« Prev

Slog

Next »

Day One at the Watada Court-Martial

[Written by Stranger intern Sage Van Wing, who attended the court-martial of Lt. Ehren Watada yesterday.]

The Pursuit of Happyness. That’s the movie that was playing at the Fort Lewis cinema this afternoon as the defense lawyer was arguing for Lt. Ehren Watada’s right to pursue his freedom of speech. Today was the opening day of the court martial proceedings against Watada and the day was marked by protests both inside and outside the courtroom.

Several hundred people stood shivering outside the gates of the base holding signs in support of Watada and parading giant puppets like those used in the WTO rallies. I heard that Sean Penn was among the protesters, but, alas, I did not get to meet him as I was confined to the base all day. Luckily, though, I was one of the seven reporters who were actually allowed to be in the courtroom this morning. We had to draw marbles out of a bag to determine who would be allowed inside. Everyone else watched the proceedings on a TV screen in the overflow room. There were roughly 30 reporters and camerafolk there, about half of whom seemed to be foreign press. There were probably as many people from Japan as there were from the local Seattle area.

Inside the courtroom, Defense Attorney Eric Seitz, a bulky, balding man in a grey suit, began with all guns blazing this morning.

He vociferously objected to the Judge’s ruling limiting the questions he was allowed to ask the jurors. He accused the judge of scripting the proceedings and alleged several times that this amounted to judicial misconduct. “You can leave the dramatics at the door,” replied Judge Head.

The objections did not stop there, though. Seitz asked that a transcript of an earlier hearing (which included the defense’s argument that the Iraq war is illegal) be attached to the court records: “ I want the record to be clear with respect to what we would have included had we been allowed to do so.” Motion Denied. He also objected to the Judge’s pre-trial pronouncement that no one wearing provocative statements on their clothing (including pro-Watada t-shirts) would be allowed in the court building.

The kicker, though, came when the Judge agreed with the prosecution’s motion that all of the defense’s witnesses are irrelevant. Seitz argued that if Lt. Watada is being tried on the basis that his statements were inflammatory, he ought to be given the chance to prove that his opinions about the conditions in Iraq and the government’s decisions to invade where in fact quite reasonable. He argued that, if Lt. Watada was speaking the truth, he should not be punished for doing so.

The judge, apparently, thought otherwise.

The Defense is now left with two witnesses: Lt. Watada himself, and a character witness who served time with him in Korea. At the last minute, the judge did agree that the defense could furnish one of their contested witnesses (Professor Gary Solis from Georgetown University), but only on their own dime (normally, the prosecution pays for expert witnesses) and only with a very limited possible area of comment. Seitz said in a press conference afterwards that he wasn’t sure it would be worth it to pay for Solis to get here by tomorrow, given the narrow scope of what he would be allowed to say.

After all of these fireworks, came a moment of deadly calm. On January 27th, in a pre-trial agreement, Lt. Watada agreed to a stipulation stating that he did, in fact, make the public statements against the war that the government was alleging him to have made. In order to confirm that he made those statements (which are readily available to anyone with an internet connection), the government was going to call as witnesses several journalists. One of the journalists, Sarah Olsen, had said that she would refuse to testify—she did not want to incriminate Lt. Watada by her own testimony. It seems that Lt. Watada and his defense were in a bit of a bind: they had to admit to what he said in order to claim that it was not illegal for him to make such statements. They also may have been trying to spare the journalists.

But in admitting to the fact of his public criticism of the war, Lt. Watada was, in effect, helping the military's case. He was giving the prosecution evidence of the crime they charged him with. And he was made to stare that fact in the face today.

In one of the quietest moments I have ever been witness to in a room full of people, Lt. Watada was asked to read over all twelve pages of his statement- quietly, to himself—before he agreed to them. It takes a long time to read 12 pages.

Lt. Watada’s mother, a small, slight woman, was sitting directly behind him. She looked ill. She said later she might have a fever.

“Do you understand that you could be proved guilty solely on the basis of this stipulation?” the judge asked.

"Yes, sir," Watada answered.

All of this before lunch, even.

After lunch was the jury selection. It is required in court martial hearings that all members of the jury be higher ranking officers than the accused. A jury of your peers indeed. Ten potential members were brought into the courtroom and questioned both as a group and individually by both the prosecution, and the defense. Questions mainly focused on what they had heard about the trial, and their reactions to it. Seitz probed several witnesses as to their convictions about the right of an officer to speak his mind. He also asked whether they might be pre-disposed to punish these charges with imprisonment.

If Lt. Watada is found guilty he will have to begin serving his sentence immediately. He will be in prison throughout the process of his appeal. If the commander of Fort Lewis had simply let Lt. Watada resign his commission, as he requested, I would not have been sitting here today. Indeed, there are some forty other Iraq combat veterans across the country who have quietly been allowed to resign. Even if the judge had accepted Lt. Watada’s offer to serve 6 months in prison, we would not be seeing anything near the amount of media coverage we have now. So why has the government chosen to object to this case? Why now? Is it because he has spoken out about the war so publicly? Was it simply pride? Like the pride that keeps us in Iraq?

Tomorrow the court will hear the opening arguments and the prosecution’s three witnesses. On Wednesday, we will hear Lt. Ehren Watada speak for himself.

I will be very glad to be listening.

Comments (8)

1

Generals speak out against our war policy and other military policies all the time, and they don't have to give up their commission to do so? Why is Watada prosecuted for that charge while others are not?

Posted by Brendan | February 5, 2007 11:35 PM
2

Retired generals do.

I'm still just shocked that the giant puppets can't save the Lieutenant.

Posted by Fnarf | February 6, 2007 7:56 AM
3

i don't think it was the speaking out that got him in trouble initially. he got attention by refusing to go to iraq.

Posted by konstantconsumer | February 6, 2007 8:03 AM
4

Part of the UCMJ (Uniformed Code of Military Justice) states clearly that officers cannot speak out against the government, commander in chief, or any other ranking offical. Officers learn this in the required OCS (Officer Candidicy School). And no, you can't just resign your commission. That's like saying, "why can't enlisted soldiers leave the military?" They sign a contract, and that stipulates how long they have to serve. Its extremely hard to get out of your military contract. So no, I don't think he should be allowed to "get out of it" or even serve 6 months in jail. He went AWOL, made public statements against the government, and made statements against his command.


And no. An officer does not have the right to an opinion. It sounds harsh, but he knew that when he signed up. There is a reason for that, and if you have not been in a command structure, then you would not understand the necessity. There is no sympathy on the obvious bus that has left stupid town.

Posted by Monique | February 6, 2007 9:09 AM
5

Even Sean Penn being there to activate his Wonder Twin powers with the giant puppets can't save the Lieutenant. I'm positively floored.

Posted by Form of...a waste of skin | February 6, 2007 9:13 AM
6

Generals speak out against our war policy and other military policies all the time, and they don't have to give up their commission to do so? Why is Watada prosecuted for that charge while others are not?

Because Watada refused military orders. Those who speak out normally still go.

I think he's going to jail. The trump card: he enlisted AFTER we began war in Iraq. He had to know what he was signing up to do. If he had a problem with going to Iraq, then he shouldn't have enlisted. No one put a gun to his head and made him sign up, and that everyone here supports him in this little stunt speaks volumes about how fractured and simple-minded your dogma is, and why Republicans have run this country for the last several years.

Posted by Gomez | February 6, 2007 10:12 AM
7

It is required in court martial hearings that all members of the jury be higher ranking officers than the accused. A jury of your peers indeed.

That is the thing about the UCMJ. You give up certain civil rights when you enlist or accept a commission. One of those is the right to a jury of your peers. No reason to be snide about it. Sage.

It simply is what it is.

Posted by Brian | February 6, 2007 12:05 PM
8

Watada is still the most honorable man whose words and convictions we have heard in a while, though. Good luck, and thanks to him.

Posted by Grant Cogswell | February 7, 2007 2:50 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).