath to defend the constitution and on the other hand pretending that that same soldier or cop must blindly follow orders without regard to his own conscience and understanding of the constitution. Its part of a mass psychological operation to split our minds into separate objects that are more useful to the military industrial complex.

While we all admire the courage of Lt. Watada, we could speak as though it is each and every soldier and cop's duty to disregard the latest court opinions and other government pronouncements of what "the law is" when it conflicts with a soldier or cop's conscience or his own understanding of the constitution, bill of rights, geneva convention, etc.

But no; it is better that we all hold these contradictory notions in our heads and maybe even consider ourselves legal experts. Once this is established, then it will also make sense to us when judges tell soldiers such as Lt. Watada and their juries that defendants are not entitled to cite constitutions, bills of rights, or treaties in their defense, nor are they allowed to even metion to the jury their motives or reasoning for their actions. Once our minds are sufficiently split, we see no contradiction at all in calling such a charade a "trial."

Its the same way in the criminal and civil courts as in the military courts or probably much worse. A regular citizen in the criminal courts who attempts to mention in his defense even one peep about the constitution, bill of rights, or his conscience will receive even rougher treatment than Lt. Watada. And of course all of the jurors will be pre-screened to make sure that there is no danger that a juror will disobey the judge's orders to "take the law" from him as he gives it to them--John Adams' famous quote notwithstanding:

"It is not only ...(the juror's) right, but his duty...to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court." --John Adams 1771

[wicket]

146. Fantastic news!!!

:kick:

[Peace Patriot]

157. It's hard to know if it's fantastic news. It could be a prosecution (Bush Junta)

move to void the agreement (which dropped some charges) and to throw the book at Lt. Watada--BECAUSE of the storm of anti-Iraq-War opposition that is gathering around this case. That is, to make him pay for the country's disgust with this war (74% now opposed and wanting it ended!). Or...

...it could be a prosecution move to stop the trial, let Lt. Watada muster out with some kind of discharge, and make the publicity go away.

They've scheduled the start of a new trial. We'll see what happens.

But do bear in mind that the war machine does not like its cannon fodder to cause a ruckus, and neither the war profiteers, nor their puppet president, nor their collusive lapdogs in Congress are about to admit what a horrible thing they've done in Iraq. Totally illegal--for Congress to give its power to declare war away to Bush. Totally illegal what Bush did. As bad as Hitler invading Poland. Unnecessary, unjust, trumped up, aggressive war.

[wicket]

158. Interesting.

Thanks for the info.

[pdrichards114]

149. Lt. Watada has courage,

This is David vs. Goliath and his whole extended *&('ing family.