Court-martial judge forbids law experts
Honolulu Advertiser | February 7, 2007
FORT LEWIS, Wash. — The judge trying the first U.S. officer court-martialed for refusing to ship out for Iraq barred several experts in international and constitutional law from testifying about the legality of the war.
First Lt. Ehren Watada, 28, of Honolulu, is charged with missing movement for refusing to ship out with his unit. He also faces charges of conduct unbecoming an officer for accusing the Army of war crimes and denouncing the administration for conducting an "illegal war" founded on "lies."
As his court-martial began, military judge Lt. Col. John Head refused to allow almost all defense witnesses to take the stand. Head previously ruled that Watada's attorney, Eric Seitz, could not debate the legality of the Iraq war in court.
If convicted, Watada could receive four years in prison and a dishonorable discharge. He has requested that his case be heard by a military panel of officers, the equivalent of a jury.
The defense and prosecution questioned a pool of 10 officers. Seven were ultimately chosen to sit on the jury.
Today, prosecutors are expected to call at least three witnesses as they try to prove that Watada's speech amounted to misconduct.
Many of the facts are not in dispute. Watada admitted yesterday that he ignored an order to board the June flight that carried his unit, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, to Iraq for a yearlong deployment.
"My intent was to refuse the order, sir," Watada told Head.
He also admitted criticizing the Bush administration's handling of the war, which he has called "morally wrong" and "a horrible breach of American law."
Seitz said he would call Watada and a character witness, an Army captain who has known Watada for about two years. The captain has been brought back from service in Iraq to testify, the lawyer said.
Watada is the first officer to publicly refuse deployment to Iraq and face court-martial. Army Sgt. Kevin Benderman, an enlisted man, served 13 months in prison and was dishonorably discharged after refusing to go to Iraq in 2005.
Outside the base, a small group that included actor Sean Penn demonstrated in support of Watada. A few others demonstrated against him, including one man who carried a sign calling Watada a "weasel."
Army prosecutors have argued that Watada's behavior was dangerous to the mission and morale of soldiers in Iraq.
"He betrayed his fellow soldiers who are now serving in Iraq," Capt. Dan Kuecker said at one hearing.
Seitz said yesterday that rulings that went against his client in pre-trial motions, including the exclusion of many defense witnesses, rendered the proceedings "almost comical" and at one point called the case "an atrocity."
Seitz had hoped to debate the legality of the war and planned to call constitutional law scholars, a CIA analyst and a former undersecretary of the United Nations, among other witnesses.
"There's really nothing for us to say in this courtroom," he said.
Head told Seitz to "leave the dramatics at the courtroom door."
Representatives from more than 30 media outlets covered the trial — including television stations from Japan and Germany.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The issue here is not the leg
February 8, 2007 - 16:58 ET by AvatarThe issue here is not the legality of the War. The issue is an officer of the US Military failed to report to duty to defend the constiution against it's enemies, foreign and domestic. He violated his oath to this country, and he's standing trial for it. Plain and simple. Right over your head though. Same thing in the clinton impeachment trials. He wasn't impeached for his actions, he was impeached for lying to a grand jury while under oath (which is a crime). Bringing up secondary issues to cloud the heart of the matter reinforces your dishonesty, as well as this dishonorable soldier.
The Avatar
That's why the prosecution mo
February 9, 2007 - 14:31 ET by libertyordeathThat's why the prosecution motioned for a mistrial, which the defense obviously accepted. Right over your head though. Guess the government didn't see it as violating his oath. But what would you know? You can only fall back on your SOP, slamming Bill Clinton, positively convinced ( like your neo-clones ) that I support him simply because I am against Jorge Bush. Right over your head though, again.
The LibertyorDeath
Maybe you need to look up the
February 9, 2007 - 19:14 ET by AvatarMaybe you need to look up the definition of COMPARISON. The COMPARISON is that the defense (whether legal or punditry) are bringing up issues that are irrelevant to the case. Are you illiterate, or just a selective reader?
The Avatar
LOD You'e Wrong
February 24, 2007 - 00:35 ET by emjem24You just don't support the Iraq War or our military men and women, do you LOD? Lt. Watada is the ultimate, anti-war hero for you, I suppose. Watada is a disgrace to all miltary officers who are supposed to be examples to their men. The reason for the mistrial is that the judge ruled that Watada didn't understand what he was signing and basically admitted it on the stand. So now, all original charges will stand. Something you fail to mention, LOD. What exactly do you know about the military court-martial and how it's conducted? I'd like you to explain it to me...you, a civilian vs. me, a military spoue. What Watada should have considered was whether or not he could live with being sent off to war. There is no civil disobedience in the military. If you don't follow orders, you're out. If everyone disobeyed orders, we'd have chaos in the military. You cannot pick and choose wars, as Watada has done. There are far more patriotic men and women than this lowly Lt. who serve, along with their familes, without making a fuss. Instead of serving honorably and admirably with other officers and enlisted, Watada became an example of our current pick and choose culture. The military isn't a buffet...you want that go to a restaurant.
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
That's a great opinion. But
February 28, 2007 - 14:25 ET by libertyordeathThat's a great opinion. But I'm interested in the facts of the case, not your opinion, which would be totally disregarded if made by anyone in the courtroom. He has the support of many people, including his family, so shove off.
Once again, LOD, the fact of
February 28, 2007 - 14:50 ET by AvatarOnce again, LOD, the fact of the case is that Lt. Watada did NOT report for duty as ordered. NOT whether or not YOU think the war is legal. That is not the issue here. You are trying to skirt the very core of the case by throwing that out there. When you join the military, you essentially sacrifice some of your freedom to serve your country. Part of that is, you are not to speak negatively of the CinC (as he is your supreme commander), and you report to duty when ordered. The military isn't just another job, it's a lifestyle that you choose. Lt. Watada has broken his oath as a military officer by ignoring orders from command to report for duty. Those are the facts of the case.
The Avatar
February 9, 2007 - 14:33 ET by libertyordeath
First of all LoD, no where in
February 9, 2007 - 18:14 ET by NL207First of all LoD, no where in your post does it say the prosecution moved for mistrial.
So I took the liberty, no pun intended: from: Emphasis mine.
"On February 7, 2007, Lt. Col. John Head, the military judge in the court-martial, declared a mistrial, ending the proceedings. According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Head ended the trial after the defense and prosecution wrangled on February 6 over the stipulation of facts in the case. At issue is whether Watada admitted to having a duty to deploy to Iraq with his unit. Originally Watada had been charged with four counts of Conduct Unbecoming an Officer, but two counts were dropped in exchange for Watada signing a stipulation that he had given interviews he had been forbade from giving. Along with that, he also stipulated, or admitted, that he had missed movement—though he did not admit guilt. The judge wanted to question Watada about the stipulation to make sure that it was accurate and to protect the Lieutenant against any mistakes in it, due to his concerns that Watada may not have realized that he was admitting guilt by admitting that he did miss movement. Eric Seitz, Watada's attorney, objected to the questioning on the basis that the stipulation should also include Watada's reasons for refusing deployment, stating:
The judge decided to throw out the stipulation; and, recognizing that the document was the basis of the prosecution's case, granted their request for a mistrial. Under the rules for courts-martial (MCM Rule 915(c)), the Army may represent their case and try Lt. Watada again, since the declared mistrial is not considered a decision, and the mistrial was not due to prosecutorial misconduct. A new court martial has been set for March 19, 2007.
Watada was guilty as they come. His mistrial was a technicality based on the surprise rejection of a confession on groounds he didn't realize he was confessing when he confessed. He had in fact admitted his own guilt. You are simply deceiving people by implying the case has been dropped because a it was declared a mistrial by prosecutorial request. This is not over and Watada is going to be Court Martialed next month.
And then there is this from the same source:
"His mother, Carolyn Ho, has become an anti-Iraq War activist. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported that she founded a website to support Watada, at www.thankyoult.org The text of his address to the Veterans for Peace conference can be found there. Also, Lt. Watada's father, Bob Watada, went on a national tour to raise money for Lt. Watada's defense, from October 26 to November 17. Watada was on hand to speak, and shared the stage with other prominent critics of the war, including Jane Fonda, Sean Penn, and actor Tim Robbins, at the January 27, 2007 anti-war protest in Washington, D.C
And this view is even less complimentary despite being a lefty source like wikipedia and this view is downright contemptuous. Looks to me like this Watada is simply another lefty moonbat just like you, LoD.
OIC, Rocks
February 17, 2007 - 21:10 ET by UnsaneI, for one, can't wait for him to become the OIC of Rocks at Leavenworth.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
He is in the military on a vo
February 18, 2007 - 16:47 ET by ThisnThatHe is in the military on a volunteer basis. If he gets off on this charge, he undermines the entire military. He has no case, really -- and I think he needs to pay for his actions.
TNT,This libertyordeath perso
February 18, 2007 - 16:57 ET by NeoConfirmedTNT,
This libertyordeath person, is he/she a closet Forum fillabuster, or does he/she have the courage to debate on the everyday board?
No No No neoconfirmed no no no.
February 22, 2007 - 16:37 ET by acaiguanaNo No No neoconfirmed no no no.
This area is our 'crazy aunt in the attic' area. We want him over here.
Don't ever invite him to the real world.
:-)
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
ACA,As usual, you're point is
February 24, 2007 - 00:15 ET by NeoConfirmedACA,
As usual, you're point is well taken.
But can't we bring him out just one time for a good old fashion horse whippin'?
Neo
News changes from day to day,
February 22, 2007 - 13:45 ET by libertyordeathNews changes from day to day, you silly dope. If you notice the date of my comment, it is after the date of the original post. A sincere person would do a follow up, but that rules out 95% of NB's members, since their SOP is: first - attack the messenger, second - rely solely on the messenger's comments to make a judgement, without any research for themselves, third (and most importantly) - BLAME THE CLINTONS! It is quite fun to sit here and see you make fools of yourselves. (que the denial tantrums)
NL207 just kicked your butt libertyordeath
February 22, 2007 - 16:23 ET by SportPoliticsNL207 just kicked your butt libertyordeath, with his own "research" you whined NB'ers should do. Then, instead of admitting your total defeat, you went off on your insane lying tangent, which NL207 just prior utterly disproved.
You're an amazing idiot. It is absolutely amazing to me what you just did. You didn't even have the sense to respond to someone else other than NL207 and pretend you missed his post.
I guess getting your butt kicked is such a common occurrence, that by definition of habit, you resort to the unnatural lying whine that some neocon should know something about this case before commenting.
Isn't it amazing to you what an idiot about the case you turned out to be compared to NL207 ? It is to me.
Even more amazing is your whine that someone should research, at the very person who wiped the floor with your stupidity.
I guess you wackos have severe knowledge problems all the time, and must therefore attempt to claim others know less than you, when the exact opposite is absolutely obvious.
Congratulations on your massive ignorance and defiant stupid retort.
Wipe the spittle from your mo
February 23, 2007 - 13:54 ET by libertyordeathWipe the spittle from your mouth, neo-clone. NL hasn't said sh*t, and neither have you. Shouldn't you be gossiping about Rosie or Wolf? You are incapable of understanding what I say because of your neo-clonyness. I eat the both of you for breakfast, with enough room left over to snack on your cloney-twins throughout the week (or month, since I don't get paid like you to write hate speech every waking minute).
Speaking of hate speech: what
February 24, 2007 - 00:09 ET by UnsaneSpeaking of hate speech: what about the post you have written? Isn't that the epitome of hate speech?
Sheesh, just because some of us critically think, and don't buy immediately into everything read and said instantly.
Again, I want to see this LT be made the OIC of Rocks at Ft. Leavenworth. (I'd make him the Commander of Rocks, but I'd rather see that title go to CAPT Nowak now.)
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
I'd kick your butt again if y
March 1, 2007 - 17:58 ET by NL207I'd kick your butt again if you had one.
It's clear you don't even understand the Amrican legal system much less the UCMJ. In general, no verdict, no prejudice, ==> no day in court. The Wotada case has no verdict, therefore reopening it is not double jeopardy. A true dismissal of charges only occurrs if a Judge dismisses a case with prejudice. This means the same charges cannot later be reinstated on the same set of facts. If a Judge or jury finds the defendent not guilty, no charges of any kind may later be prosecuted on the same set of facts.
Now if you want to talk about double jeopardy, lets talk about the policemen who were tried twice on the same set of facts in the Rodney King beating incident despite having been aquitted by a jury the first time.
Wars
February 18, 2007 - 16:40 ET by Jerry MackLOD:
1.Is it your opinion that the Supreme Court should rule on the legality of any war before the U.S. enters?
2. If attacked should we wait for a Supreme Court decision establishing the legallity of defending ourselves before we do anything?
3. Is it your opinion that each person in the military has the right to decide which wars or battles that they will participate ?
Jerry,I think LOD's position
February 22, 2007 - 16:07 ET by ArmedDadJerry,I think LOD's position is thus:
1.Article one, section 8 of the Constitution vests the power to declare war with Congress.
2.The war in Iraq is not a declared war by Congress, therefore,it is illegal.
3.George Bush sent troops into battle without a formal declaration of war from Congress,violating article one of the Constitution.
4.George Bush should be impeached for violating the Constitution.
This is my opinion,I'm not advocating that this be done.
Indeed. However, here are t
February 23, 2007 - 13:43 ET by libertyordeathIndeed. However, here are the basic facts:
1. Watada's reasoning is that the war is illegal, thus his refusal to return.
2. The judge would not admit constitutional experts' testimony.
3. The prosecution willingly moved for and agreed to a mistrial.
4. There is no MSM coverage.
Like it or lump it, you know that if this was given fair coverage that the floodgates would open, and many more soldiers would refuse to follow illegal orders.
I believe Lt.Watada's motives
February 23, 2007 - 18:32 ET by ArmedDadI believe Lt.Watada's motives are political,judging by his comments,the comments of his parents and the anti-war activists(who by the way,hate the military save for Watada and his ilk)that have flocked to his side.I also believe the Lieutenant's court-martial is no place to determine the legality of the Iraq war,thus the judge was correct to disallow witnesses whose testimony wasn't relevant to Watada's refusal.Since the legality of the war is undetermined,as of now,it is strictly Lt. Watada's personal belief that the war is illegal,it is not established legal fact.As for fair coverage,I hold no illusions of getting 'fair' coverage of anything from most of the media.
Good Assessment, Armed Dad
February 24, 2007 - 00:41 ET by emjem24Good assessment, ArmedDad. I'd like to see how LOD refutes your well constructed response. I'm sure he'll object to you not putting in how much you "hate the Clintons" because Clinton rage must be behind your reasoned argument (according to LOD). I think LOD should like it or lump it, don't you?
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
Thanks for the complement,emj
February 24, 2007 - 17:21 ET by ArmedDadThanks for the complement,emjem24.As for LOD,I feel sorry for him in a way.If I read him correctly,he believes in limited government and individual liberty as I do.LOD is no lefty liberal.However,to achieve his goals,LOD has embraced those who want nothing but the worst for this country,such as the 9-11 'Truthers'and the leftist scum who call themselves 'peace activists'.The ends don't justify the means IMO.
ArmedDad hasn't attacked me p
February 28, 2007 - 14:31 ET by libertyordeathArmedDad hasn't attacked me personally for sharing information. I actually thank him for a somewhat informed comment made calmly and without aggression towards me personally, however misguided about my beliefs and motives he may be. I have never and will never claim to be a peace activist. Anyone who knows me knows that. I say: Know your enemy. And certainly never judge a person's character on whether they have an R or a D in front of their name, unless you enjoy being a fool.
Libertyordeath,if I am misgui
March 1, 2007 - 15:39 ET by ArmedDadLibertyordeath,if I am misguided about your motives and beliefs it is because those beliefs and motives are hard to discern from your posts.I know you aren't a peace activist, I put you somwhere on the right politically.I can't judge your character if you don't provide context and relevance when you share information.
It deeply enrages you to know
February 24, 2007 - 00:14 ET by UnsaneIt deeply enrages you to know that there are some in this country willing to fight and die for your freedoms, doesn't it?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Yet another one of my damn questions
February 24, 2007 - 18:13 ET by UnsaneSince we haven't had a declaration of war since 8 December 1941...
Does that mean I could have refused to go to Korea and gotten off scot-free?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Find anyone who has refused a
February 28, 2007 - 14:37 ET by libertyordeathFind anyone who has refused any war since '41 and gotten off scot-free, and answer your own silly question.
Again...
March 2, 2007 - 00:14 ET by UnsaneYOU are the one posing the logic that any soldier, sailor, Airman, or Marine can refuse to go to war if it is not declared, so YOU answer MY question.
Could I have refused to be sent to Korea on the basis that the Korean War was never a declared war, yes, or no?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
If The 2002 Congressional aut
February 28, 2007 - 15:38 ET by NL207If The 2002 Congressional authorization to use armed force against our enemies is indeed what it says, that makes it a declaration of war, doesn't it? That is if one considers a state of armed hostilities [exactly what that law authorizes] between one or more quasi-governmental entities to be a state of war. To be valid, your and Lt. Awol's definition of war must be something other than a state of armed hostility between factions, in this case, the United states and the collection of Islamofascists represented by Al Qaeda and its allies.
The Judge has the discretionary authority to limit the testimony to the subject matter at hand. Since the Courts Martial do not have the authority to hear pleadings in matters of Constitutional issues or challenges to the legality of a Congressional Declaration of War, the CM Judge Advocate was entirely correct in excluding such irrelevant testimony.
The prosecution moved for a mistrial based on a late ruling from the Judge which excluded Lt. Wotada's confession, upon which the Prosecutions case was built. his is entirely within the scope of the Prosecutors rights and since the case was dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE, i.e. NO VERDICT WAS REACHED, Lt. Wotada may be tried again without any claims of double jeopardy. The fact is LoD, a mistrial is not a verdict, period, and repeating this falsehood over and over just makes you a liar.
there is no MSM coverage. What a pity. That means justice will actually be served without political interference.
As always, you are a liar and
March 1, 2007 - 14:35 ET by libertyordeathAs always, you are a liar and a manipulator. You and every other dumbass that has the tendency to believe that I did anything other than share information that was already there. Why don't you prove that I said a mistrial = verdict, little weasel? You act like you know more than the prosecutors in the case! Hilarious!
I do not lie. Period. Y
March 1, 2007 - 18:24 ET by NL207I do not lie. Period. You lack the intestinal fortitude to make such comments to my or anyone else's face.
Your point is the same as Seitz, counsel for this Wotada. You want to turn a military court martial on charges of dereliction of duty and insubordination into a hearing on the legality of a war declared by the Congress. This is why you think it injust the defence will not be allowed to call witnesses to discuss the legality of a Congressional Declaration of War you happen to oppose. The subject of this testimony will no doubt be the semantics of the terms, "Authorization to Use Military Force" and "Declaration of War".
You have previously declared it unjust that these charges should be reinstated since the presiding JAG declared a mistrial on the prosecutor's motion and have cited this as evidence the Army has no case against Lt. Wotada.
I have and will continue to argue that you are simply wrong and clueless. There are some who might suggest some other, less complimentary things as well.
Lod: From your answer and agr
March 2, 2007 - 15:51 ET by Jerry MackLod: From your answer and agreement with A.D. I ascertain that your answer to all 3 questions is "yes".
Army lieutenant's second cour
February 23, 2007 - 13:46 ET by libertyordeathArmy lieutenant's second court-martial set for July Melanthia Mitchell, Associated Press, Seattle Post Intelligencer, Feb 28, 2007
SEATTLE -- A second court-martial is scheduled to begin July 16 for an Army lieutenant who refused to go to Iraq with his Fort Lewis-based Stryker brigade and spoke out against the Bush administration.
The first military trial for 1st Lt. Ehren Watada ended in mistrial after three days when the judge said he didn't believe Watada fully understood a pretrial agreement he'd signed and that would have cut his sentence to four years.
On Friday, the Army refiled charges of missing movement and conduct unbecoming an officer - the same charges Watada, 28, had initially faced. If convicted, Watada could be sentenced to six years in prison and be dishonorably discharged.
Pretrial motions have been set for May 20-21, with the court-martial scheduled to begin the week of July 16, according to the office of Eric Seitz, Watada's attorney based in Honolulu.
Seitz has said he will seek to have the charges dismissed as a violation of the Constitution's protection against double jeopardy. On Wednesday, he said he would likely file motions by April.
He said he and Watada still hope to reach some sort of an agreement with the military, but as of yet have had no communication with the Army, other than an e-mail listing the court dates.
Read more...
This Seitz character- what
February 28, 2007 - 14:52 ET by Tim the EnchanterThis Seitz character- what a maroon! Double Jeopardy refers to when a verdict (presumably 'not guilty' or 'innocent') is reached, and the person is then re-tried for the same offense. Where was the verdict in this case? A mistrial is no verdict. Since no verdict was pronounced, and a mistrial was declared, it's the same as if there was never a trial. I wouldn't want this guy as my lawyer! (BTW, the military operates under the Uniform Code of Military Justice).
Yes, and next you will say th
February 28, 2007 - 15:08 ET by libertyordeathYes, and next you will say the UCMJ is not subject to Constitutional law. You could help the prosecution if you just shared your superior knowledge of the law to them. The case could be settled quickly then, I'll wager!
LOD...You guys still have Big
February 28, 2007 - 15:29 ET by Clear thinkerLOD...
You guys still have Bigfoot?
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
LoD is ignoring the obvious i
February 28, 2007 - 15:18 ET by NL207LoD is ignoring the obvious in an attempt to foist his nonsense on others.
The 2002 resolution by Congress authorizing the President to use armed force against the enemies of the United States is a declaration of war in every way except name only. LoD's [and Lt. Wotada's] argument collapses at each and every point on this account alone. Consider: item 1 on our list is satisfied by this declaration. Item 2 is false because this joint authorization . Item 3 is false because 1 is satisfied. Item 4, Bush did not violate the constitution, again, because item 1 is satisfied.