Army escalates charges in attempt to silence Lt. Watadas
Four Iraq War Vets Arrested At Pentagon
Anti-War Groups Win Pledge For Suzanne Swift Investigation
Next Watada court-martial set for JulyThe second court-martial of 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, who is being tried for refusing to deploy to Iraq, is scheduled to be held at Fort Lewis, Wash., in July, about the same time his unit is expected to return from its combat deployment. |
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCERWatada lawyer frustrated as judge narrows defense - Five men, two women to sit on court-martial jury Tuesday, February 6, 2007 By MIKE BARBER AND AMY ROLPH FORT LEWIS -- First Lt. Ehren Watada's initial words in a small, wood-paneled Army court Monday were a series of calm and steadfast "Yes, sirs" to the military judge overseeing his court-martial. Outside the base, from hundreds of supporters, the answer was a resounding "no" to the war in Iraq in which Watada refuses to fight and to the Army's prosecution of him. A military court-martial convened for Watada, 28, the only known U.S. military officer to publicly refuse to go to Iraq. Watada has said he is not a conscientious objector to war and would serve in Afghanistan. He says the Iraq war is illegal and that he is duty-bound to refuse illegal orders. And he has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him. The court-martial, which could last through Thursday, has drawn national attention. Peace activists mustered in Tacoma over the weekend in preparation for a week of peaceful vigils outside the base. Watada's first day saw a military panel of officers selected, after cross-examination, from a pool of Watada's peers. Two women and five men will sit in judgment of him. It also was a day of frustration for Watada's side. The military judge, Lt. Col. John Head, sometimes drawing heated arguments from Watada's civilian defense lawyer, Eric Seitz, narrowly focused the hearings, barring defense witnesses from testifying about the legality of the war in Iraq. At one point, Seitz was exasperated as Head allowed prosecutors to retain an expert witness at government expense but would not do the same for Watada. "The government can call who they want, and we can't call who we need?" Seitz asked. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I learned that in law school, if not in nursery school," he said. Head said he would allow the witness, a former military officer who has taught constitutional law at West Point, but at the defense team's expense. Seitz declined. Instead, Watada now is expected to take the stand in his own defense Wednesday, buttressed by a former commanding officer as a character witness. Prosecutors are expected to call only three witnesses today after opening arguments. At a news conference after the day's proceedings, Seitz said the atmosphere in the courtroom was "tense because the judge is taking every opportunity to constrict what we would like to say. It is a typical military case, where the military doesn't want to hear what it doesn't want you to say." Seitz said a favorable outcome would be if Watada received a reduced punishment that "recognizes the integrity of his actions." If convicted of missing movement with his unit to Iraq and conduct unbecoming of an officer for speaking out against the war, he could be sentenced to up to four years. Seitz said that last year before Watada went public with his refusal to go to war, the lieutenant offered to accept punishment of six months incarceration or dismissal from the military, but prosecutors preferred to seek a stiffer sentence. Prosecutors are barred from speaking to reporters. The court-martial has drawn international attention, with Japanese journalists among the many covering the case. The high-profile court-martial has galvanized peace activists around the country. Amnesty International has weighed in, saying a guilty verdict would be "a violation of internationally recognized human rights." The trial is public, but Watada's case is being heard on a closed Army post, requiring security and behavior agreements from those wishing to attend. Space is tight. Watada's family and a small group of reporters wedged into the small courtroom, only two benches deep. Reporters drew colored marbles to select who would fill the seven media spots in the courtroom. Thirty other people, with about 20 more reporters, filled an overflow room nearby, watching a transmission from the courtroom. In early afternoon, the officers being questioned as Watada's possible jurors expressed a range of reactions to the case. One senior officer noted a "strong reaction" to hearing that another officer was facing such serious charges. Another said he was not bothered by an officer expressing opinions in public, as long as he is respectful. Yet another said he had just returned from Iraq when he heard of Watada's case and wondered, "Why?" One of two women questioned as possible jurors said she thought, "Wow, I'm impressed," when she heard Watada was following through on what he said he would do. Before the jury was chosen, Seitz several times erupted in frustration at Head. "If you are going to tie my hands and script these proceedings, we are wasting our time," Seitz said. He suggested Head might be engaged in "judicial misconduct." "We can leave the dramatics at the courtroom door," Head said at another point. The day began with Seitz offering several motions to strengthen his chances for a Nuremberg defense, one based upon the international conventions and military policies against unlawful orders. They grew out the Nazi war-crimes tribunals after World War II, when a common defense was "only following orders." Head rejected the motions. Citing legal precedents, Head ruled after a pretrial hearing last month that Watada is being tried for alleged illegal actions and that the legality of the war is not the issue. But just outside the base's gates, the war was on trial. More than 1,000 people gathered along Interstate 5 on the exit 119 overpass, spilling down the grassy slopes on either side and filling the sidewalks of the surrounding DuPont neighborhood. Diana Gruenewald of Lake Forest Park stood on the side of the freeway with a sign, collecting honks and waves from passing vehicles. The protest was a way to make sure everyone's voice was heard, she said. "I was just telling my husband -- this is such an American thing," she said. "This is how this country started, with people willing to say something that was unpopular." The rally even garnered a brief visit from actor turned activist Sean Penn, who has been a vocal opponent to the war in Iraq. The vast majority of the protesters were there in support of Watada, but some took the opposite stance. Music from the warring camps filled the air: A group of activists -- mostly in their 50s -- belted out Bob Dylan's "Blowin' in the Wind" on one side of the freeway while on the other side, a set of speakers blared "Have You Forgotten?" by country musician Darryl Worley. Among the sea of signs decrying Watada's court-martial were a few with a quite different message. One called him a "weasel." "Thank you troops! You make us proud and keep us free," read a second. Another, leaning against a folding chair, called Watada a "wimp" and a "traitor." P-I reporter Mike Barber can be reached at 206-448-8018 or mikebarber@seattlepi.com. © 1998-2007 Seattle Post-Intelligencer |
|
Go to Original
Dissent of an Officer Friday 02 February 2007 The first trial of a commissioned officer who refused to deploy to Iraq starts Monday. Bellevue, Wash. - Carolyn Ho was at her apartment that overlooks Kaneohe Bay on the windward side of Oahu, on another enviable evening of silk-shirt temperatures, when the phone rang. It was New Year's Day 2006. Her son, Ehren, was calling from Fort Lewis, near Tacoma, Wash., where he was stationed as an artillery officer in the US Army. She assumed he was calling to wish her a happy New Year. He had something else on his mind. He told her he was opposed to the war in Iraq and was going to refuse to deploy there. "I was surprised and pretty much went ballistic over it," recalls Ms. Ho. "I tried to talk him out of it." A week later, Ho - with the help of a Kahlil Gibran poem reminding her that we don't really own our children - changed her mind and has supported her son ever since. Proudly. Fiercely. On Monday she will be doing it again as 1st Lt. Ehren Watada goes on trial in a military court as the nation's first commissioned officer to refuse deployment to Iraq. It's a trial with significance beyond Lieutenant Watada. The case will provide a test of how far officers can go in resisting an order and how much they can criticize their superiors - notably the commander in chief. Over time, Watada came to believe that the Bush administration lied about the reasons for invading Iraq and concluded its actions were "illegal and immoral." The Pentagon, however, argues that no soldier can pick and choose assignments, something that would undermine a core tenet of the military - the command structure. It also says that when people join the Army, they lose some of the free-speech rights of a civilian. Thus Watada faces two charges of conduct unbecoming an officer, for his suggestion that President Bush "deceived" Americans, and one count of "missing movement." Two other charges were dropped. He could get a maximum sentence of four years in prison. The trial comes at a time when the antiwar movement is gaining strength, which has added to its symbolic importance. Almost overnight, Watada has become a poster child for critics of the war - a sort of Cindy Sheehan in fatigues. He speaks at public rallies. His father addressed the antiwar protest in Washington D.C. last weekend. Yet beneath it all lies the story of how a one-time Eagle Scout and model patriot came to be a war resister - one willing to suffer time in prison to prove the "generals, the Congress, and the president" are a "threat to the Constitution." As a child growing up in Honolulu, Watada remembers "playing war. Who didn't? Who didn't watch 'G.I. Joe'?" His mother recalls "a reflective child. When I would take him to soccer practice he always listened intently to his coach; he wasn't horsing around like the other kids." Young Watada was a two-sport athlete: soccer and football. He also rose to the top in the local Boy Scouts. "Some of that desire to be in the military came from that," he says - "the dedication to service, loyalty, morality." In his early 20s, Watada delivered packages during the day while finishing school at night. Then terrorists struck in New York and Washington. "I always wanted to join the military - and, especially after 9/11, a lot of us wanted to do more," he says. "We had this call to duty." Watada already had a strong military heritage in his family, which is of mixed origin: his mother is Chinese-American, his father Japanese-American. Both grandparents on his mother's side served in the US Army and were stationed in China. Two of his father's brothers enlisted as translators and interrogators in World War II. Another died in Korea, and a fourth later joined the US Marines. "We served when we were asked," Watada says. His father, Robert, took a different path. Ehren Watada says his father saw Vietnam as a "very racist war." So he joined the Peace Corps and went to South America. When it came time for Watada to enlist, he was diagnosed with asthma and declared physically unfit. He paid $800 to have an outside test done and was accepted into the Army's college-option program. He completed basic training in June 2003, and went to Officer Candidate School in South Carolina. He emerged 14 weeks later as a 2nd lieutenant. "Nothing dissuaded me from wanting to be in the military, not even the war in Iraq," he says. "I believed in the war. I believed in the president. I believed there were weapons of mass destruction." During a yearlong tour in Korea, he served under a commander who told his junior officers that if they didn't learn everything about their mission, they would be mediocre leaders - and fail those serving under them. The earnest Watada took this to heart in his own way. When he returned to Fort Lewis, he began researching Iraq. The exposé at Abu Ghraib prison fueled his doubts about the war. He read the report of the Iraq Survey Group, a team formed after the 2003 invasion to see if weapons of mass destruction existed. It found they didn't. He studied the United Nations Charter, the Nuremberg Principles, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Later, after concluding that Saddam Hussein had no ties to Al Qaeda, as the president had claimed, he became more disillusioned: "And I said, 'Wow - it's not bad intelligence; it's manipulative intelligence.' When you put it all together, I became convinced that what we're doing is illegal and immoral. I went into a short period of deep depression. I was so shocked. I felt betrayed." In early 2006, after telling his family of his decision not to deploy, Watada went to see his commanding officer. "I was very nervous," he says. He offered to train his replacement. He offered to fight in Afghanistan instead of in Iraq. Both requests were denied. On June 5, 2006, he called a press conference to announce that he would not fight in a war he considered "illegal and immoral." Soon afterward, the Army took a step of its own - launching an investigation that resulted in the convening of a court-martial. Watada looks trim and athletic, though not large. He has neatly cropped black hair and today is dressed in a gray sweater, blue jeans, and running shoes. He has just addressed a crowd of 60 people at a church here in Bellevue. As his case has gained notoriety, and his trial neared, he has been speaking out about the war at public rallies and to the media. In a 90-minute interview at the church, he talks matter-of-factly about his possible court-martial and position at the vortex of a national debate. Not surprisingly, he is both vilified and vaunted. Letters to the editor here have called Watada a coward and a traitor. Many members of his Fort Lewis unit were shocked and angered at his decision. "Soldiers can't just pick and choose which war they would like to fight or where they would like to deploy," says Joseph Piek, a civilian public information officer at the base. His family has been engulfed in the controversy, too. His mother asked the Japanese American Citizens League (JACL) to back her son. One influential group - the storied 442 Infantry, an all-Japanese unit that served in World War II - was adamant: Watada is being unpatriotic. In the end, the JACL voted 7 to 5 to stand by him. While his mother doesn't want to "dwell" on what might happen at the trial, Watada is prepared for the worst. His older brother, Lorin, has come here to help pack up his apartment. "To me, it's a worthwhile sacrifice," Watada says over a buffet lunch. "I didn't enter into this cause because I thought I had a great case, especially in the military justice system." He adds: "And I didn't want the people of the world to look back on America and say, 'Why didn't Americans stand up against this?'" |
Martyrs of the Republic
by Karen Kwiatkowski It appears that Watada will be tried for missing a troop movement, conduct unbecoming an officer and contempt toward officials. Logically, a soldier’s duty to reject and challenge unlawful orders may result in a missed troop movement, or two, or ten thousand. However, charging Watada with conduct unbecoming and showing contempt towards officials is too rich, even for the stupefying non sequitur that is military justice. I served as an Air Force officer or cadet under Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43. Contempt towards elected officials of one sort or another, including at times our own military leadership, was shown every year, by nearly every rank. Not surprisingly, the harshest words – and institutional toleration of them – were reserved for those officials who attempted to question pre-existing military culture or worse, to question military budgets or bookkeeping. Carter, naturally, was held in contempt. His tree-hugging micromanaging style was not compensated by Naval Academy years and early military service. Reagan, big spender and big talker, was seemingly adored – until it became clear that he was an anti-nuclear friend of Gorbachev, unlikely to substantially use the Pentagon machine he had so generously primed. In the mid-1980s, when we gave Stinger missiles to various freedom fighters in Afghanistan and Angola, congressional hawks and the military, while concerned about the risk, approved the shipments because it opened up the next generation of Stinger production for ourselves. The freedom we were fighting for appears to have been nothing more than the freedom to buy and sell more weapons at home and abroad, and the freedom to fight at will, wherever, for whomever or whatever. The Reagan grousing began before Iran-Contra and continued until that great friend of militarism, George H.W. Bush, arrived. Bush the Elder understood institutional-political spending and the military industrial complex, and he knew how to please us. It’s no surprise that we secretly loved him best. Whether coincidence or grand strategy, Bush 41 gave us something big to do in those tenuous, uncertain early years of the post-Cold War era. But then, he too was disrespected in many military circles for premature withdrawal in Iraq, and for playing emotional world policeman in Somalia. But our practiced contempt would blossom fully with the arrival of Bill Clinton, and his military-hating wife. All bets were off, after that early "don’t ask, don’t tell" shot across the Pentagon bow. Military officers and enlisted alike felt freedom to discount, condemn, criticize, and joke about the Clinton presidency, his policies, his decisions and actions, and those of his immediate family and staff. And it was all good – few if any courts martials were convened. The July 1999 The Army Lawyer puts it in perspective and is worth a read. To get an idea of what was happening only a few years ago, a reserve major who called the president a "lying draft dodger" and "a moral coward" received not much more than a "letter of caution." He wasn’t talking about George W. Bush, although he certainly might have been. How things do change! Lt Watada is facing six years in prison, for saying the war appears to him illegal, and the policies that led to this illegal war questionable. Many Republican senators and representatives, and most of the old Bush 41 team have already said and written as much. It’s funny, except in a nascent totalitarian state, one mustn’t laugh. Another court case looms, providing one more interesting example of police state intimidation. Navy lawyer LCDR Matthew Diaz is charged with transmitting secret war on terror information to unauthorized persons. He worked as a staff legal advisor at Guantanamo for six months in 2004, and now faces up to 36 years in prison. The unauthorized "terror" information he is accused of giving out seems to have been some names of those held in Guantanamo, in legal limbo, uncharged and mistreated in perpetuity by our Commander in Chief about Whom No Bad Things Must be Breathed or Whispered. The Congress already suspects, and the Supreme Court already knows, that much of what the President and his political lackeys have done in Guantanamo is illegal under international as well as constitutional law. I guess this is why the executive branch has gotten so sensitive about things like release of the – dare I say Christian – names of those we are holding, seeing as how the Pentagon has already admitted that most of those incarcerated have done little if anything wrong, and many of those will never be charged, even as they remain incarcerated indefinitely. Diaz, like Watada, Joe Darby, and so many others are men of conscience assigned to an unconscionable political bureaucracy, operating in an immoral political era. They would be first in line to defend this country if we were truly at risk, and the rest of us would admire and praise their courage and their honor. We would, in another time, gladly share their vision of what is worth saving in America. Instead, we shop our hearts out, count our fiat dollars, marvel at our nanny state and commend our warm and loving national socialism. Instead, we look fearfully on those few who would trust that still small voice, that handful who believe the fragile republic might be worth saving, and those rarities who boldly stare down our institutional Goliaths. These men frighten us a bit, and perhaps we turn away, uncomfortable with what they are risking, and nervous about what it all means for our cherished fantasies about the power of law written in museums, not living in our souls. In an age where a 21st century Caesar claims divine right to wage preemptive and imperial war – audaciously rejecting the vast majority of American serfdom as well as the country’s elected law-makers – it is nice to know that these few men do frighten the state, as men like them have done in earlier times. Now, as then, the state will arrest them, hold them, intimidate them, punish them and eliminate them. We the people will not act until it is too late, but these men will indeed become our martyrs, and our inspiration, in years to come.
Karen Kwiatkowski, Ph.D. [send her mail], a retired USAF lieutenant colonel, has written on defense issues with a libertarian perspective for MilitaryWeek.com, hosted the call-in radio show American Forum, and blogs occasionally for Huffingtonpost.com and Liberty and Power. Archives of her American Forum radio program can be accessed here and here. To receive automatic announcements of new articles, click here. Copyright © 2007 Karen Kwiatkowski |
Army escalates charges in attempt to silence Lt. Watada
Friends and Family of Lt. Watada (Ft. Lewis, WA) – In a surprise move today, the U.S. Army chose to add an additional specification under the charge of Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman for comments Lt. Ehren Watada made Aug. 12 during a speech to the Veterans For Peace national convention in Seattle. Lt. Watada stated “to stop an illegal and unjust war, soldiers can choose to stop fighting it.” The additional, gratuitous charge raises the stakes in the widely publicized and controversial case of the first military officer to publicly refuse to fight in the illegal Iraq war and occupation. It is unknown if the military intends to hold another Article 32 pre-trial hearing to review the new charge, or simply railroad it directly to court martial. A final decision on the forwarding to court-martial on all seven charges now pending against Lt. Watada remains forthcoming from Fort Lewis Commanding General Lt. Gen. James Dubik. If convicted of all charges, Lt. Watada could now face over eight years in prison, more than six of them for publicly voicing his opposition to what he considers an illegal and immoral war. In June Lt. Watada stated, in language reminiscent of the House Minority Judiciary Committee report “Constitution in Crisis” that “the war in Iraq is not only morally wrong but a horrible breach of American law,” and that he felt his “moral and legal obligation is to the Constitution and not those who would issue unlawful orders.” Many groups and legal experts have weighed in on Lt. Watada’s right to publicly explain the rational for his actions. The American Civil Liberties Union filed an amicus brief defending Lt. Watada’s right to respectfully and publicly explain his refusal to deploy.
"Lt. Watada is a principled and sincere young officer who has deeply held and serious legal and moral objections to participating in the current war in Iraq. He attempted to articulate those concerns to his command before the matter became public,” Eric Seitz, Watada’s civilian defense attorney, wrote in a rebuttal submitted to the military court late last month. “[T]he Army’s unwillingness thus far to seek any reasonable solution or outcome of this situation certainly has placed Lt. Watada into a position where he has little or no choice but to vigorously defend himself against charges that we submit are extravagant and unjustified,” Seitz wrote. Friends and Family of Lt. Watada is moving forward with plans for a national mobilization near Ft. Lewis in support of bringing the troops home, a "people's tribunal” on the legality of the Iraq War, and many other events leading up to a possible court-martial. A Travesty of justice
Someone should file a suit against the U.S. Army for plagiarizing George Orwell’s novel, 1984. Orwellian irony hangs over the pending court-martial of Lt. Ehren Watada, the first commissioned officer to refuse deployment to Iraq. The Army is seeking to imprison the Hawaiian soldier of conscience, not for lying, but for telling the truth; not for violating the law, but for upholding it. Watada refuses to carry out illegal orders, to participate in crimes against peace. Read more... Urgent Action - Tell Fort Lewis: “No court martial!”
Help Lt. Ehren Watada take a stand against illegal war!Your donation toward Lt. Watada's defense is urgently needed. Order Thank You Lt. Watada stuff: t-shirts, buttons, posters, stickers, postcards and more. Friends and Family of
Lt. Watada |