Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Mistrial Declared for War Resister Lt. Watada

By Marjorie Cohn, AlterNet. Posted February 8, 2007.


An Army judge has declared mistrial in the court martial of Lt. Ehren Watada, who can't be retried for the same charges.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Marjorie Cohn

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

When the Army judge declared a mistrial over defense objection in 1st Lt. Ehren Watada's court martial on Wednesday, he probably didn't realize jeopardy attached. That means that under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution, the government cannot retry Lt. Watada on the same charges of missing movement and conduct unbecoming an officer.

Lt. Watada is the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse orders to deploy to Iraq. He claimed those orders were unlawful because the war is illegal and he would be an accomplice to war crimes if he followed them.

The judge refused to allow me and others to testify as expert defense witnesses on the illegality of the Iraq war and the war crimes the Bush administration is committing there.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice sets forth the duty of military personnel to obey only lawful commands. Article 92 says: "A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the law of the United States "

Lt. Watada said at a June 6, 2006 press conference in Tacoma, Washington, "The war in Iraq is in fact illegal. It is my obligation and my duty to refuse any orders to participate in this war." He stated, "An order to take part in an illegal war is unlawful in itself. So my obligation is not to follow the order to go to Iraq."

Citing "deception and manipulation and willful misconduct by the highest levels of my chain of command," Lt. Watada declared there is "no greater betrayal to the American people" than the Iraq war.

The "turning point" for Lt. Watada came when he "saw the pain and suffering of so many soldiers and their families, and innocent Iraqis." He said, "I best serve my soldiers by speaking out against unlawful orders of the highest levels of my chain of command, and making sure our leaders are held accountable." Lt. Watada felt he "had the obligation to step up and do whatever it takes," even if that means facing court martial and imprisonment.

Lt. Watada did face court martial, and four years in prison, until the judge declared a mistrial.

This is what I would have said had I been allowed to testify at Lt. Watada's court martial:

The United States is committing a crime against the peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity in Iraq.

A war of aggression, prosecuted in violation of international treaties, is a crime against the peace. The war in Iraq violates the Charter of the United Nations, which prohibits the use of force. There are only two exceptions to that prohibition: self-defense and approval by the Security Council. A pre-emptive or preventive war is not allowed under the Charter.

Bush's war in Iraq was not undertaken in self-defense. Iraq had not attacked the US or any other country for 12 years. And Saddam Hussein's military capability had been effectively neutered by the Gulf War, 12 years of punishing sanctions, and nearly daily bombing by the US and UK over the "no-fly-zones."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: iraq, court martial, ehren watada, mistrial

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, a criminal defense attorney, and president of the National Lawyers Guild.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
So THAT"S IT????
Posted by: sphoenix on Feb 8, 2007 11:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, justice is certainly served, isn't it?

With the trial essentially over with, the US government and military establishment don't have to answer to anything in court. They don't have to answer Watada's allegations or risk exposure of "classified" information. Instead of facing the wrath of the public and probably the backlash from enlisted people they are just saying, "never mind" and they will flush Watada into the ranks of the general speechless public.

It is a perfect move on the governments part...they just cut the head off of the dragon and now there is nothing to talk about, right?

This proves the absolute spinelessness of our leaders. They don't even have the balls to defend themselves against one lone dissenter. I wonder if this will set a precedent for other enlisted people and officers to follow Watadas path? We can only hope!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: So THAT"S IT???? Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: So THAT"S IT???? Posted by: bassman
» RE: So THAT"S IT???? Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: So THAT"S IT???? Posted by: brunowe
» Thanks Brunowe (nc) Posted by: bassman
» RE: So THAT"S IT???? Posted by: willymack
» RE: So THAT"S IT???? Posted by: sphoenix
» RE: So THAT"S IT???? Posted by: texshelters.com
» RE: So THAT"S IT???? sickofsleaze Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com
» No, That's Not It.... Posted by: CatDad
» RE: THAT'S NOT IT Posted by: Ripcord
» Stating the obvious... Posted by: SteveB
» RE: THAT'S NOT IT Posted by: leafsong1
An Officer & A Gentleman
Posted by: NoPCZone on Feb 8, 2007 11:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To Lt. Ehren Watada, United States Army
From A former soldier in the US Army

There are many types of courage and among the rarest is to stand by one's convictions against great odds of punishment and a slim chance for a positive outcome. This is the fire that you have faced and you have come out the other side.

The stand that you have taken and the law that the decision makes (by precedent & history) will benefit all American service-members in the future and advance the cause of peace in a manner and scope that only time will show. As one who has worn the uniform of the US Army, I understand some of what you have faced, but fortunately not all. As difficult as it has been, I think time will allow you to see the worth of your stand.

Thank You for your service to our nation, the Army, the standing of soldiers relative to the Law of Land Warfare, and people who seek peace and justice everywhere. I just wish there were more like you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: An Officer & A Gentleman Posted by: tgabriel
» RE: An Officer & A Gentleman Posted by: domenico234
» RE: An Officer & A Gentleman Posted by: willymack
» RE: An Officer & A Gentleman Posted by: candara
Victory for Free Speech.
Posted by: Reader11722 on Feb 8, 2007 1:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Congrats, Watada. Your courage to speak in face of prison will encourage us all. Censorship is the only obstacle that can stop this anti-totailitarian movement. After all, censorship is becoming America's favorite past-time. The US gov't (and their corporate friends), already detain protesters, ban books like "America Deceived" America Deceived (book) from Amazon and Wikipedia, and fire 21-year tenured, BYU physics professor Steven Jones because he proved explosives, thermite in particular, took down the WTC buildings. However, the tides are turning. First, Watada, then Ed Brown and others to follow. Free Speech forever.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Victory for Free Speech. Posted by: MrAllen
» RE: Nope Posted by: Ripcord
Bush&Co's attacks on the principles of science and law
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 8, 2007 1:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The two great advances in human civilization over the past few centuries are the rise of legal structures and the rise of scientific inquiry.

Law provides an impartial basis for assessing how societies should behave - the old notion that an aristocrat or a king was above the law was one of the main things that Jefferson and friends fought against. It was a mutual agreement among human beings to abide by certain rules of conduct.

Science provides an impartial basis for assessing natural phenomena - like global warming, the long-term effects of using nuclear power, how to best halt the spread of AIDS and other infectious disease, and so on.

Of course, these issue go far back in history - much of modern science and law was maintained outside of the Roman Empire / Catholic Church's sphere of influence during the Dark Ages, by Arab scholars for example (though they suffered mightily from the rise of fundamentalist Islam)

Whatever does this have to do with Lieutenant Watada? Well, he recognized the importance of adhering to the basic issue of what is legal and what is not, rather than mindlessly following the orders of his superiors - meaning that he truly represents the American democratic tradition, as opposed to the monarchist / fascist /communist totalitarian systems.

Bush&Co. on the other hand, have launched assaults on both the law (i.e. the Bush 'signing statements', the illegal war, the illegal domestic spying) and on science (the biological sciences, Earth climate science, environmental toxicology, etc.) - obviously, Bush would prefer to be called "King George" or "Generalissimo Bush".

Lt. Watada, by actively opposing this, continues in the tradition of other great American military members - such as US Marine Corp. Major General Smedly Butler

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry Gentleman
Posted by: PickleBarrel on Feb 8, 2007 1:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did some quick research. A mistrial does not count for double jeopardy since there was no verdict rendered. Look up double jeopardy on Wikipedia. I didn't read the entire thing, but the exceptions are fairly clear in this case. No verdict means there can still be a trial.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sorry Gentleman Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Sorry Gentleman Posted by: Ripcord
» RE: Sorry Gentleman Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: Sorry Gentleman Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Sorry Gentleman Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: Sorry Gentleman Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Sorry Gentleman Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: Sorry Gentleman Posted by: lwp2d
» RE: Sorry Gentleman Posted by: Ripcord
WATADA vs PLUTOCRACY @ AMERIKA CORP
Posted by: Hal on Feb 8, 2007 1:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“When the Army judge declared a mistrial over defense objection in 1st Lt. Ehren Watada's court martial on Wednesday, he probably didn't realize jeopardy attached. That means that under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution, the government cannot retry Lt. Watada on the same charges…”

This is naïve thinking on M. Cohn’s part. The Army judge in question may be a petty functionary at the kangaroo court playhouse that was rigged to go down. But that Army judge was on the most scorching of pressurized hot seats. No doubt this case had the attention of every top political snake at the broad stooge government at Washington.

And even an arrantly cooked MSM show could not completely ignore Lt. Watada’s case that is front page on virtually every blog on earth. Martyr Watada imprisoned for heroically taking on the regime of lies at toy poodle DC would be incendiary news worldwide.

From 911 cover-up to entirely bogus “war on terror” nothing is what it pretends to be for politics of delusion at our national con state.

Make no mistake this was corporate crime damage control. A self-serve oligarch calculation made by and for the plutocracy in charge of whorehouse Washington and its MSM carny parrot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You're wrong. Posted by: Ripcord
» You're Premature Posted by: Hal
» RE: You're Premature Posted by: Ripcord
» Nice Try, Ripcord... Posted by: Hal
It seems to depend on further findings:
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 8, 2007 1:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From Reprosecution following mistrial

"The common law generally required that the previous trial must have ended in a judgment, of conviction or acquittal, but the constitutional rule is that jeopardy attaches much earlier, in jury trials when the jury is sworn, and in trials before a judge without a jury, when the first evidence is presented.

In the Watada trial, there was a military jury sworn in, and the prosecution had rested their case. (see MELANTHIA MITCHELL
Associated Press Writer


"Therefore, if after jeopardy attaches the trial is terminated for some reason, it may be that a second trial, even if the termination was erroneous, is barred.

That's an important point, since it then becomes an issue: under what circumstances can a second trial be allowed - but the burden seems to go the prosecution, since:

"The reasons the Court has given for fixing the attachment of jeopardy at a point prior to judgment and thus making some terminations of trials before judgment final insofar as the defendant is concerned is that a defendant has a "valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal." The reason the defendant's right is so "valued" is that he has a legitimate interest in completing the trial "once and for all" and "conclud[ing] his confrontation with society," so as to be spared the expense and ordeal of repeated trials, the anxiety and insecurity of having to live with the possibility of conviction, and the possibility that the prosecution may strengthen its case with each try as it learns more of the evidence and of the nature of the defense.

That's simply the general justification for the ''no double jeopardy" clause. However, there is the issue of "manifest necessity":

A mistrial may be the result of "manifest necessity,"74 such as where, for example, the jury cannot reach a verdict75 or circumstances plainly prevent the continuation of the trial.76 Answers become more difficult, however, when the doctrine of "manifest necessity" has been called upon to justify a second trial following a mistrial granted by the trial judge because of some event within the prosecutor's control or because of prosecutorial misconduct or because of error or abuse of discretion by the judge himself. There must ordinarily be a balancing of the defendant's right in having the trial completed against the public interest in fair trials designed to end in just judgments

Thus, the trial judges discretion in granting a mistrial could be called into question, since:

Emphasis upon the trial judge's discretion has an impact upon the cases in which it is the judge's error, in granting sua sponte a mistrial or granting the prosecutor's motion. The cases are in doctrinal disarray

However, would a retrial only be possible if Lieutenant Watada was allowed to introduce evidence relating to the illegality of the war, since that was the original issue (the 'judge's discretion' in refusing to allow such evidence) - and if there is a finding that the judge acted with poor discretion, then we could see such evidence introduced.

I certainly hope Lt. Watada goes free - but if there is a retrial, I also look forward to seeing the evidence of the war's illegality finally aired in a constitutional forum. Such a trial would provide evidence that could be used to impeach Bush and Cheney!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

new Watada stamp issue
Posted by: arkytoast on Feb 8, 2007 5:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
New issue of United People Postage released

linked text New Stamp

best
toast

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Watada might have simply explained, "I had other priorities." It worked for Cheney.
Posted by: Pat Kittle on Feb 8, 2007 5:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Congratulations Mr. Watada! You're an inspiration.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Agreed! Posted by: thoughtcriminal
re:
Posted by: drbyrom on Feb 8, 2007 9:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
there will be another trial for the same charges. it is these types of articles that raise doubts about the credibility of alternet. does anyone check the facts?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: AMEN Posted by: Ripcord
» RE: AMEN Posted by: drbyrom
» RE: AMEN- W.T.H???? Posted by: Drclaw
» RE: AMEN- W.T.H???? Posted by: Ripcord
» RE: AMEN- W.T.H???? Posted by: Drclaw
» RE: re: Posted by: leafsong1
See Seattle Times
Posted by: Ripcord on Feb 8, 2007 11:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The "Seattle Times" has a much better account of the Watada trial.

Go to:

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

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What a TRAITOR!
Posted by: Temporary on Feb 8, 2007 11:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A REAL AMERICAN would kill his own brother if the state told him! Isn't that how millions of Irish immigrants originally earned there citizenship?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What a TRAITOR! Posted by: willymack
» RE: What a TRAITOR! Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: What a TRAITOR! Posted by: Mal'ak
THIS COMBAT VETERAN SAYS DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH.....
Posted by: kc10ken on Feb 9, 2007 5:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's NOT over for Lt. Watada.....I can GARANTEE you that much.

I spent 13 years in the military including 3 tours in the middle east and I know that the military, the Pentagon and ESPECIALLY this human shitwave masquerading as an administration are NOT letting go of this one.

That squirmy little repugnant Alberto (if the President does it then it's legal) Gonzalez will come up with some half baked interpretation of Constitutional law that will allow Army prosecutors to retry Lt. Watada on the same charges......or make up some other charges to try him on.

They will NOT let this case slip idly by into the annals of history. This administration is extraordinarily spiteful and vindictive of ANYONE who asks questions, is not a "team player" or outright opposes their illegal and immoral QUAGMIRE in Iraq.

There are tens of thousands of active duty service members who vehemently oppose this GOP PNAC QUAGMIRE in Iraq....they just can't say so in public for fear of retribution. That's why all the polls prove that 72% of OUR OWN TROOPS in Iraq say the war is lost and we should pull out immediately, yet you see VERY FEW active duty soldiers in uniform going on the record and stating their anti-war positions.

Godspeed Lt. Watada......I know EXACTLY what you're going through. In the fall of 2002 when the chickenhawks were fanning the flames of war and rattling the sabres I was THE ONLY ONE in my unit who stood up and said Iraq had no WMD's and the administration was LYING. My 13 years in the service and my experience as an NBC NCO (Nuclear Biological and Chemical Non Commissioned Officer) taught me the signs to look for in the production, shipment and storage of WMD's....and Iraq showed NONE of these signs. Needless to say I was LAMBASTED for speaking out. Even my friends in my unit distanced themselves from me and said I was crazy.

Who's crazy now?

I buried one of those friends last year, he was killed in Iraq after only 10 days in country. His family is DEVASTATED as his senseless loss.

ALL of my military friends have since apologized and now feel the same way I do....only even more so because I refused to reenlist in Feb 2003. Two weeks after my enlistment ended and I got out, my unit was stop-lossed (prevented from leaving the service) and 3 weeks after that they were activated and sent to the middle east. Some of them are still there serving a 4th and 5th tour....involuntarily extended several times and stop lossed.

I was, still am and will remain opposed to this QUAGMIRE in Iraq.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

vets for peace
Posted by: harold on Feb 9, 2007 7:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Veterans for Peace supported Lt. Watda from day one, so congrats to him and his lawyer, Eric Seitz. We had hoped the judge would allow witnesses Dan Ellsberg and renowned Princeton U. Nuremberg Principles expert Dr. Richard Falk (who I contacted) to testify on the war's illegality, but Judge Hand denied it. I volunteered some legal work on the case and am deeply puzzled why the judge did not address the "legitimacy" of Ehren's stipulation document until day 3 of trial, when the judge had that document 3 days before trial, and clearly knew Ehren's war illegality arguments for months. The international press, especially the Muslim press, covered every step of this case, so many reasonable people, including some military lawyers I've read, believe that the judge was looking for a way to end the trial before Ehren testified, since no one could prevent Ehren from stating the war's illegality on the record, and he intended to do just that on the day mistrial was declared. Common sense points to the high probability that the Army and more likely the administration did not want Ehren's views on the record, subject to many appeals, including appeal to the US Surpeme Court. The case may yet end there, as even the issue of double jeopardy on the facts could go either way.

I also believe that the administration has deep concerns that the case could impact its further military plans for the mid east, including war with Iran. Iran is a theocracy, bound to uphold principles of conscience and self determination as interpreted in the Koran by ruling elite mullahs. If the US imprisons military conscientious objectors, this would be a theocratic basis to inflame further religious passions in all Muslim nations against the US and the west. It has been a great failing, perhaps the greatest failing, of the administration that it does not understand and respect the role of obedience to religious conscience in Muslim life. For the US Army and administration to deny any role of conscience in the life of US soldiers would be akin to admission that ours is a godless military, from a godless culture, worthy of no respect, or even fear. l have written Iran's UN mission as a US citizen and lawyer to bring these concerns before the United Nations, particularly the UN Tripartite Forum for Interfaith Cooperation for Peace, an historic movement of religious NGOs, UN organs and several key states, including Iran, Pakistan and China, and sadly excluding the US to date, which believes that religious and other matters of conscience must be included in international relations and law to make progress in the Middle East. Progress has been very slow, and Iran has not responded to date, but one can hope, with examples like Ehren Watada to demonstrate the best of American patriotism and humanity, better days lie ahead for Middle East peace.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: vets for peace Posted by: Ripcord
» RE: vets for peace Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: vets for peace Posted by: Ripcord
» RE: vets for peace Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: vets for peace Posted by: leafsong1
Not a Free Speech issue
Posted by: leafsong1 on Feb 9, 2007 7:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The one legitimate charge against Watada was dropped: disrespect for superiors. Watada acted in pwerfect accordance with the law up until the point where he explained to the press why he was doing what he was doing in such rhetorical detail. Keep in mind, in order to defend himself against the missing movement charge, he had to effectively prove that every one of his superiors was a violent criminal. This is risky enough in a court martial, but in trying to do it in an interview, he clearly violated military law. His excellent lawyers wisely got this, the strongest charge against him, dropped as a condition of the stipulation which then led to the mistrial. If the stipulation agreement has broken down, then double jeapordy might not attach to this charge.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not a Free Speech issue Posted by: leafsong1
Double Jeapordy
Posted by: leafsong1 on Feb 9, 2007 7:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How could one disobey an order, admit to it, and then consistently claim that they are not guilty of the crime of disobeying an order? By arguing that the order was not legal and therefore not legally compelling. The prosecution, desperate to avoid any testimony on the legality of the order, presented the stipulation as the entire case of both the prosecution and defense, which it was not. Consequently, the trial was basically over except for the verdict, and the prosecution had still not presented even the tiniest scrap of a prima facie case. Military regulations allow for retrial under more circumstances than the Bill of Rights, but the Constitution trumps military regulations,

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Double Jeapordy Posted by: Ripcord
» RE: Double Jeapordy Posted by: sg
Double Jeopardy
Posted by: Ripcord on Feb 9, 2007 1:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I did a little fast research on double jeopardy and
reprosecution after mistrial.

See a 1949 U.S. Supreme Court decision:
Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684 (1949)
* Caution: decided before the major revisions to the UCMJ.
However, its holdings on double jeopardy probably still apply--
Note: the jurisprudence of double jeopardy after centuries of application still remain complicated and in some cases contradictory from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Interesting case during WWII in Germany.
Soldier charged with raping German civilian.
Case goes to trial.
Both prosecution and defense present cases and argue their cases to the "jury."
After a couple of days delay, the "jury" asks to hear 2 witnesses, the mother and father of the victim.
The Allies are moving fast towards Berlin.
Mom and Dad are now out of reach.
MJ declares a mistrial.
U.S. Supreme Courts holds: retrial OK
Reason: "manifest necessity"
MJ did not act irresponsibly.

In Watada's case:
Prosecution had presented Govt's case (with Watada's stipulation)
Defense had not started its case.
Prosecutor moves for mistrial (not the defense).
MJ: I want to ask Watada about this stipulation.
DC: (standing) You can't just ask my client questions any time you want.
MJ: Sit down.

Well, you decide; Did the MJ act irresponsibly?

Wooo! This is a close one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A little math exercise
Posted by: sg on Feb 9, 2007 1:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Article 92 of the UCMJ states: “A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the law of the United States.’”

While Article 51 of the UN charter recognizes the right of self defense, such a right exists only if an armed attack occurs and is allowed only until the Security Council can take measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Any other type of military action by the United States would not be in compliance with the UN Charter.”

Why is that significant? The UN Charter was ratified as a U.S. treaty and is considered "the Supreme Law of the United States" under Article VI §2 of the United States Constitution.

Add that up and you've got yourself an unlawful order and illegal war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A little math exercise Posted by: drbyrom
» RE: un res.1411 Posted by: drbyrom
» RE: un res.1411 Posted by: sayswho
» RE: un res.1411 Posted by: drbyrom
A man of conviction.
Posted by: algodees on Feb 9, 2007 10:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is good to see a man of such conviction with the cojones to stand up to the liars in the White House who have manipulated 300 million people so easily. He is a true American hero and an inspiration to us all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

POWER @ PREJUDICE
Posted by: Hal on Feb 10, 2007 2:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just a few items…

Significant wars (i.e. mass murder) have always been fought over public blood money extorted for private gain. That is their purpose.

And as Smedley Butler said, “war is a racket” . (Smedley would have known. He was asked by J.P. Morgan fronting for the Rockefeller-Rothschild bloc to overthrow FDR for a fascist coup).

Fastidious legal minutiae covered on this thread won’t be what decide this case. A string of cover-ups and unconstitutional crime trumped-up by plutocracy in command of Washington defended by judicial sellouts speak to this. Even civil law is not about any kind of fair play where “justice” goes to those who pay for it. Martial law by military tribunal tasked with defending a war of proven criminal aggression is even less about “justice”.

But the grotesque travesty of a court martial for failure to engage in an unconstitutional, undeclared war has already been covered.

What this is really about is a proven 911 cover-up cooked to enforce a confirmed criminal farce of Orwellian “war on terror” for Big Oil trillions under the Mid East and Eurasian theatres. All paid for at public cost in blood and treasure for very private oligarchs.

Lt. Watada’s courageous stand is quite real and symbolic in nature. The response from a perjured tinhorn sham at DC thru to its military court can only be false as ever-changing lies for snake oil “war on terror”.

The symbolic battle of Lt. Watada vs. Oligarchy is just the latest for the soul of a nation. It will not be lost on the world at large. Neither will the results.



“Oil is much too important a commodity to be left to the Arabs.”
“Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.”

HENRY KISSINGER (ex American Secretary of State as a member of the Trilateral Commission & Bilderberg Group . Henry Kissinger appointed Paul Bremer to oversee the conquest and occupation of Iraq on 5/6/2003. Living. Quotes 1991 & 1990)

“The bottom line is by 1995 there were no more weapons in Iraq… And furthermore, the CIA knew this, the British intelligence knew this, Israeli intelligence knew this, German intelligence, the whole world knew this.”
SCOTT RITTER (ex-UNSCOM inspector in an interview with Seymour Hersh 10/19/05)

"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on WMD [to invade Iraq] because it was the one reason everyone could agree on".
PAUL WOLFOWITZ (“neo-con” US Deputy Defense Secretary and chief architect of the Iraq War in an interview for Vanity Fair 2004)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nice conclusion Hal Posted by: Ripcord
Mistrial and Double Jeopardy
Posted by: dkm on Feb 10, 2007 7:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Legally Lt. Watada should now be safe from legal action by the military. However, the Pentagon is already twisting itself into a legal pretzel claiming that double jeopardy does not apply in this case. What we have is a military prosecution that screwed up royally in its initial presentation and is now calling for a "do over."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Keep Lt Watada safe
Posted by: pete ess on Feb 11, 2007 12:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's hoping there are still men of honour in the armed forces and police who will make it their duty to protect Watada against the poor misguided nutters who still believe Bush and Cheny's lies. And here's hoping for a quick wave of "Whoa! What am I doing?" introspection among the real soldiers in the senior command in the US armed forces.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Keep Lt Watada safe Posted by: Aussie Kim