Home arrow Commentary arrow Editorial arrow Watada Beats the Government
Feb 07 2007
Watada Beats the Government | Print |  E-mail
Editorial
By Marjorie Cohn   

Translation
Digg!

See the background report

Watada Beats the Government
By Marjorie Cohn

Watada said he 'had no choice but to refuse the order' to deploy to Iraq [AFP]
Watada said he 'had no choice but to refuse the order' to deploy to Iraq [AFP]
When the Army judge declared a mistrial over defense objection in 1st Lt. Ehren Watada's court martial, he probably didn't realize jeopardy attached.  That means that under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution, the government cannot retry Lt. Watada on the same charges of missing movement and conduct unbecoming an officer.

Lt. Watada is the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse orders to deploy to Iraq.  He claimed those orders were unlawful because the war is illegal and he would be an accomplice to war crimes if he followed them. 

The judge refused to allow me and others to testify as expert defense witnesses on the illegality of the Iraq war and the war crimes the Bush administration is committing there. 

The Uniform Code of Military Justice sets forth the duty of military personnel to obey only lawful commands. Article 92 says: "A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the law of the United States …"

"The war in Iraq is in fact illegal. It is my obligation and my duty to refuse any orders to participate in this war." He stated, "An order to take part in an illegal war is unlawful in itself. So my obligation is not to follow the order to go to Iraq."

Lt. Watada


Lt. Watada said at a June 6, 2006 press conference in Tacoma, Washington, "The war in Iraq is in fact illegal. It is my obligation and my duty to refuse any orders to participate in this war." He stated, "An order to take part in an illegal war is unlawful in itself. So my obligation is not to follow the order to go to Iraq."

Citing "deception and manipulation … and willful misconduct by the highest levels of my chain of command," Lt. Watada declared there is "no greater betrayal to the American people" than the Iraq war.

The "turning point" for Lt. Watada came when he "saw the pain and suffering of so many soldiers and their families, and innocent Iraqis." He said, "I best serve my soldiers by speaking out against unlawful orders of the highest levels of my chain of command, and making sure our leaders are held accountable." Lt. Watada felt he "had the obligation to step up and do whatever it takes," even if that means facing court martial and imprisonment.

Lt. Watada did face court martial, and four years in prison, until the judge declared a mistrial.

This is what I would have said had I been allowed to testify at Lt. Watada's court martial:

The United States is committing a crime against the peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity in Iraq.

A war of aggression, prosecuted in violation of international treaties, is a crime against the peace. The war in Iraq violates the Charter of the United Nations, which prohibits the use of force. There are only two exceptions to that prohibition: self-defense and approval by the Security Council. A pre-emptive or preventive war is not allowed under the Charter.

Bush's war in Iraq was not undertaken in self-defense. Iraq had not attacked the US or any other country for 12 years. And Saddam Hussein's military capability had been effectively neutered by the Gulf War, 12 years of punishing sanctions, and nearly daily bombing by the US and UK over the "no-fly-zones."

Bush tried mightily to get the Security Council to sanction his war on Iraq. But the Council refused. Bush then cobbled together prior Council resolutions, none of which, individually or collectively, authorized the use of force in Iraq. Although Bush claimed to be enforcing Security Council resolutions, the Charter empowers only the Council to enforce its resolutions.

Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions constitute war crimes, for which individuals can be punished under the US War Crimes Act. Willful killing, torture and inhuman treatment are grave breaches.

"The torture policies and rules of engagement were set at the top. It is George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell who should be on trial - for the commission of war crimes."

The torture and inhuman treatment of prisoners in US custody at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq are grave breaches of Geneva, and therefore, war crimes. The execution of unarmed civilians in Haditha and other Iraqi cities are also war crimes.

Commanders in the chain of command, all the way up to the commander in chief, can be prosecuted for war crimes if they knew or should have known their subordinates were committing war crimes and failed to stop or prevent them.  The torture policies and rules of engagement were set at the top. It is George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell who should be on trial - for the commission of war crimes.

Inhumane acts against a civilian population are crimes against humanity and violate the Fourth Geneva Convention. The targeting of civilians and failure to protect civilians and civilian objects are crimes against humanity.

The dropping of 2,000-pound bombs in residential areas of Baghdad during "Shock and Awe" were crimes against humanity. The indiscriminate US attack on Fallujah, which was collective punishment in retaliation for the killing of four Blackwater mercenaries, was a crime against humanity. The destruction of hospitals in Fallujah by the US military, its refusal to let doctors treat patients, and shooting into ambulances were crimes against humanity. Declaring Fallujah a "weapons-free" zone, with orders to shoot anything that moved, was a crime against humanity.

Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson was the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunal. He wrote: "No political or economic situation can justify the crime of aggression. If certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us."

Lt. Ehren Watada was correct when he said the war is illegal and he would be party to war crimes if he deployed to Iraq.  The orders to deploy were unlawful and Lt. Watada had a duty to disobey them.  Although he faces the possibility of a dishonorable discharge, the judge's grant of a mistrial precludes retrial on the same criminal charges.

Marjorie Cohn,  MWC News Magazine senior editor, is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the US representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists. Her new book, Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law, will be published this spring by PoliPointPress.
Other articles by this author 


Recommend this article...




Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto:
Digg!Reddit!Del.icio.us!Newsvine!Blogmarks!Yahoo!

Quote this article on your site | Views: 9275

Comments (37)
RSS comments
1. 08-02-2007 06:45
Umm you might want to check again. The government can and will retry Watada on the same charges. A mistrial is not considered double jeopardy.
Guest
Michael
2. 08-02-2007 17:55
You are so right, Professor Cohn. Thanks for your courage and for speaking the truth.
Guest
Carlos Richardson
3. 08-02-2007 19:46
Congratulations to the legal team and to 1st. Lt. Watada's proud parents and supporters. The work all of you did on Ehren's behalf is a tribute to your integrity and commitment. The honorable 1st. Lt. Ehren Watada is a leader of the highest order, a hero and a patriot in the truest sense.
Guest
Peggy Manfredi
4. 08-02-2007 20:02
As a retired officer, way to old to serve, I applaud Lt. Watada and hope this mistrial will preclude anothe trial. He is a true patriot!
Guest
Terry Koehler
5. 08-02-2007 20:20
Yesterday was a great day for for Lt. Watada. Sir you are a true hero. God bless your parents for raising a son with such integrity and courage. As and ex army guy I don't think I would have been so brave.
Guest
Bob Lloyd
6. 08-02-2007 20:32
The question is whether the judge properly granted a mistrial. If the judge was wrong in declaring a mistrial, then jeopardy attached and double jeopardy applies. I assume that Seitz will bring a motion on this point and then take it up on appeal. However, I have no reason to believe that the military courts would ever rule in favor of Lt. Watada on this, or on any other meaningful issue.. Good luck to Lt. Watada and to his legal team.
Guest
Jeff
7. 08-02-2007 20:49
ERIC SEITZ
Quote:
ERIC SEITZ: We think it may become a very significant victory, depending upon what happens between now and the next time we go back to court. My firm belief professionally is that the consequence of granting a mistrial over our wishes means that because jeopardy attached, so the case cannot be retried. I don’t know that the judge realizes that. I’m not sure that government counsel appreciates that or the spokespeople for the Army today, but in my experience and based upon my professional judgment, there is a very strong likelihood that they cannot retry this case. And if it is in fact the end of this case, then, yes, that's a very significant event and a terrific victory.

Guest
Shahram
8. 08-02-2007 21:22
Thank you for your sacrifice
Wish more Americans would speak out and stand up against our country's march to fascism, dictatorship at home, and a world domination tour to steal natural resources and oppress people for the corporations.
Guest
Anne G. Koza
9. 08-02-2007 22:10
Thank you for your sacrifice
The Judge knew exactly what he was doing. Under orders- he was ending the trial before the real issue could be joined. All the legal wrangling aside, the last thing the Bush govt and their stooge Judge wanted was for Watada and the Nuremberg doctrine to get a loud widely covered pulpit. This was always the issue. 
Thanks- 
DR
Guest
David Rubinson
10. 08-02-2007 22:52
Congratulations from Germany!
Dear Friends, 
I'm glad to hear about this important success! The judge tried to prevent a tribunal against the illegal war.  
 
Keep on! 
Thomas
Guest
Thomas Trueten
11. 08-02-2007 23:13
Congratulations from Germany!
The defense would have to prove that "the error that prompted the mistrial is intended to provoke a mistrial or is `motivated by bad faith or undertaken to harass or prejudice' the defendant" in order for a mistrial to attach jeopardy, United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600, 611. Is the author of this article really a lawyer? She must have been absent the day they taught law.
Guest
Michael
12. 09-02-2007 00:00
Congratulations from Germany!
It is soooo good to hear a hjighly respected professional side with Watada and the other responses are very heartening. I am from Tacoma and those of us in the peace movement are emboldened by this action and in particular, Ehren Watada and his courageous stand against the government.
Guest
David Lambert
13. 09-02-2007 00:49
Thank You
Thank you to all of us who stood with Lt. Watada as best we could. Thank you Lt. Watada for you risked so much.
Guest
Jeanne Pauli
14. 09-02-2007 03:04
Attorney
Lt. Ehren Watada has displayed a courage that the hypocrites with the flags on their lapels could never understand. He has done what his oath to support and defend the constitution and the principles enunciated at Nuremberg demand of him--he has refused to be an accomplice to an unlawful war. Those in Congress who would continue to fund this war are parties to a crime. The argument that members of Congress who cut off funds are open to the charge of not supporting the troops is an Orwellian canard. You don't "support the troops" by enabling the Bush administration to leave them in harm's way. You betray them!
Guest
Ernest A. Canning
15. 09-02-2007 03:47
Attorney
I'm confused. Double jeopardy? Are you sure about that? A second trial has already been scheduled for March 19th.... 
 
From wikipedia "As double jeopardy applies only to charges that were the subject of an earlier final judgment, there are many situations in which it does not apply despite the appearance of a retrial. For example, a second trial held after a mistrial does not violate the double jeopardy clause, because a mistrial ends a trial prematurely without a judgment of guilty or not guilty."
Guest
V
16. 09-02-2007 04:06
Who IS Marjorie Cohn?
Just though Michael might like to know, \"Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, president-elect of the National Lawyers Guild, and the US representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists.\"
Guest
Secor
17. 09-02-2007 04:43
Who IS Marjorie Cohn?
Thank you for being a man of integrity and honor! I only wish we had more that citizens willing to take a stand against wrong doings and injustices to people of all races, creeds, and backgrounds. Lt. Watada makes me extremely proud to call myself an American. Thank you!
Guest
Renee
18. 09-02-2007 04:52
Who IS Marjorie Cohn?
:zzz  
I wanna shout for joy, but its hard to write the things I would shout out, so CONGRATULATIONS and Thank You Sir,Lt. Watada, You spoke for many of us that care !!  
 
From, 
An American Patriot
Guest
Kathy
19. 09-02-2007 04:56
Re= Who is ....
Secor 
 
She is the president of National Lawyers Guild now.(she assumed the position few months ago.) 
 
Furthermore she would be also an expert witness for the defence in this trial.
Guest
Shahram
20. 09-02-2007 04:59
Re= Who is ....
Ehren, Thank you for having such courage and integrity. It is not always easy standing up for what you believe in. Especially, when it's the government you're having to stand up against. You are my hero! :p
Guest
Velvet Novak
21. 09-02-2007 05:45
Re= Who is ....
Secor, if you paid her money to teach you, it might not be too late to get your money back. Actually she knows this article is a bold-faced lie, but her intent is to try to influence a potential jury pool with misinformation. If she is an expert witness, I am an astronaut.
Guest
Michael
22. 09-02-2007 06:39
re=Michael
What part of this rule is hard for you to comprehend? 
 
Quote:
Personal verbal attacks will be deleted.

Guest
Shahram
23. 09-02-2007 08:35
commnet re: Watada Beats the Gov by M. C
What if what's most worrisome to the designers & the "stage crew" of this war without end is the possibility many more Watadas are out there thinking, feeling, questioning. That would spoil everything. 
 
Connie
Guest
Connie L. Nash
24. 09-02-2007 09:24
Congratulations from Sweden!
I'm very happy to here about your victory - for you, for your country and for the world. I hope your example will encourage others to do the same in the future! Greetings from Ola T. :) :grin :)
Guest
Ola Thorsen
25. 09-02-2007 10:01
You are all sheep!
You are all have obviously never read the constitution and what scares me either has this lawayer. Read and cry: 
 
As double jeopardy applies only to charges that were the subject of an earlier final judgment, there are many situations in which it does not apply despite the appearance of a retrial. For example, a second trial held after a mistrial does not violate the double jeopardy clause, because a mistrial ends a trial prematurely without a judgment of guilty or not guilty.  
 
"nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb."  
 
He will be going to jail in March or April and since he is so pretty, his rear is the onlything in jeopardy. :)
Guest
Mike
26. 09-02-2007 15:13
Lawyer
Our US Constitution plainly protects us from double jeopardy. "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb". Clearly - NO retrial permitted. But our government routinely violates the Constitution and it is very common for Judges to allow our government to get away with it. And so it may well be that he will, again, be put in jeopardy.
Guest
Ed
27. 09-02-2007 16:36
The Mongoose Trick
Having been to some degree in the same shoes as Lt. Watada - that in 1962 - I may have some insight. 
 
First, and while anything is possible in our courts (especially military), most lawyers will agree that trying Watad later will not constitute double jeopardy. A little legal research will reveal several cases almost identical to this one in that regard. 
 
On the other hand, it is possible - even probable - that the government may not proceed. This case would go to appeal, maybe the Supreme Court, and it is very dangerous for the government. The legality of the Iraq War is very questionable on several legal grounds - for instance the constutionality of the War Powers Resoltution - and the court would have to do what it dreaded doing during the Vietnam War, namely hear and decide legality. 
 
This will be very interesting, whatever happens. The Supreme Court, no matter the pretense, is a political body (check Roe v. Wade), and makes decisions on \"public policy\" bases. Make enough noise, in other words, \"move\" the court from outside the rules adjective procedure. 
 
Make enough noise.
Guest
Hal von Luebbert
28. 09-02-2007 16:45
The Mongoose Truck
The quote attributed to me here is totally inaccurate. There is no double jeopardy here. It may very well be, however, that the government won't try Watada - this is a very dangerous case for the government.
Guest
Hal von Luebbert
29. 09-02-2007 18:09
What?
Quote:
Hal von Luebbert :The quote attributed to me here is totally inaccurate

 
 
?????
Guest
Shahram
30. 09-02-2007 20:07
What?
I'm sorry that you consider pointing out lies to be a personal attack. I guess it is ok as long as you stick to pointing out Bush lies.
Guest
Michael
31. 09-02-2007 20:25
What?
Quote:
I'm sorry that you consider pointing out lies to be a personal attack. I guess it is ok as long as you stick to pointing out Bush lies.

 
 
No sir, 
 
You may point out every lie or everything that you perceive to be inaccurate in the article or others comments. 
 
But we do not allow anyone here to derail the issue by name calling and personal attacks.  
 
Using Cheney-Rove tactics it may work for NY Times, but not here. We believe our readers (that includes you also) deserve to be treated with respect, regardless of their views. 
 
Guest
Shahram
32. 09-02-2007 21:11
What?
Then I would say that the author's words disagree with the following. 
 
Jeopardy and Mistrials 
Stephen J. Schulhofer 
University of Pennsylvania Law Review > Vol. 125, No. 3 (Jan., 1977), pp. 449-539  
 
Fifth Amendment. Twice Jeopardizing the Rights of the Accused: The Supreme Court's "Tibbs" and "Kennedy" Decisions 
Deborah L. Schmitt 
The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-) > Vol. 73, No. 4 (Winter, 1982), pp. 1474-1490 
 
Toward a General Theory of Double Jeopardy 
Peter Westen; Richard Drubel 
The Supreme Court Review > Vol. 1978 (1978), pp. 81-169
Guest
Michael
33. 11-02-2007 20:03
question
Is there way to get Ms. Cohn to respond to the challenges to her opinions. I'm interested to hear why she thinks that double jeapordy applies. :?
Guest
Reis Southworth
34. 13-02-2007 09:14
re. Watada case by Paterson,first to re
WRITER WAS IN 1990 FIRST MILITARY SERVICE MEMBER TO REFUSE TO DEPLOY IN SUPPORT OF OPERATION DESERT STORM--writer, Paterson, was also represented by civilian attorney, Eric Seitz. 
 
Not my site but there may be some light today at LewRockwell online updating re. this case. Here at the very end article -Lt. Watada Clear Mistrial- by Jeff Paterson (now a California-based organizer for Courage to Resist) Excerpt from his article:  
 
Realizing things were going from bad to worse for the government, prosecutor Cpt. Van Sweringen rallied to support defense attorney Eric Seitz. "Both parties agree to the facts. There was a meeting of the minds, sir. There is no question that Lt. Watada has pled not guilty based on his belief that he believes the war is illegal," explained Van Sweringen...  
However...Judge Head had ruled that Lt. Watada’s beliefs were irrelevant, and was committed to enforcing those ruling with extremist vigor... One last time, "What does deploy mean to you?" asked Judge Head. "To me sir, it means to participate in a war that I believe to be illegal," explained Lt. Watada. 
 
Both the defense and prosecution explained that Lt. Watada’s belief was consistent..."Do you understand my problem, government?" asked Judge Head. "Frankly, no" replied Van Sweringen, standing with his arms crossed and head down. "The accused has pled not guilty. If the accused has evidence, the court should hear that evidence," offered Van Sweringen, apparently welcoming the introduction of the "Nuremberg Defense" or any other issues in the hope of moving forward with the court-martial. 
 
Mistrial Granted Over Defense Objections 
"I don’t know how I can accept (it) as we stand here now," noted Judge Head in tossing the agreement. With the stipulation voided, the prosecution no longer had any evidence to the facts before the jurors. Although Judge Head offered to allow the prosecution to reopen its case against following a continuance, he rhetorically asked "how do we unring that bell?" in reference to undoing a day of testimony – all based on a voided stipulation already studied by the seated jurors. 
 
...After repeated and lengthy recesses to allow the prosecution team time to consult with their superiors on a course of action, "Government, what’s your druthers?" asked Judge Head. Defeated and dejected, Van Sweringen muttered, "At this point the government moves for mistrial." 
 
Judge Head quickly set a new trial date for the week of March 19, but agreed the timing would be subject to availability of the defense lawyers – probably no sooner than May. "This case moves to the top of the docket." 
 
Future of U.S. v. Watada Questioned 
It is unlikely that Judge Head fully realized what he initiated, unless he was actually trying to toss the case on a technicality.Seitz explained following the day’s drama: "It is my professional opinion that Lt. Watada cannot be tried again because of the effect of double jeopardy. We did nothing to warrant a mistrial. The judge made all of his rulings himself, or based upon motions by the government. . . . The protection against double jeopardy applies as a constitutional matter."  
 
...Many things are possible at this point, including the possibility that the government will re-subpoena journalists...It is impossible to provide odds on numerous potential outcomes. 
 
One thing is clear: Over one thousand people from around the Pacific Northwest, the nation, and even the world, converged on Fort Lewis to rally for Lt. Watada against any real hope that he would not be imprisoned by the weekend. This unprecedented mobilization based and a national organizing effort launched this last June in support of Lt. Watada and military resisters, undoubtedly contributed to the outcome in the courtroom. 
 
...the mistrial also opens the very real possibility that the Army’s first commissioned officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq could be retired and allowed to leave active duty service in March if the government is unable to mount a new trial, stated a Fort Lewis spokesperson to the New York Times. 
February 12, 2007
Guest
Connie L. Nash
35. 15-02-2007 13:02
re. Watada case by Paterson,first to re
Look a little deeper and you'll see this guy had a definite political angle. I got no problem with peopel speaking out. But if you go and attend West Point, volunteer to serve your country and take the slot of someo other real patriot so you can have a pedigree education and then turn around and refuse orders, then you are full of it. 
Like it or not, the COngress authorized the use of force. Like it or not, most people were in favor of the War, and like it or not, the boat has already sailed. What we need is for people like Watada to make up their minds who thety are servi8ng before they get in and affect the morale of the units they serve in. 
He may get a choice and get out of this mess. Private Snuffy can't. If Watad wants to make a diofference, then he ought to follow his orders, and once he has completed his tour, resign. Then, he can go into politics like his dad. Isn't that where this is going anyway?
Guest
Soldier
36. 19-02-2007 00:48
Re:Soldier, #35
I do believe you are a trifle misinformed about Lt Watada. He never attended West Point but in fact attended college in Hawaii, his home state. He is serving his nation by following his oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the US against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC... Also, where did you get the idea his father is in politics? You really need to get your facts straight!
Guest
37. 19-02-2007 02:14
Re=Peggy
We just added the e-mail contact today, but I am hoping "Soldier" will see your response. 
 
Thanks
Registered

Write Comment
  • Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article.
  • Personal verbal attacks will be deleted.
  • Please don't use comments to plug your web site. Such material will be removed.
  • Just ensure to *Refresh* your browser for a new security code to be displayed prior to clicking on the 'Send' button.
  • Keep in mind that the above process only applies if you simply entered the wrong security code.
Name:
E-mail
Homepage
Title:
BBCode:Web AddressEmail AddressBold TextItalic TextUnderlined TextQuoteCodeOpen ListList ItemClose List
Comment:



Code:* Code
I wish to be contacted by email regarding additional comments

Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.4


Tags:  Marjorie Cohn Ehren Watada
 
< Prev Content   Next Content >
 

Translate

Enter Amount:


an EffectiveBrand toolbar