The Watada Doctrine
You thought what was happening at Fort Lewis was a court martial? Guess again. It’s the establishment of the Watada Doctrine. Foreign policy by lieutenant.
Judge John Head, bending over backward to be fair, declares a mistrial. It’s a trip through the Looking Glass.The stipulation Watada signed, presumeably on the advice of his lawyers, may not represent his views because it acknowleges he had a “duty” to report to his unit. This Post-Intelligencer article is not very clear, but it sounds like Watada’s lawyer is trying to get what the judge already told him he couldn’t have … a trial about the Iraq war … and the judge who said he can’t have that agreed that not letting him include in the stipulation what the judge won’t let him introduce in court is grounds for a mistrial. Confused? Me, too.
Blue Crab figures this was a bad deal for Watada. The two charges dropped in exchange for the stipulation are back on, and he could face 6 instead of 4 years. Maybe. I think they’ll just come up with a new stipulation.
Topics: Iraq, Uncategorized, military
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 12:47 am Comments (15) on Wednesday, February 7, 2007
15 Responses to “The Watada Doctrine”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
February 7th, 2007 at 1:00 am
Lt. Watada is right. The US government has ignored President George Washington’s farewell address to the detriment of this country. Washington issued the warning for us to remain free from foreign entanglements. Many of the ills our country is facing are a direct result of ignoring that advice.
Lt. Watada believes that the US government should avoid foreign entanglements. He should be praised for his stand..not court martialed.
February 7th, 2007 at 1:36 am
You didn’t read the story. It’s about governance by lieutenants.
Lt. Watada can dance all he wants, but he ignored lawful orders. Too bad for him. Hope he enjoys his time in prison.
February 7th, 2007 at 2:12 am
What rank did The Decider attain on the Yale cheerleading squad?
February 7th, 2007 at 2:52 am
Seraphyim, I seriously doubt that George Washington forsaw a day when 19 men with box cutters could hijack 4 aircraft and murder 3,000 people.
alphie, if you had half the ‘nads it takes to strap into an F-102 and fire it up I’d consider you worth stepping on.
February 7th, 2007 at 3:01 am
The Watada Doctrine
The Watada Doctrine by Jules Crittenden, Special to PJM The deeper meaning behind the court martial of Lt. Ehren Watada and why this soldier is the darling of the anti-war movement. An important foreign policy statement is being made this
February 7th, 2007 at 3:03 am
People actually pay to fly fighters these days, Bill.
I guess it’s actually kinda fun when nobody is shooting at you.
Looking over the oath Lt. Watada took, looks to me like every officer in the U.S. Army has to decide what the Constitution means:
“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”
You’d think Cheerleader Bush and Five Deferements Cheney could at least provide these guys with a little better legal advice than the comedy stylings of Abu Gonzales and John Yoonitary Executive.
It’s the least they could do.
February 7th, 2007 at 3:13 am
Bill’s Nibbles– 2007.02.07
Some Bill’s Bites posts, some things I excerpted and linked but I’m sending you to the original post. I may rearrange the order of the links within this post as I add new things that I think belong above the
February 7th, 2007 at 6:05 am
Since someone chose to point to Washington, I’d suggest they consider what then General Washington did to those who deserted their post. Look up what went on at Valley Forge sometime.
We need to close the government run schools and sue those who pretended to teach American history and civics. From the ignorance displayed by far too many people, I’d say they didn’t do their jobs.
February 7th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Excellent column, Jules. I hope Watada gets more than a slap on the wrist. Obviously he’s not afraid to get a dishonorable discharge, because there will always be lefty tools willing to hire him for whatever. Until he starts telling them how he thinks they should run their business, that is.
February 7th, 2007 at 10:41 am
I think that it’s critical to look at what makes a lawful order. The highest law in the land, the document that lawfully incorporates our nation, is the Constitution. Anything that violates that document is unlawful.
The Constitution makes mention of only two kinds of conflicts, wars and insurrections. Concerning war the Constitution is clear: only Congress can declare war.
The conflict in Iraq is not an insurrection against the United States Government. Neither is it a war as declared by Congress. The Constitution makes NO provision for the utilization of troops outside of insurrection or war. Therefore, by it’s nature, the Iraq conflict is unconstitutional, hence, illegal.
You may say I simplify. Some say that “Washington could not have forseen”. I say, so what? That is not an excuse to violate the Constitution.
February 7th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
I’ve not read much on Watada’s ploy, but I’ve long held the view that he joined the Army for this specific purpose. That he is/was a oplant, a sort of ’social infiltrator’ with the mission of being the posterboy “enlightened Soldier who opposes the illegal war.”
Two cents. Perhaps less.
February 7th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Alphie’s talking out of his posterior (again). It’s not up to any officer (or non-commisioned officer, or warrant officer or regular enlistee) to decide “what the Constitution means”. If it did I could just as easily decide that alphie was an enemy of the Constitution (a reasonable enough assumption), shoot him and never have to read his tripe again.
The manual of Courts Martial is pretty clear: “An order, to be lawful, must relate to specific military duty and be one that the member of the armed forces is authorized to give. An order is lawful if it is reasonably necessary to safeguard and protect the morale, discipline and usefulness of the members of a command and is directly connected with the maintenance of good order in the services.”
And: “Relationship to military duty. The order must relate to military duty, which includes all activities reasonably necessary to accomplish a military mission, or safeguard or promote the morale, discipline, and usefulness of members of a command and directly connected with the maintenance of good order in the service. The order may not, without such a valid military purpose, interfere with private rights or personal affairs. However, the dictates of a person’s conscience, religion, or personal philosophy cannot justify or excuse the disobedience of an otherwise lawful order.”
The left has their poster boy for the time being, but I wonder if he will be remembered when his time is up. Michael New thought he was in the right as well (google it alphie-so much for your theories of military justice).
February 7th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Lt. Watada’s trial has ended in a MISTRIAL because the judge was determined to deny Lt. Watada his right to defend himself. Lt’s Watada’s lawyer would not let that stand..and so the judge has declared a mistrial in the case
February 8th, 2007 at 3:26 am
Seraphyim
Are you sure the “judge was determined to deny Lt. Watada his right to defend himself.”?
“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 ask the judge for a mistrial instead of arguing its entire case again. ”
The next paragraph is important…
“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 result, it was not his duty to obey it.”
“There is a material misunderstanding over what this stipulation is,” said Head.
Reuters
February 8th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
You are correct Cliff. I didn’t realize until later that they were two separate issues. The original report I read made it seem as thought the mistrial was declared because Lt. Watada’s lawyer would not remain silent about Lt. Watada’s true defense.
It was unrelated but the fact is, the judge did refuse to allow the legality of the Iraq conflict to be used as a defense. AS THIS IS WATADA’S WHOLE DEFENSE, the judge has effectively forbidden Lt. Watada and his lawyer the right of defense.