Sorry, typing from a strange computer here. In short, the UCMJ is a strange legal contruct designed not to express justice but to enforce discipline. Thus it does not surprise me that this was declared a mistrial, since military discipline includes what you say, when you say it and even if you get to say anything at all.

hmmm, since 100% of my legal knowledge comes from Law and Order, I dunno either. And anyway, as Ralfast said, I guess the military is all different...

Very interesting.

Ralfast is right but also, without being a lawyer, I have some experience going to civil and criminal trials and hearings, because of my prison activism past, and because of actually having been a witness.

Law and Order does murder trials, and at those, yes, they let all of this evidence in about state of mind, degree of insanity, and so on, *if* there is a good well funded lawyer who has a good relationship with the judge and so on.

But for things like showing that you had good reason, for a long time, to not believe in the Iraq war, or anything else, it is hard to get a word in edgewise. Everything is done to define the issue as narrowly as possible. A lot of evidence is suppressed, and a lot of context is ignored.

This so far as I can tell is because the law is not justice, it is a set of rules and procedures.

(This btw is why the LSAT is as it is, very very 'objective' and fact-oriented.)

I think Zero's right; they're trying to keep the issue of the war's legality as far from the proceedings as possible and concentrate on Watada's actual actions. They don't want to dwell on the reasons for them because strangely enough, the reasons aren't the reason for the court martial.

It looks like a procedural tangle.

In the Army we used to say "Military justice is to justice as military music is to music". That explained a lot to this young soldier at the time.

"Military justice is to justice as military music is to music"

i like that one, OZinWisconsin.

calling the law out is not something defendents are really allowed to do in the courtroom. they can 'interpret' the law and try to find loopholes that will influence theirs and future cases. maybe that is why the mistrial was granted. he wanted to bring in the reasoning for the law not the fact that he broke it i.e. the illegality of war vs. refusing to fight due to an injury or religious objection.

it is like being caught with marijuana--you cannot argue that the law is stupid and used to put the poor and people of color in jail--you can only argue that you did not do it or that you had a legal reason for possession (like medical reasons here in CA). if you choose to argue that the law is unjust to begin with, it is a whole different ball game and the powers that be have a much larger stake in the outcome.

As I said above (Ralfast/Rafael) the military justice system is primarily concerned with keeping discipline within its ranks. In no other system would the accuser also have the ability to have so much control over the proceedings (the convening authority, your CO). Thats one of the reason why military tribunals are not proper places for justice, merely express lanes to the gallows.

Rafael is right on. Military persons have significantly reduced rights, even compared to our reduced rights under shrubco. A#1, they don't have free speech rights. While I agree with Watada and I wish he prevails, the system is not going to help him.

The worst thing IMO is that the military is essentially forcing the Nuremberg Defense - "I was just following orders". Well they hanged NAZIs for their illegal actions, even though they were 'only' following orders, and said they had a DUTY to DISOBEY ILLEGAL ORDERS. So Watada does the right thing and he gets screwed.

(okay, now that i have asked a lawyer) the mistrial isn't necessarily a bad thing. the judge is only throwing out evidence the prosecution would use in the case against Watada. (i think) now they have to build their case again. in the contract, Watada was told that he was signing a statement that basically stated that he thought the war was illegal but the military twisted it around to mean that Watada was admitting guilt. The judge would not take it as evidence for the prosecution.

Does anyone know if Lt. Watada's two resignation letters and his request to be sent to Afghanistan rather than Iraq have been posted on the internets tubes?

The Pentagon may have also realized that this trial may have turned into a P.R. nightmare, this one along side the Libby trial is doing what Congress and the Press would not do, expose the inside of the bowl of wriggling earthworms that was and is the Iraq War.