The Watada Mistrial: Here's What Really Happened (Bill Simpich)

[Hissyspit]

http://www.truthout.org:80/docs_2006/020807A.shtml

The Watada Mistrial: Here's What Really Happened
By Bill Simpich
t r u t h o u t | Report

Thursday 08 February 2007

First Lt. Ehren Watada knew exactly what his case was about - and that scared the judge.

- snip -

Shaken by this instruction, the judge tried to claim that Seitz had introduced some error by submitting this instruction, forgetting that the panel had not seen the instruction and hence any error was literally impossible!

Realizing the error of his ways, the judge then tried to speak to Lt. Watada about his understanding of the stipulation without asking Seitz for his permission. After initially warning the judge that he might not let him speak to Lt. Watada, Seitz relented and told the judge that he would let him speak to him over objection.

- snip -

Unsuccessful in his apparent effort to derail the defense, the judge then claimed that "I'm not seeing we have a meeting of the minds here," Head said. "And if there is not a meeting of the minds, there's not a contract." (Seattle Times)

At this point, both the defense and the government figuratively "threw their arms around each other" and repeatedly told the judge that they wanted the trial to go forward. Courtroom observers agreed that they had never seen such a thing in their lives.

[ThomCat]

1. If that panel was allowed to rule

that Watada reasonably believed that the order to deploy was illegal, and if they found him not guilty on those grounds, this would have opened the gates. Everyone would be able to refuse to deploy on the grounds that they believe this war is illegal.

I'm guessing that the judge saw this implication and declared a mistrial to protect the military. He clearly was trying to game this trial in the prosecution's favor.

Edit for spelling.

[Selatius]

3. There would've been far bigger implications than that. That would've meant...

people like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, et al. are possibly guilty of the supreme war crime of launching a war of aggression. The court case itself would've been ammunition not only for potential impeachment but also a potential trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

If the order to deploy was found to be illegal, that would call into question the entire war.

[ThomCat]

5. That is not an implication in this case

Because finding that a soldier has a reasonable belief that the war is illegal is not the same thing as finding that the war really is illegal.

Admitedly, the media would hopefully be all over this and would hopefully make it a headline "Soldier reasonably believed the war is illegal." That might have been another implication this judge forsaw and was trying to prevent. That would make the war harder for this administration to fight. It would have ramped up public pressure and given that pressure legitimacy.

[Selatius]

9. That's why I qualified my statement with "possibly"

Admittedly, you have to jump from reasonable belief to prima facie evidence that something is illegal, but if you could prove reasonable belief, then it would necessarily color the direction of every other case that comes afterward dealing with all sorts of legal aspects of the war itself.

[HereSince1628]

6. Interesting point.

I have the feeling there are lawyers in Europe ready to pounce on such a thing if it emerged.

[Selatius]

8. They don't need to. There's a case in Germany's courts naming Rumsfeld and others for...

war crimes over things such as Abu Ghraib. I doubt Rumsfeld will willingly travel to Germany to stand trial, so if the case went ahead anyway, he would be tried in absentia.

[Hissyspit]

4. It's called military justice. It is a farce of justice.

"...as military music is to music."

[hootinholler]

14. Sousa a farce? I don't think so.

Just my opinion and there are judges that game civilian cases as well.

-Hoot

[ClayZ]

2. YAY for DOUBLE Jeopardy ... K and R

:kick:

I hope Lt. Watada has SPEAKING engagements all over the country!



Hear his Feb 3rd Speech Here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=15717&mesg_id=15717

He is AMAZING! This is what a PATRIOT sounds like!

[Selatius]

7. The military will likely refile the case and charge him with something else

There were multiple counts they had accused Watada. Failure to deploy was just one on that list if I remember correctly.

[ClayZ]

10. I think they will try to QUIET it down.

They don't want to HEAR the reasons that Lt. Watada said SIR, NO SIR.

But, if you do, you can hear them here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=15717&mesg_id=15717

You may never hear a finer speech!

[Karenina]

11. Interesting insights by military DUers here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x151882

[Hissyspit]

12. .

[Crabby Appleton]

13. Truthout and most of the DUers posting on this issue

could not be more wrong on the perceived status and likely outcome of this case. The court-martial panel of members (the jury) consists of Army officers of equal and greater rank than the defendant; they will not acquit regardless of the defense presented in this case, given the known facts which include the public statements of the defendant. The jury is far different in composition that what is encountered in a civilian trial, it would not be much different than if you were the defendant in a civilian trial and had a jury consisting of law enforcement officers; they are not a cross-section of the general public. For this defense to prevail would require the defense theory to be one generally accepted to be valid by a majority of Army officers. There is no greater sin in the military for an officer than attempting to evade a combat assignment. That this (or any court-martial case) even goes to trial is a virtual guarantee that a conviction will occur, as is the norm of military trials; cases with a military accepted valid defenses or innocence are dropped in the investigation phase.

The military judge in this case is merely insuring that the trial is procedurally correct; all I's dotted and T's crossed. To imagine that this is befuddlement, confusion, or fear on the part of the judge is wishful thinking in the extreme coupled with a lack of understanding of military courts and procedures. When stipulations and/or pleas are mutually exclusive or inconsistent then the military judge must resolve those issues; for example you may recall that Lyndie England's guilty plea was initially thrown out by the judge because of inconsistencies in her and another witness's statements and stipulations, but she was eventually convicted once the inconsistencies were resolved.

The 1LT will be tried and convicted most of the charges. He may be found not guilty of one charge which will demonstrate the panel fairly considered the charges.

/former Army Criminal Investigator

[PATRICK]

15. Even as military in house

judgment isn't there a huge conflict of judgment that makes a verdict nearly impossible and at least unimaginable?

For a group of officers to declare the officer innocent would have as almost its sole argument that there is an illegal, criminal war going on whose actions they have served. Add that to the pre-judgment concerning the duty code and the protection of the military itself from conscientious objector floodgates and morale. Even if you see this as the same as a murderer caught red-handed with no legal hope this particular jury itself unreasonably programs a verdict against the defendant.

Which brings us to the open and shut aspect which is false. There ARE criminal acts and illegal actions, even wars whether the US admits to any of its own or not, that are to be resisted. There is a greater code or part of the code that is the basis for defense, not simple desertion or dereliction. The crux of the justice system is whether a military court composed of people going along with the attacked legality of the war can pass judgment on a fellow officer who did not.

If a nation has gone rogue, of course there will be no fair trial. The whole "legality" of this case is parochial and moot in the eyes of justice and the world. As with elections, the contest dooms Watada, but truth vindicates him and the process is rotten and hijacked by wrong. There really is little in the military by which it is capable of adjudicating its own oath of duty against the chain of illegal command.

If I were the judge and prosecution, I would seek some smaller path indeed to preserve the disiplinary simplicity and avoid the larger issues. Watada has uniquely and deliberately placed himself as a large rock in that stream. Was it stupid of the military to let it go this far? Now they are squirming in dilemma, not the accused.

Do they want to give each soldier a copy of Thoreau's "On Civil Disobedience" upgraded to its miltiary application? The whole idea of a soldier rebelling against an illegal war is out of the question, literally, in thought and in application, but not, it seems, in that little matter of the code. In that conumdrum a soldier is asked to affirm the legality of military actions he undertakes- losing the cover of simply obeying orders. Another one way street for dedicated soldier.

[Bandit]

16. This is very interesting in that Courts Martial usually have no judge

There is a panel of Officers that oversee the hearing. It is in no way like a normal courtroom proceding. :shrug: Things may have changed in the last forty years though. That is when I was in the service...