Courage To Resist Report on Watada's mistrial. "A Clear Victory"

[Tom Joad]

http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/content/view/249/1/

Lt. Watada mistrial clear victory, “very likely” unqualified
In depth report and analysis by Courage to Resist

FORT LEWIS, WA (February 8, 2007) – In a complex and confusing turn of events yesterday, Army lead prosecutor Captain Scott Van Sweringen reluctantly requested, and was granted a mistrial in the case of First Lieutenant Ehren K. Watada, the first military officer to publicly refuse to fight in Iraq.

In summation, the day after the prosecution rested a poorly presented case against Lt. Watada for “missing movement” to Iraq and two counts of “conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman,” the prosecution then requested—over the strenuous objections of Lt. Watada’s defense team—in essence a “do over.” Lieutenant Colonel Judge John Head then agreed to the “do over.” The basis for which, and judge’s motives, may likely be a matter of debate for some time.

Lt. Watada's civilian lawyer Eric Seitz later explained, “The mistrial is very likely to have the consequence of ending this case because a retrial would be a case of double jeopardy based on the military rules for courts martial and applicable case law.” Should the Army proceed with a second trial, Seitz said he would seek dismissal of the charges with prejudice so they could not be again filed. “I do not expect a retrial to ever occur,” stated Seitz. Army Captain Mark Kim, Lt. Watada’s appointed military defense lawyer, noted that he agreed with Seitz’s conclusions.

John Junker, a University of Washington law professor independently consulted by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer newspaper explained, “You can't just stop in the middle and say, ‘I don't like the way it's going’ and start over. If the defendant objected, it does raise the possibility" of double jeopardy. Junker noted, “That doctrine comes from the Constitution.”
The aborted court martial of Lt. Watada

Lt. Watada’s general court martial at Fort Lewis, Washington got off to a contentious start Monday morning. The opening session featured Judge Head denying every defense motion, particularly those that dealt with issues related to the illegality of the Iraq War. Seitz repeatedly voice objections to these rulings, at one point describing them as “judicial malfeasance,” bordering on “comical.” Judge Head seemed to have preemptively ruled Lt. Watada’s entire defense irrelevant. ....
More...

[The Magistrate]

1. Do Not Lay Money On these Opinions, Sir

The lieutenant will be retried, and probably convicted. Armies do not allow soldiers to pick and choose what orders they will obey, particularly when disobeying an order absents a man from the front line.

[Tom Joad]

3. Never asked your opinion. Never will.

[WilliamPitt]

5. Wow.

Why so rude?

[Tom Joad]

7. mere statement of fact, based on my experience.

[Crabby Appleton]

4. you are correct

[sarge43]

6. He'll get an administrative bad conduct discharge

Those can given without a court martial - a heavy hit, especially for an officer.

[Tom Joad]

8. Watada asked to be discharged. He asked to resign, this will not be so bad if that is the result.

[Karenina]

2. Related discussion with military DUers here:

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

[Supersedeas]

9. thanks for the linkage

[The Magistrate]

10. That Is An Excellent And Informative Discussion, Ma'am

Thank you for the link to it: I had not seen it yesterday.