Posted on 01/17/2007 9:17:43 AM PST by jazusamo
In a major blow to the court-martial defense of 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, a military judge has ruled that the Fort Lewis Army officer cannot try to justify his refusal to deploy to Iraq by raising questions about the legality of the war.
The ruling released Tuesday sets the stage for a Feb. 5 court-martial trial, where Watada faces up to six years in prison for his failure to join his brigade in Iraq last June and his outspoken attacks on the Bush administration conduct of the war.
Defense attorneys had hoped to argue that the war is illegal, in part, because it violated Army regulations that call for wars to be launched in accordance with the United Nations charter.
But in a ruling, Lt. Col. John Head said that "whether the war is lawful" is a political question that could not be judged in a military court.
Head, citing federal court precedents, also rejected defense attorneys' claim that Watada's First Amendment rights shielded him from charges relating to his criticism of the war.
Instead, Head ruled that there are limits to the free-speech rights of military personnel and that a military panel should decide whether Watada's criticism of the war amounted to officer misconduct that could have endangered the morale, loyalty and discipline of troops.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...
That could very well be because they were not legimate defenses.
Unless he winds up getting Sloviked like he deserves, the trial is a farce.
What is this about? Is there such an Army regulation? Do Army regulations trump the Constitution, etc?
Or is it just another part of a limp defense?
In other words, when the general says move, you move and move fast, you freaking coward.
Roger that. There is a ton of precedent holding that these are not legitimate defenses. These issues were litigated many times during the Viet Nam war. This was some kind of crummy lawyer if he didn't know that - 10 minutes of legal research would have revealed he had no legal basis to hang his hat on.
WHAT???? Since when does the UN get to decide when the USA goes to war???? I know the UN wants to be in control but it isn't. Hope they throw the key away on this lieutenant after this defense.
Now that's a good judge
Just make him chip rock for two years and toss him out.
Exactly...And Watada and his attorney, Seitz are going to learn that the hard way very soon.
Not bloody likely. He'll run for office in HI and then be enshrined as a hero.
It has been brought up on other threads by FReepers that are more knowledgable than myself that the Army doesn't want to make a martyr of him.
They settled for lesser charges that are slam dunk convictions and I tend to agree. Get him quieted down and out of the way and let him serve six years.
I'd love to see that sledge in his hands for several years.
Exactly....no martyr. If and when he is tried, convicted, and sentenced, there will be none happier than those of us ex-military here in Hawaii.
I don't think Nuremberg applies in this case. The idea behind the Nuremberg precedents was that an individual has an obligation to refuse to obey an unlawful order. Typically, that would cover such orders as shooting prisoners, massacring civilians, and similar war crimes. That is, an individual can refuse to obey an order that violates jus in bello, or that violates civil or military law. In one classic case, a contracting officer was ordered by his commander to let a specific contract. He initially objected, on the grounds that it was illegal. He was ordered to do it anyway. At his court martial, his defense of "following orders" was rejected, because he knew the order was illegal. However, the Nuremberg precedents do not apply to jus ad bellam. Nazi officers were never charged with taking part in an unlawful war, but only with specific war crimes. Civilian leaders, however, were charged with starting an unlawful war in violation of treaties Germany had signed.
With regard to the legality of war, I point out in my Yorktown U. course in Just War Doctrine that the US does not recognize "selective conscientious objection." A service member can declare he opposes all war and get a discharge (proving it may be difficult, but that's the law). However, a service member cannot say he opposes only THIS war, but otherwise supports the idea of war. An officer's only option in the event of an unlawful war is to resign. An enlisted man doesn't even have that option, but only the claim of CO status, that is, opposing all wars. This may be hard to prove in a volunteer military.
Regarding this specific case, I think the officer in question should have resigned as soon as he realized he might have to take part in a war he considered unjust.
While I'm not in a position to judge his motives, I do think it's strange that he tried to use this defense.
I hope they throw the book at him. I also hope he can get in even more trouble by getting the moonbats involved in this case. I know a few Marines who would love to spend a few moments alone with this fellow "soldier" and share their viewpoints with him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.