# Does Lt. Watada stand any chance of acquittal? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 7, 2007, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-lt-watada-stand-any-chance-of-acquittal/391222 "2007-02-07T16:51:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2010, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-lt-watada-stand-any-chance-of-acquittal/391222/61 "2010-10-11T23:50:21Z")
I take that as an admission by the Court that the invasion of Iraq was illegal. Interesting. ---
**Author:** ![Amp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Amp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amp)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2010, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-lt-watada-stand-any-chance-of-acquittal/391222/62 "2010-10-11T23:53:45Z")
I read the Wiki article on him but it did not state what type of discharge he received? Anyone know? Honorable, General, Dishonorable? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-lt-watada-stand-any-chance-of-acquittal/391222/63 "2010-10-12T00:00:04Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I take that as an admission by the Court that the invasion of Iraq was illegal. Interesting. You take their refusal to issue a decision as a decision? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-lt-watada-stand-any-chance-of-acquittal/391222/64 "2010-10-12T00:03:56Z")
I take their refusal to say the invasion was legal as a tacit admission that it wasn’t. For the record, though, I still don’t think this guy had a right to refuse his orders. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-lt-watada-stand-any-chance-of-acquittal/391222/65 "2010-10-12T00:13:21Z")
I take their refusal to say the invasion was illegal as a tacit admission that it was. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-lt-watada-stand-any-chance-of-acquittal/391222/66 "2010-10-12T00:17:01Z")
That makes no sense. They would never have a problem saying that it was legal. There would be no consequences or fallout for that. A reluctance to say it’s legal is very significant. Also, it was factually illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-lt-watada-stand-any-chance-of-acquittal/391222/67 "2010-10-12T00:18:12Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I take that as an admission by the Court that the invasion of Iraq was illegal. Interesting. You take the court’s finding that retrying Watada after his mistrial would constitute double jeopardy as an admission that the war was illegal? That’s… uh… quite a set of connect-the-cots. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-lt-watada-stand-any-chance-of-acquittal/391222/68 "2010-10-12T00:24:55Z")
No, I was specifically referring to their unwillingness to rule on the legality of the war. The disposition of Watada himself is neither here nor there, as far as I’m concerned. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-lt-watada-stand-any-chance-of-acquittal/391222/69 "2010-10-12T00:31:31Z")
This is an enormous abdication of judicial responsibility to ignore the question of the legality of war. If this is the case then what, legally, would prevent all similar cases from ending in mistrials in the future? It’s like they’re trying to pretend that the 800 pound gorilla in the room doesn’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-lt-watada-stand-any-chance-of-acquittal/391222/70 "2010-10-12T01:34:22Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No, I was specifically referring to their unwillingness to rule on the legality of the war. Are you familiar with the doctrine of justiciability, specifically the doctrone of a [political question.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_question)? This is not “unwillingness,” in some particularized sense. It’s the correct application of the doctrine. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-lt-watada-stand-any-chance-of-acquittal/391222/71 "2010-10-12T02:31:29Z")
Uh huh. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-lt-watada-stand-any-chance-of-acquittal/391222/72 "2010-10-12T02:47:17Z")
In the United States, there is a law stating the Military Service Obligation (MSO). Currently, the MSO is eight years for all personnel, commissioned and enlisted. There is also something called OBLISERV (Obligated Service). OBLISERV attached due to a number of things, such as accepting promotion, receiving education (such as attendance at the Defense Language Institute), assignment overseas, or various other actions. I’m hoping the prosecution has a field day with this particular officer during his court-martial. I’d think the biggest hurdle for the accused (that’s the military’s word for defendent) will be the number of times the accused has signed orders sending other soldiers to Iraq. Instead of discussing at length the UCMJ, I’ll just link to it. The legal protections afforded the accused are still grounded in the Constitution of the United States. [Here is the link.](http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-lt-watada-stand-any-chance-of-acquittal/391222/73 "2010-10-12T03:16:24Z")
I forgot something. The President of the United States alone does not enter into treaties with other countries. The President signs the treaty after Senate approval. If there were such a treaty involving the US and Germany as postulated upthread, then the treaty would, per the Constitution, have the force of law. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-lt-watada-stand-any-chance-of-acquittal/391222/74 "2010-10-12T04:40:23Z")
As of July tenth, I’ve spent half my life in Canadian Forces Reserve. It’s of no relevance, I just thought I’d tell somebody. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-lt-watada-stand-any-chance-of-acquittal/391222/75 "2010-10-12T05:16:42Z")
> [@Sunrazor](#): > > [ You snipped too much of my quote … or too little, however you want to look at it. My real fantasy is that the military simply refuses to do what the Commander in Chief orders, rendering him and his VP militarily powerless, forcing them to step down and letting the Speaker of the House assume control and command. Like I said, it’s pure fantasy, but of the “for want of a nail, a shoe was lost” variety. I wouldn’t have posted something like this in Great Debates – maybe I should have gone for Mundane Pointless etc. [/QUOTE] Except that it’s the Military that ordered him there, not the President. In fact, the Military, in general, are in favor of this war. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-lt-watada-stand-any-chance-of-acquittal/391222/76 "2010-10-12T05:28:44Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I take that as an admission by the Court that the invasion of Iraq was illegal. Interesting. Thus, when SCOTUS recently did not hear or decide to overrule a Appelate Court ruling that overturned a murder verdict, they were ruling that murder is legal, right?:dubious: The actual ruling is mostly to do with fine legal points about stipulations and double-jeopardy. What actually decided the case was the Obama administration deciding to go no further with the appeal. Although he did have witnesses who argued the War was illegal, it was on a basis of International Law, not US law. No sane person thinks that war is illegal under US Law. Under International Law, it is _de facto_ legal, due to the fact that the US can veto anything in the Security Council. Thus, whether or not it is a violation of International Law is a matter entirely of opinion, not fact. I concede many legal luminaries have offered the opinion that it is illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-lt-watada-stand-any-chance-of-acquittal/391222/77 "2010-10-12T13:58:00Z")
> [@Amp](#): > > I read the Wiki article on him but it did not state what type of discharge he received? Anyone know? Honorable, General, Dishonorable? Other than honorable, which is a discharge given for misconduct or security reasons. Since most veterans benefits are made conditional on the receipt of an honorable discharge, Watada is locked out of them. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-lt-watada-stand-any-chance-of-acquittal/391222/78 "2010-10-12T14:23:10Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > I take that as an admission by the Court that the invasion of Iraq was illegal. Interesting. > > Although he did have witnesses who argued the War was illegal, it was on a basis of International Law, not US law. No sane person thinks that war is illegal under US Law. Under International Law, it is _de facto_ legal, due to the fact that the US can veto anything in the Security Council. Thus, whether or not it is a violation of International Law is a matter entirely of opinion, not fact. I concede many legal luminaries have offered the opinion that it is illegal. As I’ve understood International Law _is_ applicable in the US by US Law. The security council is of no consequence, it doesn’t come into play. Wars of agression are already illegal. So it all depends on wether this war was a war of agression. And I don’t think any sane person would deny it as such. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-lt-watada-stand-any-chance-of-acquittal/391222/79 "2010-10-12T14:34:47Z")
Of course international law is applicable. Even under the US Constitution it’s applicable under the Supremacy Clause. The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by Congress. That makes it US law. The invasion of Iraq was a straight up violation of the UN Charter. It is illegal to overthrow another government for any reason but immediate self defense. We toppled another government for no defensive reason. That make it illegal. The only rebuttal the Bush apologists have is the argument that the UN doesn’t physically have the ability to punish the US for it, which is lame. That’s not a criterion for whether something is illegal. Even under US law, a ratified treaty is “the supreme law of the land,” on a par with a Constitutional Amendment. The attack on Iraqi sovereignty was illegal any way you slice it. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-lt-watada-stand-any-chance-of-acquittal/391222/80 "2010-10-12T17:08:00Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Of course international law is applicable. Even under the US Constitution it’s applicable under the Supremacy Clause. The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by Congress. That makes it US law. The invasion of Iraq was a straight up violation of the UN Charter. It is illegal to overthrow another government for any reason but immediate self defense. We toppled another government for no defensive reason. That make it illegal. The only rebuttal the Bush apologists have is the argument that the UN doesn’t physically have the ability to punish the US for it, which is lame. That’s not a criterion for whether something is illegal. > > Even under US law, a ratified treaty is “the supreme law of the land,” on a par with a Constitutional Amendment. The attack on Iraqi sovereignty was illegal any way you slice it. Sure, International Law has validity in the USA, however, it does come _after_ the Constitution. The Invasion of Iraq was justified by the “self-defense” loophole. Now, your opinion (and that of many others) may think that the US claims there are pretty bogus. However, only the UN Security Council may fine that the actions of the USA were illegal. They have not done so (nor are they likely to do so), thus that means that the actions of the USA are not illegal in fact. For example, let us say a powerful politician shoots a man, and claims self defence. Due to his political prominence, no charges are ever brought. Although you can say that \*\*in your opinion \*\*“_he’s a murderer_”, but \*in fact \*the law sez otherwise. Thus, like it or not, the man is not guilty of any crime, even though it may be clear only his political power protects him from being arrested. You seem to have a problem disassociating _opinion_ from _fact_. It is \*your opinion \*that the actions of the USA are illegal, but \*in fact \*they are not illegal. I admit that it’s pretty clear that the USA had not had to try to defend its action due to it’s political power, but no charges have been brought forward, nor has any body with legal standing made any such decision. That is the ONLY criterion of whether or not something is illegal- whether or not a legal body with standing has ruled on it. No such body has. A MB poster is not the World Court or the Security Council. This line is disengenous “\*The only rebuttal the Bush apologists have is the argument that the UN doesn’t physically have the ability to punish the US for it, which is lame. \*”. Whether or not they can **punish** the USA is meaningless. The fact is, they have not **ruled** against the USA. \*\*No body of standing has ruled the USA’s actions were illegal. \*\* [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-lt-watada-stand-any-chance-of-acquittal/391222.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-lt-watada-stand-any-chance-of-acquittal/391222.md?page=5)