(Politics?) Mistrial Declared in Watada Court Martial

[paularoid]

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/302733_courtmartial07ww.html

The court-martial of 1st Lt. Ehren Watada ended in a mistrial Wednesday.

The case's just, Lt. Col. John Head, declared the trial over after a day of wrangling over a stipulation of facts that Watada had signed before the trial and that would have been part of the instructions to the jury. The judge decided that Watada never intended when he signed the stipulation to mean that he had a duty to go to Iraq with his unit.

Again the issue was Watada's views on the Iraq war — opinions that kept him from going with his unit to the conflict and that the jHead didn't want brought up at the court-martial.

[DaveM]

We haven't heard the last of this, I fear....though of course this would be a good time for the military to try to save some face and just let this fade away.

[paularoid]

We haven't heard the last of this, I fear....though of course this would be a good time for the military to try to save some face and just let this fade away.
http://www.alternet.org/story/47808/

When the Army judge declared a mistrial over defense objection in 1st Lt. Ehren Watada's court martial on Wednesday, he probably didn't realize jeopardy attached. That means that under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution, the government cannot retry Lt. Watada on the same charges of missing movement and conduct unbecoming an officer. :D

I'm sure they'll scrounge around for something,... ANYTHING that they can possibly pin on him though. ANYTHING other than lose face. :rolleyes:

[pulmike]

Unfortunately for Officer Watada, his family, and all those inclined to hope he might somehow prevail, the relayed alternet comment's conclusion that a retrial is prohited by some aspect of "double jeopardy" is almost certainly incorrect. Outside of courts martial, re-trials after a mistrial has been declared are totally commonplace, and generally speaking do not trigger any double jeopary issues. I've been involved with several (professionally speaking). I'd be amazed to learn military law is different from "standard" criminal laws in that way. Don't get your hopes up.

[Oak Kitten]

A date for a new trial has already been set, 19 March. It was the prosecution that requested the mistrial.

"Prosecutors said 1st Lt. Ehren Watada admitted in the document that he had a duty to go to Iraq with his fellow soldiers. Watada, however, said he admitted only that he did not go to Iraq with his unit, not that he had a duty to go." (Washington Post)

I find it highly improbable that the Lieutenant will be able to prevail in this case.

Oak

[paularoid]

As I said:

I'm sure they'll scrounge around for something,... ANYTHING that they can possibly pin on him though. ANYTHING other than lose face.

[Darlene]

Is Canada still a safe refuge? If so why didn't he go there? I always said that I would drive my child to Canada to escape the horrors of war, especially an unjust one. Actually I would drive them to Canada to escape any war!

[Oak Kitten]

Darwoods,

As I understand it, he did not go to Canada because he WANTS to force a confrontation with the courts on the legality of the war in Iraq. He has been and will be called a lot of awful things - but a coward he is not. He stated he would go to Afghanistan.

Oak