You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
Watada Charged Again
2007-02-24
FORT LEWIS, Wash. (AP) - The Army refiled charges Friday against a lieutenant who refused to serve in Iraq, about two weeks after his first court-martial was declared a mistrial. First Lt. Ehren Watada, 28, who refused to deploy with his unit last June, faces the same allegations he initially faced - missing movement and conduct unbecoming an officer - and could be sentenced to a dishonorable discharge and six years in prison if convicted. The Army has not set a date for a second court-martial.

``We're back to square one,'' Fort Lewis spokeswoman Leslie Kaye said.

Watada's first trial began early this month but ended abruptly when the judge, Lt. Col. John Head, said he did not believe the soldier fully understood a pretrial agreement he signed admitting elements of the charges. As part of that agreement, the Army dropped two of the charges against him, lowering his potential sentence to four years.

Watada's attorney, Eric Seitz, said he would seek to have the charges dismissed as a violation of the Constitution's protection against double jeopardy. ``When it's not going well for you, you can't just call a mistrial and start over again,'' Seitz said. ``No matter how much lip service they give to wanting to protect my client's rights, that just doesn't exist in the military courts.''
It was your client who forced the mistrial.
Fort Lewis spokesman Joseph Piek said double jeopardy did not apply in this case because the first trial was never completed.

Watada faces one charge of missing movement and another of conduct unbecoming of an officer. The latter charge accuses him in four instances of making public statements criticizing the war or President Bush. Watada freely admitted missing the deployment and making the statements in the pretrial agreement. 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.
Which I don't think he'll be allowed to do.
Posted by:Steve White

#5  So do we get a new judge? This wasn't in yesterday's Seattle papers as of 3 PM, welcome news. I haven't turned on the TV today, but I imagine the Seattle lefties are seething.
Posted by: USN, ret.   2007-02-24 20:45  

#4  RC, it came a shock to me too, but double jeopardy isn't as clear-cut as you'd expect. I'm still looking into the precise point when jeopardy attaches, but so far I actually think the defense can make a straight-faced argument. Insane, I know.
Posted by: exJAG   2007-02-24 13:22  

#3  1) After a mistrial, re-issuing the same charges is not "double jeopardy". A mistrial isn't an acquittal; it's a declaration that the trial has to be done over, and the state has the option not to pursue a second trial.

2) How can someone who was never in Iraq know anything about "war crimes" in Iraq?

The little bastard joined after the invasion of Iraq; he knew what he was getting into. Throw him into prison, throw away the key, and encase his cell in concrete.
Posted by: Rob Crawford   2007-02-24 09:31  

#2  now Ima concerned. Joe made total sense to me
Posted by: Frank G   2007-02-24 07:28  

#1  He won't > "War crimes" is a specific act(s), which Mr. Watada could not have witnessed or be participatory/accessory/accomplice to becuz he refused to physically deploy wid his unit; + any and all Enlisted and Commissioned are told the National Security = Needs of the USA-USDOD-Armed Service(s) comes first, and is made understood to sign BINDING OATHS to that effect.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2007-02-24 00:12  

00:00