Meanwhile, over at Jim Robinson's FreeRepublic....

[Aviation Pro]

...they are ripping their hair out over the Watada mistrial. Perhaps they have never heard the term "rule of law" or perhaps that's only reserved for fellatio between two consenting adults.

Click here for the psychotic rantings.


Mistrial declared in Watada court martial
NewsTribune.com ^ | February 7, 2007 | Adam Lynn


Posted on 02/07/2007 2:47:14 PM PST by jazusamo


The military judge presiding over the court-martial of Lt. Ehren Watada declared a mistrial early this afternoon after prosecutors huddled and agreed they wanted one.

Lt. Col. John Head, who is presiding over the proceedings at Fort Lewis, set a new date of March 19. But Watada's civilian attorney, Eric Seitz of Honolulu, said that he had other commitments around that time.

It could be summer before charges are refiled and court action resumes.

Head threw out the basis for the Army's case right after lunch and asked prosecutors if they wanted him to declare a mistrial. Prosecutors took 30 minutes and decided they did.

At issue was a stipulation of facts that Watada signed earlier this week. In it, he admitted to a set of facts, including that he had a duty to board the plane that carried his unit to Iraq last June but that he intentionally missed the flight.

Questions over the "duty" portion arose this morning, causing Head to question Watada about the stipulation.

Under direct questioning from Head, Watada said he did not believe he had a legal duty to board the plane because he thinks the war is illegal.

"No, I did not believe I had that duty," Watada said.


(Excerpt) Read more at thenewstribune.com ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOPICS: Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: WATADA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



1 posted on 02/07/2007 2:47:17 PM PST by jazusamo
< Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies >

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

To: jazusamo
see also: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1780928/posts (headline)
also: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1780861/posts
(not dupes - background)



2 posted on 02/07/2007 2:54:55 PM PST by xcamel (Press to Test, Release to Detonate)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies >

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

To: BADROTOFINGER
Washington State ping



3 posted on 02/07/2007 2:55:05 PM PST by Stoat (Rice / Coulter 2008: Smart Ladies for a Strong America)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies >

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

To: jazusamo
Big news (but I must say I don't get it).



4 posted on 02/07/2007 2:55:29 PM PST by RedRover (They are not killers. Defend our Marines.)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies >

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

To: jazusamo
Crap



5 posted on 02/07/2007 2:55:34 PM PST by Tijeras_Slim
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies >

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

To: jazusamo
I guess his unit is lucky this POS didn't go to Iraq with them . I doubt if he could be counted on to defend anyone or do his job when it came to crunch time!

I'm glad he's got a well definded dense of duty..( Extreme Sarcasm!!)



6 posted on 02/07/2007 2:56:18 PM PST by blastdad51 (Proud father of an Enduring Freedom vet, and friend of a soldier lost in Afghanistan)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies >

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

To: jazusamo
Quibbles and bits from this guy. One good thing is that Watada is not leading toops in Iraq now.



7 posted on 02/07/2007 2:56:31 PM PST by Anti-Bubba182
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies >

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

To: xcamel
Thanks for linking those, xcamel.



8 posted on 02/07/2007 3:09:03 PM PST by jazusamo (http://warchronicle.com/TheyAreNotKillers/DefendOurMarines.htm)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies >

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

To: jazusamo
It's like you can smell this human debris from afar. I remember the first time I saw Rosie O'Tonnell, I thought to myself: "please, no, no". (Pitiful but true.)
Now this obno-tard. Man, the left has some repulsive characters.






9 posted on 02/07/2007 3:13:40 PM PST by I see my hands (_8(|))
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies >

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

To: jazusamo; BADROTOFINGER; Libertina; Lexinom; Horatio Gates; Ramius; HairOfTheDog; noexcuses; ...



10 posted on 02/07/2007 3:17:11 PM PST by Baynative (There is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress - Mark Twain)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies >

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

To: Baynative
Moral: Going AWOL might be OK depending on the political ramifications...



11 posted on 02/07/2007 3:35:12 PM PST by Lexinom
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies >

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

To: jazusamo
Brian Suits is talking about this right now on KVI.



12 posted on 02/07/2007 3:38:54 PM PST by Ramius ()
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies >

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

To: Baynative
Brian made an excellent point a few minutes ago. He said he'd like to ask the lefty demonstrators:

"Is it OK for members of the military to ignore the civilian control placed over them?"

That's what he's doing. Great point.



13 posted on 02/07/2007 3:41:15 PM PST by Ramius ()
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies >

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

To: Tijeras_Slim
I don't think its bad news, other than the delay of it. The stipulations that trimmed down the number of charges confused the case. In the stipulations he essentially confessed to the thing he had plead not guilty to. So... a mistrial probably is the only thing to do, and start over.

Maybe the bad news is that he's got time to get a better lawyer. It would seem the guy he's got is a doofus.



14 posted on 02/07/2007 3:45:50 PM PST by Ramius ()
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies >

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

To: blastdad51
From what I understand, this guy was pretty crappy at his job anyway and was fired from at least one position in his battalion. He had kind of a made-up position in battalion HQ when he got his sudden attack of conscience.

"Well-defined sense of duty." Ha! That's funny, I'll have to remember that one. :-)



15 posted on 02/07/2007 3:49:29 PM PST by Future Snake Eater (Mosul, Baghdad, Karbala...'round and 'round we go...)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies >

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

To: Ramius
I don't think it's bad news either. As I said on an earlier thread, it will give the antiwar crowd a little more air time but I believe they'll recharge him with the two counts they dropped so he could end up with more hard time and that's a good thing.



16 posted on 02/07/2007 3:56:25 PM PST by jazusamo (http://warchronicle.com/TheyAreNotKillers/DefendOurMarines.htm)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies >

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

To: jazusamo; ArmyLawyer05; euphoriadev; flightline; The Original JAG Hunter
Is it clear to you, jaz, why the prosecutors went for a mistrial?
Here's what I don't get. The jury is military, not civilian. How could a statement like that be enough to toss the case and start over?

Watada can just say the same thing next time and get a second mistrial.

There are thouands of court martials ever year and they can't get this right? I really don't get what's going on.


17 posted on 02/07/2007 4:02:51 PM PST by RedRover (They are not killers. Defend our Marines.)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies >

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

To: jazusamo
Is this the same striker brigade fighting right now in Baghdad?



18 posted on 02/07/2007 4:03:17 PM PST by bnelson44 (Proud parent of a tanker! (We are going to win!))
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies >

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

To: bnelson44
Yes, I believe it is. I read it somewhere but can't remember exactly where because I've been reading so much about this.



19 posted on 02/07/2007 4:06:55 PM PST by jazusamo (http://warchronicle.com/TheyAreNotKillers/DefendOurMarines.htm)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies >

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

To: RedRover
My understanding of this is that Watada signed the statement and admitted that he's guilty of the very thing he's pleading not guilty to in the court-martial, ie ignoring legal orders and missing the movement by not getting on the plane.




20 posted on 02/07/2007 4:13:23 PM PST by jazusamo (http://warchronicle.com/TheyAreNotKillers/DefendOurMarines.htm)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies >

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

To: jazusamo
But now he is saying he didn't understand what he was signing. However the jury already saw it.



21 posted on 02/07/2007 4:21:10 PM PST by bnelson44 (Proud parent of a tanker! (We are going to win!))
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies >

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

To: jazusamo
One of the requirements in a contract or agreement is a "meeting of the minds".

That means that both understand and agree what is said and intended in the agreement.

He signed the agreement, but stated that he disagreed with what it said. Therefore it was not a valid agreement, and had to be done over, or discarded.



22 posted on 02/07/2007 4:21:50 PM PST by Dan(9698)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies >

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

To: jazusamo
Got it.
You know, I might be able to manage a thimble full of respect for Watada if he just said, I can't go and I'll take the consequences.

Instead, he's playing to the peanut gallery of Leftist peanut brains who think a lieutenant can put the war on trial in a court martial.

He's one (ex)serviceman I wouldn't mind seeing in shackles while awaiting trial.


23 posted on 02/07/2007 4:22:25 PM PST by RedRover (They are not killers. Defend our Marines.)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies >

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

To: Ramius
Brian made an excellent point a few minutes ago. He said he'd like to ask the lefty demonstrators:
"Is it OK for members of the military to ignore the civilian control placed over them?"

This is an important point. Just War scholars have always held that if a war is manifestly unjust, the individual has a duty not to participate. However, that's a pretty strong requirement.

In the absence of manifest lack of justice, individuals are required to accept the decisions of their government regarding the justice of a war.

During the Cold War, there were several novels and movies portraying rogue elements in the US Armed Forces advocating, preparing, or actually executing a "first strike" on the Soviet Union. That is, the military was portrayed as seeing that a war was just, when the civilian leadership had decided that going to war then would not be just.

Clearly we can't have the military disregarding the government's decision that a war would be unjust. But by the same token, we can't have the military disregarding the government's decision that a war is just.

The current issue of the Jesuit magazine AMERICA has a sympathetic article about Watada. As far as I could tell, his objection is that too many Iraqi civilians are being killed. However, if true that would constitute a violation of jus in bello, that is, a violation of the duties owed by combatants to noncombatants. It would have no bearing on the issue of jus ad bellam, that is, whether the war itself is just.

If Watada is sincere, his proper role is to see to it that men under his command do not violate jus in bello restrictions. These are discrimination and proportion. Discrimination means that noncombatants may not be intentionally targeted. Proportion means that if noncombatants will inevitably be harmed by even discriminating action against enemy forces, the unintended harm to the noncombatants must be proportional to the benefit gained by the action. Since the object of our actions in Iraq is to improve the lot of the Iraqis, the requirement of proportion means that not attacking the enemy target would ultimately do more harm to the Iraqis than would destroying it and incidentally harming noncombatants.

Nobody says application of the Just War principles is easy, but at least they provide a guide for what is at best a messy business. Unfortunately Watada doesn't seem to have been propery educated in the Laws of Land Warfare. What's worse, his cause has been taken up by a bunch of pacifists who are using him as a club to beat the war and the President.


24 posted on 02/07/2007 4:23:44 PM PST by JoeFromSidney
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies >

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

To: bnelson44
LOL!!

It seems he does have a hard time understanding things he signs his name to, especially his papers he signed when he accepted his commission and took the oath of allegiance.

The guys a loser.



25 posted on 02/07/2007 4:26:23 PM PST by jazusamo (http://warchronicle.com/TheyAreNotKillers/DefendOurMarines.htm)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies >

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

To: Dan(9698)
I agree, that all sounds right to me. The thing I don't quite get is that his lawyer should have known this and advised him of it before he signed it.

Do you know if this had not been caught by the judge could it have worked in his favor later?



26 posted on 02/07/2007 4:33:57 PM PST by jazusamo (http://warchronicle.com/TheyAreNotKillers/DefendOurMarines.htm)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies >

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

To: JoeFromSidney
Really well said. Captures the essence of the matter exactly.
Unfortunately Watada doesn't seem to have been propery educated in the Laws of Land Warfare. What's worse, his cause has been taken up by a bunch of pacifists who are using him as a club to beat the war and the President.

Since he joined the Army *after* the war started, already having been an antiwar activist himself, I have even more specific suspicions of his motives.


27 posted on 02/07/2007 4:34:54 PM PST by Ramius ()
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies >

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

To: jazusamo
...could it have worked in his favor later?
Probably not.

If it was allowed in as an exhibit, the jury would have to give it what weight they wanted. (That is what is done with all evidence and testimony.)


28 posted on 02/07/2007 4:38:10 PM PST by Dan(9698)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies >

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

To: RedRover
Instead, he's playing to the peanut gallery of Leftist peanut brains
Exactly, Red. He's trying to tell everyone he's doing it because of his personal belief that the war is illegal but he's enlisted the antiwar crowd to assist him. He's destroyed whatever credibility he might have had.


29 posted on 02/07/2007 4:45:19 PM PST by jazusamo (http://warchronicle.com/TheyAreNotKillers/DefendOurMarines.htm)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies >

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

To: RedRover; xzins; P-Marlowe; Kolokotronis
I must say I don't get it
Watada is charged with missing movement. The prosecution must show the movement occurred, that Mr. Watada had a duty to show up, and that he breached that duty. Each element must be proven by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Watada was originally going to stipulate (i.e., agree with the prosecution) that he had a duty to show up, but decided instead to challenge it. Mr. Watada's defense is that he didn't have a duty to show up because the Iraq war is immoral, so any orders to fight in it are void.

The mistrial arose because Mr. Watada, by not abiding by the stipulation, invalidated other stipulated facts (interviews made with the media, etc.).

Such is my understanding of the situation is based on the article and my understanding of the UCMJ.


30 posted on 02/07/2007 4:46:06 PM PST by jude24
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies >

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

To: Ramius
Since he joined the Army *after* the war started, already having been an antiwar activist himself, I have even more specific suspicions of his motives.
Makes sense that he is trying to turn this into as big a circus as possible. It irks me that his (former) commander will have to fly half way around the world a second time to testify again.


31 posted on 02/07/2007 4:47:08 PM PST by RedRover (Freepmail jazusamo or me to get on the Haditha Marine Ping List.)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies >

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

To: jude24
Thanks for that.
But what now? Assume, at the next trial, that Watada will maintain that it wasn't his duty to go. How does the prosecution get past that without putting the war itself on trial.


32 posted on 02/07/2007 4:57:05 PM PST by RedRover (Freepmail jazusamo or me to get on the Haditha Marine Ping List.)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies >

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

To: RedRover
It seems like Wataidjit's attorney is claiming at the last second that Watatreaseonousbastard was too stupid to know that what he signed a confession to - and has told thousands of moonbats everywhere and anytime he find them -is the same thing he's being charged with and pleading not guilty to.
So, what does this judge do with this confession, supported by mountains of evidence that watasleazeball adds to everytime he opens his mouth?

Ignors everything that's been said at the wata3ringcircus that's been staining our state, and pulls the plug on the basis that wataconnivingPOS might not know that his confession contradicts his plea of innocent!!

This state is completely upside down.

Hippies have been coming here since the 60s, roaming dairy farms, searching for magic mushrooms growing out of cow pies. That wouldn't be such a big deal, except they found so many, that forgot where they came from.

Fourty years later, they still don't remember, but have been put in positions of responsibility, like teachers, congressmen and judges!


33 posted on 02/07/2007 5:16:50 PM PST by 4woodenboats ("Show me what 100 hours brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman")
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies >