Will:
1. Watada offered to serve in Afghanistan, but was denied that exchange of service.
2. The judge is being critized by many legal experts at this time. The big question is his intention. The belief is that Watada's defense team found a means to open the door to the question of the legality of the war in Iraq. The judge took some unusual moves to redirect Watada's understanding of his plea agreement, and whether he intended an acceptance of guilt. Watada refused to alter his position with the judge, and also expressed the wish to not declare a mistrial. Nor did the prosecution agree with declaring a mistrail.
There is a very good chance that the judge has given Watada a double jeopardy position, in that only the judge wished to declare a mistrial. This action protects the defendent from retrial on the basis that a trial can't be ended if the judge doesn't like the direction it is going.
Here is a link, but I am sure there are many more:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020807A.shtml
Amazing, isn't it?