In an article I previously wrote about First Lt. Ehren Watada, I had said he “tried to resign; the Army respectfully denied him. He said he was willing to fight in Afghanistan; the Army refused him again â€” a soldier canâ€™t pick and choose where he fights. As his unit shipped off to Iraq, Watada stayed to face the consequences.Â His conscience, he said, had overtaken him. He told the world what he had privately told his superiors months earlier: that he believed the war was illegal and immoral, and he would play no role in it.”
It has come to my attention that on Wednesday a military judge on declared a mistrial in the court-martial of Hawaii-born Watada who refused to deploy to Iraq. 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, on Wednesday 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.
Experts in military law said the Army cannot allow a soldier to question the legality of war. Wednesdayâ€™s ruling was a major fiasco, which may protect Watada from further prosecution. However, it is also possible that the Army could bring other charges not part of the court-martial, possibly the same ones dropped before the trial began.
This is just unbelievable.Â Where is the justice here?
Crossposted from The HILL Chronicles