Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on December 18, 2006, 03:35:18 PM
-
Part of his charges include comments he made in public about the war. What an idoit.
Iraq war critics Lt. Watada, Ann Wright to share stage
Advertiser Staff
Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, who faces a court-martial for his challenge to war in Iraq, and Ann Wright, a retired Army colonel who resigned from the U.S. Foreign Service in 2003 to protest the war, will share the stage tomorrow night at the Church of the Crossroads.
Watada will talk about his case and Wright, of Honolulu, will discuss her protest experiences and thoughts on the country's political direction. The event is organized by the World Can't Wait-Hawai'i.
Watada's pre-trial hearing is set for Jan. 4. The 1996 Kalani High School graduate faces a court-martial early next year on charges of missing a troop movement and conduct unbecoming an officer for comments he made concerning the Bush administration's reasons for going to war in Iraq. If convicted of all charges, he could be sentenced to six years confinement and be dismissed from the service.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Dec/18/br/br8260795314.html
-
in almost all of history he would have been hung by now: that is, if he didn't try to work out with the army something where he would not be in a combat role but still serve. I dont know his deal.
-
Background: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/us/23refuse.html?ex=1311307200&en=b4abeaf6627dfeb8&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
-
Beach Bum calling another American our for being "treasonous", for using his first amendment rights.
incredible.
-
Says the man who has never spent a day on active duty and obviously doesn't know squat about the UCMJ or the First Amendment. ::)
-
Says the man who has never spent a day on active duty and obviously doesn't know squat about the UCMJ or the First Amendment. ::)
Go finish high school, simpleton.
-
Go finish high school, simpleton.
LOL. Go get some more mail order degrees. 240: proof positive that "education" does not equal intelligence.
But hey you are the man who will blow the whistle on the whole moon thing. LOL.
And . . . . you still don't know squat about the UCMJ or the First Amendment. But that's never stopped you from waxing eloquent. ::)
-
LOL. Go get some more mail order degrees. 240: proof positive that "education" does not equal intelligence.
But hey you are the man who will blow the whistle on the whole moon thing. LOL.
And . . . . you still don't know squat about the UCMJ or the First Amendment. But that's never stopped you from waxing eloquent. ::)
I've tried explaining my degree was from a major university's business school, which had a pretty tough accredidation that only 25% of b schools attain. You call it a mail order degree, and that's an outright lie.
Does it hurt your ego to know that you offer lies while I speak the truth?
-
I've tried explaining my degree was from a major university's business school, which had a pretty tough accredidation that only 25% of b schools attain. You call it a mail order degree, and that's an outright lie.
Does it hurt your ego to know that you offer lies while I speak the truth?
YAWN. ::) Dude you just might be the biggest fib teller on this board. That's why people, including me, don't trust your information or your sources.
Here is something they probably didn't teach you at correspondence school: "lucid interval." That's your phrase of the day. Go look it up. That's what I see with you whenever I read this board. Sometimes you act like a nut (e.g., the moon conspiracy), sometimes you don't (e.g., talking intelligently about some political issues).
Anyone remember the Mounds candy bar commercial? ;D
-
BB,
When you outright dismiss things you don't understand, it cheapens the argument.
Perhaps we should have to explain the OTHER'S point of view. I'd love to see you try to detail the statistical anomaly that was the 2004 election.
-
Many people think that the polling was inaccurate.
I.E. not taken from a broad enough set of demographics and too heavily skewed by large urban polling.
This type of skewing happens all the time and can lead to really wacky findings.
These poor polling methods are the fault of the pollsters and they should be looking for new jobs.
Also if you look at any poll they will give an accuracy based on a certain amount of times out 10.
Something like this poll is accurate to 4%, 9 times out of 10%.
This due to the fact that not all errors can be accounted for and these errors can really skew results.
I thought you would know this, because it is in university stats classes.
-
BB,
When you outright dismiss things you don't understand, it cheapens the argument.
Perhaps we should have to explain the OTHER'S point of view. I'd love to see you try to detail the statistical anomaly that was the 2004 election.
Catch me on one of your sane days (during a lucid interval) and maybe we could have a discussion. ::)
You're starting to bore me. . . .
-
Children...would u two stop :P..this was a good thread Beach..lets get back to the topic. This kids is a shit head.
-
Children...would u two stop :P..this was a good thread Beach..lets get back to the topic. This kids is a shit head.
I agree. I'm sorry. I'll behave. ;D
-
Children...would u two stop :P..this was a good thread Beach..lets get back to the topic. This kids is a shit head.
:) aw shucks, headhunter. you always bring the reason back to things.
-
when you are active duty in the military you cannot speak out like this. it is part of the deal when you sign up. if you speak out people will think you represent the army as a whole wehn you dont
-
He's afraid..nothing at all wrong with that. Bur when ur a leader and u puss out on your soldiers then thats a major problem. He has nothing against the war..he's afraid to go. There are plenty of folks who hate being here/there..but they go because its what they signed up for....this kid is a puss plain and simple.
-
Completely agree. And I think the way he analyzes this is he'd rather spend a few years at Fort Leavenworth than possibly die in war. I believe he is artillery? I'm hopeful they will give him the max punishment. They not only have to hold this coward accountable, they need to send a message to anyone else who might be thinking about this.
Here is how I feel about the guy, along with every military person I've spoken with about this (from his "town hall meeting last night):
"I don't want to hear the guy's name," said retired Marine Lt. Col. Gary Meyers of Honolulu. "I know of no officer in my group of contacts that supports, in any way, what he did. We all feel the same way."
http://starbulletin.com/2006/12/19/news/story05.html
-
"I don't want to hear the guy's name," said retired Marine Lt. Col. Gary Meyers of Honolulu. "I know of no officer in my group of contacts that supports, in any way, what he did. We all feel the same way."
What a dumb shit.
He has no idea what ALL his men think.
This man broke rules he agreed to, by speaking, and deserves the consequences he agreed to.
but for this lt. to tell us the thoughts of his men is just dumb.
-
What a dumb shit.
He has no idea what ALL his men think.
This man broke rules he agreed to, by speaking, and deserves the consequences he agreed to.
but for this lt. to tell us the thoughts of his men is just dumb.
"retired Marine Lt. Col. Gary Meyers of Honolulu"
-
"retired Marine Lt. Col. Gary Meyers of Honolulu"
Which makes him every LESS likely to know the thoughts of those serving.
Seriously, his statement was just dumb. Every officer in his group of contacts: "We all feel the same way." Can he document that. Source? Jeez, you put stock in a retired military man's take on his friends opinions but won't look at...
eh, fuck it. go bury your head in the sand.
-
Here is what you said: "He has no idea what ALL his men think. This man broke rules he agreed to, by speaking, and deserves the consequences he agreed to. but for this lt. to tell us the thoughts of his men is just dumb. "
First sentence: he is retired so he doesn't have any "men." Second sentence: doesn't make any sense. Third sentence: again, he doesn't have any "men." He's talking about what other retired military personnel have to say about this.
This retired officer expressed what I believe the overwhelming majority of the active duty and retired military believe. I had lunch with a member of Watada's Hawaii "team" a couple weeks ago and I think she understands this is the sentiment among the military too. They know it's an uphill battle.
I interact with a lot of active duty and retired military in Hawaii and I have yet to encounter a single one of them who supports Watada.
-
To speak any anti-war sentiment would quickly get any military man branded and isolated very quickly. You know this.
-
That's not true. To get in front of a microphone, like that idiot Watada, will land you trouble. Speaking in private does not. I know several members of the military (officers and enlisted) who do not believe we should be in Iraq. They have expressed that to me privately. But one thing they will not do is send their brothers and sisters in harm's way, while they hide behind some "moral" objection to the war.
Watada is a coward.
-
From his public appearance last night:
He called the war in Iraq an illegal war of aggression.
He quoted Nazi Germany's Hermann Goering, who said while the common people are usually not willing to go to war, "all you have to do is tell them they are being attacked."
Watada said the American people were deceived by the Bush administration, which manipulated intelligence to fit policy and regime change in Iraq.
"We have been lied to, deceived and betrayed," he said. "A crime has been committed against the constitution."
http://starbulletin.com/2006/12/20/news/story11.html
Idiot! I can't believe this kid. I'm sure his lawyers advised him not to do this. I'm actually a little relieved he's not on the battlefield. Somebody this stupid and cowardly would get people killed.
If I could wave a magic wand, I would make him serve his prison time in Iraq.
-
From his public appearance last night:
He called the war in Iraq an illegal war of aggression.
He quoted Nazi Germany's Hermann Goering, who said while the common people are usually not willing to go to war, "all you have to do is tell them they are being attacked."
Watada said the American people were deceived by the Bush administration, which manipulated intelligence to fit policy and regime change in Iraq.
"We have been lied to, deceived and betrayed," he said. "A crime has been committed against the constitution."
http://starbulletin.com/2006/12/20/news/story11.html
Idiot! I can't believe this kid. I'm sure his lawyers advised him not to do this. I'm actually a little relieved he's not on the battlefield. Somebody this stupid and cowardly would get people killed.
If I could wave a magic wand, I would make him serve his prison time in Iraq.
he has every right to say whatever he wants about this "war" you fuccking meathead.
-
he has every right to say whatever he wants about this "war" you fuccking meathead.
I guess that explains why he's being court martialed in part for saying whatever he wanted about this "war." ::) When you are facing prison time for making comments about the war, about the dumbest thing you can do is make still MORE comments about the war when you're about to go on trial. He's an idiot.
-
Very weak First Amendment argument. I predict it will be rejected.
Updated at 1:01 p.m., Thursday, January 4, 2007
Watada should not be penalized for views, lawyer says
By MELANTHIA MITCHELL
Associated Press Writer
FORT LEWIS, Wash. — An Army lieutenant who called the Iraq war illegal and refused to deploy with his Stryker Brigade has a constitutional right to debate such political issues, his attorney said during a pretrial hearing today.
Seeking to reduce charges against 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, his attorney Eric Seitz of Honolulu said the soldier should not be penalized for statements he made explaining why he was challenging the Bush administration's reason for going to war and refusing to deploy to Iraq.
Watada is charged with missing movement after refusing to deploy with his unit, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. The Army also proceeded with charges of conduct unbecoming an officer for statements he made to journalists and at a veterans convention.
Seitz argued to drop the latter charges.
"He should not face another four years of penalties because he chose to explain his reasons for opposing the war," Seitz told Lt. Col. John Head, the military judge overseeing Watada's case at this post south of Tacoma, Wash.
Army prosecutors argued that Watada's statements are offensive to the military and must be looked at in the context they were made and the effects they could as well as the danger they present to the military's mission.
"The dividing line and what makes it more disgraceful is the fact that he made it to more than one person," Capt. Daniel Kuecker said.
Watada, a 28-year-old from Honolulu, refused to go to Iraq June 22 with his Stryker Brigade after conducting research and deciding the war was illegal. He said he would be willing to serve in Afghanistan or elsewhere.
The soldier was initially charged with missing troop movement, conduct unbecoming an officer and contempt toward officials for comments he made about President Bush.
He was not allowed to resign his commission because his unit is covered by a stop-loss policy.
The Army later added another specification of conduct unbecoming an officer based on his comments in Seattle during the national convention of Veterans for Peace in August. Fort Lewis commander Lt. Gen. James Dubik, in recommending Watada for court martial, dropped the contempt charge.
If convicted of all charges, Watada could serve six years in confinement and be dismissed from the service.
He now works in an administrative position. His court-martial is scheduled for Feb. 5 at Fort Lewis.
Watada's parents sat in the back of the courtroom during the hearing, his father at times leaning forward on the bench with his hands clasped in front of him.
The family spoke briefly during the lunch break.
"We're very hopeful the charges will be dropped," said Bob Watada, the lieutenant's father.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Jan/04/br/br4972810635.html
-
he has every right to say whatever he wants about this "war" you fuccking meathead.
Again Squad u prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what an asstard u are. He does not have any right to do what he did. If he was a private citizen he can say what he wants but he's not. He falls under the UCMJ. In order to do what we do for a living u give up some rights. There are few jobs that call for actually hving to kill somebody else and as such we are governed by special rules. These rules include gagging cowards like this POS LT. So as I have said many times before shut the hell up and pay ur taxes.
-
Court martial is set for 5 Feb. ;D
Some individuals and entities recently took out another full page ad here supporting Watada. Here are some of the supporters:
Americans for Democratic Action Hawaii
Hawaii Labor for Peace
Hawaii Lawyers for Watada
Hawaii People's Fund
Hawaiian Issues Caucus, Democratic Party of Hawaii
Progressive Democrats of Hawaii
Women's Caucus, Democratic Party of Hawaii
-
;D
Updated at 8:36 a.m., Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Judge: Watada can't base defense on war's legality
Associated Press
FORT LEWIS, Wash. — An Army lieutenant who called the Iraq war illegal and refused to deploy cannot base his court-martial defense on the war's legality, a military judge has ruled.
Lawyers for 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, who is from Hawai'i, planned to argue at the Feb. 5 trial that the war was illegal because it violated Army regulations that wars must be waged in accordance with the United Nations charter.
But in a ruling released yesterday, Lt. Col. John Head said "whether the war is lawful" is a political question that could not be judged in a military court.
Watada, 28, is charged with missing troop movement last year. He is also accused of conduct unbecoming an officer for statements he made to journalists and at a veterans convention. He faces up to six years in prison.
Head also rejected lawyers' claims that Watada's First Amendment rights shielded him from charges stemming from his criticism of the war. Head said there are limits to the free-speech rights of military personnel.
"We have been stripped of every defense," said Eric A. Seitz, Watada's lawyer. "This is a disciplinary system, not a justice system. Otherwise, we would have been entitled to defend ourselves."
Army officials said in a statement they had full confidence in the military-justice system to ensure that Watada gets a fair trial.
Watada refused to go to Iraq last June with his unit, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, after conducting research and deciding the war was illegal. He has said he would be willing to serve in Afghanistan or elsewhere.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Jan/17/br/br5734261809.html
-
You cannot publicly say what you like about the military while enlisted, this is simple enough to understand. For example, recently a chinese general, with very limited power, said if we retaliated against china if and when they invade taiwan, china would respond with full nuclear force against us. Chinese officials later said china has a "no first strike" policy concerning nukes, and said that generals response does not reflect the views of the chinese goverment as a whole, but look at the damage that had already been done, the generals statement was all over the news and internet. This guy talking out about the war is doing so while soldiers, men and women, are out there dying on a daily basis, and we the american people struggle daily to accept the war and allow it to continue. He's irresponsible and a coward, and I hope he goes to jail.
-
You cannot publicly say what you like about the military while enlisted, this is simple enough to understand. For example, recently a chinese general, with very limited power, said if we retaliated against china if and when they invade taiwan, china would respond with full nuclear force against us. Chinese officials later said china has a "no first strike" policy concerning nukes, and said that generals response does not reflect the views of the chinese goverment as a whole, but look at the damage that had already been done, the generals statement was all over the news and internet. This guy talking out about the war is doing so while soldiers, men and women, are out there dying on a daily basis, and we the american people struggle daily to accept the war and allow it to continue. He's irresponsible and a coward, and I hope he goes to jail.
I agree.
-
Boo hiss. >:(
Updated at 1:39 p.m., Monday, January 29, 2007
Lawyer: Military drops two charges against Watada
Advertiser Staff
The U.S. government has agreed to drop two charges that carried a maximum of two years in prison against Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, his lawyer said Monday.
As part of the agreement, two reporters who had been issued subpoenas to appear before the court-martial will not have to testify, the lawyer said.
"By agreeing beforehand to all of the facts the government would ask of the ... reporters, Lt. Watada shielded these journalists from the heavy-handedness of the government," said Eric Seitz, lead attorney for Watada. "While we don't think any charges should have (been) filed at all for simply exercising free speech, we are pleased with the government's willingness to reduce Lt. Watada's potential sentence by two years."
The 28-year-old Honolulu native had been facing two years in prison on charges of missing a troop movement, and four additional years imprisonment on four counts of conduct unbecoming an officer for his public statements critical of the Iraq war.
His court-martial is expected to begin Feb. 5.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Jan/29/br/br6319027548.html
-
This prick better not walk.
-
;D [insert Hang Em High theme music here]
Posted at 2:09 a.m., Monday, February 5, 2007
Court-martial of Honolulu soldier starts
Advertiser Staff
The court-martial of a Honolulu soldier who refused deployment to Iraq begins Monday at Fort Lewis, south of Seattle.
1st Lt. Ehren Watada faces four years in prison if convicted on one count of missing movement and two counts of conduct unbecoming an officer.
Watada, 28, refused to deploy with the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division that is stationed in Fort Lewis. His case has since made headlines world wide.
Watada is represented by Honolulu attorney, Eric Seitz.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Feb/05/br/br1479852063.html
-
Beach Bum calling another American our for being "treasonous", for using his first amendment rights.
incredible.
You dont' have 1st ammendment rights in the military
-
You dont' have 1st ammendment rights in the military
Don't try and confuse people with the facts.
-
Don't try and confuse people with the facts.
My bad
-
My bad
;D
-
Update. I like it. :)
Updated at 11:09 a.m., Monday, February 5, 2007
Challenges aired as Watada court-martial begins
By MELANTHIA MITCHELL
Associated Press Writer
FORT LEWIS, Wash. — The court-martial for an Army officer who refused to go to Iraq got off to a slow start today as his lawyer challenged the legal proceedings against the soldier.
Proceedings this morning for 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, 28, of Honolulu, at this Army base south of Tacoma were taken up by attorney's motions, with the military judge, Lt. Col. John Head, refusing to allow almost all defense witnesses to take the stand. Head had previously ruled that Watada's Honolulu attorney, Eric Seitz, would not have the chance to debate the legality of the Iraq war in court.
Seitz had wished to call on several international and constitutional law experts, but Head agreed with the military that they would be irrelevant in the case.
Watada is charged with one count of missing movement and two counts of conduct unbecoming an officer for statements he made during news conferences and at a veterans' convention last year.
Under a pretrial agreement reached last month, the Army dropped two of the four counts of misconduct in exchange for Watada admitting to making statements to freelance journalist Sarah Olson and Greg Kakesako of the Honolulu Star-Bulletin, as well as speeches given last June and August.
If convicted on the remaining charges, Watada could receive four years in prison and a dishonorable discharge. He has requested that his case be heard by a military panel of officers, the equivalent of a jury. It had not yet been selected Monday.
At one point, Seitz suggested Head could be committing judicial misconduct if he denied Seitz an opportunity to ask panel members biographical questions to determine any bias.
"If you are going to tie my hands and you are gong to script these proceedings then in my view we're all wasting our time," Seitz said.
Head said Seitz would be allowed time to question panel members individually.
Last June, Watada refused to go to Iraq with his unit, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, based at Fort Lewis. He then publicly discussed his reasons for not deploying, including his belief that the war was both illegal and immoral.
Outside the base, a small group that included actor Sean Penn demonstrated peacefully in support of Watada. A few others demonstrated against him, including one man who carried a sign calling Watada a "weasel" for disobeying an order.
Watada, who joined the Army in March 2003, has called the U.S. occupation of Iraq "not only morally wrong but a horrible breach of American law."
"As the order to take part in an illegal act is ultimately unlawful as well, I must as an officer of honor and integrity refuse that order," Watada said in a video statement released at a June 7 news conference.
Charges later filed against the soldier did little to quell his actions. In August, he spoke at a Veterans for Peace rally in Seattle, in which he again criticized the war.
"Though the American soldier wants to do right, the illegitimacy of the occupation itself, the policies of this administration, and the rules of engagement of desperate field commanders will ultimately force them to be party to war crime," Watada said.
Seitz contends Watada's comments are protected speech, but Army prosecutors have argued that Watada's behavior was dangerous to the mission and morale of soldiers in Iraq.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Feb/05/br/br8912405376.html
-
Sean Penn leading an anti-war, pro-Watada rally outside the military base.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/dailypix/2007/Feb/05/BR2007020513032657308_b.jpg
-
Another update. He's a "disgrace."
Updated at 9:55 a.m., Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Army calls Watada a 'disgrace' as court-martial resumes
By MELANTHIA MITCHELL
Associated Press Writer
FORT LEWIS, Wash. — Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada abandoned his soldiers and brought disgrace upon himself and the service when he refused to go to Iraq, Army prosecutors told his court-martial today.
Watada's defense attorney, however, argued that he was acting in his own good conscience, based on his own beliefs and understanding of the war.
The court-martial for the 28-year-old Honolulu native resumed this morning at this base south of Tacoma with opening statements in a case that has drawn national attention.
Watada is charged with missing movement for refusing to ship out with his unit, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. He also faces charges of conduct unbecoming an officer for accusing the Army of war crimes and denouncing the administration for conducting an illegal war founded on lies.
Military law experts say Watada is the first commissioned officer to be court-martialed for refusing to go to Iraq.
"To my knowledge, he is," said Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice in Washington, D.C.
If convicted, he could receive four years in prison and a dishonorable discharge.
Prosecutors contend that despite a sworn duty to lead his fellow soldiers, Watada refused to deploy June 22 and conducted himself in a manner unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.
"He brought disgrace to himself ... and the Army," Capt. Scott Van Sweringen told the court.
Van Sweringen said that by Jan. 1, 2006, Watada had concluded that the Iraq war was illegal, but "rather than quietly accept the consequences of his decision" he publicly declared his intent not to deploy to Iraq.
On June 7, Watada released a video statement at a news conference in Tacoma.
"The wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of Iraqis is not only a terrible and moral injustice, but it's a contradiction to the Army's own law of land warfare," Watada said in the video. "My participation would make me a party to war crimes."
On June 22, Watada "sat comfortably in his office" while his soldiers departed for Iraq — "Absent a leader they had trained with. Absent a leader they had trusted," Van Sweringen told a seven-member panel of officers hearing the case.
The panel will hear from three government witnesses, including Watada's battalion commander who has said the soldier told him he intended to conduct a "private protest and didn't intend to make it a public matter," Van Sweringen said.
Watada's attorney, Eric Seitz, countered that the young officer had no choice but to go public after the Army refused all his attempts for a solution other than going to Iraq.
Watada has already admitted he didn't get on the plane and that he made the statements in question, Seitz said in opening.
"The question is ... why? What was his intent? How did he comport himself when he made those statements and took action?" Seitz said.
The defense plans to offer just two witnesses. Military judge Lt. Col. John Head yesterday barred several experts in international and constitutional law from testifying about the legality of the war.
Instead Seitz will call on Watada himself, as well as an Army captain who has known Watada for roughly two years.
Watada will have a chance to explain that, after concluding the war to be illegal, he attempted to find an alternative to going to Iraq, including asking that he be transferred to a unit going to Afghanistan and, ultimately, requesting a resignation.
In a Jan. 25, 2006, letter to his commander, Watada wrote that although he felt no less loyal to the U.S. Army, he could not in good conscience carry out the duties that would be expected of him in Iraq, Seitz said.
All requests were denied.
Watada, Seitz contends, never attacked the president or his commanders, and didn't criticize fellow soldiers. "He simply made a statement ... in which he explained how he felt" about the war.
"At most, he engaged in an act or form of civil disobedience," Seitz said. "No way does that add up to conduct unbecoming an officer."
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Feb/06/br/br5941273860.html
-
I'm hopeful they will give him the max punishment.
Count on it.
The military knows that if they don't nail him to the wall, they'll be 1,000 more like him overnight.
And probably sooner rather than later, the first reports will come out - vehemently denied by the Pentagon, of course - that the troops are starting to express their dissatisfaction with stop-loss orders, etc, by fragging their commanders.
-
Count on it.
The military knows that if they don't nail him to the wall, they'll be 1,000 more like him overnight.
Is this where I say, "well duh"? :)
-
Is this where I say, "well duh"? :)
Is that your tacit admission that the Army knows the troops hate the war and feels the need to scare them into staying in the meatgrinder? :)
-
Count on it.
The military knows that if they don't nail him to the wall, they'll be 1,000 more like him overnight.
And probably sooner rather than later, the first reports will come out - vehemently denied by the Pentagon, of course - that the troops are starting to express their dissatisfaction with stop-loss orders, etc, by fragging their commanders.
no stop loss going on fool, Here at Ft. Wood we send nearly 1,000 new troops into the ranks every week. enlistment and retention is great in the military
-
Is that your tacit admission that the Army knows the troops hate the war and feels the need to scare them into staying in the meatgrinder? :)
No. I don't do tacit admissions. Mine are always express.
The obvious effect of letting one coward disobey an order in time of war is many others may follow. That's partly why they have to max this guy out. It's called deterrence.
-
Guest editorial in today's Honolulu Advertiser by a retired Lt. Col.
Posted on: Tuesday, February 6, 2007
COMMENTARY
Watada wasn't asked to commit unlawful acts
By Col. Thomas D. Farrell (Ret.)
Volumes have been written about Lt. Ehren Watada, whose court-martial began yesterday. He's been lionized and demonized, and the rhetoric of his supporters and his detractors has reached the outer limits of hyperbole.
What has heretofore escaped rational discussion are his claims that the war in Iraq is unlawful, that his participation in it would violate the principles of personal accountability established at Nuremberg, and that going to Iraq would effectively turn him into a war criminal. Those issues won't be addressed in his court-martial because the military judge has ruled that the legality of the war is a "political question" beyond the purview of the court. That ruling may be technically correct, but it is certainly unsatisfying.
I don't mind all that much if a lieutenant wants to protest the policies of the commander in chief, inappropriate though it is for a serving officer to do so publicly. What irks me is the implication that those of us who deployed were either too dumb to know the score, or too spineless to do the right thing. More than 2,000 citizen-soldiers from Hawai'i deployed to Iraq in 2004 and 2005. I was one of them. Permit me to make the case that those of us who went to Iraq are not war criminals.
As a matter of domestic law, the U.S. Constitution (the preservation of which is the sole reason for the existence of our armed forces) says that Congress shall have the power to declare war. When it enacted the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, Congress made regime change in Baghdad the official policy of the United States. It explicitly authorized the use of American military forces with the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" of October 2002. Lt. Watada may be right in his claim that the Bush administration bamboozled the Congress with phony claims of weapons of mass destruction and insinuations of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, but Congress has not seen fit to repeal its resolution, or to pass new legislation forcing our withdrawal.
As a matter of international law, it may be argued that U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 (which authorized "all means necessary") was not a green light to invade Iraq, but it is important that we note what the U.N. has done since then. Acting under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, the Security Council passed Resolution 1511 in October 2003, authorizing "a multinational force under unified command to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq." Since then, it has repeatedly reauthorized the American-led Multi-National Force Iraq. In its most recent resolution extending the force until Dec. 31, the Security Council acted at the explicit request of the sovereign government of Iraq.
How can anyone seriously claim that our military involvement in Iraq is illegal when both Congress and the U.N. have taken the steps to authorize it, and allow it to continue to this day?
Lt. Watada argues that he has the right to make his own personal assessment, notwithstanding whatever Congress and the U.N. may do. If he's right, why not make our personal assessments about how fast is safe to drive, or how much tax is our fair share? The answer is obvious: Anarchy would prevail, and the rule of law — the basis of all real freedom — would cease to exist.
Lt. Watada asserts that he truly believes that the war is illegal; therefore he has an absolute duty to refuse his orders to deploy. He reminds us that the lesson of Nuremberg is that "following orders" is no excuse for unlawful acts in war.
At the Nuremberg Tribunals, the Allies prosecuted the senior political leaders of the Axis powers for launching an unlawful war under existing legal standards. There was no U.N. Charter when the Nuremberg cases were decided, but it was no stretch to find Hitler's henchmen guilty of violating international law by invading Poland, Czechoslovakia, France and the Soviet Union. However, common soldiers and their officers were never prosecuted for merely participating in the war. They were prosecuted for murdering non-combatants, abusing prisoners and other individual acts that any rational human being knows are criminal.
No one asked Lt. Watada to do any of those things. In fact, the rules of engagement in Iraq clearly prohibit these crimes. Those rules aren't just window dressing. In the rare cases where they've stepped over the line, we've prosecuted our own soldiers and Marines. We'll continue to do so.
Many of us who served in Iraq were under no illusions about the administration's corruption of intelligence to make the case for war. Quite a few of us also believed that the war was a bad idea, made worse by poor execution. We served anyway. We deployed — not out of ignorance or fear — but because we had promised to uphold the Constitution. It never occurred to us to place ourselves above the law.
Retired Col. Thomas D. Farrell, a Honolulu resident, served as an Army intelligence officer in Iraq from June 2005 to May 2006. He wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070206/OPINION03/702060312/1110/OPINION
-
Says the man who has never spent a day on active duty and obviously doesn't know squat about the UCMJ or the First Amendment. ::)
If the Constitution is indeed the supreme 'law of the land', then how can language within the UCMJ trump it?
-
If the Constitution is indeed the supreme 'law of the land', then how can language within the UCMJ trump it?
Don't soldiers in essence give up their constitutional rights when they enter the military? I've always been under the assumption the military is seperate and distinct from the laws civilians live by and the rules that govern us.
-
If the Constitution is indeed the supreme 'law of the land', then how can language within the UCMJ trump it?
Because there are exceptions to the First Amendment. There are entire categories of unprotected speech. One exception is the military. You check much of your First Amendment rights to free speech at the MEPS station when you sign up.
Watada is also charged with missing a movement, which doesn't have anything to do with the First Amendment.
-
Don't soldiers in essence give up their constitutional rights when they enter the military? I've always been under the assumption the military is seperate and distinct from the laws civilians live by and the rules that govern us.
Yes, this is contained in the paperwork that servicemembers sign and they are instructed about this verbally prior to the required signatures being rendered.
BUT, according to that same UCMJ, a servicemember cannot be held criminally responsible for refusing to follow an illegal order.
-
Watada is also charged with missing a movement, which doesn't have anything to do with the First Amendment.
Right.
Courts-martial are notorious for doing what they want to do and can pretty much interpret the 'letter of the law' as they see fit. There's no real appeals process and they're completely insulated from political and social pressures to do the right thing.
So, even in best-case scenario for Lt. Watada, if by some miracle he was allowed to resign his commission and to escape the most serious charges stemming from his refusal to follow all direct orders, he's still going to jail. The 'best case' assumes that SOME military judge - somewhere - would agree that the war in Iraq is illegal. It's not like an illegal search being thrown out in a civilian court, which would lead to all the evidence found as a result of that search being tossed. The military is going to get its pound of flesh. He's still going to face jail time for missing troops' movement and for endangering his fellow soldiers by missing that movement. They can probably dig up some other stuff as well, but those are basic, and I predict he'll have to serve 12-24 months. I cannot, however, predict what his discharge status might be, but would suspect that the best he'll be able to negotiate is an other than honorable.
Once his time is complete, I would expect him to become a professional lobbyist working to create more favorable laws for military servicemembers.
-
Right.
Courts-martial are notorious for doing what they want to do and can pretty much interpret the 'letter of the law' as they see fit. There's no real appeals process and they're completely insulated from political and social pressures to do the right thing.
So, even in best-case scenario for Lt. Watada, if by some miracle he was allowed to resign his commission and to escape the most serious charges stemming from his refusal to follow all direct orders, he's still going to jail. The 'best case' assumes that SOME military judge - somewhere - would agree that the war in Iraq is illegal. It's not like an illegal search being thrown out in a civilian court, which would lead to all the evidence found as a result of that search being tossed. The military is going to get its pound of flesh. He's still going to face jail time for missing troops' movement and for endangering his fellow soldiers by missing that movement. They can probably dig up some other stuff as well, but those are basic, and I predict he'll have to serve 12-24 months. I cannot, however, predict what his discharge status might be, but would suspect that the best he'll be able to negotiate is an other than honorable.
Once his time is complete, I would expect him to become a professional lobbyist working to create more favorable laws for military servicemembers.
Either way he gets fed and doesn't have to fight in a war he disagrees with right? Sounds like he's pretty much getting what he wanted either way.
Many people would just as soon be locked up than go fight in a war.
-
Yes, this is contained in the paperwork that servicemembers sign and they are instructed about this verbally prior to the required signatures being rendered.
BUT, according to that same UCMJ, a servicemember cannot be held criminally responsible for refusing to follow an illegal order.
But as Lt. Col. Farrell says in the editorial I posted earlier in this thread:
"As a matter of international law, it may be argued that U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 (which authorized "all means necessary") was not a green light to invade Iraq, but it is important that we note what the U.N. has done since then. Acting under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, the Security Council passed Resolution 1511 in October 2003, authorizing "a multinational force under unified command to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq." Since then, it has repeatedly reauthorized the American-led Multi-National Force Iraq. In its most recent resolution extending the force until Dec. 31, the Security Council acted at the explicit request of the sovereign government of Iraq.
How can anyone seriously claim that our military involvement in Iraq is illegal when both Congress and the U.N. have taken the steps to authorize it, and allow it to continue to this day?"
-
But as Lt. Col. Farrell says in the editorial I posted earlier in this thread:
"As a matter of international law, it may be argued that U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 (which authorized "all means necessary") was not a green light to invade Iraq, but it is important that we note what the U.N. has done since then. Acting under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, the Security Council passed Resolution 1511 in October 2003, authorizing "a multinational force under unified command to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq." Since then, it has repeatedly reauthorized the American-led Multi-National Force Iraq. In its most recent resolution extending the force until Dec. 31, the Security Council acted at the explicit request of the sovereign government of Iraq.
How can anyone seriously claim that our military involvement in Iraq is illegal when both Congress and the U.N. have taken the steps to authorize it, and allow it to continue to this day?"
I won't disagree was hardly "illegal"... perhaps the premise was a lie, whatever... but it wasn't illegal...
The guy doesn't wanna go to war... I get it... but if they try the legality approach, they're just full of shit.
-
Right.
Courts-martial are notorious for doing what they want to do and can pretty much interpret the 'letter of the law' as they see fit. There's no real appeals process and they're completely insulated from political and social pressures to do the right thing.
So, even in best-case scenario for Lt. Watada, if by some miracle he was allowed to resign his commission and to escape the most serious charges stemming from his refusal to follow all direct orders, he's still going to jail. The 'best case' assumes that SOME military judge - somewhere - would agree that the war in Iraq is illegal. It's not like an illegal search being thrown out in a civilian court, which would lead to all the evidence found as a result of that search being tossed. The military is going to get its pound of flesh. He's still going to face jail time for missing troops' movement and for endangering his fellow soldiers by missing that movement. They can probably dig up some other stuff as well, but those are basic, and I predict he'll have to serve 12-24 months. I cannot, however, predict what his discharge status might be, but would suspect that the best he'll be able to negotiate is an other than honorable.
Once his time is complete, I would expect him to become a professional lobbyist working to create more favorable laws for military servicemembers.
There is an appeals process. In fact, there are many layers of review. The charges probably originated with his company commander (a captain), then went to his battalion commander (a Lt. Col.), then to the brigade commander (a Col.), then the CG (a general). An article 32 officer, similar to a grand jury, then investigates and determines whether there is enough evidence to proceed to trial. He is then tried, in this case and at his election, by a jury of officers. Once he is convicted he can appeal to one (or two -- I forget) military courts of appeal. It's quite fair IMO.
And like I posted just a minute ago, the illegal order defense is DOA. The president ordered the invasion and numerous near unanimous bipartisan resolutions AND the UN endorsed the war.
He'll have a nice career when he's done serving his time. His father is a well respected and well known member of the community in Hawaii; headed up the Campaign Spending Commission and exposed a LOT of corruption during his tenure. He is a good man. Liberals will line up to give him a job when he's done.
-
I won't disagree was hardly "illegal"... perhaps the premise was a lie, whatever... but it wasn't illegal...
The guy doesn't wanna go to war... I get it... but if they try the legality approach, they're just full of shit.
I agree.
-
He'll have a nice career when he's done serving his time. His father is a well respected and well known member of the community in Hawaii; headed up the Campaign Spending Commission and exposed a LOT of corruption during his tenure. He is a good man. Liberals will line up to give him a job when he's done.
Then everyone wins... YAY!
-
This guy is in violation of multiple articles. He's screwed. He may get off light but it will be a federal conviction on his record and a dishonorable discharge as well. If he does jail time..jail sucks..I'm sure somebody here has either been incarcerated or been a corrections officer. He'll have alot of fun in jail.
-
He'll have a lot of fun in jail.
He's going to a federal prison, not the state pen. He'll probably quietly do his time reading about himself on the internet and publishing a blog.
-
There is an appeals process. In fact, there are many layers of review. The charges probably originated with his company commander (a captain), then went to his battalion commander (a Lt. Col.), then to the brigade commander (a Col.), then the CG (a general). An article 32 officer, similar to a grand jury, then investigates and determines whether there is enough evidence to proceed to trial. He is then tried, in this case and at his election, by a jury of officers. Once he is convicted he can appeal to one (or two -- I forget) military courts of appeal.
That's all fairly true, and yes, each commander has an opportunity to mete out his own punishment (and it can stop at any level going upward), but those aren't really the same as appeals...although I do like your use of the term 'layers of review'.
Once he refused to deploy to Iraq in the absence of any mitigating circumstances (other than his opposition to the war), a court-martial was pretty much a foregone conclusion. And once the military decides something, common sense pretty much goes out the window.
-
He's going to a federal prison, not the state pen. He'll probably quietly do his time reading about himself on the internet and publishing a blog.
That's probably true... He'll be in there with a few high level cartel guys or those steroid guys and that's about it.
-
Yeah I know he's going to a federal Pen, actually he should be going to the DB at Leavenworth, KS. Unless his lawyers cut some kind of deal to be near his parents.
-
That's all fairly true, and yes, each commander has an opportunity to mete out his own punishment (and it can stop at any level going upward), but those aren't really the same as appeals...although I do like your use of the term 'layers of review'.
Once he refused to deploy to Iraq in the absence of any mitigating circumstances (other than his opposition to the war), a court-martial was pretty much a foregone conclusion. And once the military decides something, common sense pretty much goes out the window.
I should say that, although it is expressly forbidden, there is a great deal of "command influence." I'm sure the CG made the call and every other commander fell in line.
I also think the military justice system is very good. Very efficient.
-
More updates:
Refusal dubbed betrayal, a disgrace
Videos of Watada's statements are shown during trial
By Melanthia Mitchell
Associated Press
FORT LEWIS, Wash. » The actions of an Army lieutenant who refused to ship out to Iraq were a betrayal and inconsistent with the behavior of a good officer, one of his commanders told a court-martial yesterday.
In opening statements, prosecutors in the case against 1st Lt. Ehren Watada said he abandoned his soldiers and brought disgrace upon himself and the service by accusing the Army of war crimes and denouncing the administration for conducting an illegal war founded on lies.
Defense attorney Eric Seitz countered that Watada, who is from Honolulu, acted in good conscience, based on his own convictions.
Prosecutors then called Lt. Col. Bruce Antonia, battalion commander for the brigade's 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment.
Antonia said he learned of Watada's concerns late in January 2006. He urged Watada not to make any public statements, Antonia said.
"I was dismayed, probably a little bit betrayed," Antonia said. "I believe what he said was that the commander in chief made decisions based on lies, that he specifically deceived the American people. That is nowhere in the realm of a lieutenant in the United States Army."
Watada, 28, is charged with missing movement for refusing to ship out with his unit, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. He also faces charges of conduct unbecoming an officer for his statements against the war. If convicted, he could receive four years in prison and a dishonorable discharge.
Watada has already acknowledged he didn't get on the plane and that he made the statements in question, Seitz said in his opening statement.
"At most, he engaged in an act or form of civil disobedience," Seitz said. "No way does that add up to conduct unbecoming an officer."
Watada is the first commissioned officer to be court-martialed for refusing to go to Iraq, said Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice in Washington, D.C.
Despite a sworn duty to lead his fellow soldiers, Watada sat comfortably in his office as his soldiers departed for Iraq on June 22 -- "Absent a leader they had trained with. Absent a leader they had trusted," Capt. Scott Van Sweringen, an Army prosecutor, told a seven-member panel of officers hearing the case. "He brought disgrace to himself ... and the Army."
Van Sweringen said that by Jan. 1, 2006, Watada had concluded that the Iraq war was illegal, but "rather than quietly accept the consequences of his decision" he publicly declared his intent not to deploy to Iraq.
On June 7, Watada released a video statement at a news conference in Tacoma.
"The wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of Iraqis is not only a terrible and moral injustice, but it's a contradiction to the Army's own law of land warfare," Watada said in the video.
The court watched video of Watada's statements from June and from an Aug. 12 Veterans for Peace convention in Seattle, where he told a crowd that the Bush administration had "used us for rampant violations of time-tested laws banning torture and degradation of prisoners of war."
Under cross-examination from Seitz, Antonia told the court he believed soldiers are obligated to determine for themselves whether they've been given an illegal order.
"I would expect him not to obey if the order was illegal," Antonia said, prompting several excited murmurs from spectators watching the hearing from a nearby overflow room.
Antonia stressed, however, that if the chain of command determined it to be a legal order, he would expect the officer to obey.
Earlier yesterday, Seitz said Watada had no choice but to go public after the Army refused his offers to take a combat post in Afghanistan or elsewhere, and rejected his request that he be allowed to resign.
The court also heard from a professor who teaches professional ethics at West Point and Watada's former deputy brigade commander.
Professor Richard Swain said he advises cadets that they must make a distinction between legal issues and moral issues.
"We are a nation of laws and particularly in the military, violations of laws have accountability," Swain said, adding that soldiers are not obligated to obey an illegal order.
"Moral issues are another category," he said. When a soldier arrives at a moral conflict, "Then you have to do what you have to do in the full knowledge that you will be held accountable for what you decide."
Lt. Col. William James said he counseled Watada on one of his requests for resignation, telling him not to make "a young man's mistake, not making a decision based solely on emotion."
It was important, James said, that Watada understand his responsibilities both as a citizen and as an officer who would lead soldiers.
When asked whether an officer's actions had an effect on other soldiers, he said there was little doubt.
"An officer at any level ... you are oftentimes the point of reference soldiers use for their moral compass," James said.
Because military judge Lt. Col. John Head has barred several experts in international and constitutional law from testifying about the legality of the war, Seitz said the defense will offer just two witnesses: Watada himself and an Army captain who has known him for roughly two years.
http://starbulletin.com/2007/02/07/news/story02.html
-
I also think the military justice system is very good. Very efficient.
Do you believe that any higher-ups went unpunished in the abu ghirab abuse scandal? (you know, the one where the underlings all got prison but their bosses walked scot-free?)
-
Guest editorial in today's Honolulu Advertiser by a retired Lt. Col.
Posted on: Tuesday, February 6, 2007
COMMENTARY
Watada wasn't asked to commit unlawful acts
By Col. Thomas D. Farrell (Ret.)
Volumes have been written about Lt. Ehren Watada, whose court-martial began yesterday. He's been lionized and demonized, and the rhetoric of his supporters and his detractors has reached the outer limits of hyperbole.
What has heretofore escaped rational discussion are his claims that the war in Iraq is unlawful, that his participation in it would violate the principles of personal accountability established at Nuremberg, and that going to Iraq would effectively turn him into a war criminal. Those issues won't be addressed in his court-martial because the military judge has ruled that the legality of the war is a "political question" beyond the purview of the court. That ruling may be technically correct, but it is certainly unsatisfying.
I don't mind all that much if a lieutenant wants to protest the policies of the commander in chief, inappropriate though it is for a serving officer to do so publicly. What irks me is the implication that those of us who deployed were either too dumb to know the score, or too spineless to do the right thing. More than 2,000 citizen-soldiers from Hawai'i deployed to Iraq in 2004 and 2005. I was one of them. Permit me to make the case that those of us who went to Iraq are not war criminals.
As a matter of domestic law, the U.S. Constitution (the preservation of which is the sole reason for the existence of our armed forces) says that Congress shall have the power to declare war. When it enacted the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, Congress made regime change in Baghdad the official policy of the United States. It explicitly authorized the use of American military forces with the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" of October 2002. Lt. Watada may be right in his claim that the Bush administration bamboozled the Congress with phony claims of weapons of mass destruction and insinuations of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, but Congress has not seen fit to repeal its resolution, or to pass new legislation forcing our withdrawal.
Was this a typo? So the invasion plans for Iraq was set in place in 1998 by a Republican Congress before this administration was in power then? Wow, ...I guess 9/11 sure was a convenient co-incidence then huh? ::)
As a matter of international law, it may be argued that U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 (which authorized "all means necessary") was not a green light to invade Iraq, but it is important that we note what the U.N. has done since then. Acting under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, the Security Council passed Resolution 1511 in October 2003, authorizing "a multinational force under unified command to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq." Since then, it has repeatedly reauthorized the American-led Multi-National Force Iraq. In its most recent resolution extending the force until Dec. 31, the Security Council acted at the explicit request of the sovereign government of Iraq.
How can anyone seriously claim that our military involvement in Iraq is illegal when both Congress and the U.N. have taken the steps to authorize it, and allow it to continue to this day?
I would think quite easily since the UN did not authorize the invasion.
Lt. Watada argues that he has the right to make his own personal assessment, notwithstanding whatever Congress and the U.N. may do. If he's right, why not make our personal assessments about how fast is safe to drive, or how much tax is our fair share? The answer is obvious: Anarchy would prevail, and the rule of law — the basis of all real freedom — would cease to exist.
Something we clearly see in Iraq, since the rule of Law was thrown out the window to invade. :'(
Lt. Watada asserts that he truly believes that the war is illegal; therefore he has an absolute duty to refuse his orders to deploy. He reminds us that the lesson of Nuremberg is that "following orders" is no excuse for unlawful acts in war.
At the Nuremberg Tribunals, the Allies prosecuted the senior political leaders of the Axis powers for launching an unlawful war under existing legal standards. There was no U.N. Charter when the Nuremberg cases were decided, but it was no stretch to find Hitler's henchmen guilty of violating international law by invading Poland, Czechoslovakia, France and the Soviet Union. However, common soldiers and their officers were never prosecuted for merely participating in the war. They were prosecuted for murdering non-combatants, abusing prisoners and other individual acts that any rational human being knows are criminal.
No one asked Lt. Watada to do any of those things. In fact, the rules of engagement in Iraq clearly prohibit these crimes. Those rules aren't just window dressing. In the rare cases where they've stepped over the line, we've prosecuted our own soldiers and Marines. We'll continue to do so.
Many of us who served in Iraq were under no illusions about the administration's corruption of intelligence to make the case for war. Quite a few of us also believed that the war was a bad idea, made worse by poor execution. We served anyway. We deployed — not out of ignorance or fear — but because we had promised to uphold the Constitution. It never occurred to us to place ourselves above the law.
Retired Col. Thomas D. Farrell, a Honolulu resident, served as an Army intelligence officer in Iraq from June 2005 to May 2006. He wrote this commentary for The Advertiser.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070206/OPINION03/702060312/1110/OPINION
I think Watada will be thrown to the wolves, fragging will increase, ...and years from now, he will be quietly acknowledged as a hero.
-
Do you believe that any higher-ups went unpunished in the abu ghirab abuse scandal? (you know, the one where the underlings all got prison but their bosses walked scot-free?)
Rumsfeld
-
I'm sure the CG made the call and every other commander fell in line.
Exactly. That ol' boys club has one another's back like you wouldn't believe.
-
Do you believe that any higher-ups went unpunished in the abu ghirab abuse scandal? (you know, the one where the underlings all got prison but their bosses walked scot-free?)
Although your question (and my response) has nothing to do with my comment that the military justice system is very efficient, and your comments yet another slap at our soliders, here you go:
Army to Charge a Senior Abu Ghraib Officer Over Abuse
WASHINGTON (April 26) - The Army plans to criminally charge a top military officer involved in the interrogation scandal at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, according to the officer's attorney.
Sean Gallup, Getty Images
The abuse scandal broke in April 2004 when pictures of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib were leaked to the news media.
Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan would be the highest-ranking officer to face charges in connection with abuse of prisoners at the facility.
Jordan is expected to be charged by Friday with dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming an officer, lying to investigators and other crimes, according to his attorney, Samuel Spitzberg.
The Washington Post and the New York Times reported about plans to charge Jordan Tuesday on their Web sites.
"We're thankful that decision has finally been made, and we look forward to finally reviewing the evidence and making some decisions," Spitzberg told the Post.
The abuse scandal broke in April 2004 when pictures of prisoner abuse were leaked to the news media. Prisoners were beaten, sexually humiliated and forced to assume painful positions while being photographed.
Army spokesman Col. Joseph Curtin told The Associated Press Tuesday that Jordan has not been charged. After any charges, the next step would be a preliminary hearing to determine if a court martial or other action was warranted.
Jordan, a reservist who has remained on active duty for three years, is currently stationed in the Washington area, Spitzberg said.
"We've not had an opportunity to review the evidence, and look forward to doing that and determining whether there is a direct link with the abuses at Abu Ghraib," Spitzberg told the Times.
Jordan was not making any public statement, his attorney said. Efforts by the AP Tuesday night to reach Spitzberg were not successful.
The public release of the photos in television and newspaper reports caused controversy worldwide and triggered months of investigations, recriminations and a reexamination of U.S. policy on prisoners.
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/army-to-charge-a-senior-abu-ghraib/20060425233609990014
-
I think Watada will be thrown to the wolves, fragging will increase, ...and years from now, he will be quietly acknowledged as a hero.
Hero?? Only by liberals. He's a coward.
-
What an idiot.
Updated at 12:53 p.m., Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Mistrial declared in Watada court-martial
By MELANTHIA MITCHELL
Associated Press/Peter Millett
FORT LEWIS, Wash. — The judge overseeing the court-martial of an Army lieutenant who refused to deploy to Iraq declared a mistrial today, saying the soldier did not fully understand a document he signed admitting to elements of the charges.
Military judge Lt. Col. John Head announced the decision after 1st Lt. Ehren Watada said he never intended to admit he had a duty to go to Iraq with his fellow soldiers — one element of the crime of missing troop movement. Head set a March 12 date for a new trial and dismissed the jurors.
Last month, Watada, 28, of Honolulu, signed a 12-page stipulation of fact in which he acknowledged he did not go to Iraq with his unit, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, last June. He also acknowledged making public statements criticizing the Iraq war, which he believes to be illegal.
In exchange, prosecutors dropped two charges of conduct unbecoming an officer charges against him, and agreed to proceed to trial on the remaining charges: missing movement — for his refusal to deploy last June — and two other allegations of conduct unbecoming an officer for comments made about the case.
To prove a charge of missing movement, the prosecutors need to show that Watada did not report when he had a duty to do so. The disagreement that prompted the mistrial was about whether Watada admitted missing troop movement and having a duty to report, or only missing troop movement.
"I see there is an inconsistency in the stipulation of fact," the judge said today. "I don't know how I can accept (it) as we stand here now."
Because much of the Army's evidence was laid out in the document, rejecting it would hurt its case, Head acknowledged. He granted the prosecutors' request for a mistrial, which Watada's lawyer opposed.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Feb/07/br/br5016837924.html
-
this guy is clearly under your skin.
so he put the value of speaking his opinion and leaving the war, above his freedom from jail.
He made a choice and he's living with it.
you've posted quite a few articles about it. You seem pretty upset.
-
Exactly. That ol' boys club has one another's back like you wouldn't believe.
I'm not sure it's the boys club so much as survival. If the CG says he wants to punish someone and the charges have to originate with the company commander, you better believe the company commander will prefer those charges (I think that's what it's called, but I've been out for a while, so my terminology is a little rusty).
-
this guy is clearly under your skin.
so he put the value of speaking his opinion and leaving the war, above his freedom from jail.
He made a choice and he's living with it.
you've posted quite a few articles about it. You seem pretty upset.
I'm posting updates as they happen. Of course I'm upset. I place great value on honor and an oath and military service. There are few higher callings. It's over your head.
-
I'm posting updates as they happen. Of course I'm upset. I place great value on honor and an oath and military service. There are few higher callings. It's over your head.
I guess a high school dropout who entered the military, flew bombing missions over Korea before returning for hid GED, AA, AS, BS, MBA, and PhD in an area he cannot answer... working weekends as a marine biologist and sex advice counselor where he naively believes that no one drinks or has sex until they're 30 "because they told him so"...
a man like that would understand.
-
I guess a high school dropout who entered the military, flew bombing missions over Korea before returning for hid GED, AA, AS, BS, MBA, and PhD in an area he cannot answer... working weekends as a marine biologist and sex advice counselor where he naively believes that no one drinks or has sex until they're 30 "because they told him so"...
a man like that would understand.
:-* LOL.
-
Hero?? Only by liberals. He's a coward.
I don't think you can call someone a coward be cause they choose not to go to war... He's obviously dealing with his actions... there will come a time where he will either win his case or go to Prison... I'm fairly sure he knows that.
That's not the act of a coward... on some level, you have to admit that a coward will do whatever they are told blindly... knowing that no matter what happens, he's just doing what he's told and can not be held responsible for them.
-
I don't think you can call someone a coward be cause they choose not to go to war... He's obviously dealing with his actions... there will come a time where he will either win his case or go to Prison... I'm fairly sure he knows that.
That's not the act of a coward... on some level, you have to admit that a coward will do whatever they are told blindly... knowing that no matter what happens, he's just doing what he's told and can not be held responsible for them.
I see it differently. I think he is afraid to die. Instead of placing his life on the line, like he took an oath to do DURING the war, he sent his subordinates to die in his place. That's cowardice in my book. What he should have done is taken his sorry butt to Iraq, served his combat tour, then got out. I have a friend on the ground in Iraq right now. He's getting out, AFTER his combat tour is over. He was actually afraid to go. But he's there and doing great things. That's what honorable people do.
-
I see it differently. I think he is afraid to die. Instead of placing his life on the line, like he took an oath to do DURING the war, he sent his subordinates to die in his place. That's cowardice in my book. What he should have done is taken his sorry butt to Iraq, served his combat tour, then got out. I have a friend on the ground in Iraq right now. He's getting out, AFTER his combat tour is over. He was actually afraid to go. But he's there and doing great things. That's what honorable people do.
I thought he expressed a willingness to serve in Afghanistan.
I could be wrong.
-
I thought he expressed a willingness to serve in Afghanistan.
I could be wrong.
I too thought so... perhaps we are both wrong... I feel that we have lost site of the goal... Where is Bin Laden? Why don't we have him? Shouldn't that STILL be our focus?
Could you imagine how WWII would have been had we decided to take a detour from Berlin, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki?
-
Where is Bin Laden? Why don't we have him? Shouldn't that STILL be our focus?
Q: Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that?
THE PRESIDENT: You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
... another left-wing rag :)
-
I thought he expressed a willingness to serve in Afghanistan.
I could be wrong.
I think that's true from what I recall, but so what? That wasn't his mission. Also, Afghanistan is not nearly as dangerous as Iraq. I'm not even sure there are artillery battalions/brigades there? Headhunter would know? But he's probably so short he cannot reach his keyboard. :D
-
I think that's true from what I recall, but so what? That wasn't his mission. Also, Afghanistan is not nearly as dangerous as Iraq. I'm not even sure there are artillery battalions/brigades there? Headhunter would know? But he's probably so short he cannot reach his keyboard. :D
But it certainly SHOULD have been the mission... Are you going to argue that?
-
I think that's true from what I recall, but so what? That wasn't his mission.
His oath would have been to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic".
Right now, the Constitution's biggest enemy isn't in Iraq or Afghanistan.
(http://www.joshway.com/images/new/angry_bush.jpg)
"It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
-
But it certainly SHOULD have been the mission... Are you going to argue that?
Am I going to argue that his men from Fort Lewis should have gone to Afghanistan instead of Iraq? No. I don't have enough information to reach that conclusion. And that's a red herring anyway. His unit was ordered to deploy to Iraq. That was their mission. That was his mission.
-
Am I going to argue that his men from Fort Lewis should have gone to Afghanistan instead of Iraq? No. I don't have enough information to reach that conclusion. And that's a red herring anyway. His unit was ordered to deploy to Iraq. That was their mission. That was his mission.
I don't think it's a "red herring" as you put it... I think it's highly important. I don't care where his unit was, and I'm not exactly talking about "him" at the moment.
I'm talking about how as far as I'm concerned... I haven't seen a completed mission SINCE we started fighting anyone... and it seems to me, that the American public in general, doesn't seem to care... I do not think the people in America are stupid, but I do think they're a bit A.D.D. when it comes to what we should be focusing on at any given time.
-
I don't think it's a "red herring" as you put it... I think it's highly important. I don't care where his unit was, and I'm not exactly talking about "him" at the moment.
I'm talking about how as far as I'm concerned... I haven't seen a completed mission SINCE we started fighting anyone... and it seems to me, that the American public in general, doesn't seem to care... I do not think the people in America are stupid, but I do think they're a bit A.D.D. when it comes to what we should be focusing on at any given time.
Then we're focusing on different things. I'm talking about Watada and his obligations. Sounds like you're really talking about the war in Iraq in general.
And "the mission" was to deploy and provide support. The mission for his unit is completed when they return home, like many other units have done.
-
Then we're focusing on different things. I'm talking about Watada and his obligations. Sounds like you're really talking about the war in Iraq in general.
And "the mission" was to deploy and provide support. The mission for his unit is completed when they return home, like many other units have done.
Perhaps, but it is often difficult to seperate the two, when they are so closely entwined.
If you look back, I have both defended (based upon principle) Lt. Watanda, and also condemned him for not fulfilling his obligation... I myself, can see both sides and find it difficult to support or criticize him... These matters, to me, are just not so black and white I suppose.
-
Perhaps, but it is often difficult to seperate the two, when they are so closely entwined.
If you look back, I have both defended (based upon principle) Lt. Watanda, and also condemned him for not fulfilling his obligation... I myself, can see both sides and find it difficult to support or criticize him... These matters, to me, are just not so black and white I suppose.
I think there is lots of black, white, and gray in many areas. This one is black and white to me. :) And I'm a little wrapped up in this because I'm a vet and very close to the military. We have a very large military presence in my church. My closest friend is in Iraq. One of my neighbors is in the military and was in Iraq for over a year. Makes it very hard for me to sympathize with Watada. He has been pretty much universally condemned by active duty and retired military. I know lots of active duty members who didn't want go, and don't want to be there. But they understand and honor their commitment.
I was just talking to the wife of one of my friends who is in Iraq. She hates Bush. Thinks we never should have invaded. But she also condemns Watada.
-
Beach bum,
Let's say you were serving in Iraq. You'd spent the whole week helping a dozen families move into a new building. You laughed with them, worked with them, ate and slep twith them. On the last day, a sniper runs into their building and shoots one US soldier, wounding him.
Your CO orders you to take out the building. "but but, i recommend"... you retort. He doesn't care. he has a deadline and you're getting that man and leaving that town now. As you prepare your ordinance to level the building, the families open the windows and beg you not to fire.
You have to choose. Follow orders (the right thing!) and likely kill 60 people including the sniper. Or, refuse (the wrong thing?) and not fire.
What do you do? And if there's a 1% chance you follow your conscience, how you can fault this man who refuses to go to iraq? You called this man "treasonous", right? Is there even a 1% chance you'd commit treason?
-
I think there is lots of black, white, and gray in many areas. This one is black and white to me. :) And I'm a little wrapped up in this because I'm a vet and very close to the military. We have a very large military presence in my church. My closest friend is in Iraq. One of my neighbors is in the military and was in Iraq for over a year. Makes it very hard for me to sympathize with Watada. He has been pretty much universally condemned by active duty and retired military. I know lots of active duty members who didn't want go, and don't want to be there. But they understand and honor their commitment.
I was just talking to the wife of one of my friends who is in Iraq. She hates Bush. Thinks we never should have invaded. But she also condemns Watada.
That's not an uncommon response... My cousin is in Iraq right now... I think that if I were a person in the military I too would see it as a slap in the face.
I guess at it's most simplest is the idea that you have committed to serving and doing what your superiors tell you... It's not about legality... It's whether you're right or wrong in your actions... While his premise is right... his actions do seem wrong.
Like I said... I find it difficult to condemn or praise him.
-
Beach bum,
Let's say you were serving in Iraq. You'd spent the whole week helping a dozen families move into a new building. You laughed with them, worked with them, ate and slep twith them. On the last day, a sniper runs into their building and shoots one US soldier, wounding him.
Your CO orders you to take out the building. "but but, i recommend"... you retort. He doesn't care. he has a deadline and you're getting that man and leaving that town now. As you prepare your ordinance to level the building, the families open the windows and beg you not to fire.
You have to choose. Follow orders (the right thing!) and likely kill 60 people including the sniper. Or, refuse (the wrong thing?) and not fire.
What do you do? And if there's a 1% chance you follow your conscience, how you can fault this man who refuses to go to iraq? You called this man "treasonous", right? Is there even a 1% chance you'd commit treason?
Not the wild hypothetical again. Sorry. Won't bite. :)
-
That's not an uncommon response... My cousin is in Iraq right now... I think that if I were a person in the military I too would see it as a slap in the face.
I guess at it's most simplest is the idea that you have committed to serving and doing what your superiors tell you... It's not about legality... It's whether you're right or wrong in your actions... While his premise is right... his actions do seem wrong.
Like I said... I find it difficult to condemn or praise him.
I hear you. I can respect that.
-
Not the wild hypothetical again. Sorry. Won't bite. :)
Half of this board is hypotneticals on future situations and solutions. Suppose I gave you the hypothetical: "Would you chop off your arm for a big Mac"?
The answer would be an easy "NO".
I guess this answer didn't come so easy to you. If there's any doubt, then you really shouldn't question this man's actions, because you open up the same door of doubt.
If you could level the building without blinking, I think you would have just admitted it. I think you're a better man for not admitting your willingness, although it does leave you vulnerable in this argument.
-
I think that's true from what I recall, but so what? That wasn't his mission. Also, Afghanistan is not nearly as dangerous as Iraq. I'm not even sure there are artillery battalions/brigades there? Headhunter would know? But he's probably so short he cannot reach his keyboard. :D
Not as dangerous..well that depends on where u are. This place is the forgotten war. But u can ask any of my soldiers how "easy" this place is. All of them have been IED'd, ambushed or seen combat in one form or another. It is different from Iraq....We don't get IED'd at the same rate and u know more less where u can go and can't go. U have a better idea of where ur going to get lit up. The terrain makes it difficult to fight and there are few urban sprawls like Iraq. I leave in 3 days.
-
Not as dangerous..well that depends on where u are. This place is the forgotten war. But u can ask any of my soldiers how "easy" this place is. All of them have been IED'd, ambushed or seen combat in one form or another. It is different from Iraq....We don't get IED'd at the same rate and u know more less where u can go and can't go. U have a better idea of where ur going to get lit up. The terrain makes it difficult to fight and there are few urban sprawls like Iraq. I leave in 3 days.
Stay safe until you get out!!
-
Well getting home anyway..got plenty of years left until I get out.
-
Well getting home anyway..got plenty of years left until I get out.
I hope you don't have to go back...
-
Half of this board is hypotneticals on future situations and solutions. Suppose I gave you the hypothetical: "Would you chop off your arm for a big Mac"?
The answer would be an easy "NO".
I guess this answer didn't come so easy to you. If there's any doubt, then you really shouldn't question this man's actions, because you open up the same door of doubt.
If you could level the building without blinking, I think you would have just admitted it. I think you're a better man for not admitting your willingness, although it does leave you vulnerable in this argument.
Silly boy. It's actually much simpler than that. It's a dumb hypothetical.
HTH.
-
Silly boy. It's actually much simpler than that. It's a dumb hypothetical.
HTH.
Right. Dumb because no soldier has ever questioned an order. Cool. it helped!
-
My cousin is in Iraq right now... I think that if I were a person in the military I too would see it as a slap in the face.
What a bunch of pussies.
That 'slap in the face' whine is old, tired, and worthless.
The slap in the face came from the President, not from the people who said the President was a coward, liar, and thief.
-
What a bunch of pussies.
That 'slap in the face' whine is old, tired, and worthless.
The slap in the face came from the President, not from the people who said the President was a coward, liar, and thief.
Every time I hear a military man say we're losing because 'people at home aren't supportive enough', it makes me shake my head in disgust. We've supported a war against one country that lasted longer than WWII. When we found out it was built on lies, we gave it another 2 years. When the death toll neared 3000, people had enough and voted the dogs out.
If 5 years of pats on the back, unlimited cash and support isn't enough to get the job done, please look at the men giving orders, body armor, and reinforcements.
-
What a bunch of pussies.
That 'slap in the face' whine is old, tired, and worthless.
The slap in the face came from the President, not from the people who said the President was a coward, liar, and thief.
You don't think if you were doing what you were told like everyone else... you wouldn't see a deserter (cause in all honesty, that's what he is) as slapping you in the face while you're doing what you're told?
Come on...
-
You don't think if you were doing what you were told like everyone else... you wouldn't see a deserter (cause in all honesty, that's what he is) as slapping you in the face while you're doing what you're told?
Come on...
The military's position has always been "he signed the contract, took the money, and now he needs to get back here and do his job."
A large majority of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines feel exactly the same way and military leaders drill that into their heads.
And I disagree with them 100%.
When I'm deployed, I don't want to have to rely on anyone who isn't committed to the mission. If they don't want to be there and my life is on the line, then I sure as hell don't want them there.
-
We get some MTV top ten thing on AFN here. They carry MTV news as part of it as well. That shithead was just on. Look I don't care if ur against the war..plenty of guys who got out have protested or have problems with it. He abandoned his men....his buddies and he should be held accountable for his actions. He violated the law, just like murder, rape or arson. What he did was against the law. Maybe its not the law most folks have to deal with but its (UCMJ) Federal law. He should have done his year and then gotten out. He knew exactly what he was getting into..he knew during colledge. He knew he was going to war. There is plenty to complain about in the military..but not doing ur damm job is not one of them. His job as a junior officer and leader is to take care of his guys period. Bring them home safe and not utter one word that will lower moral or in any way jeoparidize their safety.
-
The military's position has always been "he signed the contract, took the money, and now he needs to get back here and do his job."
A large majority of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines feel exactly the same way and military leaders drill that into their heads.
And I disagree with them 100%.
When I'm deployed, I don't want to have to rely on anyone who isn't committed to the mission. If they don't want to be there and my life is on the line, then I sure as hell don't want them there.
So you think most of the people in Iraq believe in the cause...
I would bet it's a lot less than you think... There's a huge difference between believing in the cause and loyalty to your comrades... This guy has definitely shown NO loyalty... It's about him and no one else.
I'm not saying he's inherently wrong... read my past posts... however, the only difference between him and the rest of the gang is that he refused... everyone else did their job.
The next time you don't do what you're told to do at work... let's see how well that goes over with your boss...
No, you won't get brought into court, because you're a civilian... the reality is that he as a soldier is US Government property... That's just fact.
If you hurt a soldier, that is a federal crime, and you can also be charged with damaging government property.
It's unfortunate and I don't agree with it, but he certainly knows what he signed up for.
-
MIS-TRIAL ;D
Let's hope he's not tried again
-
We get some MTV top ten thing on AFN here. They carry MTV news as part of it as well. That shithead was just on. Look I don't care if ur against the war..plenty of guys who got out have protested or have problems with it. He abandoned his men....his buddies and he should be held accountable for his actions. He violated the law, just like murder, rape or arson. What he did was against the law. Maybe its not the law most folks have to deal with but its (UCMJ) Federal law. He should have done his year and then gotten out. He knew exactly what he was getting into..he knew during colledge. He knew he was going to war. There is plenty to complain about in the military..but not doing ur damm job is not one of them. His job as a junior officer and leader is to take care of his guys period. Bring them home safe and not utter one word that will lower moral or in any way jeoparidize their safety.
Well said. I agree.
-
MIS-TRIAL ;D
Let's hope he's not tried again
YAWN. His lawyer was all over TV yelling "double jeopardy," but Watada will be on trial again next month. This is a speed bump.
-
Not as dangerous..well that depends on where u are. This place is the forgotten war. But u can ask any of my soldiers how "easy" this place is. All of them have been IED'd, ambushed or seen combat in one form or another. It is different from Iraq....We don't get IED'd at the same rate and u know more less where u can go and can't go. U have a better idea of where ur going to get lit up. The terrain makes it difficult to fight and there are few urban sprawls like Iraq. I leave in 3 days.
You're right. I wasn't trying to say Afghanistan isn't dangerous. Sorry about that.
-
This is a speed bump.
You're on a mission to have this guy buried for putting his beliefs above his freedom.
Shame you wouldn't answer that you'd follow 100% of orders.
yet you're all over this guys' case.
-
You're on a mission to have this guy buried for putting his beliefs above his freedom.
Shame you wouldn't answer that you'd follow 100% of orders.
yet you're all over this guys' case.
I'm not on a mission. I'm reporting the news, sprinkled with my opinion. The United States Army is on mission to punish this fool. I wish the Army good luck and Godspeed on their "journey to justice."
And am I supposed to care that you support this coward or something? :-\ (I don't.)
-
And am I supposed to care that you support this coward or something? :-\ (I don't.)
I care that so many Americans support that coward, George Bush.
Idiots do frighten me, because their numbers are growing too rapidly in this country.
-
I care that so many Americans support that coward, George Bush.
Idiots do frighten me, because their numbers are growing too rapidly in this country.
That's one of the great things about this country. Millions support Bush and millions don't. But we're still standing and thriving.
But thank God for the justice system that deals with cowards like Watada.
-
But thank God for the justice system that deals with cowards like Watada.
If there is any such thing as justice, cowards Bush & Cheney will suffer long and painful deaths.
-
If there is any such thing as justice, cowards Bush & Cheney will suffer long and painful deaths.
No such luck. They have to actually break the law first (like Watada). :D
-
No such luck. They have to actually break the law first (like Watada). :D
(http://platinum.funpic.org/images/ostrich.jpg)
BeachBum
BeachBum, when you hide your head in the sand, ...guess which end get's exposed?
I should send you some KY for Valentine's Day, 'cause I have a feeling you're gonna need it. :D
-
(http://platinum.funpic.org/images/ostrich.jpg)
BeachBum
BeachBum, when you hide your head in the sand, ...guess which end get's exposed?
I should send you some KY for Valentine's Day, 'cause I have a feeling you're gonna need it. :D
Haha. You're lucky I'm a functioning computer illiterate and don't know how to post those funny pictures. :(
And if there is anyone who knows anything about taking it in the shorts, it's a tax-paying Canadian. :D
-
I agree with Fidell. And what's cool about this is Watada may force more prison time. :)
Watada trial judge erred, risking case, one expert says
But experts disagree about double jeopardy in court-martial
By Leila Fujimori
lfujimori@starbulletin.com
A local attorney with decades of experience in military justice says the judge in Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada's court-martial overstepped his bounds, possibly jeopardizing the government's case against the war objector.
Attorney Earle Partington says military judge Lt. Col. John Head lacked authority to set a new date, March 19, for trial after declaring a mistrial Wednesday, and it could take at least year before the case can go back to trial.
"I'm surprised he thought he could do that," said Partington, who has represented numerous military service members since the 1960s and served in the military in Vietnam. He said the government might have "to start over from scratch."
Partington, who recently represented a Kaneohe Marine in a court-martial, said the judge in that case noted that he could not just reset a trial after declaring a mistrial.
Watada, a 1996 Kalani High School graduate, is being court-martialed for refusing to deploy to Iraq and for conduct unbecoming an officer. Last year, the Fort Lewis, Wash.-based officer announced his refusal to deploy based on his belief that the war in Iraq was illegal.
Head declared a mistrial after questioning Watada over an agreement he signed before the trial started, stipulating certain facts of the case. The judge said he did not believe Watada fully understood the stipulation of fact. Watada said he never intended to admit he had a duty to go to Iraq with his soldiers, part of the crime of missing troop movement.
While Partington thinks the judge erred, another local attorney with decades of experience in military justice disagrees.
Jay Fidell, a U.S. Coast Guard law specialist, former military judge and investigating officer and a retired lieutenant commander, said it was the judge's call and likely is OK.
"It seems to me the government is motivated to try to conclude this matter," he said. "It's been a high-profile matter, and I think the government is interested in putting it to rest and in achieving a precedent that will not undo good order and discipline."
Watada's lawyer, Eric Seitz, said Wednesday his client cannot be tried again, saying it would have the effect of double jeopardy, or being tried twice for the same charges.
Should the Army go forward with a new trial, Seitz said, he would seek dismissal of the charges with prejudice so they could not be refiled, and would appeal if denied.
Fidell and Partington, who both acknowledged they lacked firsthand knowledge of the details of the proceedings, also disagreed on the issue of double jeopardy.
"I have serious reservations about whether this is a case of double jeopardy," Fidell said.
To have a case of double jeopardy, there must be a case of jeopardy, he said, noting that jeopardy classically "attaches" when trial is over and the accused is acquitted, Fidell said.
"My sense of it is it did not attach here," he said. "It was just not late enough in the proceeding."
But Partington said, "Jeopardy attaches in the military when evidence is offered on the issue of guilt.
"The government presented their case, so jeopardy must certainly attach," he said. The prosecution had rested before the mistrial was declared, but the defense had not yet presented any witnesses.
If the case goes back to trial, Watada would first be allowed to appeal in the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, pushing the court-martial back further, Partington said. If rejected, he would have the option to take the matter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces in Washington, D.C.
Fidell said that if the judge rightly concluded there were issues about the validity of the stipulation Watada signed, then the mistrial was properly granted.
The real question is whether Watada will be charged on the same charges, Fidell said. The Army originally had dropped some charges for conduct unbecoming an officer, which would have exposed him to a more severe punishment, Fidell noted.
"Now he faces all of them again," he said. "The government may be reluctant to enter into a deal. Now he may be facing greater punishment."
http://starbulletin.com/2007/02/09/news/story02.html
-
Can someone summarize in one sentence why watada might beat the rap? 5 pages of whining, eh...
-
Can someone explain the First Amendment exceptions and missing movement charges to 240? He still doesn't get it.
-
Can someone explain the First Amendment exceptions and missing movement charges to 240? He still doesn't get it.
i understand the charges and the agreement he took on. i just didn't feel like reading 5 pages of an evolving story when someone with knowledge could summarize why the case might not go thru.
thanks for answering my request with an assumption.
-
i understand the charges and the agreement he took on. i just didn't feel like reading 5 pages of an evolving story when someone with knowledge could summarize why the case might not go thru.
thanks for answering my request with an assumption.
[chuckle]
Re: Treasonous Officer Just Can't Keep His Mouth Shut
« Reply #3 on: December 18, 2006, 05:10:21 PM » Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beach Bum calling another American our for being "treasonous", for using his first amendment rights.
incredible.
::)
-
you're a perrrrrrrvert.
stop following my december posts, short eyes!
-
you're a perrrrrrrvert.
stop following my december posts, short eyes!
It's on page one of this thread. Second post (I think). You can't even keep up with your own gibberish. :D
Like I said, someone explain this whole First Amendment thing to 240. He's struggling a bit.
-
Can someone summarize in one sentence why watada might beat the rap? 5 pages of whining, eh...
Beach Bum,
I asked why the case is falling apart.
I didn't ask why he's charged, I asked why he might walk on the charges.
Perhaps you got some dirt on your reading glasses while rummaging thru my garbage
-
Beach Bum,
I asked why the case is falling apart.
I didn't ask why he's charged, I asked why he might walk on the charges.
Perhaps you got some dirt on your reading glasses while rummaging thru my garbage
::) Two lawyers on both sides of the issue already explained their views on the potential double jeopardy issue in the article I posted this morning. ::) But they're actually talking about facts, which you have trouble with. You do much better with fanciful theories.
And sure you understand the First Amendment issues here: "Beach Bum calling another American our for being "treasonous", for using his first amendment rights. incredible."
[chuckle]
-
::) Two lawyers on both sides of the issue already explained their views on the potential double jeopardy issue in the article I posted this morning. ::) But they're actually talking about facts, which you have trouble with. You do much better with fanciful theories.
And sure you understand the First Amendment issues here: "Beach Bum calling another American our for being "treasonous", for using his first amendment rights. incredible."
[chuckle]
1) extremely weird for a 40+ year old man to be chuckling after trudging up old threads of a stranger, but I'll just chalk that up to your postcoital bliss and wish you well in your journey to the brown side...
2) Thank you for writing 4 sentences on why I'm so stupid, and zero sentences on why the case against this guy might fall apart.
3) Can anyone else summarize why the case is falling apart?
-
[chuckle]
::)
-
2) Thank you for writing 4 sentences on why I'm so stupid, and zero sentences on why the case against this guy might fall apart.
3) Can anyone else summarize why the case is falling apart?
I haven't heard this from any of the legal wizards yet.
Unlike a civilian court, there's no unwritten 'you-must-understand-these-charges-to-the-letter-or-we-can't-prosecute-you' clause in the military justice system. Contradictory to my earlier statement, I think the ONLY reason you saw a mistrial here was the fact that there was so much media attention and because the war is so unpopular with - now - a majority of Americans.
My word is this - if this had happened back in 2003, when so many people were (wrongly) on the pro-war bandwagon, they would've corrected the paperwork and resumed the trial the following day.
As the law is currently written, he must be found guilty and must be sentenced accordingly. I do not dispute that. I would, however, like to see the laws changed, but anyone who is in or who has served in the military understands why things operate the way that they do.
-
about the UCMJ or the First Amendment.
That's why I would never serve in the military. You are essentially required to give up several of your constitutional rights and freedoms during your term of service.
-
I haven't heard this from any of the legal wizards yet.
Unlike a civilian court, there's no unwritten 'you-must-understand-these-charges-to-the-letter-or-we-can't-prosecute-you' clause in the military justice system. Contradictory to my earlier statement, I think the ONLY reason you saw a mistrial here was the fact that there was so much media attention and because the war is so unpopular with - now - a majority of Americans.
My word is this - if this had happened back in 2003, when so many people were (wrongly) on the pro-war bandwagon, they would've corrected the paperwork and resumed the trial the following day.
As the law is currently written, he must be found guilty and must be sentenced accordingly. I do not dispute that. I would, however, like to see the laws changed, but anyone who is in or who has served in the military understands why things operate the way that they do.
I highly doubt Watada didn't understand the charges and what he was admitting. He is represented by both military and civilian counsel. But I agree the only reason the prosecutors agreed to a mistrial was due to the publicity of this case.
-
That's why I would never serve in the military. You are essentially required to give up several of your constitutional rights and freedoms during your term of service.
True. You better explain that to 240. . . . .
-
That's why I would never serve in the military. You are essentially required to give up several of your constitutional rights and freedoms during your term of service.
Junior enlisted have fewer rights than incarcerated felons.
-
I highly doubt Watada didn't understand the charges and what he was admitting. He is represented by both military and civilian counsel. But I agree the only reason the prosecutors agreed to a mistrial was due to the publicity of this case.
Indeed - the guy isn't an idiot. I hope that neither he nor his lawyers thinks that playing these little word games is going to do anything but to delay the inevitable...and at taxpayer expense.
-
Junior enlisted have fewer rights than incarcerated felons.
Junior enlisted have the same rights, but far fewer privileges. It's almost like a caste system.
-
hahahahaha, sounds like all you military and pro military knuckle dragging neanderthal meatheads are just angry that this great man had the balls to stand up and say what he feels instead of you cowardly robots.
-
Hahahahaha. ::)
-
That's why I would never serve in the military. You are essentially required to give up several of your constitutional rights and freedoms during your term of service.
Does no one see a strange dis-connect here?
Your oath is to defend the Constitution and the rights it confers to people... with your life if necessary,
...however you are required to give up your rights under the constitution to do it? ???
-
Junior enlisted have the same rights, but far fewer privileges. It's almost like a caste system.
Isn't the freedom of speech considered a right, and not merely a priviledge?
-
hahahahaha, sounds like all you military and pro military knuckle dragging neanderthal meatheads are just angry that this great man had the balls to stand up and say what he feels instead of you cowardly robots.
there will be many more, as they come home and learn the Pentagon MADE UP the threat of WMD to start a war for Cheney and bush.
-
Isn't the freedom of speech considered a right, and not merely a priviledge?
It's a right with many exceptions. "Fighting words" are not protected speech. You cannot walk up to your boss, cuss her out, claim "free speech," and keep your job. You cannot yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. You cannot say whatever you want when you're in the military. Disrespecting your superior officer can land you in jail. Anyone who signs up knows this. And in our all-volunteer military, if you don't want to check your First Amendment (and other) rights at the door, don't sign up. And you really shouldn't sign up DURING a war, like Watada did.
-
It's a right
[rest of Beachbum's BS deflective unrelated argument snipped for the sake of the reader's sanity.]
-
[rest of Beachbum's BS deflective unrelated argument snipped for the sake of the reader's sanity.]
Are you serious? You have to be joking? So, um, Jag next time you see a police officer walk up and cuss him out, and make sure you use a racial slur when doing so. When you are arrested, make your First Amendment argument. ::)
-
Are you serious? You have to be joking? So, um, Jag next time you see a police officer walk up and cuss him out, and make sure you use a racial slur when doing so. When you are arrested, make your First Amendment argument. ::)
Idiot, I'm in Canada. The 1st. Amendment doesn't apply. American law does not rule up here ...yet :-\
Sorry racial slurs aren't my thing. FYI, I have cussed out cops, and was not arrested for it. I didn't break the law.
-
Idiot, I'm in Canada. The 1st. Amendment doesn't apply. American law does not rule up here ...yet :-\
Sorry racial slurs aren't my thing. FYI, I have cussed out cops, and was not arrested for it. I didn't break the law.
There is a law in certain states called "Curse and Abuse" that cops can charge you with if they desire... HOWEVER, many States have overturned that law due to it being the antithesis of the 1st Amendment and I believe that many states have overturned that law on that basis.
It is not unlawful to curse at a cop... However, if he's stopped you for a reason and you DO curse at him... I guarantee that whatever the charge is that he stated he stopped you for will somehow be proven or at least he will have enough evidence to charge you, even if you're not found guilty.
It's not illegal, however, it is pretty stupid... Unless you have a video camera... Then it's probably gonna be a lot better...
Unless he bashes your camera in of course. :D
-
Oh I wouldn't be stupid enough to cuss out a cop who's just pulled me over. {lol}.
I do stupid things sometimes, but that's a level of stupidity I'll leave to others. :D
-
Oh I wouldn't be stupid enough to cuss out a cop who's just pulled me over. {lol}.
I do stupid things sometimes, but that's a level of stupidity I'll leave to others. :D
Was definitely not saying you would... was just informing the public at large... Generalized "you" on the previous post.
-
Was definitely not saying you would... was just informing the public at large... Generalized "you" on the previous post.
Don't get me wrong, ...I have balls enough to cuss out guys like kh300 ...so long as it's not in person. :P
-
Don't get me wrong, ...I have balls enough to cuss out guys like kh300 ...so long as it's not in person. :P
HAHA!
What? I can't read that... ;)
-
Idiot, I'm in Canada. The 1st. Amendment doesn't apply. American law does not rule up here ...yet :-\
Sorry racial slurs aren't my thing. FYI, I have cussed out cops, and was not arrested for it. I didn't break the law.
Oh. That's right. Thanks for the reminder. That makes your dumb comments about the First Amendment even dumber grandma. :)
-
There is a law in certain states called "Curse and Abuse" that cops can charge you with if they desire... HOWEVER, many States have overturned that law due to it being the antithesis of the 1st Amendment and I believe that many states have overturned that law on that basis.
It is not unlawful to curse at a cop... However, if he's stopped you for a reason and you DO curse at him... I guarantee that whatever the charge is that he stated he stopped you for will somehow be proven or at least he will have enough evidence to charge you, even if you're not found guilty.
It's not illegal, however, it is pretty stupid... Unless you have a video camera... Then it's probably gonna be a lot better...
Unless he bashes your camera in of course. :D
I'd be willing to wager that if you walked up to a cop and started cursing at him and her using racial epithets that you would be arrested. Disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, etc. Something. So yes it may be true that simply cursing and using racial epithets at a police officer are not, standing alone, crimes, you'd certainly be charged with some crime.
-
Oh. That's right. Thanks for the reminder. That makes your dumb comments about the First Amendment even dumber grandma. :)
Grandma? F**K YOU! >:(
-
Grandma? F**K YOU! >:(
No thanks. I'm not into the whole geriatric, post menopausal thing.
Would you prefer "tutu"? (Hawaiian for grandma). :D
-
No thanks. I'm not into the whole geriatric, post menopausal thing.
Would you prefer "tutu"? (Hawaiian for grandma). :D
{LOL} brat!
So anyone over 21 is a grandma huh?
Ya, ...I said 21. I'm 21 ...and a peeny bit. :P
THAT's MY STORY...AND I'M STICKING TO IT! >:(
-
LOL. Go get some more mail order degrees. 240: proof positive that "education" does not equal intelligence.
IQ (our best measure of intelligence to date) correlate with academic performance. Teh correlation coefficient = 0,5.
Draw your own conclusions dickwads.
Ps: Who gives a shit about the schools "rep"? The quality of teh education should be measured by how much teh student retains after his edu. is completed, and how well he/she can put it to good use in teh real world. These factors are mostly determined by the individual and the individuals approach to the world of academia, not by the professors or by the schools rep.
-
{LOL} brat!
So anyone over 21 is a grandma huh?
Ya, ...I said 21. I'm 21 ...and a peeny bit. :P
THAT's MY STORY...AND I'M STICKING TO IT! >:(
Hey you know I'm just teasing. But you started it! :P
-
IQ (our best measure of intelligence to date) correlate with academic performance. Teh correlation coefficient = 0,5.
Draw your own conclusions dickwads.
Ps: Who gives a shit about the schools "rep"? The quality of teh education should be measured by how much teh student retains after his edu. is completed, and how well he/she can put it to good use in teh real world. These factors are mostly determined by the individual and the individuals approach to the world of academia, not by the professors or by the schools rep.
:D
-
:D
Quoting Gary Buseys stream of thought in real time = teh funny. :)
-
:)
Updated at 2:54 p.m., Friday, February 23, 2007
Army refiles charges against 1st Lt. Watada
Advertiser Staff
The Army today refiled charges against 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, who gained international attention for refusing to deploy to Iraq.
The charges come after a military judge declared a mistrial earlier this month in Watada's court-martial trial.
Eric Seitz, Watada's attorney, said the Army refiled the same charges against the 28-year-old Kalani High School graduate. They include one count of missing movement and two counts of conduct unbecoming an officer. Watada claims the war is illegal and he would be party to war crimes if he followed orders to deploy.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Feb/23/br/br9051368427.html
-
Another update. Looks like trial won't be till this summer. :(
http://starbulletin.com/2007/02/24/news/story05.html
-
Updated at 11:14 a.m., Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Watada's second court-martial set for July
By MELANTHIA MITCHELL
Associated Press
First Lt. Ehren Watada of Honolulu could be sentenced to six years in prison and be dishonorably discharged if convicted in his second court-martial, which has been set for July.
SEATTLE — A second court-martial is scheduled to begin July 16 for an Army lieutenant who refused to go to Iraq with his Fort Lewis-based Stryker brigade and spoke out against the Bush administration.
The first military trial for 1st Lt. Ehren Watada of Honolulu ended in mistrial after three days when the judge said he didn't believe Watada fully understood a pretrial agreement he'd signed and that would have cut his sentence to four years.
On Friday, the Army refiled charges of missing movement and conduct unbecoming an officer — the same charges Watada, 28, had initially faced. If convicted, Watada could be sentenced to six years in prison and be dishonorably discharged.
Pretrial motions have been set for May 20-21, with the court-martial scheduled to begin the week of July 16, according to the office of Eric Seitz, Watada's attorney based in Honolulu.
Seitz has said he will seek to have the charges dismissed as a violation of the Constitution's protection against double jeopardy. Today, he said he would likely file motions by April.
He said he and Watada still hope to reach some sort of an agreement with the military, but as of yet have had no communication with the Army, other than an e-mail listing the court dates.
"Our understanding is that they want to continue with this and we're happy to oblige," Seitz said.
Prosecutors would not comment on the case, Fort Lewis spokesman Joseph Piek said today. However, last week he said that double jeopardy was not a factor in the case because Watada's first trial "had not reached a position of finality."
"As far as I'm aware we are moving forward with the charges," Piek said today.
Military judge Lt. Col. John Head originally scheduled a new trial for March 19 after Watada's first court-martial abruptly ended Feb. 7. Seitz had said he likely wouldn't be able to make that date because of conflicting court schedules.
The conduct unbecoming an officer charge against Watada accuses him in four instances of making public statements criticizing the Iraq war or President Bush.
Watada has acknowledged making the statements and to missing a June deployment with the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, which is currently in Baghdad. Just before the mistrial was declared, he had planned to take the witness stand to argue that his motives were to avoid committing war crimes by participating in an illegal war.
Watada is currently assigned to an administrative position at Fort Lewis.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Feb/28/br/br1974382605.html
-
Watada's attorney saying Bush should be executed?
"Treaties, when they are properly adopted by this country, become part and parcel of American law," Seitz argued. "The president cannot select which treaties he is going to implement and ignore others. And his selective enforcement of the provisions of the law ... frankly, in my view, should subject him to a war crimes trial -- and, in fact, to the ultimate punishment which the statute requires, which is death.
"And if you want to quote me, you can say that," Seitz pressed. "I am more than happy to see President Bush and Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld tried for war crimes. And I would be the first one to stand up and clap if they were punished as a consequence."
As the attorney for 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, a Hawaii-born soldier assigned to Fort Lewis, Wash., Seitz has found a bully pulpit for his disgust at the war and the administration. But the high-profile case, which resulted in a mistrial last month, fits lock step with Seitz's long march to defend little guys against the government.
. . .
http://starbulletin.com/2007/03/04/news/story02.html
-
Watada's attorney saying Bush should be executed?
I don't think I've ever argued that they (I include Rumsfeld) should be executed, but they should be tried for treason.
-
I don't think I've ever argued that they (I include Rumsfeld) should be executed, but they should be tried for treason.
Even if the punishment is death?
-
Even if the punishment is death?
Not to me... killing is wrong.
-
Not to me... killing is wrong.
Unless it's an unborn child? :-X
-
Unless it's an unborn child? :-X
I think that's wrong too, but it's not my choice to make... much like I can't repeal the death penalty.
Nice try though... I've got two great kids and I would never have dreamt of aborting them... wasn't even a thought for a split second.
-
I think that's wrong too, but it's not my choice to make... much like I can't repeal the death penalty.
Nice try though... I've got two great kids and I would never have dreamt of aborting them... wasn't even a thought for a split second.
Sorry for the confusion. I wasn't trying to say you would abort one of your kids. My statement was a general one and not directed to you personally. I don't know what your abortion views are.
I have four brats BTW. :)
-
this guy Watada is a hero and should be applauded for standing up for what he believes in.
-
this guy Watada is a hero and should be applauded for standing up for what he believes in.
There is no way you are serious
-
Sorry for the confusion. I wasn't trying to say you would abort one of your kids. My statement was a general one and not directed to you personally. I don't know what your abortion views are.
I have four brats BTW. :)
Can't imagine what the unborn child post could have otherwise been about...
I myself believe that killing is wrong... on all counts.
If someone were to do something to one of my children... would I kill them... I don't know, maybe, but I would still be wrong.
Something is not "right", just because i choose to do it.
-
Can't imagine what the unborn child post could have otherwise been about...
I myself believe that killing is wrong... on all counts.
If someone were to do something to one of my children... would I kill them... I don't know, maybe, but I would still be wrong.
Something is not "right", just because i choose to do it.
You made the statement that "killing is wrong." I responded with "unless it's an unborn child." My statement was directed to how some believe killing is wrong, unless the kid happens to be in the womb. My (obviously failed) attempt to highlight a contradiction in the entire abortion discussion. I should have clearly stated I wasn't talking about your personal views on abortion. Like I said, I don't know your abortion views. (I cannot remember if we have discussed abortion before?)
-
You made the statement that "killing is wrong." I responded with "unless it's an unborn child." My statement was directed to how some believe killing is wrong, unless the kid happens to be in the womb. My (obviously failed) attempt to highlight a contradiction in the entire abortion discussion. I should have clearly stated I wasn't talking about your personal views on abortion. Like I said, I don't know your abortion views. (I cannot remember if we have discussed abortion before?)
I'm sure we did not.
-
I'm sure we did not.
Right. Which explains why I don't know your views on abortion.
-
See last paragraph. Sitting on his cowardly butt, at home, while his soldiers are dodging bullets. >:(
Watada changes attorneys for appeal
The new attorneys also question the need for a retrial
By Gregg K. Kakesako
gkakesako@starbulletin.com
Honolulu-born Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, who refused to deploy to Iraq last summer with his Fort Lewis Stryker brigade unit, has hired two Seattle attorneys because he wanted "someone local to do his appeal."
Since the mistrial, the Army has refiled charges against the 28-year-old artillery officer, including one count of missing a movement and two counts of conduct unbecoming of an officer. Those counts cover statements Watada, a 1996 Kalani High School graduate, made criticizing the Iraq war and President Bush.
Watada's first court-martial in February ended in a mistrial. His second trial is scheduled for July but could be pushed into the fall.
With Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada awaiting a second trial, his new lawyer said he believes the principle of double jeopardy applies in his case.
Ken Kagan, attorney with the Seattle law firm of Carney Bradle Spellman, said yesterday that his agency filed papers with the Army on March 28, saying it had replaced Honolulu attorney Eric Seitz.
Seitz said Watada, 28, simply "wanted someone local to do his appeal," and expressed no hard feelings for his former client's decision.
"My staff is very relieved because we were spending so much time and money on the case," he said.
Kagan, one of two attorneys retained by Watada, declined to say why his law firm was hired or whether it was being paid. The other attorney is James Lobsenz, from Kagan's law firm.
Kagan said that Army Reserve Capt. Mark Kim, who is also an administrative judge in Spokane, Wash., will continue as part of Watada's defense team and will be recalled to active duty when the hearings and trial resume.
Seitz had been handling Watada's court-martial for free, except for travel expenses. A mistrial was declared in early February, three days after the court-martial began.
Kagan said that "the first determination that has to be made now is whether it is appropriate to have a second trial. So that's our focus right now."
A military judge set April 23 as the deadline for both sides to submit written motions, May 21-22 to hear pretrial motions and July 16 as the date for the second court-martial.
However, Kagan said his law firm has asked for more time to review the transcript of the first court-martial, which could push the trial into October.
Following the mistrial, the Army refiled charges against the 28-year-old artillery officer, including one count of missing a movement and two counts of conduct unbecoming of an officer. Those counts cover statements the 1996 Kalani High School graduate made criticizing the Iraq war and President Bush. Conviction on all counts could mean nearly eight years in prison and a dishonorable discharge.
A military judge ordered a mistrial because he believed Watada did not fully understand a pretrial agreement. That deal would have cut Watada's sentence to four years.
Watada's unit -- 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division -- is expected to return to its Fort Lewis, Wash., Army post from Baghdad, Iraq, this summer.
Kagan said Watada, who was eligible to leave the Army in early December under the terms of commission, has not been incarcerated since the mistrial and is assigned to a desk job.
http://starbulletin.com/2007/04/06/news/story03.html
-
:)
No double jeopardy deemed for Watada
The officer's father says the ruling was 'fully expected'
By Helen Altonn / haltonn@starbulletin.com
The judge who declared a mistrial in the court-martial of 1st Lt. Ehren Watada has ruled that retrying him won't violate his constitutional right not to be prosecuted again for a crime of which he has been acquitted.
Watada, 29, refused to be deployed to Iraq with his unit last year.
Watada's lawyers filed notice they will appeal the double jeopardy ruling to the Army Court of Criminal appeals in Arlington, Va.
The developments are likely to delay the start of Watada's second trial, which had been scheduled to begin July 23.
Watada, who is based at Fort Lewis in Washington state, continues to perform administrative duties.
Honolulu attorney Eric Seitz, who was Watada's defense lawyer until March, said yesterday he wasn't surprised at Lt. Col. John Head's ruling at a pretrial hearing Friday.
"I would expect they (the appeals court) would take the issues far more seriously than Judge Head is capable of doing. I would never expect Judge Head to reverse himself but would certainly expect the Appellate Court to do that," Seitz said. "He was not the most competent judge I've met in my life."
The military judge declared a mistrial when he presided over the first trial in February. Head questioned whether Watada fully understood a document he signed admitting to elements of the charges against him.
Watada said he understood what he signed but wasn't admitting guilt because he believed he had a defense -- that the war was illegal.
Prosecutors argued that the Hawaii-born Army officer abandoned his soldiers and disgraced himself and the service by accusing the Army of war crimes and denouncing the Bush administration as conducting an illegal war based on lies.
If convicted, he could be sentenced to prison for six years and be dishonorably discharged.
Seitz said after Head declared a mistrial that a second trial would amount to double jeopardy.
Watada hired Kenneth Kagan and James Lobsenz as his new lawyers in March, saying he wanted local representation for his appeal.
Kagan argued Friday that Head should step away from the case because the judge has created the impression that his mind is made up on some issues.
Head denied he has any preconceived notions and refused to disqualify himself from the case. He is expected to give a written decision early this week.
The judge is also expected to rule on the admissibility of evidence, including whether Watada may call witnesses to testify about he legality of the war.
"My own assessment is that it (the military court proceeding) was very much like a Salem witch trial," Ehren's father, Robert Watada, told the Star-Bulletin yesterday by telephone . "We fully expected this."
He said the judge denied most of the defense team's motions. "He hasn't ruled on some motions, but we expect him to deny all motions," including free speech motions, Watada said. "Basically, the judge said the military has a different set of standards under the law."
A new court-martial date hasn't been set but probably will be in October, Watada said.
Robert Watada said he and his wife, Carolyn Ho, sold their Honolulu home and moved to a farm in Pleasant Hill, Ore., about two months ago.
http://starbulletin.com/2007/07/08/news/story03.html
-
I think the longer this goes on and the longer the US position in Iraq continues to be "negative", then the better his chances of acquittal are.
-
I think the longer this goes on and the longer the US position in Iraq continues to be "negative", then the better his chances of acquittal are.
How so? You think the military officers on his jury will acquit because of opinion polls?
The judge has already ruled he cannot bring in "experts" to argue that the war is illegal. It's a pretty simple case IMO.
-
How so? You think the military officers on his jury will acquit because of opinion polls?
The judge has already ruled he cannot bring in "experts" to argue that the war is illegal. It's a pretty simple case IMO.
Opinion goes a long way... Time will tell.
-
It's to clear cut...it sets a bad example....I do think opinion will shape his punishment.
-
It's to clear cut...it sets a bad example....I do think opinion will shape his punishment.
I sure hope not. He needs to do some serious time, although I think he's only facing 4 or 5 years (something like that)?
-
He needs to come here and clean my car.
-
I sure hope not. He needs to do some serious time...
For actually STANDING for what America stands for???
You can't possibly be serious.
Or maybe you're just feeling rather un-American today.
-
Standing for what America stands for..heh? As a nation of laws..he violated the UCMJ on a number of counts..u could say that he was standing by his own moral code..but that won't keep u out of prison. Hell Ali went to prison rather then fight. Plus and to be honest..i don't believ he was making some stand on moral grounds.....he was a pussy pure and simple.
-
He needs to come here and clean my car.
lol. Fort Leavenworth is calling. :D
-
Headhuntersix needs his care cleaned....He'll only get here if he gets over 7 years otherwise its Knox or Sill
-
For actually STANDING for what America stands for???
You can't possibly be serious.
Or maybe you're just feeling rather un-American today.
Puh-leaze. America doesn't stand for an officer joining the Army while we are at war and then sending his soldiers off to get shot at while he sits at home like a spineless coward spewing his anti-war crap. He should have never signed up. They need to make an example out of this fool. He'll be joining headhunter at Fort Leavenworth soon. :)
Here are the charges (I think):
Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 87
The specification: In that 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, U.S. Army, did, at or near Fort Lewis, Wash., on or about 22 June 2006, through design miss the movement of Flight Number (redacted), with which he was required in the course of duty to move.
Charge II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 133
Specification 1: In that 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, U.S. Army, did, at or near Tacoma, Wash., on or about 7 June 2006, take part in a public press conference in which he communicated the following disgraceful statement, to wit: “It is my conclusion as an officer of the Armed Forces that the war in Iraq is not only morally wrong but a horrible breach of American law. ... As the order to take part in an illegal act is ultimately unlawful as well, I must as an officer of honor and integrity refuse that order. ... The wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of Iraqis is not only a terrible and moral injustice, but it’s a contradiction to the Army’s own law of land warfare. My participation would make me party to war crimes,” or words to that effect, his statement bringing dishonor to the Armed Forces.
Specification 2: In that 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, U.S. Army, did, at or near Tacoma, Wash., on or about 7 June 2006, give a public interview in which he communicated the following disgraceful statement, to wit: “I could never conceive of our leader betraying the trust we had in him. ... As I read about the level of deception the Bush administration used to initiate and process this war, I was shocked. I became ashamed of wearing the uniform. How can we wear something with such a time-honored tradition, knowing we waged war based on a misrepresentation and lies? It was a betrayal of the trust of the American people. And these lies were a betrayal of the trust of the military and the soldiers. ... But I felt there was nothing to be done, and this administation was just continually violating the law to serve their purpose, and there was nothing to stop them. ... Realizing the President is taking us into a war that he misled us about has broken that bond of trust we had. If the President can betray my trust, it’s time for me to evaluate what he’s telling me to do,” or words to that effect, his statement bringing dishonor to the Armed Forces.
Specification 3: In that 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, U.S. Army, did, at or near Tacoma, Wash., on or about 7 June 2006, give a public interview in which he communicated the following disgraceful statement, to wit: “I was shocked and at the same time ashamed that Bush had planned to invade Iraq before the 9/11 attacks. How could I wear this honorable uniform no knowing we invaded a country for a lie?,” or words to that effect, his statement bringing dishonor to the Armed Forces.
http://blogs.thenewstribune.com/military?title=full_text_of_watada_charges&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
-
For actually STANDING for what America stands for???
You can't possibly be serious.
Or maybe you're just feeling rather un-American today.
when they join the military they take an oath to do what ever the COC tells them do.
they can still have opinion. they just cannot act on it if they took the oath.
I support anything that is thrown at this this guy.
and you should be well aware of how much i am against this war.
-
Further...would it not be better to at some point say...'I served...I hated it but I did my job and I believ its wrong" etc etc etc...and attack the war with some credibility. Pussy...not morals or ethics...fucking puss.
-
>:(
Lawyer seeks to delay Watada’s second court-martial
By Gregg K. Kakesako
gkakesako@starbulletin.com
Attorneys for 1st Lt. Ehren Watada filed a motion in federal court in Tacoma, Wash., yesterday requesting a postponement of his court-martial for refusing to go to Iraq last year.
Ken Kagan, one of two Seattle attorneys hired by the 29-year-old artillery officer, hopes to get a hearing on his request by tomorrow since Monday is Columbus Day, a federal holiday, and Watada's court-martial is slated to begin Tuesday at Fort Lewis.
Kagan believes Watada's second court-martial should not be held until a Washington, D.C., appeals court rules on its constitutionality.
"We believe we have a strong case, and are looking forward to litigating the double-jeopardy issue in federal court," Kagan said after the motion was filed.
Lt. Col. John Head, the military judge presiding over Watada's court-martial in February, declared a mistrial because he believed Watada did not understand the terms of a pretrial agreement. In July the same judge denied motions filed by Kagan to dismiss the case or to delay the court-martial until a judgment is rendered on Watada's double-jeopardy appeal.
"The Army or the government's position," Kagan said in a phone interview, "is that if he is convicted at trial, he always has a double-jeopardy issue pending a appeal.
"We take the position, as have most federal courts, that it's too late for that because the whole point of the double-jeopardy issue is that he shouldn't have to go through a trial a second time."
Kagan's first appeal before the Army Court of Criminal Appeals was denied in August. So Watada's case is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces in Washington, D.C.
"We may ultimately lose," Kagan said, "but the point is that it shouldn't go to trial before there has been a meaningful review."
Kagan said he does not see "any middle ground" on the case, which has been going on for 18 months. During that period, Watada's 3rd Stryker Combat Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, has been deployed to Iraq and returned home. A welcoming ceremony is planned for today at the Seattle-area Army post.
Kagan said Watada is "cautious and is trying to remain optimistic."
Watada refused to join his unit when it left on June 22, 2006, because he believed that the war is illegal and immoral.
The mistrial centered on a pretrial agreement that would have cut Watada's sentence to four years. The mistrial occurred three days after the court-martial began and after the prosecution had rested its case, but before Eric Seitz, Watada's first civilian attorney, had presented any witnesses.
In a 12-page pretrial agreement, the Army dropped two charges of conduct unbecoming an officer in exchange for Watada's acknowledgment that he failed to deploy with his unit. He also acknowledged making public statements criticizing the Iraq war.
Watada is charged with missing a movement and conduct unbecoming of an officer. Those counts cover statements Watada made criticizing the Iraq war and President Bush. Conviction on all charges could mean nearly eight years in prison and a dishonorable discharge.
http://starbulletin.com/2007/10/04/news/story10.html
-
For those of you currently on active duty, are soldiers required by military law to follow 'direct orders' that are illegal?
-
which order was illegal? I know you aren't thinking the war, because I have yet to read the court documents in the illegal war case
-
which order was illegal? I know you aren't thinking the war, because I have yet to read the court documents in the illegal war case
True. I think he is precluded from arguing the war is illegal anyway.
He is also charged with making public comments, including this one:
“It is my conclusion as an officer of the Armed Forces that the war in Iraq is not only morally wrong but a horrible breach of American law. ... As the order to take part in an illegal act is ultimately unlawful as well, I must as an officer of honor and integrity refuse that order. ... The wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of Iraqis is not only a terrible and moral injustice, but it’s a contradiction to the Army’s own law of land warfare. My participation would make me party to war crimes,” or words to that effect, his statement bringing dishonor to the Armed Forces.
-
True. I think he is precluded from arguing the war is illegal anyway.
He is also charged with making public comments, including this one:
“It is my conclusion as an officer of the Armed Forces that the war in Iraq is not only morally wrong but a horrible breach of American law. ... As the order to take part in an illegal act is ultimately unlawful as well, I must as an officer of honor and integrity refuse that order. ... The wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of Iraqis is not only a terrible and moral injustice, but it’s a contradiction to the Army’s own law of land warfare. My participation would make me party to war crimes,” or words to that effect, his statement bringing dishonor to the Armed Forces.
correct because while he is "honorable officer with great integrity" he is making unsupported claims of "wholesale slaughter and mistreatment of Iraqis"
-
>:(
Posted on: Friday, October 5, 2007 2:54 PM HST
Judge blocks Watada's court-martial
Associated Press
TACOMA, Wash. >> A federal court judge has temporarily blocked a court-martial scheduled for an Iraq war objector based at Fort Lewis.
The court-martial of Army 1st Lt. Ehren Watada of Hawaii had been scheduled to start Tuesday. Watada’s lawyers argue the Army is violating his constitutional rights by trying him twice for the same crime.
Watada is charged with missing his unit’s deployment to Iraq in June 2006 and with conduct unbecoming an officer for denouncing President Bush and the war.
U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle in Tacoma has decided his court has jurisdiction to issue the stay and that Watada’s double jeopardy claim is not frivolous. Now the judge has asked for more briefs by both sides on the issue.
http://starbulletin.com/breaking/breaking.php?id=6269
-
>:( >:( >:(
Posted on: Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Army can't retry Watada for refusal to serve in Iraq war
Judge blocks Army from retrying war objector on three main allegations
Advertiser Staff and News Services
SEATTLE — A federal judge ruled late yesterday that the Army cannot retry 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, the Kalani High graduate who was the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse deployment to the war in Iraq, on the main charges against him.
Watada was charged with missing his Fort Lewis, Wash., Stryker brigade's deployment and with conduct unbecoming an officer after he refused to board a flight to the Middle East in June 2006.
The 30-year-old soldier contended that the war is illegal and that he would be a party to war crimes if he served in Iraq. His first court-martial ended in a mistrial in February 2007.
Watada's father, Bob, last night said, "It's obviously good news. It's very good news."
Bob Watada added that "we kind of expected this" because U.S. District Judge Benjamin H. Settle of Tacoma ruled in November 2007 that a second trial would violate Ehren's constitutional rights involving double jeopardy, or being tried twice for the same crime.
Settle at the time put in place a preliminary injunction temporarily halting a new court-martial.
Settle yesterday ruled that the government could not retry Watada on three of the charges because doing so would violate Watada's double jeopardy rights.
Settle barred the military from retrying Watada on charges of missing his deployment to Iraq, taking part in a news conference and participating in a Veterans for Peace national convention.
But the court did not rule out the possibility that the Army, after considering legal issues, could retry Watada on two counts of conduct unbecoming an officer resulting from his media interviews.
"He dismissed the heart of their case," Watada lawyer Jim Lobsenz said. "We're very pleased. It's taken a long time."
Honolulu attorney Eric Seitz, who previously represented Watada and was the first to raise the double jeopardy issue, said those two charges were dismissed in the first court-martial and that the Army believes that they "theoretically, hypothetically can be brought back, but I think there's going to be lots of problems."
"I don't think they can bring those back, either," Seitz said.
In a statement late yesterday, a Fort Lewis spokesman said the base's commanding general, Lt. Gen. Charles H. Jacoby Jr., had not yet had a chance to review the ruling in depth.
"Once that review is complete, he will be able to make a decision on the way forward with this case," the spokesman said.
The 1996 Kalani High graduate, stripped of his security clearance, still reports to a meaningless desk job at Fort Lewis, according to family. "He said he's counting paper clips," his father, Bob Watada, said in an interview last week.
"We talk every once in awhile. He lets me know that he's OK," said the father, who lives in Oregon. Bob Watada said his son's term of service in the Army ended in December 2006, but that the legal proceedings have prevented his discharge.
Bob Watada, a former Hawai'i Campaign Spending Commission executive director, said that even if the charges are dismissed, he's worried the Army might appeal the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"The Defense Department has a lot of money (to pursue legal action)," Bob Watada said.
Many military members opined that Watada violated his oath as an officer, and that he had no right to decide whether the Iraq War was just or unjust.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081022/NEWS01/810220382/1001
-
>:( >:( >:(
Posted on: Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Army can't retry Watada for refusal to serve in Iraq war
Judge blocks Army from retrying war objector on three main allegations
Advertiser Staff and News Services
SEATTLE — A federal judge ruled late yesterday that the Army cannot retry 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, the Kalani High graduate who was the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse deployment to the war in Iraq, on the main charges against him.
Watada was charged with missing his Fort Lewis, Wash., Stryker brigade's deployment and with conduct unbecoming an officer after he refused to board a flight to the Middle East in June 2006.
The 30-year-old soldier contended that the war is illegal and that he would be a party to war crimes if he served in Iraq. His first court-martial ended in a mistrial in February 2007.
Watada's father, Bob, last night said, "It's obviously good news. It's very good news."
Bob Watada added that "we kind of expected this" because U.S. District Judge Benjamin H. Settle of Tacoma ruled in November 2007 that a second trial would violate Ehren's constitutional rights involving double jeopardy, or being tried twice for the same crime.
Settle at the time put in place a preliminary injunction temporarily halting a new court-martial.
Settle yesterday ruled that the government could not retry Watada on three of the charges because doing so would violate Watada's double jeopardy rights.
Settle barred the military from retrying Watada on charges of missing his deployment to Iraq, taking part in a news conference and participating in a Veterans for Peace national convention.
But the court did not rule out the possibility that the Army, after considering legal issues, could retry Watada on two counts of conduct unbecoming an officer resulting from his media interviews.
"He dismissed the heart of their case," Watada lawyer Jim Lobsenz said. "We're very pleased. It's taken a long time."
Honolulu attorney Eric Seitz, who previously represented Watada and was the first to raise the double jeopardy issue, said those two charges were dismissed in the first court-martial and that the Army believes that they "theoretically, hypothetically can be brought back, but I think there's going to be lots of problems."
"I don't think they can bring those back, either," Seitz said.
In a statement late yesterday, a Fort Lewis spokesman said the base's commanding general, Lt. Gen. Charles H. Jacoby Jr., had not yet had a chance to review the ruling in depth.
"Once that review is complete, he will be able to make a decision on the way forward with this case," the spokesman said.
The 1996 Kalani High graduate, stripped of his security clearance, still reports to a meaningless desk job at Fort Lewis, according to family. "He said he's counting paper clips," his father, Bob Watada, said in an interview last week.
"We talk every once in awhile. He lets me know that he's OK," said the father, who lives in Oregon. Bob Watada said his son's term of service in the Army ended in December 2006, but that the legal proceedings have prevented his discharge.
Bob Watada, a former Hawai'i Campaign Spending Commission executive director, said that even if the charges are dismissed, he's worried the Army might appeal the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"The Defense Department has a lot of money (to pursue legal action)," Bob Watada said.
Many military members opined that Watada violated his oath as an officer, and that he had no right to decide whether the Iraq War was just or unjust.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20081022/NEWS01/810220382/1001
I don't know what to think of this Officer...
Going to war in Iraq was absolutely wrong, unjust, etc... On the other hand, soldiers can't be picking and choosing when they want to fight; for the sake of security in case an actual threat accrued.
-
Beach Bum calling another American our for being "treasonous", for using his first amendment rights.
incredible.
Wrong 240.
Regardless of whether he disagreed to go to Iraq to fight, when he put on that uniform he is obligated to follow all military orders regardless.
When you are a soldier, you are property of the US Government. You do not have any constitutional rights whatsoever because you are no longer a civilian. The constitution for the military is the UCMJ...The Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The fact is that she can be tried for treason and be sentenced to death by firing squad. I would doubt that would happen but there are serious consequences to disobeying an order.
In the military, there is no democracy. You must follow the orders of your superiors. The only exception is if you are ordered to commit an act that violates the UCMJ or the Geneva Convention and this doesn't fall under it.
-
Ha...this dipshit is here somewhere on Ft. Lewis were I'm currently working. I'm sure LT Gen Jacoby will try and fry his ass but he's busy at the moment dealing with our exercise. He's a very smart little guy. I will ask tommorrow whats going on and get back to u guys.
-
I don't know what to think of this Officer...
Going to war in Iraq was absolutely wrong, unjust, etc... On the other hand, soldiers can't be picking and choosing when they want to fight; for the sake of security in case an actual threat accrued.
He fulfilled his obligation and oath to defend the Constitution and the Republic!
And oath that superceded his obligation to his military commanders.
No Nuremburg trials for him. ;D
-
He fulfilled his obligation and oath to defend the Constitution and the Republic!
And oath that superceded his obligation to his military commanders.
No Nuremburg trials for him. ;D
No trials for anyone, Jaggy. ::)
The asshat violated his oath during a time of war.
I hope he enjoys the remainder of his life in "ass fucker roller coaster" prison.
-
Ha...this dipshit is here somewhere on Ft. Lewis were I'm currently working. I'm sure LT Gen Jacoby will try and fry his ass but he's busy at the moment dealing with our exercise. He's a very smart little guy. I will ask tommorrow whats going on and get back to u guys.
Don't even bother, dumbass.
-
Ha...this dipshit is here somewhere on Ft. Lewis were I'm currently working. I'm sure LT Gen Jacoby will try and fry his ass but he's busy at the moment dealing with our exercise. He's a very smart little guy. I will ask tommorrow whats going on and get back to u guys.
Can you please punch him in the mouth for me? No witnesses. :)
-
No trials for anyone, Jaggy. ::)
The asshat violated his oath during a time of war.
I hope he enjoys the remainder of his life in "ass fucker roller coaster" prison.
Don't be so certain. Justice can sometimes be delayed, ...but it is not always denied. :)
-
Don't be so certain. Justice can sometimes be delayed, ...but it is not always denied. :)
Don't hold your breath on that one.
Even with Obama as President it will be business as usual in DC.
-
>:( I hope this traitor does not move back here. >:(
Army won't seek second court-martial against Watada, lawyer says
Advertiser News Services
First Lt. Ehren Watada will not face a second court-martial for his decision to refuse deployment to Iraq, after a federal appeals court judge allowed the U.S. Army to drop its appeal in the case today, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported.
"We are cautiously optimistic that perhaps we've had enough litigation," said Watada's attorney, James Lobsenz.
Watada was court-martialed in 2007 on five criminal counts after his high-profile refusal of deployment. The case ended in a mistrial, when the military judge declared that Watada did not fully understand a stipulation he had signed before the trial.
The case then went to the civilian U.S. District Court, where Judge Benjamin Settle ruled that a second court-martial on three of the five counts —including refusal of deployment, the most serious charge — would constitute double jeopardy.
Settle set aside two specifications of the same charge — conduct unbecoming an officer —which stemmed from public statements Watada made against the war and President Bush.
Settle left the door open for the United States to pursue those charges later. Ft. Lewis spokesman Joseph Piek said he did not know if the Department of Justice intended to refile those charges. Lobsenz said no charges are currently pending.
Piek said the Army is now considering administrative forms of punishment for Watada, who is working a desk job at the base. He said the punishment options include extra duty, forfeiture of pay, or being discharged from the military.
"The one element that concerns us the most is that this case has always been and will forever be about a soldier — in this case, a lieutenant, a commissioned officer —who refused orders to deploy," Piek said.
"Because of a legal technicality, that charge is never going to see its day in court. For the hundreds of thousands of soldiers Army-wide, and for the many thousands of soldiers at Ft . Lewis, that is very disturbing."
Lobsenz said Watada —who had become a hero among anti-war protesters — is anticipating that he will be released soon from active duty.
"He plans to return to civilian life and attend law school," Lobsenz said.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090506/BREAKING01/90506060
-
Was he found guilty of treason?
If not... Then you shouldn't call him a traitor.
This is a soldier... End of story.
Why would you call him a traitor Beach? Was he found guilty of treason and someone not tell us?
-
Traitor, punk, coward, louse, weak, idiot, and probably ten other names I could rattle off. He's all of that. I really hope I never see him on the street here. I hope he doesn't come back.
I have too many friends who have served in combat to respect this traitor. He sent his men off to get shot at while he sat behind a freakin desk. I have zero respect for him. I'm extremely upset that he will not serve time in prison.
Although I'm sure there are some out there, I haven't talked to a single service member who supports what this idiot did. Those of us who served can appreciate how serious this act was.
HH6 do they have code red in the Army?
(http://assets.236.com/images/photo2/5985/original/original.jpg)
-
I really hope I never see him on the street here.
lmao.... i smell some serious rage here.
-
Traitor, punk, coward, louse, weak, idiot, and probably ten other names I could rattle off. He's all of that. I really hope I never see him on the street here. I hope he doesn't come back.
I have too many friends who have served in combat to respect this traitor. He sent his men off to get shot at while he sat behind a freakin desk. I have zero respect for him. I'm extremely upset that he will not serve time in prison.
Although I'm sure there are some out there, I haven't talked to a single service member who supports what this idiot did. Those of us who served can appreciate how serious this act was.
HH6 do they have code red in the Army?
(http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/specialengagements/afewgoodmenjack1.JPG)
Sounds like you are talking about GW here. I agree. GW should be in prison, at least.
-
Sounds like you are talking about GW here. I agree. GW should be in prison, at least.
I agree GWB should be in prison. But this guy should too. He volunteered for military service signed a contract and took and oath.
-
I agree GWB should be in prison. But this guy should too. He volunteered for military service signed a contract and took and oath.
Does BB think GW should be in prison too?
-
Does BB think GW should be in prison too?
Nope.
-
Nope.
hahaha should GWB watch out if he bumps into you on the street? hahahaha
-
hahaha should GWB watch out if he bumps into you on the street? hahahaha
Nah. Just Watada. I might jump totally out of charater and punch him in mouth. Then pin my flag pin on him, under his shirt. :)
-
Nope.
Why not? He broke international and national laws, lied to get us into a war, lied more...why should he not go to jail?
-
Why not? He broke international and national laws, lied to get us into a war, lied more...why should he not go to jail?
People go to jail when they break the law, are tried, convicted, and sentenced. Except for treasonous military officers in the state of Washington. >:(
Bush didn't break the law, blah blah blah. Believed exactly what Clinton and the Democrats believed about war, isn't moving to Paraguay, etc.
Which reminds, I have to find the thread, but I think I've won a wager with Hedge about that. :)
-
People go to jail when they break the law, are tried, convicted, and sentenced. Except for treasonous military officers in the state of Washington. >:(
Bush didn't break the law, blah blah blah. Believed exactly what Clinton and the Democrats believed about war, isn't moving to Paraguay, etc.
Which reminds, I have to find the thread, but I think I've won a wager with Hedge about that. :)
Your ability to ignore facts such as, Bush is a criminal, is amazing.
-
Your ability to ignore facts such as, Bush is a criminal, is amazing.
Me and everyone who has the power to charge him with a crime.
The criminal talk is nothing more than partisan hyperbole.
-
Me and everyone who has the power to charge him with a crime.
The criminal talk is nothing more than partisan hyperbole.
That's how i look at it. Even though i think he should go to jail, there isn't enough to convict him otherwise it would have happened already.
-
hahaha should GWB watch out if he bumps into you on the street? hahahaha
It's comments like this that expose you 240 or bust. What are you going to "lay an epic owning" on beach bum now? Beach Bum is very smart. Not sure why you make fun of his education. Clearly the man is not dumb.