United for Peace of Pierce County, WA - We nonviolently oppose the reliance on unilateral military actions rather than cooperative diplomacy.

The News Tribune (Tacoma, WA) reported Monday that the date set for the beginning of the second court-martial of Lt. Ehren Watada has, as expected, been moved back, from Jul. 23 to Oct. 9, 2007.[1] -- Matt Misterek noted that "The October time frame, if it stands, would put Watada back in court around the same time his Stryker brigade — the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division — is scheduled to return from Iraq after a 15-month deployment." -- A short unsigned AP piece noted that "After his first trial, Watada in April acquired new civilian lawyers, James Lobsenz and Kenneth Kagan of Carney Badley Spellman in Seattle. Lobsenz and Kagan are arguing that the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy, or being tried twice for the same crimes, prevents him from being court-martialed again. The lawyers are appealing to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals."[2] -- Honolulu media outlets, which once reported abundantly on the case, seem to have lost interest in Lt. Watada. -- On Tuesday, the Honolulu Advertiser published only a four-paragraph squib.[3] -- The Honolulu Star-Bulletin published nothing. -- A Honolulu TV channel (KITV-4, 'The Honolulu Channel') called Lt. Watada "the first objector since 1965 to be prosecuted by the military" and described outcome of Watada's first trial in February: "A military judge declared a mistrial in the case in February. -- As part of a deal to reduce the counts against him, Watada did not dispute that he refused the deployment order and that he made anti-war statements. However, because Watada still wanted to argue he was entitled to disobey, the military judge ruled the prior deal invalid. The judge offered the Army a mistrial, and they took it."[4] -- But the assertion that Watada is "the first objector since 1965 to be prosecuted by the military" is too broad. -- In fact, as the web site Thank You Lieutenant reported in July 2006, this refers to Article 88 charges ("contempt toward officials"): "Most previous prosecutions of Article 88 took place during the Civil War and World War I, and the last known prosecution was in 1965 (Howe vs. U.S.). Lt. Howe was protesting the Vietnam War." -- A summary of U.S. v. Howe, as the case is actually known, is posted below.[5] -- But Article 88 has hardly been a dead letter since 1965. -- In 2002, for example, it featured in the suspension of Air Force Lt. Col. Steve Butler of the Monterey Language Institute, who published a letter in the Monterey County Herald saying that President George W. Bush had prior knowledge of the September 11 attacks and had used them for political gain; the San Francisco Chronicle article on the case is posted below.[6] -- As for bizarre events of Feb. 7, 2007, that led to the mistrial in the first court-martial, these are not adequately summarized by KITV-4 either. -- Only an extensive account of court proceedings that day could do that. -- Here's the best account that's been published so far, by Jeff Paterson: "On Wednesday morning, prior to Lt. Watada’s anticipated testimony, Judge Head unexpectedly called into question the stipulation agreement. He did so based on a seemingly minor proposed jury instruction. The defense proposal was simply to inform the jury that 'Lt. Watada intentionally missed his deployment because he believed the war to be illegal.' [Then-Watada attorney Eric] Seitz later explained that based on all previous motions being denied, he had 'no expectation' that this instruction would be allowed. -- Yet because Judge Head had intellectually resolved the legality of the war as completely irrelevant to his own satisfaction, Lt. Watada’s stipulation of fact that he intentionally missed his deployment, was in Judge Head’s opinion a 'confessional stipulation.' -- Over the objections of Lt. Watada’s lawyers, Judge Head insisted on questioning Lt. Watada on his intent — not while he was on the stand but simply sitting at the defense table. Seitz unsuccessfully objected that no legal basis existed for such questioning. -- Lt. Watada again stated, 'I intentionally missed the movement because I believed my participation in Iraq would contribute to war crimes and what I believe would be an illegal war.' But did you believe you had a 'duty to make the movement?' queried Judge Head. 'No, I did not feel I had that duty. I was being ordered to do something that I feel was illegal. The government and you have made rulings to the contrary, but that does not negate my beliefs,' replied Lt. Watada. -- It seems that Judge Head, based on his own misunderstanding of the stipulation of facts — not Lt. Watada’s, the defense team’s, or the prosecutor’s misunderstanding — believed that Lt. Watada was attempting to plead both guilty and innocent at the same time. -- Based on this reconcilable contradiction, one not shared by any other parties involved, Judge Head went ahead and opened an inquiry into the stipulation of facts. 'This inquiry is unauthorized and unjustified,' declared Seitz in protest. -- PROSECUTION COMES TO THE DEFENSE -- 'We cannot have disagreements as to what the pre-trial stipulation means. We don’t have a meeting of the minds,' declared Judge Head. Regardless of 'a legal duty or not, what did you believe, Lt. Watada?' 'There is additional evidence, which I believe is my defense,' replied Lt. Watada to Judge Head. -- Seitz reiterated, 'As far is it goes, it was a stipulation of facts (not a confession). That has always been our position.' -- Realizing things were going from bad to worse for the government, prosecutor Cpt. Van Sweringen rallied to support defense attorney Eric Seitz. 'Both parties agree to the facts. There was a meeting of the minds, sir. There is no question that Lt. Watada has pled not guilty based on his belief that he believes the war is illegal,' explained Van Sweringen. 'The prosecution agrees that this was a stipulation of facts only.' -- However, since Judge Head had ruled that Lt. Watada’s beliefs were irrelevant, and was committed to enforcing those ruling with extremist vigor, this was simply not acceptable. One last time, 'What does deploy mean to you?' asked Judge Head. 'To me sir, it means to participate in a war that I believe to be illegal,' explained Lt. Watada. -- Both the defense and prosecution explained that Lt. Watada’s belief was consistent, as it clearly states, 'With this stipulation, however, the defense does not waive any future claim with regard to the motions and objections previously litigated.' -- 'Do you understand my problem, government?' asked Judge Head. 'Frankly, no' replied Van Sweringen, standing with his arms crossed and head down. 'The accused has pled not guilty. If the accused has evidence, the court should hear that evidence,' offered Van Sweringen, apparently welcoming the introduction of the 'Nuremberg Defense' or any other issues in the hope of moving forward with the court-martial. -- MISTRIAL GRANTED OVER DEFENSE OBJECTIONS -- 'I don't know how I can accept (it) as we stand here now,' noted Judge Head in tossing the agreement. With the stipulation voided, the prosecution no longer had any evidence to the facts before the jurors. Although Judge Head offered to allow the prosecution to reopen its case against following a continuance, he rhetorically asked 'how do we unring that bell?' in reference to undoing two days of testimony — all based on a voided stipulation already studied by the seated jurors. -- As to Judge Head’s motive in all of this, it is possible that he believed he was cutting off a possible future avenue of appeal for Lt. Watada on the issue of misunderstanding the stipulation. Others believe Judge Head mistakenly thought that he could provide a 'do-over' for the prosecution without double jeopardy being attached, despite Seitz’s warnings to the contrary. -- After repeated and lengthy recesses to allow the prosecution team time to consult with their superiors on a course of action, 'Government, what’s your druthers?' asked Judge Head. Defeated and dejected, Van Sweringen muttered, 'At this point the government moves for mistrial.' -- Judge Head quickly set a new trial date for the week of March 19, but agreed the timing would be subject to availability of the defense lawyers — probably no sooner than May. 'This case moves to the top of the docket.' -- FUTURE OF U.S. v. WATADA QUESTIONED -- It is unlikely that Judge Head fully realized what he initiated. Lead defense lawyer Eric Seitz explained following the day’s drama: 'It is my professional opinion that Lt. Watada cannot be tried again because of the effect of double jeopardy. We did nothing to warrant a mistrial. The judge made all of his rulings himself, or based upon motions by the government. . . . The protection against double jeopardy applies as a constitutional matter.' Seitz added, 'The case is now back in a posture that it was in some weeks or months ago, and I do not believe it will ever be resurrected, or ever can be resurrected.'" -- It is that double-jeopardy question that is now before the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals....

The start of a court-martial for a Fort Lewis officer who refused to deploy to Iraq last year has been moved from July 23 to Oct. 9, a spokesman at the Army post said Monday morning.

Both the government and the defense for Lt. Ehren Watada requested that the date be pushed back, and the military judge agreed, according to Joseph Piek, the Fort Lewis spokesman.

The October time frame, if it stands, would put Watada back in court around the same time his Stryker brigade -- the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division -- is scheduled to return from Iraq after a 15-month deployment.

The postponement does not come as a big surprise. Earlier this month, Watada’s new attorneys tried to get military judge Lt. Col. John Head to disqualify himself from the case and also tried to invoke Watada’s right not to be prosecuted twice for the same crime, known as double jeopardy.

Head rejected both motions, and Watada’s attorneys, Kenneth Kagan and James Lobsenz, immediately filed notice that they will appeal the double-jeopardy ruling.

Head is the same judge who declared a mistrial in Watada’s first court-martial in February after he questioned whether the officer understood a pretrial agreement he’d signed.

Watada is charged with missing his unit’s movement to Iraq in June 2006 and four counts of conduct unbecoming an officer for negative comments he made about President Bush and the war.

Watada contends he had a duty to miss the flight with his Stryker brigade. In public appearances and court documents, he argues the war is illegal and that he would be party to war crimes if he participated in any way.

Had he gone to Iraq with his unit, he would have been a fire-support officer in one of the companies of the 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment. He would have coordinated artillery and other firepower in support of soldiers in combat.

Instead, Watada is performing administrative duties at Fort Lewis while the legal process continues.

FORT LEWIS -- The second court-martial of 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, a Fort Lewis U.S. Army officer who refused to go to Iraq with his unit a year ago, has been rescheduled to Oct. 9.

Watada's trial, originally slated to begin next Monday, was postponed at the request of government and defense lawyers. His first trial earlier this year ended in a mistrial. If convicted, Watada faces a maximum of six years in prison and a dishonorable discharge.

Watada became a lightning rod for the peace movement in June 2006 when he refused to deploy for a year to Iraq with the 3rd Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. He said the war is illegal. He is charged with missing deployment to Iraq with his unit, and conduct unbecoming an officer for four comments he made publicly about the war in Iraq and President Bush.

After his first trial, Watada in April acquired new civilian lawyers, James Lobsenz and Kenneth Kagan of Carney Badley Spellman in Seattle. Lobsenz and Kagan are arguing that the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy, or being tried twice for the same crimes, prevents him from being court-martialed again. The lawyers are appealing to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals.

Watada continues to work in an administrative position at Fort Lewis. The 3rd Stryker Brigade with which he refused to deploy is slated to begin returning home from Iraq just before his trial begins, after a 15-month deployment.

FORT LEWIS, Wash. -- Army officials said yesterday the second court-martial for a Honolulu-born officer who refused to deploy to Iraq has been moved to Oct. 9.

Lt. Ehren Watada's trial was to begin next week, but government and defense attorneys requested a new date.

Watada is charged with missing deployment in June 2006 and conduct unbecoming an officer for comments made about President Bush and the Iraq war. If convicted, he faces six years in prison and dishonorable discharge.

HONOLULU -- The Army on Monday announced that a military judge approved moving Lt. Ahren Watada's court-martial from July to October.

Both the defense and the prosecution asked for the delay, according to Army officials.

Watada was charged with missing a troop movement and conduct unbecoming of an officer. The artillery officer is the first objector since 1965 to be prosecuted by the military.

The 28-year-old from Honolulu refused to deploy to Iraq in June 2006 with his Stryker Brigade Combat Team from Fort Lewis, Wash.

He said he is not opposed to all war and would be willing to serve in Afghanistan. He said the Army refused his request for a reassignment and would not let him resign his commission.

As part of a deal to reduce the counts against him, Watada did not dispute that he refused the deployment order and that he made anti-war statements. However, because Watada still wanted to argue he was entitled to disobey, the military judge ruled the prior deal invalid. The judge offered the Army a mistrial, and they took it.

US v Howe (U.S. Ct of Mil App, #19,846) Def[endant] student joined ROTC, graduated, entered service as 2d Lt. Nov 6, 1965: Def[endant], in civilian clothes, carried sign in El Paso college peace walk, "End Johnson's Facist Aggression in Vietnam -- Let's Have More Than a Choice Between Petty Ignorant Facists in 1968." MPs arrested Def[endant]; court[-]martialed: (1) public use of disloyal language to promote disloyalty among troops and civilians (10 USC §934); (2) using contemptuous words against Pres[ident] (10 USC §888); (3) conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman (10 USC §933). Law officer dismissed (1); c[our]t[-]martial convicted on (2) and (3): dismissed, forfeitures of pay, 2 y[ea]rs hard labor. Jan[uary] 27, 1966: reduced to 1 y[ea]r. Def[endant] filed habeas petition for release pending appeal; D[istrict ]C[ourt] denied. Mar[ch] 22: Def[endant] released on Commandant's parole: may travel in U.S., not wear uniform, no duties. J[anuar]y 25: Gen[era]l Counsel threatened prosecution if Def[endant] made antiwar speeches. Sept[ember] 1967: C[our]t of Mil[itary] App[eals] affirmed: (2) §888 older than First Am[end]d[men]t, reiterated in 1775 Articles of War to date, does not violate First Am[en]d[men]t, citing Schenck, Frohwerk, Debs (1919) 249 US 47, 204, 211; Dennis (1951) 341 US 494; Def[endant]'s conduct not protected -- wise to restrict military comment on politics to prevent military takeover of civilian control; (3) not vague under Fifth Am[end]d[men]t. --Capt Kenneth J. Stuart, JAG, and Eleanor H. Norton, Esq., ACLU, 156 Fifth Ave, NYC.

An Air Force officer who accused President Bush of having prior knowledge about Sept. 11 and using the attacks for political gain has been suspended from the Monterey Defense Language Institute and could face court-martial.

Lt. Col. Steve Butler, vice chancellor for student affairs at the institute, was suspended on May 29 pending an investigation into a letter he wrote that was published in the *Monterey County Herald* on May 26, military sources said.

In the letter, Butler called Bush a "joke" and said the president is using the war on terrorism to muster political support.

"Of course Bush knew about the impending attacks on America," Butler wrote. "He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism. His daddy had Saddam and he needed Osama. . . . His presidency was going nowhere." ". . . What is sleazy and contemptible is the president of the United States not telling the American people what he knows for political gain," Butler wrote.

Citing military regulations prohibiting officials from commenting on ongoing investigations, Air Force spokesman Lt. Col. Art Haubold would not tie Butler's letter to his suspension.

"Butler has been administratively suspended from his position because of an ongoing investigation," said Haubold.

Butler remains stationed at the institute on paid leave, said Haubold. Haubold said the investigation will be conducted by local commanders at the language institute.

Butler, a 24-year veteran of the armed forces, served as a bomber navigator in Desert Storm. He declined to comment Tuesday. "My lawyer has advised me to not make any comments," he said.

Military sources said Butler was suspended under Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which prohibits any commissioned officer from using contemptuous words against the president, the vice president, other prominent government officials or Congress.

The maximum punishment under Article 88 is dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and confinement for one year.

The only known court-martial under Article 88 occurred in 1965, when 2nd Lt. Henry Howe was convicted of contemptuous words against President Lyndon Johnson. He had participated in an off-base anti-war protest in El Paso, Texas, where he carried signs characterizing President Johnson as "petty," "ignorant," and "fascist."