Courage To Resist: Watada Mistrial Clear Victory (Forbidding 'illegal war' debate created catch-22)

[Hissyspit]

http://www.couragetoresist.org:80/x/content/view/249/1/

Lt. Watada mistrial clear victory, “very likely” unqualified

- snip -

In summation, the day after the prosecution rested a poorly presented case against Lt. Watada for “missing movement” to Iraq and two counts of “conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman,” the prosecution then requested—over the strenuous objections of Lt. Watada’s defense team—in essence a “do over.” Lieutenant Colonel Judge John Head then agreed to the “do over.” The basis for which, and the judge’s motives, may likely be a matter of debate for some time.

Lt. Watada's civilian lawyer Eric Seitz later explained, “The mistrial is very likely to have the consequence of ending this case because a retrial would be a case of double jeopardy based on the military rules for courts martial and applicable case law.” Should the Army proceed with a second trial, Seitz said he would seek dismissal of the charges with prejudice so they could not be again filed. “I do not expect a retrial to ever occur,” stated Seitz. Army Captain Mark Kim, Lt. Watada’s appointed military defense lawyer, noted that he agreed with Seitz’s conclusions.

John Junker, a University of Washington law professor independently consulted by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer newspaper explained, “You can't just stop in the middle and say, ‘I don't like the way it's going’ and start over. If the defendant objected, it does raise the possibility" of double jeopardy. Junker noted, “That doctrine comes from the Constitution.”

- snip -

The fundamental problem for the judge was that while he had clearly ruled that Lt. Watada could not legally defend his actions based on his belief that the war was illegal, the judge had also allowed the prosecution the bring to trial charges against Lt. Watada for publicly expressing his opinions that the war was illegal. Numerous times through out this week’s proceedings Judge Head appeared to pause in order to intellectually untangle this catch-22.

MUCH MORE, INCLUDING VIDEO, AT LINK

[Bonobo]

1. YES!

I really hope that this is true!

What a great, great thing that would be!

[EST]

2. So, it appears that Watada was up afainst a military which was

attempting to save its own image and attempting to forstall any future attempt at behaving morally and legally in the face of arrogant assumptions of infallibility. He was also up against a corrupt judge-corrupt in the sense of arrogance, self righteousness and and a notion that his own inflated view of himself was essential to the justice system.

And he beat them, against all odds. No doubt Watada will become a bit of a folk hero and deserves to be.

THis is a gleaming jewel in the cesspool that has become of our country.

[Hissyspit]

3. .

[Peace Patriot]

4. We're going to prosecute you for what you said--but you can't mention it in court!

Thank you for this post (fourth paragraph after the snip)! I've read a lot about this trial, but I still hadn't "gotten" what the snafu was. I thought it was about the stipulation--Lt. Watada's agreement that, yes, he didn't report for duty. I presume Lt. Watada signed it because he didn't want the prosecution to spend a lot of time trying to prove it. He was not disputing what he did that got the Bush Junta's panties in a twist. He wanted the trial to be about WHY he did it. But the prosecution--in typical Bushite fashion--then took this gentlemanly act and twisted it back on him. They tried to say that he admitted guilt, end of story, no defense will be permitted. But he hadn't admitted guilt--he had only admitted an ACT, something he did (or didn't do--report for duty). Committing an act does not make you guilty of a crime. You may well have taken $5,000 from your boss' till, but if it was to hand it to someone who had a gun at your head, you are not guilty of robbery. Circumstances are everything.

But now I realize that there was something more fundamental going on in this mistrial--that Lt. Watada was being accused of "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman" because of his public opposition to the war. At the same time, the prosecution desperately wanted to keep the war and its illegality and immorality out of the courtroom. But how can you claim that what Lt. Watada SAID publicly was "bad conduct" if you won't allow him--the accused--to contradict you! Far from "conduct unbecoming," opposition to the war is the height of gentlemanliness and the clear duty of an officer who believes that the Iraq war is a war crime!

Further, Lt. Watada volunteered for duty in Afghanistan. He was not breaking his agreement to kill for the state, or to put himself in danger of being killed. In his view, the Afghan war is a just war, and not a violation of Nuremberg or the Geneva Conventions. And the UN--the world's only arbiter of just vs. unjust war--agreed. The Afghan war is a joint venture, a consensus of the world community--not a rogue aggression by the Bush Junta, as Iraq is. The UN, and most of our allies, declined to join the Bush Junta in an unnecessary war, and, indeed, was proving the case for war wrong even as the Junta was precipitously invading Iraq.

So, what is the duty of "an officer and a gentleman" in this circumstance? That was Lt. Watada's defense. He didn't want to lead soldiers into battle--risking their lives as well as his own--and kill other people, in what, to his mind, is clearly an unjust war. And Nuremberg made very clear that the responsibility resides with him. No officer can claim the defense of "I was just following orders."

The US military, of course, would like to greatly narrow the parameters of an officer's individual judgment. Shooting helpless civilians, for instance, is a war crime. And if a general ordered a lieutenant, in a specific situation, to shoot helpless civilians, the lieutenant would have a justification for not following orders. He is required to make his own judgment of whether some specific action is a war crime or not. But what if your Commander-in-Chief orders the slaughter of 100,000 Innocent people by bombing their city in an unjust and unnecessary invasion, then proceeds to create a culture of torture and sadism within the US military, and sanctions the torture of thousands of innocent civilians, and permits chaos and destruction of civil order in the wake of the invasion, so that millions are without water, electricity, medical care and civil safety, and further allows cronies of his regime to loot billions of dollars in military support and reconstruction money? A war crime x 600,000? What is "an officer and a gentleman's" duty when the whole thing is one massive war crime, and you are ordered to participate?

This, the US military does not want exposed. They don't want individual officers to make THIS judgment. Just the narrower one. Lt. Watada is arguing that an "officer and a gentleman" has responsibility for both the narrow and the broad definition of a war crime. And they were arguing that, a) he did not have the right to even SAY that the Iraq War is a war crime, in public, but b) because he did so, he is guilty of "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman." There's the "Catch-22." It is therefore quite crucial to his defense WHAT he said. Was it "ungentlemanly"? Did he call Bush a jerk or a chimp in public? Did he call for mutiny? No, he merely said that, in his judgment, as an "officer and a gentleman," this war is a war crime, and he is obliged not to participate and also to take the consequences--ten years in prison, firing squad, whatever they are--of his decision. What could be more "gentlemanly" than that?

And THIS is what the Bush Junta, and the US military, did not want a jury to hear, and probably most of all, did not want the American public to hear (74% of which opposes the Iraq War and wants it ended). It is an UNJUST war, in the view of this officer, an honorable and straightforward young man, who is willing to stand up in public and say so, and take the consequences. Duty first. Obedience second. Obedience to just commands, yes. Obedience to unjust commands, no. Blind obedience to the unjust command to participate in a war crime is a violation of Nuremberg.

But how can they accuse him of the crime of speaking something without allowing the jury and the public to consider what he said?

That is the double-bind the judge was in. It wasn't so much the stipulation (which the prosecution twisted into a foreclosure of his defense). It was the nature of the accusation: You cannot say a certain thing (that the Iraq War is a war crime), and we are going to punish you for saying it, without allowing you to explain yourself. (--most "ungentlemanly" conduct by the prosecution and its puppetmasters in the Bush Junta!).

This significantly changes what I think may happen next. At first, I thought that they were declaring a mistrial (against the objections of the defense lawyer!) in order to throw the book at Lt. Watada in a second trial. (The stipulation for THIS trial dropped some of the charges against him.) The danger, I thought, was that they could now reinstitute those charges (perhaps punishing him for all the publicity and public support this case has generated), and add more charges--mutiny, for instance (possible death penalty charges). But now I'm thinking, they just want this trial to go away--and may agree to a discharge for Lt. Watada. If they stop this prosecution now, they can limit the publicity damage, and keep a lid on this notion that an officer has a duty to higher laws than Bush-as-the-law. If they go forward with it, they absolutely risk creating a martyr to unjust war.

Who remembers Capt. James Yee--the Guantanamo Bay Islamic chaplin and West Point grad whom they wrongfully accused of treason, among other completely baseless charges, and whom they held in shackles in solitary confinement for three months, before dropping all charges, and letting him go? Some of us do. But mostly the story drowned in the war profiteering corporate news monopoly newsstream. Few people know what an outrage that was. Best for the military to make it go away.

I'm thinking now that this is what's going to happen. Give it a few months and it drowns in the newstream (and not too many soldiers hear about it). Capt. Yee, however, did not directly challenge the war machine. (He merely tried to get better treatment for the prisoners.) Also, the prosecution has scheduled a second trial for Lt. Watada, who HAS directly challenged the war machine. So, who knows what the chickenhawks, jerks and chimpanzees in the White House will want to do to him? They can't give HIM the sort of trial they want to give the prisoners in Guantanamo (kangaroo court). That's what they TRIED to do in trial no. 1--and suddenly found themselves in a bind, denying the man his defense, which has not yet become the norm in trials of U.S. military officers. And, if it ever does, they may see a real mutiny.

[In Truth We Trust]

8. Thank you Peace Patriot for your eloquence, insight and devotion to truth. The time you commit to

posting comments such as this is not lost on me and is very much appreciated.

K&R

[corkhead]

9. This post needs to be recommended on its own. excellent summary . Thanks

[gratuitous]

5. My, my, my

All these brave officers, quailing at the thought of someone questioning their orders. A real existential quandary, and not an Alexander among them to just pull out a sword and cut the Gordian Knot. Will no one give the Commander in Chief rest from this inconvenient Lieutenant?

[wtmusic]

6. 'Catch-22'?

There is no conflict between prosecution for publicly expressing an opinion, and the inability to defend Watada's actions based on that opinion.

The real problem was the judge's initial ruling that Watada couldn't defend his actions based on the war being illegal, which it would have been fairly easy to demonstrate.

This judge sucks.

[cui bono]

7. I hope it's true, that he doesn't go to trial again.

Watch his speech from Feb. 3 here:

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


This is the sort of speech that could get people to take action. I'm sending it to my apolitical friends and asking them to please watch it and please help stop the war. How can we not? I hope they will accept my invitation to join me at the next anti-war/Bush protest after hearing what he has to say, because he's right, the people have dropped the ball on this one.