Treasonous Officer Just Can't Keep His Mouth Shut

[The Squadfather]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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.

 

[Dos Equis]

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

[headhuntersix]

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.

[Dos Equis]

Court martial is set for 5 Feb.   

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

[Dos Equis]

 

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

[GroinkTropin]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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

[headhuntersix]

This prick better not walk.

[Dos Equis]

   [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

[militarymuscle69]

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

[Dos Equis]

You dont' have 1st ammendment rights in the military

Don't try and confuse people with the facts.

[militarymuscle69]

Don't try and confuse people with the facts.

My bad

[Dos Equis]

My bad

 

[Dos Equis]

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

[Dos Equis]

Sean Penn leading an anti-war, pro-Watada rally outside the military base. 

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/dailypix/2007/Feb/05/BR2007020513032657308_b.jpg

[Dos Equis]

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

[ribonucleic]

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.

[Dos Equis]

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"?   

[ribonucleic]

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? 

[militarymuscle69]

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

[Dos Equis]

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.  

[Dos Equis]

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

[Tre]

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?