Lt. Ehren Watada court-martial Update - International Injustice/Law

Lt. Ehren Watada court-martial Update
by Jason Leopold via rialator - Truthout -- 15 December 2006 Tuesday, Dec 19 2006, 2:03pm
international / injustice/law / other press

Truthout's Sarah Olson Subpoenaed in Watada Case

Olson wrote a news story about Watada in June that was published June 7 on the Truthout web site. In that article, Watada publicly challenged the legality of the war - in statements the Army claims are illegal. It is believed that the Army wants Olson to authenticate the substance of her article and to confirm the statements Watada made to her.

"As I read about the level of deception the Bush administration used to initiate and process this war, I was shocked. I became ashamed of wearing the uniform," Watada said in Olson's interview.

The charges filed against Watada marked the first time in 41 years that the military has used the charge of conduct unbecoming an officer to prosecute an officer's public statements. Usually, a conduct-unbecoming case involves more-serious crimes, such as rape, sexual harassment, or manslaughter. The last time a military officer was charged with public dissent was in 1965, when Lieutenant Henry Howe criticized US foreign policy during the Vietnam War.

Moreover, the Watada case is significant - and to some degree historic - because it is the first time the Army is actively seeking testimony of a professional journalist to prove one of its own officers violated military law by publicly questioning the rationale for war. Other cases involving the military and the media have, for the most part, involved the military's desire to subpoena unpublished material, such as videotapes and notes, from reporters.

A US attorney in a US district court could prosecute civilian witnesses who fail to respond to a military subpoena without a valid reason.

Olson, who is one of few reporters covering the anti-war movement and the voices of dissent, said in an interview that she was served with a two-page subpoena at 8:45 a.m. Thursday morning at her home in Oakland, demanding that she appear at Watada's court-martial in Fort Lewis, Washington, February 5 through 9.

Olson, 31, could not divulge what her next move will be - whether she'll go to jail if all appeals fail - but it's apparent that she's leaning toward fighting the US Army from forcing her to testify against a soldier whose actions she has said she respects and supports.

"The military's willingness to subpoena journalists is wrongheaded and ominous," Olson said. "It's a reporter's job to report the news. It's not a reporter's job to participate in the prosecution of ... sources. Once you involve a reporter in prosecution, you turn that reporter into the investigative arm of the government."

Olson pointed out that it's not uncommon for journalists to confirm the veracity of their work, but in her case, doing so could send Watada to jail for several years.

"In my case, what the Army is asking is understood as exceedingly reasonable," Olson said. "Journalists don't have a problem verifying the veracity of their reporting, as I am being asked to do by the subpoena. What I think makes it different is the nature of this case. Basically, what the Army is doing is compelling me to build its case and participate in the prosecution of Lieutenant Watada, simply by confirming my reporting. That's something I don't think any journalist can do. They are using me to build their case and to punish military personnel for talking to the press."

Scott Galindez, managing editor of Truthout, said Thursday that the non-profit news organization stands behind Olson.

"We will support Sarah in any efforts she undertakes to protect her constitutional rights as a journalist," Galindez said. "While we won't be intimidated by the Army's tactics, we are afraid individual reporters might think twice before covering stories that might put them in the Army's cross hairs."

Lieutenant Joe Piek, a military spokesman who is stationed at Fort Lewis, where Watada also is based, would not comment on any aspect of the Watada case, nor would he discuss the reasons the military is trying to secure testimony from the media.

In addition to Olson, Truthout reported Wednesday that Captain Dan Kuecker, the Fort Lewis, Washington-based Army prosecutor pursuing charges against Watada, had stated his intent to subpoena Truthout Executive Director Marc Ash, Truthout reporter Sari Gelzer, and contributing reporter Dahr Jamail to testify at Watada's court-martial. As of Thursday, none of the three had been served with subpoenas.

It is likely that Kuecker wants Gelzer to discuss a short news report she filmed over the summer. In that report, Watada, at the Veterans for Peace annual conference, said the Iraq War was based on lies and remarked that US soldiers could refuse to fight. According to Bill Simpich, Truthout's attorney, the military is clearly interested in having Gelzer confirm the authenticity of the film and the statements by Watada that were caught on tape.

If Gelzer or Ash is subpoenaed, Simpich said the Army is in "for a big fight."

At a hearing earlier this year, a military court determined that there was sufficient evidence to charge Watada with intentionally missing his deployment, contemptuous speech toward officials, and conduct unbecoming an officer, and to proceed with a general court-martial. In September, those charges were amended to include an additional count of conduct unbecoming an officer. The contempt charges were dropped in November. Watada faces a maximum six-year prison sentence if he is convicted.

Watada was a member of the Army's First Stryker Brigade Combat Team at Fort Lewis when, on June 22, he became the first commissioned officer to refuse assignment with the unit to Iraq. He has since been reassigned to an administrative position.

Redacted documents outlining the charges against Watada cite reports by Olson and by Honolulu Star-Bulletin reporter Gregg K. Kakesako, quoting Watada as saying that President Bush had lied about the reasons the US went to war in Iraq.

Watada's attorney, Eric Seitz, contends his client's comments are protected free speech.

Kakesako would not comment Thursday on whether he had been served with a subpoena.

Freelance journalist Sarah Olson does not want to testify at First Lt. Ehren Watada’s court marshal in February. At around 8:45 a.m. on Thursday, she received a subpoena from the U.S. Army telling her to do so.

Watada is the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse deployment in Iraq. Because of his public comments against the war, Watada is charged not only with refusal to deploy, but with “contempt toward officials” and “conduct unbecoming of an officer.”

Oakland-based Olson interviewed Watada in May and published a story in question-and-answer form in the June 7 online publication Truthout.org about Watada’s decision to refuse deployment.

“My commanders told me that I could go to Iraq in a different capacity. I wouldn’t have to fire a weapon and I wouldn’t be in harm’s way,” wrote Olson, quoting Watada. “But that’s not what this is about. Even in my resignation letter I said that I would rather go to prison than do something that I felt was deeply wrong. I believe the whole war is illegal. I’m not just against bearing arms or fighting people, I am against an unjustified war.”

For about a month, the army has been talking to Olson about testifying, “but she declined to appear voluntarily,” said James Wheaton of the First Amendment Project in Oakland. Wheaton is working with lead attorney David Greene, advising Olson of her options. Olson emailed the Daily Planet, declining an interview.

“She feels it is not a reporter’s job to become an investigative tool of the state,” Wheaton said.

Olson has not decided how she will answer the subpoena, Wheaton said.

Joe Piek, spokesperson for the Army at Ft. Lewis, Washington, where Watada will be court marshaled in February, said, “The Army subpoena asked for Olson to report to verify the authenticity of the information contained in news stories.”

He added that the army wants Olson simply to testify that the writing that appears in print is an accurate reproduction of what was actually said. “We’re not asking for notes or records,” he said.

Olson’s apparently not the only reporter the army wants to testify for the prosecution. While Dahr Jamail, another Bay Area freelance journalist who has interviewed Watada, has not yet received a subpoena. His attorney, Oakland-based Dan Siegel, told the Daily Planet he believes through sources at Truthout, that Jamail will be subpoenaed.

An independent reporter who has written for the London Guardian and the Independent, among other outlets, Jamail transcribed an Aug. 14 speech Watada gave to a Veterans for Peace Convention and published that in Truthout with a short introduction.

“We need to make sure journalists are not treated as government agents,” Siegel said, adding that his client would have to decide whether he was going to comply with any eventual subpoena.

According to Aaron Glantz, writing Dec. 14 for Interpress News Service, the military has also approached a Honolulu Star Bulletin reporter about testifying.

Ehren Watada’s father, Bob Watada, is outspoken on the question of bringing in reporters to testify. “It’s intimidation,” he said in a phone interview Monday. “It’s harassment of the media.”

If the journalists testify, it could hurt Watada’s case and, at the same time, it could help it, said Watada’s attorney Eric Seitz, speaking in a phone interview from Honolulu, Hawaii. “If they don’t testify, the government can’t prove they made the remark,” Seitz said. “They have to authenticate it—we’re not willing to agree [otherwise].”

But it would help Watada’s case if they testified to the context of the remarks, that they were made off the base and not in uniform, Seitz said.

By adding charges related to what Watada said and by trying to bring in journalists to attest to that, “they’re trying to suppress dissent,” Seitz said.

Berkeley resident and Society for Professional Journalism ethics committee member Peter Y. Sussman, while not familiar with the details of Olson’s subpoena or Jamail’s possible subpoena, noted that this “appears to be part of a pattern of intimidation of using journalists as an arm of law enforcement, undermining the freedom of the press.”

Sussman pointed to Josh Wolf, the San Francisco freelance journalist who refused to turn his videotapes of a demonstration over to police and is now serving time in federal prison. He may be jailed until the Grand Jury’s term expires in July. “Josh Wolf is currently in prison for acting as a journalist,” said Sussman, one of whose books is entitled, Committing Journalism.

“Our mission as journalists is jeopardized if we are perceived, because of a subpoena, as agents of the government.”

Army spokesperson Piek declined to comment on the ethics of compelling journalists to testify in court. “We don’t debate with SPJ on this,” he said.

As a former soldier in the United State Army, here is the problem I have with Lt. Watada. He says it is his duty to "not fight in an illegal war". It is not his place nor does he have the education or experience to determine whether the war is illegal. He is a soldier. His responsibility is to follow orders. If he gets over there and an commander tells him to burn down a village of civilians, then he has a right to question an obvious unlawful order. What he doing is nothing but desertion. Because he says he is not a coward doesn't mean he isn't.

If you are a civilian and don't agree with the war, then so be it. However, if you are a soldier, marine, airman, or sailor and you have taken an oath, you follow orders, period. You see, the minute we say "Ok Lt., you get to decide what orders you follow and which ones you don't", then we have the chaos found in the militaries of other countries. We then start to have generals here saying, "I dont agree with the President or Congress so lets have a military coup".

Then we have the problems of all the other countries. We definitely NEED to make an example of Lt. Watada. He needs to receive the highest possible sentence and serve everyday of it. He needs to receive a dishonorable discharge that is stapled to every job application he ever feels out. He needs to understand that freedom isn't free and just because you don't agree with the job you're assigned, you don't get to say "no" and cry to a few bleeding heart reporters who "respect and support" your position. Oh and by the way, whatever happened to the objective reporter who did a story with a balanced viewpoint. They aren't asking you for sources, they are asking you to do something you are opposed to do... TELL THE TRUTH. "Yes he said it and yes I wrote it accurately". PERIOD.

I don't care if you support the war or not, you don't get to change the rules because you don't like it. If we had soldiers like Lt. Watada during WWII we would all be speaking German right now.

Thursday, January 4, 2007

The opening round in the court-martial of 1st Lt. Ehren Watada could be key to defense hopes of putting the Iraq war on trial along with this Fort Lewis Army officer who refused to deploy to Iraq.

At a pretrial hearing today, Watada's attorneys will try to persuade a military judge that they should be allowed to argue that the war is illegal, in part because it violates military regulations that wars be fought in accordance with the United Nations charter.

That stance is crucial to the defense of Watada, who faces charges of missing a troop movement and conduct unbecoming an officer.

"The entire scope of the trial is going to be pretty much decided by the judge's ruling," said Eric Seitz, Watada's civilian defense attorney.

The hearing, expected to last at least a day, is a prelude to a court-martial scheduled to begin next month.

Watada, one of the first commissioned Army officers to refuse to serve in Iraq, has drawn international attention for his stand. He also has joined with peace groups to attack the Bush administration's handling of the war.

"Though the American soldier wants to do right, the illegitimacy of the occupation itself, the policies of this administration, and the rules of engagement of desperate field commanders will ultimately force them to be party to war crime," Watada said in an Aug. 12 speech to the Veterans for Peace in Seattle. That speech is cited by the Army as evidence of misconduct.

Watada says he is not a conscientious objector opposed to all wars. He has offered to serve in Afghanistan, but the military rejected that offer.

Prosecutors say it's not up to Army officers to determine the legality of a war and have noted that no U.S. court has ever ruled that the Iraq war is illegal. At today's hearing, they are expected to argue that quitting one's unit because of conscience, religion, ethical or other considerations is not a valid defense, and that Watada's views on the war are irrelevant.

A military judge will preside over the hearing. At the actual court-martial, Watada will be judged by a panel of soldiers, the military equivalent of a jury.

If convicted on all charges of missing a troop movement and conduct unbecoming an officer, Watada risks six years in prison.

Since refusing to deploy to Iraq, Watada has worked a desk job at Fort Lewis while his unit served in Mosul, and more recently, Baghdad. In the months after the June deployment, the Fort Lewis brigade of more than 4,000 soldiers has lost 11 soldiers in Iraq.

"People say, 'He is a coward. He deserted his soldiers,' " Watada said in an interview earlier this week. "I am here because I care about my soldiers, the ones who died and the ones who are going to die."

Watada said his refusal to serve in Iraq was based, in part, on his review of the Army Field Manual, which states in a section entitled "Commencement of Hostilities" that "The Charter of the United Nations makes illegal the threat or use of force contrary to the purpose of the United Nations."

Watada said he believes the United States did not get the necessary U.N. approvals to launch the invasion that began in March 2003.

U.S. officials dispute that analysis, saying the invasion was authorized by a November 2002 Security Council resolution, which threatened "serious consequences" should Iraq fail to fully comply with terms of weapons inspections.

That resolution gave the United States full authority to invade Iraq, according to Richard Grenell, a spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations.

But other diplomats — including former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan — have questioned whether that resolution legalized the U.S. invasion and noted that the United States was unsuccessful in an effort to get a more explicit resolution approved in winter 2003.

Some scholars of international law also have questioned the legality of the invasion. One of the most outspoken has been Francis Boyle, a University of Illinois law professor and vocal critic of the Bush administration. Watada's attorney wants to call Boyle as a witness at the court-martial.

Boyle said the Army Field Manual references to the U.N. charter were inserted in 1956, by Army attorney Richard Baxter, and reflected the experiences of World War II and the wars of aggression waged by Germany and Japan.

"It is a field manual intended primarily for officers," Boyle said. "It is not intended as a treatise on international law, but it made clear the United Nations charter covers the use of force."

The pretrial hearing also is likely to include some sparring over prosecutors' efforts to compel journalists to testify about the accuracy of their articles. At least two journalists have been subpoenaed in the court-martial case, including Oakland, Calif.-based Sarah Olson, an independent journalist and radio producer who interviewed Watada in May.

Olson said the government subpoena is a threat to the free press, since it would chill the voices of military personnel who want to express dissenting views to the media.

Olson did not say whether she would comply with the subpoena.

Seattle Times researcher David Turim contributed to this report.

© 2007 The Seattle Times Company

HONOLULU, January 29, 2007

The U.S. government agreed to drop two counts of conduct unbecoming an officer from its case against the Army lieutenant who called the Iraq war illegal and refused to deploy.

1st Lt. Ehren Watada, whose court-martial is scheduled Feb. 5, still faces a maximum of four years imprisonment if he is convicted of missing movement for his refusal to deploy last June and two remaining counts of conduct unbecoming an officer for comments made at a Veterans for Peace Convention in Seattle.

The two counts dropped Monday carry a maximum of two years in prison. They stem from comments he made to reporters in June explaining why he refused to go to Iraq and why he was challenging the Bush administration's reasons for going to war.

In exchange, Watada's attorney Eric Seitz agreed that two subpoenaed reporters will not have to testify. They are Honolulu Star-Bulletin's Gregg Kakesako and freelance reporter Sarah Olson.

"We will stipulate and agree to the testimony that the reporters would have otherwise provided and the accuracy to the statements that are attributed to my client," said Seitz, of Honolulu.

Seitz said Watada's action shields the journalists from the "heavy handedness of the government."

"While we don't think any charges should have been filed at all for simply exercising free speech, we are pleased with the government's willingness to reduce Lieutenant Watada's potential sentence by two years," he said.

Seitz is scheduled to leave for Fort Lewis, Washington on Tuesday to attend Watada's trial next week.

"This is not a justice proceeding but a disciplinary proceeding," he said. "Really, the only thing the Army is interested in here is what kind of punishment to mete, not whether Lieutenant Watada is guilty or innocent of the charges.

"They've already determined, basically, his guilt."

Military judge Lt. Col. John Head ruled Jan. 16 that the 28-year-old Hawaii-born soldier cannot base his defense on the war's legality.

Head also rejected lawyers' claims that Watada's First Amendment rights shielded him from charges stemming from his criticism of the war. Head said there are limits to the free-speech rights of military personnel.

Watada planned to argue that the war was illegal because it violated Army regulations that wars must be waged in accordance with the United Nations Charter.

Fort Lewis spokesman Joseph Piek said he had "no indication whatsoever" that any full settlement could be reached before trial.

"This is still a serious case of an officer who refused orders to deploy," he said. "For an officer to violate military law and refuse orders such as these is something the military takes very seriously."

Seitz said the Army wanted Watada to plead guilty to at least two counts of conduct unbecoming an officer and missing movement in return for a sentence that would included a dishonorable discharge and 18 months in prison.

"We did not feel that was appropriate and there have been no further discussions since the government made that position known to us," he said.

Seitz said he has offered three months of confinement and dishonorable discharge, but the Army did not indicated any willingness to go along with that.

Watada refused to go to Iraq last June with his unit, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, after deciding the war was illegal. He has said he would be willing to serve in Afghanistan or elsewhere.

Copyright © 2007 The International Herald Tribune

Watada chose to stop fighting
by Mike Honda via rialator - San Francisco Chronicle Tuesday, Jan 30 2007, 10:47pm

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

U.S. Army 1st Lt. Ehren K. Watada volunteered for military service following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on our country out of a desire to protect his family and compatriots. His service record has been exemplary, and he was deemed "among the best" by his superiors.

All that changed on June 22, 2006, when Watada was ordered to deploy to the Middle East as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Opposed to the premise and conduct of the war in Iraq, Watada refused to comply with this order. He now faces a court martial and up to six years in prison.

Lt. Watada has taken a solemn oath of allegiance as a military officer. With the order to deploy to Iraq, he found himself with a dilemma: Either follow this oath or risk the severe consequences of disobedience. In the spirit of Henry David Thoreau, this young man searched his soul and found himself unable to suppress his conscience and opposition to what he views as an immoral, illegal war.

Watada is not alone. Poll after poll points to an ever rising tide of public opposition to President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. This soldier is unique, however, in that he is the first commissioned U.S. military officer to refuse Iraq deployment.

I am neither a lawyer nor a veteran, and it is not my place to opine on the legality or military propriety of Lt. Watada's actions. I am, however, a proud and patriotic American solemnly entrusted by his friends and neighbors to represent them, their hopes, their dreams and their principles in the greatest deliberative body in the world.

I voted against giving President Bush the authority to use military force in Iraq, and do not believe his justifications for taking us into war were even minimally adequate. As a duly elected member of Congress, I express my admiration for a young American who, in the same spirit, has heeded his conscience at tremendous risk to livelihood, reputation and personal freedom in order to right what he and the vast majority of his compatriots see as a tremendous wrong.

This soldier is neither a conscientious objector nor a pacifist. He volunteered to serve his nation in the armed forces, has expressed his willingness to fight in our struggle in Afghanistan, and declined his superiors' offer to deploy to a desk job in Iraq, out of harm's way. There is not, nor can there be, the slightest doubt as to this young man's bravery, patriotism or commitment to his fellow soldiers.

In facing charges of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, it is my belief that Ehren Watada has laid bare a fact that is becoming increasingly plain: Mr. Bush has handled this war in a manner unbecoming a United States president.

At best, our president misled the nation on the rationale for going into Iraq. He has embroiled this great country in a cycle of brutality there that has grievously tarnished America's international reputation, has further destabilized an already precarious Middle East and has taken the lives of more than 3,000 American fathers, mothers, sons and daughters.

Watada has risked being deemed guilty of breaking one law in furtherance of a higher, moral one, rather than participate in a fight that, in his and my view, needlessly sends our compatriots to their deaths.

In Watada's own words: "To stop an illegal and unjust war, the soldiers and service members can choose to stop fighting it" (www.thankyoult.org, click on YouTube video).

© 2007 San Francisco Chronicle

February 5, 2007

HONOLULU -- The court-martial of Hawaii-born solider Lt. Ehren Watada began on Monday in Ft. Lewis Wash.

He could be sentenced to prison time for refusing to deploy to Iraq.

At the Honolulu Federal Building on Monday afternoon, demonstrators rallied in support of Watada. The Japanese American Citizens League and Code Pink Hawaii Women for Peace organized the rally.

In court, the military judge ruled that almost all of the defense witnesses will not be allowed to take the stand. The judge earlier ruled that Watada's attorney, Eric Seitz, would not be able to bring up the legality of the war in Iraq.

Seitz was planning to call several international and constitutional law experts, but the military judge ruled they would be irrelevant.

Outside the courtroom there were demonstrations for and against Watada. Among Watada's supporters was actor Sean Penn.

"All we can hope is that it makes people think, and I think that the 400,000 people in the streets of Washington are the beginning of a voice that's going to get louder and louder. The people out here today those already here in support of Lt. Watada," Penn said.

Opponents called Watada a weasel and demanded he be sent to jail.

"I spent 20 years in the army defending my right to do this. You think these people are going to scare me away? Not a chance," said Jeff Brigham, who protested against Watada.

Watada faces up to four years in jail. The trial is scheduled to continue.

Copyright 2007 TheHawaiichannel.com

Dissenter derided at court-martial
by Lynn Marshall and Sam Howe Verhovek via rialator - Los Angeles Times Tuesday, Feb 6 2007, 7:49pm

February 7, 2007

FT. LEWIS, WASH. — First Lt. Ehren Watada "brought shame upon himself, his unit and the U.S. Army," a military prosecutor said Tuesday at a court-martial for the Honolulu soldier, whose refusal to ship out to Iraq has made him a hero to some and a coward to others.

Watada, 28, refused to be deployed to Iraq with his unit last year, declaring in a public statement that "the wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of Iraqis is not only a terrible and moral injustice, but it's a contradiction to the Army's own law of land warfare."

Participating "would make me a party to war crimes," Watada contended in a videotaped statement that he made in June and that was presented by prosecutors before a seven-member officers' panel that will decide his fate.

Rather than participating in an act of courage, the prosecutor, Capt. Scott Van Sweringen, argued, Watada had violated a sworn duty to lead his fellow soldiers in the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division.

Watada instead allowed those soldiers to go to Iraq "absent a leader they had trained with, absent a leader they had trusted," Van Sweringen said.

The lieutenant faces charges of missing a military movement and of conduct unbecoming an officer. If convicted in the court-martial, he could receive four years in an Army prison and a dishonorable discharge.

Watada sat at attention and appeared to follow proceedings intently, though he spoke only briefly because most of the day was given over to the Army's case against him. He is expected to testify today as part of his defense.

As Watada's lawyer, Eric Seitz, conceded, "There are no real facts in dispute here…. There is no dispute about what he's said and done. The question, the only question in this case, is what were his intentions."

Seitz said that Watada "took his oath very seriously — to defend the constitution."

Watada has not sought conscientious objector status, contending that he does not oppose bearing arms and that he was willing to fight against the Taliban in Afghanistan. But the Iraq war, he says, is wrong.

Prosecutors presented witnesses Tuesday who testified that however sincere Watada's beliefs might be, there was no way to justify an outright defiance of the chain of command.

Watada's commanding officer, Lt. Col. Bruce Antonia, told the panel that he was "dismayed, probably a little bit betrayed" when he learned that Watada refused to ship out with his unit.

"I believe what he said was that the commander in chief made decisions based on lies, that he specifically deceived the American people," Antonia said. "That is nowhere in the realm of a lieutenant in the United States Army."

Defense attorney Seitz said of his client in opening arguments: "At most, he engaged in an act or form of civil disobedience…. No way does that add up to conduct unbecoming an officer."

Watada's case has attracted huge attention among antiwar protesters, who have held rallies outside Ft. Lewis that included an appearance Monday by actor Sean Penn.

But Watada also has drawn many sharp critics, with websites from fellow soldiers openly deriding him and protesters holding their own rallies outside the base, just south of Tacoma. One protester held a sign calling Watada a "weasel."

A prosecution witness, Lt. Col. William James, Watada's former brigade commander, said he had advised Watada not to refuse the deployment order. He said he had cautioned him against making "a young man's mistake, not making a decision based solely on emotion."

In another video, Watada tells a cheering crowd at an antiwar rally last summer: " 'I was only following orders' is never an excuse…. For the soldiers to stop fighting, they must see the support of the people."

Antonia said that Watada had no business offering to go to Afghanistan but not to Iraq.

"As soldiers," Antonia said, "we don't get to pick and choose which war we go to."

Copyright 2007 Los Angeles Times

Feb 8, 2007 08:41 PM

FORT LEWIS (KHNL) - The court martial of Army Lieutenant Ehren Watada came to a sudden and suprising conclusion Wednesday afternoon.

The judge declared a mistrial.

The judge says there is confusion about what Watada meant when he agreed to some facts of the case.

That means, the Hawaii born officer who refuses to go to Iraq, would have to go to trial again next month.

Lieutenant Ehren Watada walks free.

And his attorney says a stunning turn of events at his court martial today may keep him free.

"In this case, it's my professional opinion Watada can't be tried again," says Eric Seitz, Watada's attorney.

The army's case against watada for refusing to go to iraq and making statements that were allegedly unbecoming an officer derailed when military Judge John Head declared a mistrial.

Head himself brought-up concerns about a pretrial admission made by Watada called a "stipulation of facts."

In the stipulation, Watada admitted he failed to get on a plane with his unit last June---but claims in this case that was not a crime since he says he feels the war is illegal and therefore had no duty to go.

"And that was enough that the judge was concerned about what Lt. Watada agreed to in a stipulation of fact compared to what he was going to instruct the jury about this defense," says Robert Resnick of the U.S. Army.

But the judge knew about the stipulation from beginning even signed off on it. The government says he got worried when Seitz wanted to instruct the jury that Watada's intent should be considered.

"We were asking the judge to instruct the jury that Ehren acted with the intent that was different and therefore on a mistaken idea of what he was entitled to do," Seitz says.

So now---the case starts from the beginning with one big exception---Seitz claims since it was the prosecutor's decision to ask for a mistrial double jeopardy is an issue---and Watada can't be tried again.

"There may be arguments that can be made by the government to get around that and will have a likely heated discussion but the first motion we file when we attempt to bring this case back will be a motion to dismiss with prejudice," says Seitz.

Prosecutors were left with a very difficult choice. The judge asked whether the government wanted to continue its case absent a lot of evidence or go for a mistrial. After a lot of consideration they said yes they would like a mistrial. If the case does go forward it's tentatively scheduled to start again in the middle of March.

© Copyright 2007 KHNL

Topics

Other Press

Cleaves on Disc/Stick