War Objector's 2nd Court-Martial Blocked (Watada)

Source: Associated Press

Nov 8, 9:35 PM EST

War Objector's 2nd Court-Martial Blocked

TACOMA, Wash. (AP) -- The Army cannot hold a second court-martial for an Iraq war objector until the resolution of the soldier's claim that it would violate his right against double jeopardy, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

The first court-martial for 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, who is charged with missing his unit's deployment to Iraq in June 2006, ended in a mistrial in February. U.S. District Judge Benjamin H. Settle wrote that the military judge likely abused his discretion in declaring the mistrial.

Watada contends that the war in Iraq is illegal and that he would be party to war crimes if he served there. He is also charged with conduct unbecoming an officer for denouncing President Bush and the war. If convicted, he could be sentenced to six years in prison and be dishonorably discharged.

"This is an enormous victory, but it is not yet over," Watada attorney Kenneth Kagan said in a statement. The federal judge did not indicate what the next steps would be.

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WAR_OBJECTOR?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

Thank you for your service, Lt. Watada! :patriot:

This is a fine and upright young man, a very well-spoken and intelligent young man, and he deserves kudos rather than a court martial.

What a mess.

Thanks for posting this!

Recommended.

I have a good feeling about things. We seem to be in a recovery mode.

Chimpeach. :)

a soldier was given some kind of Status because he believed it was wrong to kill. Some here said it was because of "religion."
This was no more than a month or 2 ago.

Watada maybe should have never been Court-martialed?

I am hopeful for Watada.

A court martial is the usual result of refusal to obey an order. In this case the order to deploy with his unit to Iraq. He never claimed any conscientious objector status that I am aware of.

I don't understand. Why would it be double jeapordy if it was declared a mistrial? Mistrials get retried all the time. If he was found not guilty then I would agree. But even if the judge was incorrect in declaring a mistrial are they just asuming that he would have been found not guilty? If the judge made a mistake, doesn't that in itself create a mistrial?

Any lawyers around here who can explain the legal wrangling going on here?

"Mistrials" are declared for REASONS, but there was no reason
for this one except that the trial was OVER and the prosecution,
feeling sure that it had lost, asked the judge for a "do-over".

That's what Watada's counsel is arguing, and it looks like this
judge agreed with them so far. That's what he's referring to
when he wrote that "...the military judge likely abused his discretion
in declaring the mistrial".

And a free "do over" for the prosecution, without due cause,
amounts to a de facto Double Jeapordy situation, which isn't legal.
The Military was just going to ignore all the shenanigins and
try him again; this Judge said they can't do that until HE decides
the 'double jeapordy' issues.

(Edit- I'm not a lawyer; I've just seen a few of them discussing this,
and that's what I've gathered from it.)

The federal judge is actually on Watada's side on this.

Lt. Watada is not going for a Conscientious Objector status, which is based on religious opposition to war. There are two kinds - one is CO 10 and the other is CO 1AO. The first is refusal to serve in any capacity; the second is refusal to serve save in non-combatant capacity. Under current law, one cannot object to the morality of a particular war.

What is different about this is that Lt. Watada is specifically not claiming CO status. He is objecting to the war on the grounds that it is an illegally constituted war. In essence, his refusal to be deployed goes to the core of the legality of this war. He is claiming, from what I have read, that to be deployed and to take part in this war would make him liable to war crimes. This is a very different legal and ethical tack for a war resister. Watada's claim about the war is that "It violates the Constitution and the War Powers Act that limits the President in his role as Commander in Chief from using the armed forces in any way he sees fit."

The only case I have heard of that is even in this ballpark is the Gillette case back in 1971 where Gillette applied for CO status based on his objection to the morality of the Vietnam War, but moral and religious objection to a particular war was not granted and Gillette did two years in jail. The ruling on Gillette, I think, could play a part in Watada's case. In Gillette, it was decided that one cannot be a SCO - Selective Conscientious Objector - because it would allow for a kind of selective disobedience and undermine the judgment of the nation as to what constitutes a just war, as opposed Conscientious Objection being a general principle applied to all wars (more complex than that but I'm not a lawyer, just a CO 1).

edit: I am not looking at the mistrial issue, but the original claim, but the mistrial claim itself is also pretty huge.

this clears up what I was wondering. Sometimes I think too hard. :spray:

:thumbsup:

That military judge ought to be disbarred.

To the top of the Greatest Page with this one!

:applause:

And did you know that we can elect him even if he is in jail? Yup. That is our right. And he can either run the country from his jail cell, or they can commute his sentence (or he can commute his own sentence) and save this broken land in the White House.

I know it isn't over yet, but I sense that they don't know what to do with him. He has a lot of supporters. And Bush and his goddamned war have a 25% approval rating. Probably they'll let Empress Hillary deal with it, and why do I think that she will show no mercy? Just a feeling I have, maybe some residual sting in my lungs from Seattle '99.

Didn't mean to mouth off about the jokers running for emperor (--except Kucinich*--he can be Watada's VP). Just meant to praise Ehren Watada, whom I hold in high esteem. That's the kind of citizen we want to create, someone with a rock solid spine, who refuses to torture and kill people in a corporate resource war.


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

*(And maybe Edwards. These are the only two who have said anything about corporate-controlled "trade secret" vote counting. Kucinich has said a lot. Edwards has said some things. To me, it's the only real issue. If they were counting all our votes, we wouldn't be in this mess. And for those who don't know it, Christopher Dodd was a chief architect of the "trade secret" vote counting coup--a real snake in the grass, that one--and Richardson stopped the recount in New Mexico in 2004, by piling on a million dollar bond. These two deserve to be ridden out of town on a rail.)

(I guess I'm hot under the collar tonight.)

This takes more guts then one would think.

This takes more guts then one would think.

Why is this in civilian courts though, shouldn't this all be handled by the JAG? Or is this district court judge trying for double jeopardy on the behest of the BFEE?

There's no one in the _Bush administration qualified to shake his hand, much less make his life a living hell.

What they have done to try to destroy him should have caused them all sleepless nights. Monsters.

Highest hope for a streak of well deserved good luck for Lt. Watada. He has friends he will never know about, due to his excellent character and spirit.

and nobody came? John Lennon.

This is fairly significant. If other service members challenged the war in the same way it would be one hell of a thing to hide. But I'm not holding my breath.

:woohoo::woohoo::woohoo:

:woohoo:

the second. He created the mistrial because Watada was going to win.

It's a long hard road, but you're doing the right thing.

:patriot: :patriot: :patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot::patriot: