Watada Court-Martial Ends in Mistrial
By Scott Galindez and Geoffrey Millard
t r u t h o u t | Report
Wednesday 07 February 2007
Fort Lewis, Washington - The court-martial of First Lt. Ehren
Watada, a commissioned US Army officer who refused deployment to Iraq
on the basis that he believed the war was illegal, has ended in a
mistrial, a military court judge ruled Wednesday.
In a stunning defeat for military prosecutors, Lt. Col. John
Head, the military judge presiding over Watada's court-martial, said
he had no choice but to declare a mistrial because military
prosecutors and Watada's defense attorney could not reach an
agreement regarding the characterization of a stipulation agreement
Watada signed before the start of his court-martial. The government
characterizes the stipulation agreement as an admission of guilt by
Watada for "missing movement" and making statements against the Iraq
war that resulted in charges of conduct unbecoming an officer and a
gentleman.
Eric Seitz, Watada's attorney, said the stipulation Watada
signed, however, was by no means an admission of guilt by his client.
Rather, it was a statement of fact that his client believed the Iraq
war was illegal, and that he refused to deploy to the region with his
unit because of his beliefs.
Lt. Col. Head said he wanted to question Watada regarding the
agreement to gain a better understanding of what Watada's state of
mind was when he signed it, but Seitz would not allow the judge to
question his client unless he knew the questions in advance. Head
said if he could not question Watada to ensure the accuracy of the
document he signed prior to the start of the court-martial, he would
have to throw out the agreement, meaning the charges against Watada
would become null and void.
Issues surrounding the stipulation agreement came up when
military prosecutors asked the judge to provide the military panel
(similar to a civilian jury) deciding Watada's fate with additional
instructions before they returned a verdict.
Head said the basis of the additional instructions could result
in questions about the "stipulation of fact" regarding Watada's
reasons for refusing to deploy to Iraq. The judge did not indicate
the substance of the additional instructions the defense asked him to
provide.
Head excoriated military prosecutors in open court for producing
the stipulation agreement hours before he declared the mistrial. He
said he would allow the government to reopen the case against Watada,
but it's unclear whether the military will do so. Even if the case is
reopened, it could be months before it ends up in court.
Watada was charged with "missing movement" to Iraq and two counts
of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman. The latter two
charges stem from public statements critical of the war Watada made
at a Veterans for Peace rally at the University of Washington in
August 2006, as filmed by Truthout and aired on the news
organization's web site last year.
Watada was also charged with two separate counts of conduct
unbecoming an officer and a gentleman based on exclusive interviews
he gave to Truthout freelance reporters and a reporter from his
hometown paper, the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Those charges were
dropped in exchange for Watada signing a stipulation agreement
acknowledging that he gave the interviews. Moreover, Watada
acknowledged in the stipulation agreement that he refused to
accompany his Army unit to Iraq. However, Watada's admission did not
amount to conceding guilt for the "missing movement" charge.
Last month, Watada discussed his decision to publicly oppose the
war during a speech at the Church of the Crossroads in Moiliili,
Hawaii. Speaking to a crowd of about 350, Watada said he struggled
with leaving his fellow soldiers behind, but ultimately needed to
take a stand because, as an officer, he could not consciously order
soldiers under his command to die for a war he believes is wrong and
illegal.
"I hated to leave my troops, but something had to be done to stop
this insanity," he said. "How could I order men to die for something
I believe is wrong? Wearing the uniform is not, and is never, an
excuse."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020707Z.shtml
.
|
