Ehren Watada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ehren Watada
[[ [[ {{{3}}}]]]] 1978 (1978--{{{3}}}) (age Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{")

Place of birth	Honolulu, Hawaii
Allegiance	United States of America
Service/branch	United States Army
Years of service	2003-
Rank	First Lieutenant (1LT)
Unit	G-37, HHC, I Corps (Ft. Lewis, WA)
Awards	Army Commendation Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Overseas Service Ribbon, Army Service Ribbon

Ehren Watada (born 1978) is a First Lieutenant (1LT) of the United States Army who in June 2006 publicly refused^[1]^[2] to deploy to Iraq for his unit's assigned rotation to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Watada said he believed the war to be illegal and that, under the doctrine of command responsibility, it would make him party to war crimes. At the time he refused to deploy, he was assigned to duty with the 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, part of the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, as a Fire Support Officer. Watada is the first commissioned officer in the U.S. armed forces to publicly refuse deployment to Iraq.^[3] His court-martial ended in a mistrial on February 7, 2007. A second court-martial, originally scheduled to begin July 23, 2007 has been postponed until October 9, 2007.

1 Background
2 Charges
3 Article 32 hearing
4 Post-hearing
5 Court-martial
6 Second Trial
7 Public reaction
8 Quotes
9 See also
10 Notes
11 External links

[edit] Background

Ehren K. Watada was born in Honolulu, Hawaii to Robert Watada and Carolyn Ho. His father Robert served for 10 years as executive director of Hawaii's Campaign Spending Commission and himself refused to serve in the Vietnam War.^[4] Ehren Watada attended Punahou School, then transferred in his sophomore year to Kalani High School, where he played cornerback on the varsity football team. An Eagle Scout, Watada graduated from Hawaii Pacific University in 2003 with a B.A. in Finance.^[5]^[6]

Watada joined the US Army after the war in Iraq had begun, stating that he was motivated "out of a desire to protect our country" after 9/11. He was commissioned by the Army's Officer Candidate School, on November 20, 2003, at Fort Benning, Georgia as a Second Lieutenant of Field Artillery. Watada served one year in South Korea, and was subsequently reassigned to Fort Lewis, Washington.^[7]

Soon after reporting to Fort Lewis, Watada discovered that his unit would be deploying to Iraq, in support of ongoing operations there. In preparation to deploy, he began conducting research on the country, its culture, and the reasons for the U.S. involvement in Iraq. After reading several books and articles about the history of Iraq, international law, and the evidence used to justify the war,^[8] and speaking with veterans returning from Iraq,^[7] Watada claims that he ceased to believe in the legality and morality of the war.

In January 2006, he attempted to resign his commission. The Army denied his request because he had not fulfilled his eight year military service obligation for which he had contracted, as required by law. He used as justification for his request that the war violated the Constitution and War Powers Act which "limits the president in his role as Commander in Chief from using the armed forces in any way he sees fit." He also cited the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and the Nuremberg Principles, which "bar wars of aggression." He argued the command responsibility would make him personally responsible and liable for legal challenges for violating international law. Further, he asserted that the war was based on misleading or false premises such as the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, and that the occupation itself did not follow the Army's own legal rules of conduct for occupying a country.^[9]

Watada has said he is not a conscientious objector because he is not opposed to all wars as a matter of principle, and he claims he has offered to serve in Afghanistan,^[10] which he regarded as "an unambiguous war linked to the Sept. 11 attacks." This was also refused. Watada, in turn, refused an offer for a desk job in Iraq without direct combat involvement.^[7]

[edit] Charges

In response to Watada's refusal to deploy, the U.S. Army initially preferred seven specifications of various offenses under the UCMJ. Since the initial preferral, all but three specifications were dropped; the remaining ones sent to the court-martial follow:

2 specifications Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentleman (for statements made in speeches and interviews) (Article 133)
1 specification Missing Movement (for refusing to deploy to Iraq on June 22) (Article 87)

When the initial charges were preferred, Watada faced the possibility of a General Court-Martial and up to seven years in prison as well as a dismissal (commissioned officers who are sentenced to punitive discharge by court-martial receive a dismissal, while personnel without a commission would receive a dishonorable discharge) if convicted. About this eventuality, Watada said that he did not regret his decision and was willing to face the consequences, citing it as what he believed to be a moral responsibility:

When you are looking your children in the eye in the future, or when you are at the end of your life, you want to look back on your life and know that at a very important moment, when I had the opportunity to make the right decisions, I did so, even knowing there were negative consequences.^[9]

On these charges, Watada's civilian attorney, Eric Seitz, comments:

Well, we expected him to be charged with missing movement or violating an order to get on a bus to accompany his unit to Iraq. We did not really anticipate that they would charge him with additional offenses based upon the comments and the remarks that he's made. And that opens up a whole new chapter in this proceeding, because what the Army has clearly tried to do by the nature of these charges is send out a message to people in the military, that if you criticize the war and if you criticize the decisions that were made to bring the United States into this war, that you, too, could be charged with disloyalty, contemptuous remarks and disrespect for higher officers, and in this case, specifically in this charge, the President.^[11]

[edit] Article 32 hearing

Watada's article 32 hearing to determine whether or not he was deserving a court-martial was held on August 17, 2006.^[12] The investigating officer Lt. Col. Mark Keith presided.^[13]

The Army prosecutor, Capt. Dan Kuecker, described Watada's actions as contemptuous of President George W. Bush, and argued that Watada's public statements hurt morale in his unit.^[13] He played video clips from Lt. Watada's address to a Veterans for Peace conference.^[14] In that speech, Watada called on his fellow soldiers to stop fighting.^[15] Eric Seitz, Watada's civilian counsel, and Capt. Mark Kim, Watada's military lawyer, raised the issue of the legality of the war. Over the prosecutor's objections, Seitz and Kim called three witnesses to question the legality of the war.^[13] University of Illinois Professor of international law Francis Boyle testified that the war is illegal because it was not authorized by the U.N. Security Council, and claimed that Congress approved the war on the basis of faulty intelligence. Also testifying in Watada's defense were Former United Nations Undersecretary Denis Halliday, and Army Colonel Ann Wright (ret.), who resigned from the army in March 2003 in protest of the coming invasion. Like Boyle, both asserted that the war was illegal and that therefore Watada was within his rights to refuse participation in it. Also, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a friend-of-the-court brief, stating that "soldiers should not be court martialled (sic) for explaining their views."^[16]

Keith recommended Watada for court martial on all charges, even as he said that he thought that Watada was "sincere in his beliefs." Of the court-martial recommendation, Seitz accused the Army of trying Watada without looking seriously at his arguments and that of the other experts appearing at the trial about the legality of the war.^[17]

[edit] Post-hearing

On September 15, the Army announced that it had preferred another charge against Watada of "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman", based on remarks that he made at a Veterans for Peace convention.^[18] This brought the potential prison term faced by Watada to eight and one-half years in prison if convicted of all charges. Approximately six of these years would have been for statements that he made concerning the war rather than his refusal to deploy to Iraq; "missing movement" is normally punishable by two years. Keith justified the additional charge by asserting that "contempt for the President and suggestion that US soldiers can stop the war simply by refusing to fight borders on mutiny and sedition." ^[19]

On the other hand, Eric Seitz asserts that the Army added the new charge to make a public example of him: "He's not doing anything other than saying things he believes to be true, and that we believe are true. This makes it that much clearer that this is just a political prosecution, and that's really all this case has been about from the beginning."

[edit] Court-martial

On November 9, 2006, the U.S. Army announced the decision of the Fort Lewis commander, LTG James Dubik, that Watada would face a court martial. The charges of "contempt toward officials" were dismissed without comment. Without the "contempt for officials" charges, Watada could face up to four years confinement, two for missing movement and two for statements that he made, as well as a dismissal, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances, if convicted of the remaining charges.^[20]

Watada's defense team had intended to demonstrate that the war was illegal by maintaining that the required congressional approval was granted only on the basis of the existence of WMDs in Iraq and ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. They also intended to subpoena witnesses to testify and to cite the Nuremberg Principles,^[21] which require soldiers to disobey illegal orders. However, on January 16, 2007, Judge John M. Head ruled that Watada would not be allowed to present any defense based on the Nuremberg principles, stating that the legality of a war was a "nonjusticiable political question"^[22] and ruling also that the order that Watada had refused was lawful. Watada was also forbidden to present a First Amendment defense.^[23] Seitz said about the rulings that "they are essentially saying there is no right to criticize, which we all know is not true," and that they intend to appeal any conviction to the federal courts.^[24]

At a pre-trial press conference Watada remarked that he believed it his duty to refuse to fight in the war, and that he was prepared to face prison time for his beliefs.^[21]

On February 5, 2007, Watada's court-martial began with him entering a plea of not guilty to all of the specifications against him. He faced three specifications: one for missing movement, and two for "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman" related to his public comments criticizing the Bush administration and the war.^[25] Panel selection was conducted on the first day, narrowing a pool of ten officers down to seven, holding the rank of captain through lieutenant colonel. The court-martial panel is similar to a jury in a civilian trial, but due to special rules provided in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), panels consist of service members equal or superior in rank to the defendant.

On the second day of his court-martial, the prosecution presented opening arguments stating that Watada had "abandoned his soldiers and disgraced himself and the service"^[26] and began calling witnesses. The first witness called was Watada's former Battalion Commander, Lt. Col. Bruce Antonia. He testified that he learned of Watada's feelings about the war soon after Watada concluded, in early January 2006, that the war was illegal. Antonia stated, "I told him I was concerned. I did not want this to turn [this] into a big media event." Furthermore, his chain of command counseled him on the consequences of his actions if he refused to deploy and used his position to make a spectacle of the issue.^[27] Lt. Col. William James, another officer who counseled Watada, testified that he found Watada's offer to serve in Afghanistan in "direct conflict" with Watada's written statement or stipuation that he did not want to deploy as a "tool" of the Bush administration.^[27] Watada had also stipulated that he had indeed missed his brigade's June deployment to Iraq and that he made a series of public statements against the war. In return for the stipulation, Army prosecutors had dropped several counts that knocked two years off the maximum six-year sentence.

The judge decided to throw out the stipulation, calling it an admission of guilt, and recognizing that the document was the basis of the prosecution's case, granted their request for a mistrial.^[28]

[edit] Second Trial

A new court martial was set for March 19, 2007^[29] rescheduled for July 23, 2007, and then postponed until October 9, 2007, ^[30] as an appeal based on the issue of double jeopardy delayed the case. Watada is represented by Ken Kagan and Jim Lobsenz with the Seattle law firm Carney Badley Spellman^[31], who have replaced Eric Seitz.

On the issue of double jeopardy, Joe Piek, spokesman for Fort Lewis, argued^[32] that the rules for courts-martial (MCM Rule 915(c))^[33], allow the Army to try Watada again, on the theory that the mistrial is not a decision and that the mistrial was not due to prosecutorial misconduct. Others, including the military defense attorney assigned to Watada, as well as Kagan and Lobsenz, argued that "jeopardy" attached at the start of the presentation of evidence.^[34] Rule 907(b)(2)(C) of the MCM states that jeopardy attaches at the "beginning of the presentation of evidence on the merits," raising the possibility that jeopardy attached prior to the declaration of mistrial. Even if jeopardy attached, however, the issue then becomes whether Judge Head abused his discretion (MCM Rule 915(c)(2))^[33], according to Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice at the American University Washington College of Law^[32]. In the appeal, Kagan argued that Judge Head did indeed abuse his discretion^[30], as did Seitz on the day the mistrial was declared^[35].

Following the ruling on July 5, 2007, by Lt. Col. John Head, again presiding over Lt. Watada's court-martial, that double jeopardy did not apply, Watada's attorneys filed notice of their intention to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals.

[edit] Public reaction

There have been rallies held at the gates of Fort Lewis since the court-martial began; the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported that the first day drew "more than 1,000" supporters, including the actor Sean Penn.^[36] Kelly Dougherty, Chairperson of Iraq Veterans Against the War, agrees: "The charge is unwarranted. They are trying to show others how hard they will be punished if they speak out. Right now the military sees more and more soldiers speaking publicly and it's threatening to them. They are creating an atmosphere of threats and of fear."^[19]

Besides the ACLU and Iraq Veterans against the War, Veterans for Peace has come out in support.^[37] Watada has told reporters that "almost every day, someone from the military or the outside sends me some kind of correspondence or approaches me in person to render support or their respect.”^[38] On January 4, 2007, two-hundred people gathered at the Federal Building in downtown San Francisco to demonstrate support for Watada, which led to 28 supporters being arrested by local police officers.^[39] Amnesty International issued a press release stating that if Lt Watada were convicted and imprisoned, the organization would consider him a "prisoner of conscience and call for his immediate and unconditional release." ^[40]

Others are opposed to Watada's actions, such as Military Families Voice of Victory, who claim that he is helping al-Qaeda,^[41] and some Japanese American veterans, who claim that as a Japanese American he brings shame to the Japanese American community.^[42] Watada has also reported that although he has not received any open hostility from his fellow soldiers, still there is "definitely a tension."^[8] There was also a small "counter demonstration" at Fort Lewis opposite his supporters.^[12]

Watada's mother, Carolyn Ho, has become an anti-Iraq War activist.^[43] The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported that she founded a website to support Watada, at www.thankyoult.org.^[12]

Lt. Watada's father, Bob Watada, also became a critic of the war^[44] and went on a national tour^[45] to raise money for Watada's defense, from October 26 to November 17. Mr. Watada (not Lt. Watada) was on hand to speak, and shared the stage with other prominent critics of the war, including Jane Fonda, Sean Penn, and actor Tim Robbins, at the January 27, 2007 anti-war protest in Washington, D.C.^[46]

A "Citizens' hearing on the legality of U.S. actions in Iraq" considered Watada's case on January 20-21, 2007.^[47] The Tribunal was convened to hear testimony that had been barred from his Courts Martial. Those testifying included:

Daniel Ellsberg	War in Vietnam whistleblower who leaked The Pentagon Papers.
Denis Halliday	Coordinated United Nations humanitarian aid to Iraq when he was UN Assistant Secretary-General
Benjamin G. Davis	Widely published expert on International Law.
Marjorie Cohn	Widely published expert on Constitutional Law, President of the National Lawyers' Guild

[edit] Quotes

"It is my duty as a commissioned officer in the United States Army to speak out against grave injustices. My moral and legal obligation is to the constitution. Not to those who issue unlawful orders. I stand before you today because it is my job to serve and protect American soldiers and innocent Iraqis who have no voice. It is my conclusion that the war in Iraq is not only morally wrong, but also a breach of American law," June 7, 2006^[1].