Lt. WatadaArmy Lt. Ehren Watada, with his father, Bob Watada, during a break in hearings last August. Lieutenant Watada’s court-martial is set for next week. (Photo: Associated Press)

Court-martial proceedings are scheduled to begin on Monday in the case of First Lt. Ehren K. Watada, an Army officer who refused to ship out with his brigade when it set off for Iraq last June — citing his opposition “to the continued war in Iraq, the deception used to wage this war, and the lawlessness that has pervaded every aspect of our civilian leadership.”

But Lieutenant Watada is no ordinary deserter, and he did not claim to be a conscientious objector. Instead, he took his stand, he has said, against the second front the United States and its allies opened in the “war on terror” by invading Iraq.

He has offered to serve in Afghanistan, “which he regarded as an unambiguous war linked to the Sept. 11 attacks,” according to The Times’ coverage of Lieutenant Watada’s refusal last summer.

The request was denied, and Lieutenant Watada faces charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, including one count of missing movements (for not deploying) and two counts of conduct unbecoming an officer.

(A video statement, in which Mr. Watada laid out his own justifications for his decision last June, is posted online.)

The trial begins on Monday at Ft. Lewis, Washington. Lieutenant Watada told Reuters this week:

It’s not that I am scared. It’s that I strongly believe this war is illegal and immoral and participation in it would be contrary to my oath to this country.

Two weeks ago, the Army officer presiding over the case, Lt. Col. John M. Head of Fort Lewis, denied two defense motions. The ruling rejected a defense request that it be allowed to present testimony that the conflict in Iraq is unlawful, rendering the deployment order unlawful.

The defense sought to invoke a version of the “Nuremberg defense,” according to the court’s ruling, which would allow it to present “witnesses who would testify that the war in Iraq was a crime against peace, a war of aggression, and a violation of the United Nations Charter, other international law, and U.S. law. The accused would testify that his refusal to go to Iraq was based upon the belief that he would be committing war crimes because the United States was involved in a war of aggression and a crime against peace.”

The court would have none of that. From the Jan. 16 ruling:

The defense motion for a hearing on the “Nuremberg defense” is DENIED. The government motion to prevent the defense from presenting evidence on the legality of the war is GRANTED. The government motion to prevent the defense from introducing evidence of the accused’s motive not to deploy is GRANTED. Further, I find by a preponderance of the evidence, the order to deploy, if given, was LAWFUL.

VideoLieutenant Watada made a video statement on June 6 last year.

The other defense motion sought the dismissal of the conduct-unbecoming charges, which stem from public comments Lieutenant Watada made encouraging soldiers “to throw down their weapons” to resist an authoritarian government at home, according to Reuters.

The defense argued that the charges should be thrown out becasue the lietuenant’s comments were protected under the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech, but Colonel Head rejected that motion, too:

An officer challenging the lawfulness of a war or combat action could tend to interfere with or prevent the orderly accomplishment of the mission or present a clear danger to loyalty, discipline, mission, or morale of the troops. … [T]he accused identifies himself as an officer and urges soldiers not to participate in the war. This could have a clear and present danger to the loyalty, discipline, mission, or morale of the troops. These are questions of fact for the members.

Beyond having become a cause célèbre for opponents of the war, Lieutenant Watada’s case — particularly on the latter charges of conduct unbecoming — has attracted great interest among civil libertarians.

Kathleen Duignan, executive director of the National Institute of Military Justice, a non-profit organization, was quoted by Reuters today:

“This case will test the limits of what is free speech and what is speech that can be curtailed in the military.

Of course, when you join the military you give up some of your constitutional rights, such as the right to complete unfettered free speech.”

Lieutenant Watada, who faces up to four years in prison if convicted on all counts, told Reuters this week, “When you have leaders that are unaccountable, who have already deceived people over something as serious as war and are willing to do it again, you have to ask yourself, ‘where do you stand?’ “