Truthout – Feb 6, 2007
By Bill Simpich, Esq.
Truthout Legal Analyst
“Special security precautions do not erode the presumption of
innocence.” Judge John Head’s observation captured his style of
jurisprudence: mindful of public relations as several security officers
monitored the proceedings in the small courtroom, but vigilant in making
sure that every one of First Lt. Watada’s witnesses would be deemed
“irrelevant.” Absent a stroke of luck, the lieutenant’s defense against
the charges of missing movement to Iraq, and “disgraceful” conduct
unbecoming an officer, have been whittled down to his own testimony and
that of his commanding officer as a character witness. When Watada’s
attorney, Eric Seitz, excoriated the proceedings as an “atrocity” and
accused the judge of judicial misconduct, the court’s response was
almost sheepish.
This patter of cowardice has persisted from the Vietnam war to the
present. When military or civilian resisters base their case on
international treaties, the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, or the Nuremburg
proceedings, the US court system shudders to the point of collapse. A
convoluted series of court cases ensures that torture victims can sue
their perpetrators for large amounts of money based on treaties and
international laws, but that no effective criminal defense is possible.
The focus of the legal battle in the Watada case will now depend on
First Lt. Watada’s forthrightness, the ability of his counsel to come up
with an effective first amendment defense to the conduct charge that
could cut his maximum sentence from four years to two, and a considered
approach with the seven-officer panel that will decide his – almost –
certain punishment. He doesn’t even get a panel of his peers who are
being shipped to Iraq, as the code of military justice is designed so
that only higher ranking officers serve in judgment.
The real question may be whether Watada can inspire hope and the
fire of resistance. There is hope. One of the young men in his unit
turned to a supporter at the base and confided to her that Watada’s unit
hoped that the lieutenant would get a light sentence. Otherwise, he
indicated, the morale at the base could get very low, and who knew just
what would happen.
***
Seattle Times via Truthout – Feb 6, 2007
Watada Lawyer Rebukes Judge
By Hal Bernton
The Seattle Times
Fort Lewis – First Lt. Ehren Watada’s court-martial verdict could
hinge on the Fort Lewis officer’s own testimony when he takes the stand
later this week to testify about why he refused to go to war.
Defense counsels hope Watada can gain the respect of the
seven-officer military panel sworn in Monday and persuade the officers
to reject an extended prison sentence of up to four years.
“The critical thing is that he be treated as someone who is
principled,” Eric Seitz, Watada’s civilian defense counsel, said late
Monday at a news conference. “Someone who is principled and has taken a
stand. Not someone who should be treated as a criminal.”
Monday, Seitz was a combative, sometimes defiant, presence in the
courtroom as he rebuked the military judge, Lt. Col. John Head, for his
rulings to restrict the scope of the trial.
“I think it is an atrocity that our witnesses are being handled in
this manner,” Seitz said after Head ruled that most of the proposed
defense witnesses were irrelevant to the issues at hand.
In addition to Watada, Seitz said he plans to call only one other
defense witness, a Fort Lewis officer who serves in Iraq with the
defendant’s brigade.
Seitz is a veteran attorney whose defense of war resisters dates
back to the Vietnam era, and he has joined with Watada in numerous
interviews to help bring national – and international – attention to the
first court-martial of an Army officer who refused to go to Iraq.
Watada has drawn strong support from anti-war activists, who marked
his trial’s opening day with rallies outside Fort Lewis that included an
appearance by actor Sean Penn. Also Monday, activists released a letter
of support from Desmond Tutu, the South African archbishop and winner of
the Nobel Peace Prize.
Head has sought to keep the political backlash against the war from
filtering into his courtroom. He refused to allow testimony from
prominent critics of the Bush administration whom Seitz had sought to
testify on Watada’s behalf.
Head also issued an order restricting buttons or other shows of
support for Watada from being worn inside the courtroom, according to
Seitz. And at one point during the morning session, he called for
defense counsel Seitz to “leave the dramatics at the door.”
The trial is expected to last less than a week; the facts of the
case are not in dispute. Watada has stipulated that he missed his
brigade’s deployment to Iraq in June, an offense that could bring up to
two years in prison.
In court Monday, Watada also agreed to the accuracy of his
statements attacking the war as illegal, the Army for committing war
crimes, and the Bush administration for deceit. The Army contends these
statements represent officer misconduct that could result in an
additional two years in prison, while the defense counsel says his
remarks represent protected free speech.
There is no minimum sentence, so if Watada is found guilty the
officers panel could still opt to have him serve little or even no time.
Defense attorneys said that they had offered in pretrial
negotiations to accept a six-month prison sentence to settle the charges
but that prosecutors declined in order to seek a longer term.
The seven officers who will determine the sentence were selected
from an original pool of 10 officers. Their ranks range from captain to
colonel and include two women.
All the officers are from Fort Lewis and had read or talked about
the case with other soldiers, and some stated in court that they had
served in Iraq.
All the officers on the panel declared they would listen to the case
with an open mind.
Some seemed skeptical of any officer who would refuse to serve with
his wartime unit, and they also said there were limits to public dissent
in the military.
Capt. Nicole White, however, said she was “impressed,” when she
first heard about Watada’s decision. “Basically, it was like he was
standing up for what he believes in.”
The judge appeared startled by the response.
“Another word for ‘impressed’ would be ‘surprised’?” Head said.
“Yes, sir,” White replied.
How the Case Will Be Decided
How does a court-martial work? A military judge presides and rules
on what evidence may be submitted. A panel of seven officers will decide
1st Lt. Ehren Watada’s guilt or innocence and determine what – if any –
punishment he should receive. Under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice, the charges of missing a troop movement and actions unbecoming
an officer could bring a maximum of four years.
Who represents Watada? A civilian attorney, Eric Seitz, and a
military defense counsel, Mark Kim.
What is the review process? The case automatically will be sent to
the Fort Lewis commander and an Army Court of Review. Defense counsel
can then petition for the case to be taken up by the Army Court of
Appeals, and then seek further review in federal courts.
Copyright © 2026 Bill Simpich. All rights reserved.