LT Watada: Trials and Mistrial

Published on February 8, 2007 By pseudosoldier In Current Events

Yesterday, Wednesday, the trial of 1LT Ehren Watada, accused of missing movement and unbecoming conduct, ended in a mistrial (due to, some say, prosecutor bungling). Watada had refused to deploy to Iraq with his unit and made public statements denouncing the legality of the war both before and after his unit deployed.

Watada's lawyers had wanted to bring the legal standing of the invasion into the trial as a defense, as justification for his actions. A military judge ruled this out. My opinion on this is that it isn't even relevant to his defense.

Even with the assumption that the invasion was illegal, one would have to prove that the current actions in country are illegal. Moreso, that simply going to Iraq with his unit was illegal. Certainly, you can (and in fact have a duty to) refuse an illegal order, but was his deployment order illegal? Then, all soldiers in Watada's unit who did go are criminal?

I do have some amount of respect for him. He didn't run off to Canada. He didn't try to claim conscientious objector when he clearly isn't. He stayed to take his punishment (although that might not count as bravery as he was certain he would be proven right).

But LT Watada has said that he arrived at the opinion that the war is illegal based upon after comments that his commander in Korea made about "being prepared." So, when he was assigned to Fort Lewis, feeling that he would likely be sent to Iraq, he studied up. This is when he figured it all out: the war, the invasion, the occupation is illegal because... the President lied about why we went there.

Let's see. He's 28 and a college graduate. He joined up in March 2003 (not exactly "in the wave of patriotism that followed the September 11, 2001 attacks on US soil" as at least one report might have you believe Link). He was stationed in Korea and then assigned to Fort Lewis in 2005.

He figured out the war was illegal in 2005? And then he didn't try to do anything about it until JAN 06, when he "wrote to his superiors explaining his refusal to fight in Iraq and asked for permission to leave the army." It took him nearly three years of military service to attempt to get out, all the while an war that was "morally wrong" and "a horrible breach of American law" was going on. It took him a year of study to figure this out, and this man was a "top graduate" from his university?

It's possible that it took him that long to key in on the "facts" that swayed him. It's hard to conceive it for me. But, regardless of that, he missed movement with his unit. He spoke out publicly against the war, stating that if he had gone he would have been a war criminal. That statement labels every soldier who goes to do their duty as a war criminal! I feel that those statements qualify for "actions unbecoming."

But with the mistrial, it 's possible he will face no structured punishment at all. And that worries me.

Comments

LadyCleve

on Feb 08, 2007

This whole situation has frustrated me, especially with being here at Ft. Lewis. In a way I'm glad that I don't have to see protesters lined up on the "Freedom Bridge", and the media vans all over, but I think it frustrates me more that there is a chance it all ended with a mistrial and will not be addressed again.

singrdave

on Feb 08, 2007

Hey Pseudo... great to read your stuff again.

Amazed that this 1LT feels that he can dictate policy to the Defense Department and the Executive Branch. Floored that this guy thinks he can pick and choose his battles (literally) by being willing to fight in Afghanistan but not in Iraq. Gobsmacked that he would disguise his cowardice behind a veneer of moral certainty that "this war is illegal."

Mistrial isn't the end of the proceedings. They'll just call a new court martial. After a short stay at Leavenworth, he'll get out and run for Congress. He'll definitely have the Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, and Barbra Streisand endorsements.

PS - I'm back on KoL too, BTW. See you there.

bakerstreet

on Feb 08, 2007

He's getting a lot of support he doesn't deserve. A soldier DOES have the right, the responsibility, to question orders. We didn't accept the excuse for Nazis, and we don't accept that excuse when our own take part in crimes against humanity.

BUT... that isn't what happened here. Watada decided he wasn't going AT ALL. Once there, he could have taken a stand as to the direct orders he was given. If he has been ordered to kill wrongly, or fire indiscriminately, or anything he considered to be a war crime he could have taken his lumps and refused and been where he is today with a LOT more support.

Instead, he knew that his life was threatened just by being there. Not his moral standing, or his integrity as a soldier, his life. That's one thing that soldiers don't have the legal right to question orders about, because if they did every single military operation would end up being a deadlocked debate of the military's plan.

Texas Wahine

on Feb 08, 2007

He's a douche bag.

And we have to hear about him all the freakin' time here since he's apparently a local boy.

greywar

on Feb 14, 2007

He also didn't come out with his offer of service in Afghanistan until AFTER all of this. Had he put in a 4187 for Afghanistan prior to his letter I might fid it beleiveable. Fact is that Watada is being coached and supported by extreme left-wing organizations against the war effort. The Afghan offer was made as a media gesture.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!