15 Comments so far

1. Tom Campbell February 8th, 2007 2:55 pm

   My understanding is that Lt Watada had a three year commitment to the Army that would come to term sometime at the end of this year. I wish him the very best and that he would take advantage of the hand the military dealt him and go on to further demonstrate his conviction as to the illegality of this war.

   LT Watada is doing the hard part in standing up for his principles in the most fearsome of locales– a military court with a different set of rules than civilian courts offer. Those of us who aren’t under the gun can only offer our support to him.

   I personally can not ascribe to carrying a large puppet or singing some modern version of a “folk” song in the streets but will make an effort to stand up for him and with him if he should decide to further demonstrate his belief in the illegality of this war. Is there a committee formed as yet for this purpose?

   I wish you good fortune LT Watada— Tom

2. Veg February 8th, 2007 3:06 pm

   I’m concerned that the mistrial is a government strategy to evade fallout from current press attention focused on this case. Often when the press is giving good coverage to an event like this, a political tactic is to simply delay an outcome until people aren’t paying attention. The press rarely follows-up far into the future.

   If the military decides to retry Lt. Watada, we’ll have to be sure to keep the trial in the headlines. Let’s not allow them to get away with a really outrageous decision!

3. nwilson February 8th, 2007 3:32 pm

   Some news reports on this case cite legal experts saying that double jeopardy doesn’t apply in the Watata case. Normally the double jeopardy principle doesn’t bar a new trial after a mistrial. For example a hung jury results in a mistrial, but it doesn’t prevent a new trial.

   What makes the Watada case different is that his attorney, Eric Seitz, contends the judge was legally in error to declare a mistrial under the circumstances. He says the Army side made mistakes and was losing the case, and that the mistrial ruling is a ploy to let the Army start over.

   After hearing Seitz interviewed this morning on Democracy Now, I agree with his position. The Army shouldn’t get another bite at the apple. Lt. Watada should receive an honorable discharge.

   More important, Lt. Watada shows more bravery in taking a principled stand and facing the consequences than if he had just gone along and shipped out to Iraq. Our country needs thousands more like him.

4. ctrew February 8th, 2007 5:00 pm

   “What if they gave a war and nobody came?”

   I wonder how high up a military officer would have to be to make his/her refusal to fight the war on these grounds, stop the war. (If it were a movie, and Harrison Ford or Sean Connery were cast in this roll it would work.)

   How about a class action suit brought against the administration on behalf of the war casualties, based on the illegality of this war. Is that something like the request for redress by the soldiers?

   What if the Joint Chiefs woke up tomorrow and said together, “Enough!”

   I can believe the cynical but believable explanation mentioned by nwilson above, but I would like to hope that the judge himself really had Watada’s interests at heart , and is having a change of heart himself. Maybe not likely considering all of the restrictions he had imposed on the trial. But … maybe … he has begun to admire this gutsy and principled young man, like the rest of us do.

   I wish him, his attorney, and his family the best of luck and support. I will continue to pay attention and hope the press will too.

5. yapchongsan February 8th, 2007 5:38 pm

   I regret that Lt. Watada had given up an opportunity to try the issue of the legality of the USA aggression on Iraq.

   Why did Watada go only half the way and when crunch time came along, he pleaded a mere procedural anomaly ? I do not know whether it was the responsibility of his legal counsel that threw in his towel. It is very obvious that the Bush Administration wanted to get out of a very embarrassing faux pas. The trial will have gone down in history as the icon of the USA aggression. What a pass up of a golden opportunity.

   Lt Watada was absolutely right and correct to oppose posting to Iraq because what the US Army ask of him was to commit a war crime; because under the Nuremberg Rule that convicted the Nazis who claimed defense of “ORDERS OF SUPERIORS” as invalid as a defense. Each soldiers is responsible for his own conduct and it is no defense to claim immunity by citing superior orders.

   It is obvious that the court acted in various manner that made the hearing unconstitutional and in various manner depriving Watada of his right to due process. For the Bush Administration this trial will shame the government of the USA and in a very big way drive a big wedge between Japanese people and the American people. This reminiscent of the detention of Japanese Americans during World War 2. If I may say so, the trial would have benefited the People’s Republic of China by pushing Japan closer to China on moral grounds at lest.

   On all around considerations, I regret that China was deprived of a bit of gloating; taking into consideration that the people of the USA always points a dirty finger at China for “S… sake”

6. clong February 8th, 2007 6:19 pm

   I believe Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq has been a violation of international law from the beginning. He and everyone following his ILLEGAL orders should be convicted and jailed, if not hanged. Watada is a true hero.

   No country can legally invade another unless attacked. Iraq did not attack us. Therefore, it is the U.S. that is the aggressor here and we can only hope that, thanks to people like Lt. Watada, Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice and all the others will be punished for the horrific war crimes they have committed, and continue to commit. And shame on the media for failing to ask the questions that should have been/should be asked to prevent/end this atrocity.

   I cannot believe the citizens of this great country have allowed this to happen, and still we are failing to see how wrong it was to allow Bush to send our soldiers to invade Iraq.

7. TC Buck February 8th, 2007 8:04 pm

   Clong—
   I share your frustration in so far as my total disappointment in so many of our law makers who do know better and understand what needs to be done to any law breakers. I am further angered by the attitude as expressed by the current Democratic sweetheart — B. Obama.  He was asked some time ago about what he could do regarding the war and more, and he could only hide behind the “there’s only so much a new guy in town can do,” philosophy, so he would have to choose his battles carefully and use his influence frugally. (words to that effect) Been 2 years now Mr.B. Whatcha gonna do?

   Guess you will be pretty busy this next couple of years stumpin’ on the Presidential circuit letting people know how you will do things in the future — after a year or so of celebrating the country’s wise decision to raise you to the ultimate power dais.

   I don’t want to focus entirely on our ex senator from Illinois. What’s with Hillary? Maybe one bad decision and misguided vote is pardonable,but — where are you going? You even let Sen. Wyden get a bill on the docket offering a national medical plan to get 40million or so Americans some needed assistance ahead of you who espoused this concept when you lived in the White House.

   The hunt for culpability in this matter of refusing to investigate,impeach and/or incarcerate wrong doers will require a very patriotic environment. People will be pissed and people will be praised — but that should go with the territory of leadership. The Nixonion era proved that. This is a different scenario.

   Nixon lost it when his support by his people was lost. Bush still has a large enough support base that the battle will likely be bloody. I guess that’s why the legislators get the bucks! The Admin. has thoroughly muddied and mucked up the water.Let’s get in there and clean it up before they return Washington DC to the fever infested swamp it originally was.

   I want to be proud of America again and not embarrassed to be recognized as such when traveling or just talking with my grandchildren.

8. maggie February 8th, 2007 9:51 pm

   Yesterday I read that the defense - and the young man - argued that he refused to go because he could not participate in an ILLEGAL WAR. When I grew up in post WWII Germany (I was born in 1943) and became aware of German war crimes during my teenage years, I kept hearing the same defense of German war criminals over and over “I just followed orders”. Those war criminals were convicted of war crimes and atrocities. How were those judgments right and what Lt. Watada did wrong? JUST WONDERING…(I am totally with Watada!)

9. oldtimer February 8th, 2007 11:01 pm

   Haven’t seen where any of Bush’s or Cheney’s daughters or any of Bush’s nearly 100% jewish advisory staffs offspring are in Iraq…..

10. nwilson February 9th, 2007 3:03 am

    Yapchongsan’s comment above suggests he thinks Lt. Watada chose to cop a plea and end the case. That’s not at all what happened. The military judge chose to declare a mistrial over the objections of Watada and his attorney.

    Bill Simpich, a seasoned civil rights attorney who attended the court martial as a legal analyst for Truthout, has written a thorough report and legal analysis titled “The Watada Mistrial: Here’s What Really Happened.” He details what the judge did and why in this case the double jeopardy rule bars any retrial on the same charges.

    http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020807A.shtml

11. Rick February 9th, 2007 7:42 am

    Seemingly Lt Watada has won! Now I hope if this continues to be true, that it will give others the courage to follow in his steps.
    Also as ctrew has suggested, “A class action suit brought against the administration on behalf of the war casualties, based on the illegality of this war”.
    Now I am no lawyer and have no idea if this possible, but if it is, it should he pursued.

12. yapchongsan February 9th, 2007 12:19 pm

    To nwilson, Sir you misread me. I did not at all mean that Watada “cop” a plea because if he did, then he would have had to admit his criminality; that is not what I meant.

    What I wanted to say was that Watada if he wanted to make his point that the war was illegal was to not raise any procedural objection and for Watada to allow the court process to go on. What I also meant, if you will read what I said carefully, was that the “cop out” was instigated by the prosecution and the Bench. The prosecution and the judge provided the opportunity for the defense to raise a valid procedural objection that they could end the proceedings. It is the government who want out of this trial. The Bush Administration can see clearly that, failure to get a conviction on such flimsy grounds will earn them another world condemnation of the world and make the USA look silly which they already are.

13. namvet67 February 9th, 2007 7:37 pm

    Lt. Watada is the Lt. Hugh Thompson of the war in Iraq. Both are brave and heroic in their attempts to save innocent lives. Thompson suffered greatly for his decisions. I hope Watada is received better than Thompson was.
    Hoa Binh

14. bnxoxaravize December 11th, 2007 7:43 am

    titsokuxexypy…

    exsepepehery…

15. bnvynicapace December 26th, 2007 7:22 pm

    tithisicahuso…

    exponapypyre…

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)