Nice to be able to post some good news for a change http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_gustav_w_070208_eyewitness_3a_wa\ tada_j.htm <http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_gustav_w_070208_eyewitness_3a_w\ atada_j.htm>
Eyewitness: Watada Judge Panicked and Bailed <http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_gustav_w_070208_eyewitness_3a_w\ atada_j.htm> by Gustav Wynn <http://www.opednews.com/author/author3098.html> <http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=opedne_gustav_w_0\ 70208_eyewitness_3a_watada_j.htm> [Tell A Friend] <http://www.populum.com/tellafriend.php?page=http://www.opednews.com/art\ icles/opedne_gustav_w_070208_eyewitness_3a_watada_j.htm> According to reporter Bill Simpich in attendance at the trial, Lt. Ehren Watada exuded a calm and confidence that visibly shook the judge. It's easy to see why - if he would allow the defendant to present a case that the war is illegal, it could open the flood gates for over 150,000 troops to follow suit ... ... But this was highly controversial - several GIs in the past year have been sentenced to long prison terms for NOT disobeying orders, as in Abu Ghraib, Haditha and other massacres - obviously a soldier's understanding as to the legality of orders is paramount. In this trial, this means the judge would have to allow the defendant to present for the first time anywhere in court the argument that the war is illegal. When the judge reminded the defense that he had ruled that the order to deploy was legal, a strongarm tactic of sorts, defense attorney Eric Seitz made a decisive chess move, introducing a legal instruction, "Reasonable Mistake of Fact/Law". This was meant to inform the jury panel that if Lt. Watada mistakenly believed that the order was illegal, the panel would have to by law decide whether that belief was "reasonable." Visibly shaken, the judge claimed that introducing this instruction was in error, forgetting that the panel had not seen the instruction yet. Realizing his own error, the judge questioned Lt. Watada without asking the defense for permission. With the defense's objection noted, the judge pressed Watada, repeatedly urging the lieutenant to admit he reasonably believed that he was following an illegal order. The 28-year old officer respectfully acknowledged he understood the request, but calmly reasserted he did not deploy because he felt the war was illegal. Unsuccessful in rattling Watada, the judge suggested he might declare a mistrial. But the defense and the prosecution both told the judge that they wanted to proceed. In another uncertain moment, the judge suggested the prosecution recall their witnesses, then suggested the stipulation in question be withdrawn from evidence altogether. The defense was not agreeable. After conferring, the prosecution agreed to the judge's suggestion of a mistrial. The defense still opposed it. Lt. Watada had prepared well, and had consistently exercised his right to free speech and a fair trial. Many thought that the early rulings disallowing Watada to present heavily credentialed witnesses to testify against Bush's war had crippled his case. But it became clear that Lt. Watada was willing to take the stand himself to explain why he felt the war was illegal. After several clashes of will, the judge, seemingly desperate to prevent this testimony declared a mistrial - over the refusal of the defendant. Watada's fate remains now unclear. He may be indemnified due to double jeopardy rules, but could also be dishonorably discharged. Certainly this round goes to his supporters, but a conspicuous back-page burial or altogether media blackout has minimized impact during the immediate 24 hours. The Army will have to deal with this issue backfiring badly - can you court martial an officer without allowing him his day in court? Apparently not. ...
