Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
Iraq never attacked us and was never a real tyhreat of attacking us. It's that simple. Can we please end this threadjack now>? This is about Ehren Watada and the judge, and the information and opinions surrounding them.
|
willravel, if the following was an OT response:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Seaver
I think whatever punishment short of hanging is in order. He joined AFTER the start of the war, clearly with the sole intention of causing all this ruckus. He was not some poor schmuck who wished to pay for college, or some patriot who joined after 9/11 and was upset about being sent to Iraq.
As for why the mistrial was called I do not know. Nor am I aware of the legality of such declarations allowing a new case to be brought at a later date. If it was just the prosecution screwing it up, and the judge not wanting him to go free on account of that, we may never know.
In my opinion he signed up with the single intention of becoming a "hero" to the anti-war crowd. Personally I don't know how you could support him when there are so many heroes out there as it is. If it was to stand up for what you believe in, then it's still null and void because he joined in the first place.
|
...how can one adhere to your request?
It seems to me that the core claim of Watada's defense, and the pre-trial ruling of the judge to prohibit a "Nuremberg defense", is the premise that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq are illegal. Considering that, under the UCMJ, an accused is presumed guilty until he proves his innocence to the satisfaction of the court martial panel, it is incumbent upon the accused to prove that he refused to obey an illegal order.
I provided information that supports the idea that when Watada enlisted for military service, inspired by the 9/11 attacks, there was no "public knowledge" that contradicted the accusations of Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice, et al, that Saddam's Iraq was an imminent threat to the security of it's neighbors and of the US.
I provided excerpts of the opinion of the premier authority in the world, with regard to the crime of aggressive war, or pre-emptive war, former Nuremberg prosecutor, Ben Ferencz.
None of this information convinces those who believe that Watada is guilty of disobeying a lawful order, of anything to the contrary. There can be no discussion, IMO, of whether the court martial judge intentionally ruled the proceedings against Watada as a mistrial, IMO, if there is no agreement that it is even reasonable to believe that the Iraq war is illegal.
I don't see how we can confine this discussion to Watada and the judge, if some participants here believe that Watada should receive a punishment just short of execution, and that there is no basis for the idea that the war is an illegal, crime against humanity. Trying to discuss Watada and the judge alone, is like trying to discuss reasons for no WMD being found in Iraq, if some participants refuse to believe that WMD were not found.
I think that all participants must agree that it is not unreasonable to believe that the Iraq war and occupation are illegal, if a discussion about Watada, his motivation, his defense, and the judges rulings before and during the court martial, is to be coherent or productive....