Skip to main content

The Army Court Martial of Lt Ehren Watada has ended in a mistrial and the next step is up to the military, they could accept Watada's resignation, and move on, or they could retry him with broader latitude for the defense, but they cannot put him behind bars. They have dodged the issue of the Legality of the War. Watada cannot force them to try him with an appeal to civilian court, but there is a possibility that he can sue the Army for something like impropper prosecution or improper discharge though it would be a stretch.

What the Court Martial did was solve the problem of Watada, without addressing the Issue of the War.

A reporter, held on contempt charges for refusing to testify in the trial has been released, and the FELONY charges against her have been dropped.

This skirmish in the war on the war is most likely over.

footnotes.
http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=2537&catid=&volu..._num=15target=blank_
http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/gsf/2007/02/wolf_still_caged_163_days.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/302733_courtmartial07ww.html
"The essence of all religions is one. Only their approaches are different." ~Mahatma Gandhi
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2007/...definition_of_a_hero

The only thing illegal here is Watada's willful refusal to obey orders. Watada is just the latest in a line of losers abandoning their men, their mission and the rule of law. The left calls this "dissent." The rest of us call it what it is: Desertion.


He did not desert, he refused to get on an airplane, and then reported for other duty.
The Military Chain of Command has provisions for replacing any cog in the wheel, including platoon leaders. Regardless of the reason for the absence.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2007/...definition_of_a_hero

The only thing illegal here is Watada's willful refusal to obey orders. Watada is just the latest in a line of losers abandoning their men, their mission and the rule of law. The left calls this "dissent." The rest of us call it what it is: Desertion.


He did not desert, he refused to get on an airplane, and then reported for other duty.
The Military Chain of Command has provisions for replacing any cog in the wheel, including platoon leaders. Regardless of the reason for the absence.


He deserted his assigned duty. His duty was to get on a plane and go where he was ordered. He failed to live up to the oath he took when he signed on.
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2007/...definition_of_a_hero

The only thing illegal here is Watada's willful refusal to obey orders. Watada is just the latest in a line of losers abandoning their men, their mission and the rule of law. The left calls this "dissent." The rest of us call it what it is: Desertion.


He did not desert, he refused to get on an airplane, and then reported for other duty.
The Military Chain of Command has provisions for replacing any cog in the wheel, including platoon leaders. Regardless of the reason for the absence.


He deserted his assigned duty. His duty was to get on a plane and go where he was ordered. He failed to live up to the oath he took when he signed on.
THEN, WHY IN THE NAME OF JUSTICE DID THE ARMY DECLARE A MISTRIAL? Are you so wise in the law that you can find him guilty when the COURT SAYS IT CAN'T?
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2007/...definition_of_a_hero

The only thing illegal here is Watada's willful refusal to obey orders. Watada is just the latest in a line of losers abandoning their men, their mission and the rule of law. The left calls this "dissent." The rest of us call it what it is: Desertion.


So, you disagree with Arkin characterizing American Troops as Mercenaries, and refute arguements that the war is illegal.

Sassy Kims there is room for dispute on that issue. But, to say flatfooted, " The only thing illegal here is Watada's willful refusal to obey orders." is a simple assertion. Your assertion is open to debate. The war has been called illegal by authorities on international law and relations, including the Secretary General of the UN, Cofi Anon. He may be a crook, but a lot of eperts on the law are crooks and experts on the law.
"The left calls this "dissent." The rest of us call it . . . . Desertion." Your capitalization in that sentance says the left is less respected than Desertion. But, Watada, contending, in writing by the way, that the War in Iraq is indeed Illegal, obeyed the UCMJ, and International law, and US constitutional law, and refused to obey an order to lead combat forces into Iraq. To convict him, the US Army had to prove that the war in Iraq is NOT ILLEGAL.
To Punish Watada they had to find a charge they thought could be used to avoid the issue of the order and the legality of the war. The chose, Missing a movement, believing that the movement itself was not illegal therefore an order to take the trip was not an illegal order. Watada proved his point that the oreder to move to Iraq included an order to THEN FIGHT IN IRAQ AND LEAD A PLATOON FIGHTING IN IRAQ.
The moment he succeeded in getting that body of facts into the record, the Prosecution had to prove that the war is legal. THEY DIDN'T EVEN TRY. The Courts Martial board of officers declared a MISTRIAL.
quote:
Originally posted by dkn:
When troops questions their leaders or orders an Army is lost. Sun Tzu would have this man beaten or killed in front of all soldiers to restore discipline. I am sure that will never happen we will just have some soldiers killed because of deserters like that.
dkn You are correct, I think, but the US MILITARY is not a Chinese Army in Sun Tzu's era.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2007/...definition_of_a_hero

The only thing illegal here is Watada's willful refusal to obey orders. Watada is just the latest in a line of losers abandoning their men, their mission and the rule of law. The left calls this "dissent." The rest of us call it what it is: Desertion.


So, you disagree with Arkin characterizing American Troops as Mercenaries, and refute arguements that the war is illegal.

Sassy Kims there is room for dispute on that issue. But, to say flatfooted, " The only thing illegal here is Watada's willful refusal to obey orders." is a simple assertion. Your assertion is open to debate. The war has been called illegal by authorities on international law and relations, including the Secretary General of the UN, Cofi Anon. He may be a crook, but a lot of eperts on the law are crooks and experts on the law.
"The left calls this "dissent." The rest of us call it . . . . Desertion." Your capitalization in that sentance says the left is less respected than Desertion. But, Watada, contending, in writing by the way, that the War in Iraq is indeed Illegal, obeyed the UCMJ, and International law, and US constitutional law, and refused to obey an order to lead combat forces into Iraq. To convict him, the US Army had to prove that the war in Iraq is NOT ILLEGAL.
To Punish Watada they had to find a charge they thought could be used to avoid the issue of the order and the legality of the war. The chose, Missing a movement, believing that the movement itself was not illegal therefore an order to take the trip was not an illegal order. Watada proved his point that the oreder to move to Iraq included an order to THEN FIGHT IN IRAQ AND LEAD A PLATOON FIGHTING IN IRAQ.
The moment he succeeded in getting that body of facts into the record, the Prosecution had to prove that the war is legal. THEY DIDN'T EVEN TRY. The Courts Martial board of officers declared a MISTRIAL.


The primary definition of a mercenary is "one hired for service by an army other than that of his own country". The secondary definition is one who acts for financial gain. Seeing the rate of pay our soldiers get, and knowing that they are commanded by Americans, yes, I disagree with that statement.

If you went to the link I posted, you'll know that (although I totally agree with the statements), Michelle Malkin is the author. Any fault with punctuation or capitalization must remain with her or her services.

Also, the mistrial was declared by ONE judge, not the panel. It was declared over Watada's statement of intent to plead to the charge of failure to deploy, and the lawyer's argument that it did not show "intent", rather that it showed only the action he took. Please see the link below:

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/02/07/18359306.php


The mistrial was declared by Lt. Col. John Head, the military judge presiding over the case, after a Statement of Intent written by the prosecution and signed by Lt. Watada was disputed. According to Watada's defense, the statement admits that Watada did purposely refuse to board his bus and plane to return to Iraq, but does not say that there was criminal intent and thus does not imply guilt in the charge of missing a movement. The judge argued that the statement was an admission of guilt in general and stated Watada had criminal intent. Both the defense and prosecution disputed the implications of the statement of intent, believing Watada had the right to testify and did not admit guilt. After several long recesses for both sides, the mistrial was declared.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Fighting Illini:
ED, I fear for your mental health. Now you are replying to your own posts. You need a partner or a pet in your life.

don't tell my secret. pba rates his discussions 5 check marks, I reply to them to put a 2 in the box instead of a zero.



Only ONE reply... I have seen as many as 4-5 replies when no one else does.
I know somewhere this guy has a moral and ethical responsibility to the people who serve under him. If he can't in common sense and good conscience (something that seems to be missing from some elite decision makers) follow orders, no matter how ridiculously wrong they are, then he should refuse to comply. He has to look in the mirror, he has to be able to sleep at night, and most importantly, he has to look his troops in the eye and command them to follow orders.

I can see where he would be uncomfortable explaining to a widow, parent, family or child of a soldier that he sent a young man or woman into a situation (that defies all logic, one that he knows is based on fallacies) with a high probability of death. Real soldiers, like Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, who have been there know.
quote:
Originally posted by Kindred_Spirit:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Fighting Illini:
ED, I fear for your mental health. Now you are replying to your own posts. You need a partner or a pet in your life.

don't tell my secret. pba rates his discussions 5 check marks, I reply to them to put a 2 in the box instead of a zero.



Only ONE reply... I have seen as many as 4-5 replies when no one else does.


Kindred_Spirit You are right, The specific tactic is to post a reply talking to myself. I have frequently added to an initial post, sometimes because I missed something in the first reading or posting, and sometimes because I have found more information. I add these pieces as seperate posts to bump up the number of replies, and to present the information.

I don't waste time putting everything I find in the forum. Really I don't. I am not participating to be the Number One A-Hole on anyones List, and I am not trying to find a new friend. I'm not that lonely, old, or insecure. On another board, a chatter who ALWAYS attacks my position, and rarely my person got personal a couple of days ago on a Native American Issue we both have an interest in. She is a Native American and had consistantly taken the position that Palefaces should keep out of the fight.
Her remark was that she knew I was trying to "teach" but that she knew more about the problem than I did. She was right on both counts. I responded thus, "You are right, I want to teach, and I don't have as complete a grasp of the issue as you do. I am not thying to teach you, I am trying to teach MY PEOPLE WHO ARE WATCHING US DEBATE."
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by Fighting Illini:
ED, I fear for your mental health. Now you are replying to your own posts. You need a partner or a pet in your life.

don't tell my secret. pba rates his discussions 5 check marks, I reply to them to put a 2 in the box instead of a zero.




hey,you are telling on me. you promised not to tell! lol!
This is an answer to two questions Ed had earlier:
1. They were not trying him for desertion. They were trying him for MISSING MOVEMENT and CONDUCT UNBECOMING.
2. The mistrial was declared because he claimed that he was not aware of the impact of signing a statement for the Army stating why he would not go to Iraq. In other words... He was too dumb (sad thing for a college educated 1LT) to realize that he was incriminating himself.

IMHO, he is a sorry excuse for a Soldier and should have been tried for both from #1, been fould guilty and been given a Dishonorable Discharge. You don't get to pick where you fight once you join the Army. Hd=e should have made the movement to Iraqi. Then he could argue orders given in Irag as be illegal. As it stands currently, I don't think he should have had a leg to stand on. He is guilty as **** of exactly what he was accused of.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by EdEKit: Sassy Kims there is room for dispute on that issue. But, to say flatfooted, " The only thing illegal here is Watada's willful refusal to obey orders." is a simple assertion. Your assertion is open to debate. The war has been called illegal by authorities on international law and relations, including the Secretary General of the UN, Cofi Anon.

quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims: The primary definition of a mercenary is "one hired for service by an army other than that of his own country". The secondary definition is one who acts for financial gain. Seeing the rate of pay our soldiers get, and knowing that they are commanded by Americans, yes, I disagree with that statement.


Right on the money, and what is 40 thousand dollars as an enlistment bonus if not money to hire a fighter? The amount is immaterial. Even Watada was a mercenary. In Iraq we are fighting for a foreign government, THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT. Therefore Our military is mercenary, fighting for the sovreignty of the Iraqi government.

quote:
Also, the mistrial was declared by ONE judge, not the panel. . . . . The mistrial was declared by Lt. Col. John Head, the military judge presiding over the case, after a Statement of Intent written by the prosecution and signed by Lt. Watada was disputed.


The declaration was made after confering behind closed doors by the ONLY person in the trial who could legally make the declaration of a mistrial.

Don't ever try to fool me with fancy verbal acrobatics.
Southern Patriot I started this thread. I know what the charges were. THE ISSUE OF DESERTION WAS NOT FROM ME.

The inaccuracies you point out are the same inaccuracies I was pointing out and in addition was the assertion that ONLY ONE PERSON ON THE PANEL DECLARED A MISTRIAL...That is only true because the decision was not reached in open court, it was decided in deliberations behind closed doors. JUST LIKE A JURY. In a Court Martial the JURY IS A PANEL OF OFFICERS. And the Judges are the Same Panel of officers. COURT MARTIAL IS NOT THE SAME AS CRIMINAL COURTS IN THE CIVILIAN WORLD. The Panel of officers are effectively JUDGE, JURY AND EXECUTIONER.
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
Don't even try the crap about enlistment bonuses. All services have been using them long before OIF. As far as fighting for the Iraqi Government, does that mean we were mercenaries during WW2 for England, France, Russia and all of our other allies? If you believe that you are far beyond any hope of redemption.


NEVER EVER EVER PULL THIS TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT STUNT AGAIN. Never. NEVER EVER. Just because the military has used the strategy of hiring mecenaries in the past does not mean it is OK NOW OR THAT IT WAS OK THEN.

THE AMERICAN ARMED FORCES IN IRAQ ARE MERCENARIES. THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR THE SOVREIGNTY OF IRAQ. NOT OF THE USA, AND THEY ARE SOLDIERS OF THE USA. THAT MAKES THEM MERCENARIES EVEN IF THEY ARE WORKING FOR ROOM AND BOARD.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×