Soldier Exercises Free Speech-Gets Arrested

Okay the Lt. was ALLOWED to resign his Commission while facing a General Court Martial..

Ehren Watada will be granted a discharge Oct. 2, "under other than honorable conditions,"

Making the leap that this somehow meant he won on the grounds that "Iraq was an Illegal War" is a stretch of the facts in the case to say the very least.

Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. OTH Discharges are warranted when the reason for separation is based upon a pattern of behavior that constitutes a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Military Services, or when the reason for separation is based upon one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Military Services. Examples of factors that may be considered include the use of force or violence to produce serious bodily injury or death, abuse of a special position of trust, disregard by a superior of customary superior-subordinate relationships, acts or omissions that endanger the security of the United States or the health and welfare of other members of the Military Services, and deliberate acts or omissions that seriously endanger the health and safety of other persons.

Persons awarded an OTH characterization of service: are not entitled to retain their uniforms or wear them home (although they may be furnished civilian clothing at a cost of not more than $50); must accept transportation in kind to their homes; are subject to recoupment of any reenlistment bonus they may have received; are not eligible for notice of discharge to employers (which may affect unemployment benefits); and, do not receive mileage fees from the place of discharge to their home of record.

It is generally believed that an OTH Discharge will render an individual ineligible for all VA Benefits. This is not necessarily so. The Department of Veterans Affairs will make its own determination with respect as to whether the OTH was based on conditions which would forfeit any or all VA benefits. Most veterans' benefits will be forfeited if that determination is adverse to the former service-member, such as when based on the following circumstances: (1) Desertion; (2) escape prior to trial by general court-martial; (3) conscientious objector who refuses to perform military duties, wear the uniform, or comply with lawful orders of competent military authorities; (4) willful or persistent misconduct; (5) offense(s) involving moral turpitude; (6) mutiny or spying; or (7) homosexual acts involving aggravating circumstances.


Puts him in some rather elite company.
 
On the contrary, he completely kicked the military's ass. I knew when this first happened the military would not let his trial go forth and allow the legality become a centerpiece because they knew there was way too much evidence on his side. The judge in his courts martial ruled Watada's defense and stipulations to the Prosecution was tantamount to an admission guilt and could not be resolved in the military judicial system. That caused a mistrial. The military wanted to retry him on other charges but a federal judge ruled that would violate his Double Jeopardy Right so this past September they let him out of the military. He seriously kicked their ass.
cbs5.comnationalEhren.Watada.discharged.2.1210210html

C'mon. Watada lucked out that he wasn't prosecuted. That's a far cry from winning on the grounds of "Iraq is an illegal war". Watada got no traction on that issue.

No traction? Are you at all familiar with the case? I'm confident you are not or you wouldn't have claimed he "failed miserably" on the grounds of the war being illegal. Do you know what the court did right after the first time Watada provided experts to testify?

For the terminally stupid who think the war was illegal...please read this.
The following is the complete text of the House Joint Resolution authorizing the President of the United States to use U.S. Armed Forces against Iraq.

HJ 114 RH

Union Calendar No. 451

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. J. RES. 114

[Report No. 107-721] To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 2, 2002

Mr. HASTERT (for himself and Mr. Gephardt) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on International Relations

October 7, 2002

Reported with amendments, committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed

the rest is here....
S. J. Res 45 Auhorizing Use of Armed Forces Against Iraq
 
Last edited:
Okay the Lt. was ALLOWED to resign his Commission while facing a General Court Martial..

Ehren Watada will be granted a discharge Oct. 2, "under other than honorable conditions,"

Making the leap that this somehow meant he won on the grounds that "Iraq was an Illegal War" is a stretch of the facts in the case to say the very least.

Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. OTH Discharges are warranted when the reason for separation is based upon a pattern of behavior that constitutes a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Military Services, or when the reason for separation is based upon one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Military Services. Examples of factors that may be considered include the use of force or violence to produce serious bodily injury or death, abuse of a special position of trust, disregard by a superior of customary superior-subordinate relationships, acts or omissions that endanger the security of the United States or the health and welfare of other members of the Military Services, and deliberate acts or omissions that seriously endanger the health and safety of other persons.

Persons awarded an OTH characterization of service: are not entitled to retain their uniforms or wear them home (although they may be furnished civilian clothing at a cost of not more than $50); must accept transportation in kind to their homes; are subject to recoupment of any reenlistment bonus they may have received; are not eligible for notice of discharge to employers (which may affect unemployment benefits); and, do not receive mileage fees from the place of discharge to their home of record.

It is generally believed that an OTH Discharge will render an individual ineligible for all VA Benefits. This is not necessarily so. The Department of Veterans Affairs will make its own determination with respect as to whether the OTH was based on conditions which would forfeit any or all VA benefits. Most veterans' benefits will be forfeited if that determination is adverse to the former service-member, such as when based on the following circumstances: (1) Desertion; (2) escape prior to trial by general court-martial; (3) conscientious objector who refuses to perform military duties, wear the uniform, or comply with lawful orders of competent military authorities; (4) willful or persistent misconduct; (5) offense(s) involving moral turpitude; (6) mutiny or spying; or (7) homosexual acts involving aggravating circumstances.


Puts him in some rather elite company.


I'm not saying he won because he proved in court the war is illegal. I'm saying he won because there was so much evidence on his side the court wouldn't put the war on trial thus the judge responded so it would end in mistrial. As for his discharge being less than honorable....so what?
 
What an idiot. If he wasn't aware of stop loss, too bad. In his case, I would have to believe he knew the program existed especially since it's something that has been a topic of discussion for years. When I was getting ready to seperate from the AF Reserves, it was 2002 and the military was ramping up for Iraq. I got hit with stop loss and ended up having to stay in an additional 6 months. What did i do? I manned up and did my time until the stop loss order was dropped and promptly exited the service.

No song writing, no bitching to my congressman or to the media. I have no problem with him getting arrested, especially with the latest issue at Fort Hood. Can you imagine if this guy had gone postal and killed anyone? The media would have been all over them..."THEY DIDN'T SEE THE SIGNS".

-TSO
 
You get an OTH...you lost and you disgraced your honor. I would rather have killed myself than get a discharge with that characterization. To discredit the United States Armed Forces in such a way is tantamount to treason in my book.
 
You get an OTH...you lost and you disgraced your honor. I would rather have killed myself than get a discharge with that characterization. To discredit the United States Armed Forces in such a way is tantamount to treason in my book.


The preceding message was brought to you by the Holy Shit School of Hyperbole.
 
Glad to see you show your true colors...yellow.


I take it that was meant to insult me. What can I say in response that will let you believe you accomplished that goal? Do you want name calling or something? Whatever I can do to help you feel like the victor please let me know. I'm here to help.
 
Glad to see you show your true colors...yellow.


I take it that was meant to insult me. What can I say in response that will let you believe you accomplished that goal? Do you want name calling or something? Whatever I can do to help you feel like the victor please let me know. I'm here to help.

Nope..no insult intended whatsoever...just pointing out facts. Sorry if you took it the wrong way.
 
Glad to see you show your true colors...yellow.


I take it that was meant to insult me. What can I say in response that will let you believe you accomplished that goal? Do you want name calling or something? Whatever I can do to help you feel like the victor please let me know. I'm here to help.

Nope..no insult intended whatsoever...just pointing out facts. Sorry if you took it the wrong way.

It's a fact my true color is yellow? That's interesting and this reminds me of the time someone gave me the advice of doing one thing before reacting to what has been said. Check the source. I don't think I can honestly fake enough respect for the source on this charge but I will try......

Oh man! I'm soooo upset!

......yeah sorry I will try harder in the future.


It's amazing how hard some people work at trying to totally avoid the topic.
 
Okay the Lt. was ALLOWED to resign his Commission while facing a General Court Martial..

Ehren Watada will be granted a discharge Oct. 2, "under other than honorable conditions,"

Making the leap that this somehow meant he won on the grounds that "Iraq was an Illegal War" is a stretch of the facts in the case to say the very least.

Under Other Than Honorable Conditions. OTH Discharges are warranted when the reason for separation is based upon a pattern of behavior that constitutes a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Military Services, or when the reason for separation is based upon one or more acts or omissions that constitute a significant departure from the conduct expected of members of the Military Services. Examples of factors that may be considered include the use of force or violence to produce serious bodily injury or death, abuse of a special position of trust, disregard by a superior of customary superior-subordinate relationships, acts or omissions that endanger the security of the United States or the health and welfare of other members of the Military Services, and deliberate acts or omissions that seriously endanger the health and safety of other persons.

Persons awarded an OTH characterization of service: are not entitled to retain their uniforms or wear them home (although they may be furnished civilian clothing at a cost of not more than $50); must accept transportation in kind to their homes; are subject to recoupment of any reenlistment bonus they may have received; are not eligible for notice of discharge to employers (which may affect unemployment benefits); and, do not receive mileage fees from the place of discharge to their home of record.

It is generally believed that an OTH Discharge will render an individual ineligible for all VA Benefits. This is not necessarily so. The Department of Veterans Affairs will make its own determination with respect as to whether the OTH was based on conditions which would forfeit any or all VA benefits. Most veterans' benefits will be forfeited if that determination is adverse to the former service-member, such as when based on the following circumstances: (1) Desertion; (2) escape prior to trial by general court-martial; (3) conscientious objector who refuses to perform military duties, wear the uniform, or comply with lawful orders of competent military authorities; (4) willful or persistent misconduct; (5) offense(s) involving moral turpitude; (6) mutiny or spying; or (7) homosexual acts involving aggravating circumstances.


Puts him in some rather elite company.


I'm not saying he won because he proved in court the war is illegal. I'm saying he won because there was so much evidence on his side the court wouldn't put the war on trial thus the judge responded so it would end in mistrial. As for his discharge being less than honorable....so what?

Had he won his case which he clearly did not, he would not have resigned his commission resulting the loss of ALL his benefits and as has been rightly pointed out an OTH is leving the military in disgrace.



the judge declared a mistrial, saying that Watada "did not fully understand a document he signed admitting to elements of the charges."


Fort Lewis spokesman Joseph Piek confirmed that Ehren Watada was discharged Friday.

Watada was charged with missing his unit's deployment and with conduct unbecoming an officer for denouncing President George W. Bush and the war — statements he made while explaining his actions.

His court-martial ended in a mistrial in February 2007. The Army wanted to try him in a second court-martial, but a federal judge said a second trial on key charges would constitute double jeopardy.

Watada lawyer Kenneth Kagan said last week that the Army had finally allowed his client to resign. Kagan added that Watada was granted a discharge "under other than honorable conditions."

The 31-year-old Watada, a Honolulu native, has told the Honolulu Star-Bulletin he's happy the matter has finally been resolved. Through his lawyer, Watada declined other interview requests.
Ehren Watada: Iraq war objector leaves Army - MilitaryTimes.com Forums

Article 133
Elements.

(1) That the accused did or omitted to do certain acts; and

(2) That, under the circumstances, these acts or omissions constituted conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman.

2) Nature of offense. Conduct violative of this article is action or behavior in an official capacity which, in dishonoring or disgracing the person as an officer, seriously compromises the officer’s character as a gentleman, or action or behavior in an unofficial or private capacity which, in dishonoring or disgracing the officer personally, seriously compromises the person’s standing as an officer. There are certain moral attributes common to the ideal officer and the perfect gentleman, a lack of which is indicated by acts of dishonesty, unfair dealing, indecency, indecorum, lawlessness, injustice, or cruelty

Article 133—Conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman

Has an absolute ZERO to do with the fact there was so much evidence that a mistrial had to be declared. In fact the Lt. admitted to the acts and was discharged with an OTH. I would not use this as a case study to support anything even remotly close to the courts supporting anyone who objects to deployment orders based on the fact they have objections to the Mission.
 
This has to be one of the most perplexing statements, and an unbelievable insult to Officers. The judge at the Article 32 hearing agreed with Watada in that it is the duty of every officer to affirm the legality of every order before carrying out that order. Then he goes on to say:


"However, due to the complexity of U.S. and International law, I believe it would be very difficult for Army officers to determine the legality of combat operations (nor should they attempt to do so) ordered by the President of the United States of America/Commander in Chief."

That has to be one of the most fucked up statements a military judge has ever said.

Then Watada's defense presented some experts who argued why the war was illegal. What was the military's next move? Mistrial. It's hard for me to believe people don't see that as a direct move to avoid putting the war on trial.
t r u t h o u t | Sarah Olson | Lieutenant Watada Should Be Prosecuted, Article 32 Hearing Finds
 
This has to be one of the most perplexing statements, and an unbelievable insult to Officers. The judge at the Article 32 hearing agreed with Watada in that it is the duty of every officer to affirm the legality of every order before carrying out that order. Then he goes on to say:


"However, due to the complexity of U.S. and International law, I believe it would be very difficult for Army officers to determine the legality of combat operations (nor should they attempt to do so) ordered by the President of the United States of America/Commander in Chief."

That has to be one of the most fucked up statements a military judge has ever said.

Then Watada's defense presented some experts who argued why the war was illegal. What was the military's next move? Mistrial. It's hard for me to believe people don't see that as a direct move to avoid putting the war on trial.
t r u t h o u t | Sarah Olson | Lieutenant Watada Should Be Prosecuted, Article 32 Hearing Finds

Wrong. The judge told him to follow his chain of command because he was a junior officer acting outside his paygrade. You got a problem? Take it up the chain of command. That's what its there for.

The Judge was correct. Regardless of the outcome...the Judge was correct.
 
This has to be one of the most perplexing statements, and an unbelievable insult to Officers. The judge at the Article 32 hearing agreed with Watada in that it is the duty of every officer to affirm the legality of every order before carrying out that order. Then he goes on to say:


"However, due to the complexity of U.S. and International law, I believe it would be very difficult for Army officers to determine the legality of combat operations (nor should they attempt to do so) ordered by the President of the United States of America/Commander in Chief."

That has to be one of the most fucked up statements a military judge has ever said.

Then Watada's defense presented some experts who argued why the war was illegal. What was the military's next move? Mistrial. It's hard for me to believe people don't see that as a direct move to avoid putting the war on trial.
t r u t h o u t | Sarah Olson | Lieutenant Watada Should Be Prosecuted, Article 32 Hearing Finds

Wrong. The judge told him to follow his chain of command because he was a junior officer acting outside his paygrade. You got a problem? Take it up the chain of command. That's what its there for.

The Judge was correct. Regardless of the outcome...the Judge was correct.

You must be reading something different from what I posted because the judge didn't say anything about a chain of command. Furthermore, Watada did take up with his COC and even offered to deploy to Afghanistan but they refused.
 
Okay the Lt. was ALLOWED to resign his Commission while facing a General Court Martial..

Ehren Watada will be granted a discharge Oct. 2, "under other than honorable conditions,"

Making the leap that this somehow meant he won on the grounds that "Iraq was an Illegal War" is a stretch of the facts in the case to say the very least.

Thank you, that is what I was trying to say.
 
You get an OTH...you lost and you disgraced your honor. I would rather have killed myself than get a discharge with that characterization. To discredit the United States Armed Forces in such a way is tantamount to treason in my book.


The preceding message was brought to you by the Holy Shit School of Hyperbole.

Just a tad bit of hyperbole there.
 
This has to be one of the most perplexing statements, and an unbelievable insult to Officers. The judge at the Article 32 hearing agreed with Watada in that it is the duty of every officer to affirm the legality of every order before carrying out that order. Then he goes on to say:


"However, due to the complexity of U.S. and International law, I believe it would be very difficult for Army officers to determine the legality of combat operations (nor should they attempt to do so) ordered by the President of the United States of America/Commander in Chief."

That has to be one of the most fucked up statements a military judge has ever said.

Then Watada's defense presented some experts who argued why the war was illegal. What was the military's next move? Mistrial. It's hard for me to believe people don't see that as a direct move to avoid putting the war on trial.
t r u t h o u t | Sarah Olson | Lieutenant Watada Should Be Prosecuted, Article 32 Hearing Finds

No it's not.

Look, I didn't agree with Iraq either. I was an officer at the time, I wasn't about to protest it as an "illegal order". It wasn't because I feared retribution, it was because I don't think it was illegal, and I don't think it's appropriate for an officer to use their rank to propel a political issue.

An officer and soldier has an obligation to refuse illegal orders. Those are generally not esoteric issues. Case in point: if Calley was told to massacre the citizens at My Lai, that was an illegal order. He was obligated to disobey. A no-brainer.

The first obligation of the UCMJ is good military order and discipline. Period. That means no military judge in his right mind is going to establish legal precedent where soldiers can pick and choose which deployment orders they are going to follow.
 
Last edited:
This has to be one of the most perplexing statements, and an unbelievable insult to Officers. The judge at the Article 32 hearing agreed with Watada in that it is the duty of every officer to affirm the legality of every order before carrying out that order. Then he goes on to say:


"However, due to the complexity of U.S. and International law, I believe it would be very difficult for Army officers to determine the legality of combat operations (nor should they attempt to do so) ordered by the President of the United States of America/Commander in Chief."

That has to be one of the most fucked up statements a military judge has ever said.

Then Watada's defense presented some experts who argued why the war was illegal. What was the military's next move? Mistrial. It's hard for me to believe people don't see that as a direct move to avoid putting the war on trial.
t r u t h o u t | Sarah Olson | Lieutenant Watada Should Be Prosecuted, Article 32 Hearing Finds

No it's not.

Look, I didn't agree with Iraq either. I was an officer at the time, I wasn't about to protest it as an "illegal order". It wasn't because I feared retribution, it was because I don't think it was illegal, and I don't think it's appropriate for an officer to use their rank to propel a political issue.

An officer and soldier has an obligation to refuse illegal orders. Those are generally not esoteric issues. Case in point: if Calley was told to massacre the citizens at My Lai, that was an illegal order. He was obligated to disobey. A no-brainer.

The first obligation of the UCMJ is good military order and discipline. Period. That means no military judge in his right mind is going to establish legal precedent where soldiers can pick and choose which deployment orders they are going to follow.


The key difference here is you didn't see it as illegal. Watada did, and by his Oath was obligated to not follow what he concluded was an illegal order. You both obeyed your Oaths by the information and conclusions you both reached. He wasn't trying to say Officers should get to pick and choose what orders to follow. He was saying that specific order was illegal for specific reasons. He backed it up at the Article 32 hearing. Meaning, between the three expert witness testimonies it was damn clear there was no way in hell t was going to be a cut and dry case. If it was, the Judge and Prosecutor would have made damn sure the court martial happened to hang Watada as an example. They couldn't. Being an Officer you have got to know that compared to what Watada was facing his OTHD was a huge fucking victory. He disobeyed a direct order to deploy to a combat mission. He incited other Troops to not follow the same orders. In terms of fighting an uphill battle in the military, it does not get any steeper. He walked away unscathed.
 
This has to be one of the most perplexing statements, and an unbelievable insult to Officers. The judge at the Article 32 hearing agreed with Watada in that it is the duty of every officer to affirm the legality of every order before carrying out that order. Then he goes on to say:


"However, due to the complexity of U.S. and International law, I believe it would be very difficult for Army officers to determine the legality of combat operations (nor should they attempt to do so) ordered by the President of the United States of America/Commander in Chief."

That has to be one of the most fucked up statements a military judge has ever said.

Then Watada's defense presented some experts who argued why the war was illegal. What was the military's next move? Mistrial. It's hard for me to believe people don't see that as a direct move to avoid putting the war on trial.
t r u t h o u t | Sarah Olson | Lieutenant Watada Should Be Prosecuted, Article 32 Hearing Finds

No it's not.

Look, I didn't agree with Iraq either. I was an officer at the time, I wasn't about to protest it as an "illegal order". It wasn't because I feared retribution, it was because I don't think it was illegal, and I don't think it's appropriate for an officer to use their rank to propel a political issue.

An officer and soldier has an obligation to refuse illegal orders. Those are generally not esoteric issues. Case in point: if Calley was told to massacre the citizens at My Lai, that was an illegal order. He was obligated to disobey. A no-brainer.

The first obligation of the UCMJ is good military order and discipline. Period. That means no military judge in his right mind is going to establish legal precedent where soldiers can pick and choose which deployment orders they are going to follow.


The key difference here is you didn't see it as illegal. Watada did, and by his Oath was obligated to not follow what he concluded was an illegal order. You both obeyed your Oaths by the information and conclusions you both reached. He wasn't trying to say Officers should get to pick and choose what orders to follow. He was saying that specific order was illegal for specific reasons. He backed it up at the Article 32 hearing. Meaning, between the three expert witness testimonies it was damn clear there was no way in hell t was going to be a cut and dry case. If it was, the Judge and Prosecutor would have made damn sure the court martial happened to hang Watada as an example. They couldn't. Being an Officer you have got to know that compared to what Watada was facing his OTHD was a huge fucking victory. He disobeyed a direct order to deploy to a combat mission. He incited other Troops to not follow the same orders. In terms of fighting an uphill battle in the military, it does not get any steeper. He walked away unscathed.

I think it was a victory. I indicated such. I said he got lucky.

That doesn't mean he won the legal victory. No judge, military or otherwise, has stated Iraq was an illegal war.

He got off on a technicality. I refuse to see conspiracy when there is not.

Other than that, your notion that we can selectively apply the term to "illegal order" and not have that action evaluated by the UCMJ is far out there.
 
No it's not.

Look, I didn't agree with Iraq either. I was an officer at the time, I wasn't about to protest it as an "illegal order". It wasn't because I feared retribution, it was because I don't think it was illegal, and I don't think it's appropriate for an officer to use their rank to propel a political issue.

An officer and soldier has an obligation to refuse illegal orders. Those are generally not esoteric issues. Case in point: if Calley was told to massacre the citizens at My Lai, that was an illegal order. He was obligated to disobey. A no-brainer.

The first obligation of the UCMJ is good military order and discipline. Period. That means no military judge in his right mind is going to establish legal precedent where soldiers can pick and choose which deployment orders they are going to follow.


The key difference here is you didn't see it as illegal. Watada did, and by his Oath was obligated to not follow what he concluded was an illegal order. You both obeyed your Oaths by the information and conclusions you both reached. He wasn't trying to say Officers should get to pick and choose what orders to follow. He was saying that specific order was illegal for specific reasons. He backed it up at the Article 32 hearing. Meaning, between the three expert witness testimonies it was damn clear there was no way in hell t was going to be a cut and dry case. If it was, the Judge and Prosecutor would have made damn sure the court martial happened to hang Watada as an example. They couldn't. Being an Officer you have got to know that compared to what Watada was facing his OTHD was a huge fucking victory. He disobeyed a direct order to deploy to a combat mission. He incited other Troops to not follow the same orders. In terms of fighting an uphill battle in the military, it does not get any steeper. He walked away unscathed.

I think it was a victory. I indicated such. I said he got lucky.

That doesn't mean he won the legal victory. No judge, military or otherwise, has stated Iraq was an illegal war.

He got off on a technicality. I refuse to see conspiracy when there is not.

Other than that, your notion that we can selectively apply the term to "illegal order" and not have that action evaluated by the UCMJ is far out there.



Must be some confusion on some level because I'm not saying "illegal order" should not be evaluated by the UCMJ. I'm saying the opposite. It most certainly gets a UCMJ test. As for saying he got lucky.....let's look at evidence it was not luck:


"When Judge Head called the mistrial, in the first court martial, it was over the strong objection of Ehren ’s counsel, and initially against the wishes of the prosecution. After going behind closed doors the prosecution emerged, requested a mistrial, mistrial was granted."
desertpeace.wordpress.com/2008/10/22/ehren-watada-case-updates/


Then:

"....judge Lt. Col. John Head threw out the case over concerns Watada didn ’t understand what he was agreeing to when he signed the document."
www.ufppc.org/content/view/7989/


How many Judges have thrown out a case on the basis the defendant admitted partial guilt? I'm sure there are rare cases of mental incapacity but that clearly does not apply here. I'm no Perry Mason but that seems a bit odd and even more so considering the rigid structure of the military. Also, those two counts of talking to the reporters really aren't ironed in marriage with his refusal to deploy. A Soldier could make similar comments that violated the UCMJ but still deploy. Stipulating the interviews was an admission of guilt for public criticisms that violated the UCMJ but he could have easily been found guilty of those Violations but Acquitted on the violation for refusing to deploy.

I don't see how in the world it can be considered a technicality the Judge threw out the case for basically calling Watada stupid. A technicality is a mistep within the procedure, like failing to read someone's Miranda rights. Watada even argued back with the Judge and said yes he understood exactly what he had signed but still the mistrial was declared.


Your claim no judge has said the war is illegal is a bit misleading and somewhat disingenuous. Watada's case is the closest one to fully putting the war on trial. Isn't a trial necessary for a Judge to say? You may not be aware there was a military Judge that stated it was illegal five years ago:

(judge lt Cmr Robert Klant)
"I believe the government has just successfully proved that any seaman recruit has reasonable cause to believe that the wars in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal."
Lieutenant Watada's War Against the War

That is from the Pablo Paredese and he didn't escape with nothing but he certainly was not jailed for refusing to deploy.
 

Forum List

Back
Top