COMMENTS: 96
Mistrial Declared for War Resister Lt. Watada
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
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."
Bush tried mightily to get the Security Council to sanction his war on Iraq. But the Council refused. Bush then cobbled together prior Council resolutions, none of which, individually or collectively, authorized the use of force in Iraq. Although Bush claimed to be enforcing Security Council resolutions, the Charter empowers only the Council to enforce its resolutions.
Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions constitute war crimes, for which individuals can be punished under the US War Crimes Act. Willful killing, torture and inhuman treatment are grave breaches.
The torture and inhuman treatment of prisoners in US custody at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq are grave breaches of Geneva, and therefore, war crimes. The execution of unarmed civilians in Haditha and other Iraqi cities are also war crimes.
Commanders in the chain of command, all the way up to the commander in chief, can be prosecuted for war crimes if they knew or should have known their subordinates were committing war crimes and failed to stop or prevent them. The torture policies and rules of engagement were set at the top. It is George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell who should be on trial - for the commission of war crimes.
Inhumane acts against a civilian population are crimes against humanity and violate the Fourth Geneva Convention. The targeting of civilians and failure to protect civilians and civilian objects are crimes against humanity.
The dropping of 2,000-pound bombs in residential areas of Baghdad during "Shock and Awe" were crimes against humanity. The indiscriminate US attack on Fallujah, which was collective punishment in retaliation for the killing of four Blackwater mercenaries, was a crime against humanity. The destruction of hospitals in Fallujah by the US military, its refusal to let doctors treat patients, and shooting into ambulances were crimes against humanity. Declaring Fallujah a "weapons-free" zone, with orders to shoot anything that moved, was a crime against humanity.
Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson was the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal. He wrote:
No political or economic situation can justify the crime of aggression. If certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.Lt. Ehren Watada was correct when he said the war is illegal and he would be party to war crimes if he deployed to Iraq. The orders to deploy were unlawful and Lt. Watada had a duty to disobey them. Although he faces the possibility of a dishonorable discharge, the judge's grant of a mistrial precludes retrial on the same criminal charges.
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sphoenix on Feb 8, 2007 11:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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: So THAT"S IT???? - New Information
Posted by: sphoenix
» RE: THAT'S NOT IT
Posted by: Ripcord
» Stating the obvious...
Posted by: SteveB
» RE: THAT'S NOT IT
Posted by: leafsong1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NoPCZone on Feb 8, 2007 11:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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: babs
» 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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Reader11722 on Feb 8, 2007 1:04 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 8, 2007 1:17 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: Bush&Co's attacks on the principles of science and law
Posted by: willymack
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PickleBarrel on Feb 8, 2007 1:19 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» This info provided by Brunowe:
Posted by: bassman
» 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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Hal on Feb 8, 2007 1:42 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 8, 2007 1:59 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"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]
» RE: It seems to depend on further findings:
Posted by: EncinoM
» neospeak: judge who upholds the constitution = liberal activist judge
Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: Atrocious Alternet report
Posted by: Ripcord
» a few points on military obligations under the law
Posted by: thoughtcriminal
Comments are closed-
Posted by: arkytoast on Feb 8, 2007 5:00 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
linked text New Stamp
best
toast
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Pat Kittle on Feb 8, 2007 5:25 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Agreed!
Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: Agreed! -- And thanks for your kind thoughts...
Posted by: Pat Kittle
» RE: Agreed! -- And thanks for your kind thoughts...
Posted by: Ripcord
» RE: Agreed! -- And thanks for your kind thoughts... Remember Smedley Butler?
Posted by: Pat Kittle
Comments are closed-
Posted by: drbyrom on Feb 8, 2007 9:23 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ripcord on Feb 8, 2007 11:44 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Temporary on Feb 8, 2007 11:54 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kc10ken on Feb 9, 2007 5:19 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: THIS COMBAT VETERAN SAYS DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH.....
Posted by: Ripcord
» RE: THIS COMBAT VETERAN SAYS DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH.....
Posted by: willymack
» RE: THIS COMBAT VETERAN SAYS DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH.....
Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: THIS COMBAT VETERAN SAYS DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH.....
Posted by: basil10
Comments are closed-
Posted by: harold on Feb 9, 2007 7:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: leafsong1 on Feb 9, 2007 7:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Not a Free Speech issue
Posted by: sg
» RE: Not a Free Speech issue
Posted by: leafsong1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: leafsong1 on Feb 9, 2007 7:56 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ripcord on Feb 9, 2007 1:27 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sg on Feb 9, 2007 1:46 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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: A little math exercise
Posted by: sg
» RE: un res.1411
Posted by: drbyrom
» RE: un res.1411
Posted by: sayswho
» RE: un res.1411
Posted by: drbyrom
Comments are closed-
Posted by: algodees on Feb 9, 2007 10:44 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Hal on Feb 10, 2007 2:27 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
» RE: Nice conclusion Hal
Posted by: Hal
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dkm on Feb 10, 2007 7:18 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pete ess on Feb 11, 2007 12:06 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sphoenix on Feb 8, 2007 11:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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: So THAT"S IT???? - New Information
Posted by: sphoenix
» RE: THAT'S NOT IT
Posted by: Ripcord
» Stating the obvious...
Posted by: SteveB
» RE: THAT'S NOT IT
Posted by: leafsong1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NoPCZone on Feb 8, 2007 11:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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: babs
» 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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Reader11722 on Feb 8, 2007 1:04 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 8, 2007 1:17 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: Bush&Co's attacks on the principles of science and law
Posted by: willymack
Comments are closed-
Posted by: PickleBarrel on Feb 8, 2007 1:19 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» This info provided by Brunowe:
Posted by: bassman
» 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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Hal on Feb 8, 2007 1:42 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 8, 2007 1:59 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"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]
» RE: It seems to depend on further findings:
Posted by: EncinoM
» neospeak: judge who upholds the constitution = liberal activist judge
Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: Atrocious Alternet report
Posted by: Ripcord
» a few points on military obligations under the law
Posted by: thoughtcriminal
Comments are closed-
Posted by: arkytoast on Feb 8, 2007 5:00 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
linked text New Stamp
best
toast
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Pat Kittle on Feb 8, 2007 5:25 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Agreed!
Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: Agreed! -- And thanks for your kind thoughts...
Posted by: Pat Kittle
» RE: Agreed! -- And thanks for your kind thoughts...
Posted by: Ripcord
» RE: Agreed! -- And thanks for your kind thoughts... Remember Smedley Butler?
Posted by: Pat Kittle
Comments are closed-
Posted by: drbyrom on Feb 8, 2007 9:23 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ripcord on Feb 8, 2007 11:44 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Temporary on Feb 8, 2007 11:54 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kc10ken on Feb 9, 2007 5:19 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
» RE: THIS COMBAT VETERAN SAYS DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH.....
Posted by: Ripcord
» RE: THIS COMBAT VETERAN SAYS DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH.....
Posted by: willymack
» RE: THIS COMBAT VETERAN SAYS DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH.....
Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: THIS COMBAT VETERAN SAYS DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH.....
Posted by: basil10
Comments are closed-
Posted by: harold on Feb 9, 2007 7:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: leafsong1 on Feb 9, 2007 7:33 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Not a Free Speech issue
Posted by: sg
» RE: Not a Free Speech issue
Posted by: leafsong1
Comments are closed-
Posted by: leafsong1 on Feb 9, 2007 7:56 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ripcord on Feb 9, 2007 1:27 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sg on Feb 9, 2007 1:46 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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: A little math exercise
Posted by: sg
» RE: un res.1411
Posted by: drbyrom
» RE: un res.1411
Posted by: sayswho
» RE: un res.1411
Posted by: drbyrom
Comments are closed-
Posted by: algodees on Feb 9, 2007 10:44 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Hal on Feb 10, 2007 2:27 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
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
» RE: Nice conclusion Hal
Posted by: Hal
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dkm on Feb 10, 2007 7:18 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: pete ess on Feb 11, 2007 12:06 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« 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
Vancouver's Games Will Be the Gayest Olympics Ever
Trial Begins for Activist Who Fought to Protect Federal Lands from Drilling -- Join the Protest
Starbucks' Cop-Out to Gun Nuts: Customers Served Coffee While Strapped




