Mistrial declared in court-martial of US war objector
UNITED STATES: A military judge declared a mistrial and set a
new trial date for the court-martial of a U.S. Army officer who publicly
refused to fight in Iraq and criticized the war.
First Lt. Ehren Watada had faced up to four years in prison and a
dishonorable discharge if found guilty on a charge of missing movements
for not deploying to Iraq and two charges of conduct unbecoming an
officer for his criticism of the war.
Lt. Col. John Head, the military judge, declared a mistrial after
throwing out a “stipulation of fact” — an agreement over certain facts
of the trial — that forced the government to request a mistrial instead
of immediately arguing its entire case over to prove those facts with
new witnesses.
The judge said he could not accept the stipulation, because it
amounts to a confession to the missing movements charge when Watada, 28,
stated he is not guilty.
At the center of the dispute is the defense’s assertion that Watada
would not go to Iraq because he considered it an unlawful order that
would make him party to war crimes and as as result, it was not his duty
to obey it.
“There is a material misunderstanding over what this stipulation is,”
said Head.
It was an unexpected ending to a case that had rallied the anti-war
movement in the first known court-martial of a U.S. Army officer for
publicly refusing to serve in Iraq.
Army officials said the mistrial was an example of how the military
justice system protects the rights of the accused. Watada’s lawyer, Eric
Seitz, called it “significantly positive.”
“The mistrial is very likely to have the consequence of ending this
case because double jeopardy may prevent the government from proceeding
with a retrial,” he said in a statement.
The judge set the new trial to start on the week of March 19, but
agreed the timing would be subject to change. Watada will report to duty
at Fort Lewis until the new trial begins.
Watada agreed to the stipulation before the court-martial began in
exchange for the government dropping two additional charges of conduct
unbecoming an officer.
In the stipulation, Watada said he did not board the plane with the
rest of his unit to Iraq and admitted to making public statements
criticizing the war and accusing U.S. President George W. Bush’s
administration of deceiving the American people to enter into a war of
aggression.
Watada does not dispute the facts, but said it was not an admission
of guilt because it does not take into account the intent behind his
actions.
When asked by the judge if he thought it was his duty to board the
aircraft to Iraq, Watada said no. “I felt the order was illegal,” he
said in the courtroom where he wore his dark-green dress uniform.
The defense had aimed to show that Watada acted on principle and
tried to avoid a public confrontation with the Army by offering to
resign his commission or fight elsewhere. In a new trial, the defense
will be allowed to again file a motion to argue the legality of the war.
A new judge may preside over the case and all the proceedings before and
during the first trial will be wiped clean.
“Everything will start from scratch,” said Lt. Col. Robert Resnick,
chief of administrative law at Ft. Lewis.
Before the trial, the judge had ruled that the defense was not
allowed to argue whether the war itself is illegal, asserting the matter
could not be settled in military court.
Washington, Thursday, Reuters |
