I feel like I have to teach Kaf everything!

Here is the Double Jeopardy Clause.

"nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb."

Since the coward LT was being charged with 4 years in prison his "life or limb" was not being placed in jeopardy. Maybe his bung hole was in jeopardy, but not his life or limb. Yes, OJ can not be tried again for the death of his wife because the government was seeking the death penalty.

Oh and then there is this pesky little fact.

As double jeopardy applies only to charges that were the subject of an earlier final judgment, there are many situations in which it does not apply despite the appearance of a retrial. For example, a second trial held after a mistrial does not violate the double jeopardy clause, because a mistrial ends a trial prematurely without a judgment of guilty or not guilty.

I guess that site built by a five year old and the idiot lawyer missed that part of the law school class?

Jeeesshhhh! I feel like I have to teach you everything. Oh yeah, and he is being tried under the UCMJ.

Get it yet? Your boy is going to jail and will be abused sexually by some big men because he is so pretty.

Mike

__________________
Visit USFK Classifieds, the FREE classifieds in Korea!

I saw your 10,000 word text on how the Iraq was is legal in YOUR eyes, but when am I going to see a link from you where President Bush and other people associated with him are going to trial for this "illegal" war.

Obviously this LT broke the law and why he is on trial. So, if the war in Iraq is illegal, obviously there has to be a trial some where. And don't go build a iraqillegalwar.com and send me the link! I won't buy it!

__________________
Visit USFK Classifieds, the FREE classifieds in Korea!

Ouch! Well, Kaf, I have no knowledge of anyone removing any of your posts. I will do all in my power to prevent that, and see that all sides are heard here, even when some views may not be as popular as others. I enjoy your dialog with Mike, and know you seriously believe in your cause. Keep us on our toes!

Yes, the advice you received on double jeapordy was faulty.
The Lieutenant signed up, volunteered, and then decided that the media was right and the US Government was wrong. Sorry, Lt. He will not get off that easy. He will become an example for other soldiers who "Decide" not to keep their word.

Evidently, Eric Seitz, Lt. Watada's lawyer, has reason to believe that he has a basis to apply double jeopardy in this case, and has vowed to appeal it if the army decides to press ahead with a second trial, and he has a good justification in this trial because the judge bungled it.

The following report gives the best in-depth account of what actually went on in the courtroom. Here are some key excerpts. It's quite fascinating. This could very well become the makings of a Hollywood movie. If you read this account, Mike, you will see quite clearly that to describe Watada as being too stupid to know what he signed is a gross distortion. The fact of the matter is that he knew what he signed but the judge wouldn't accept his defence of motive, that he believed the war was illegal, and yet at the same time was allowing the prosecution to charge him with making statements about how the war was illegal. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If this goes to trial in March, it will automatically mean that it is nothing more than a mere kangaroo court hearing, and you will hear an uproar about it. You can't suddenly stop in the middle of a trial and say "Well, this isn't going the way we planned, so we're going to have to do it all over again." The defence did nothing to warrant a mistrial. The judge bungled the case, so protection against double jeopardy applies as a constitutional matter.

Once again, Bush's stooge of a judge didn't want to allow the "Nuremberg defence" to be entered into the argument, and that's what got him into trouble.

Lt. Watada's civilian lawyer Eric Seitz later explained, “The mistrial is very likely to have the consequence of ending this case because a retrial would be a case of double jeopardy based on the military rules for courts martial and applicable case law.” Should the Army proceed with a second trial, Seitz said he would seek dismissal of the charges with prejudice so they could not be again filed. “I do not expect a retrial to ever occur,” stated Seitz. Army Captain Mark Kim, Lt. Watada’s appointed military defense lawyer, noted that he agreed with Seitz’s conclusions.

John Junker, a University of Washington law professor independently consulted by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer newspaper explained, “You can't just stop in the middle and say, ‘I don't like the way it's going’ and start over. If the defendant objected, it does raise the possibility" of double jeopardy. Junker noted, “That doctrine comes from the Constitution.”

The opening session featured Judge Head denying every defense motion, particularly those that dealt with issues related to the illegality of the Iraq War. Seitz repeatedly voiced objections to these rulings, at one point describing them as “judicial malfeasance,” bordering on “comical.” Judge Head seemed to have preemptively ruled Lt. Watada’s entire defense irrelevant.

Judge Head also ruled that all defense witnesses, with the exception of a single character witness, were denied. These witnesses were to include Richard Falk, Professor of International Law and Practise, Princeton University; Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights; former UN Assistant Secretary-General Denis Halliday, outspoken Iraq War critic General Newbold; and Congressman John Conyers.

Lt. Col. William James, director of the Fort Lewis Battle Command Training Center, took the stand to state that in his opinion, “Lt. Watada acted immorally by breaking his oath.” However, “If someone reaches a position of conscience and acts upon that position, is he acting immorally?” asked Seitz. “No” replied James.

Finally, the prosecution called retired military officer Richard Swain to the stand. Mr. Swain teaches a course in “officership” at West Point. As expected, Swain declared that “oaths were a cornerstone of military service.” Unexpectedly, Swain continued that officers do not have to follow orders that they determine to be illegal—nor should they follow orders they deem to be immoral. “You have to do what your own conscience tells you to do, no matter what the consequences.”

Ironically, it appears that Judge Head’s extreme measures to forbid any attempt by Lt. Watada to defend his actions by explaining his intent to resist an illegal war, was eventually the mistrial trigger.

The fundamental problem for the judge was that while he had clearly ruled that Lt. Watada could not legally defend his actions based on his belief that the war was illegal, the judge had also allowed the prosecution the bring to trial charges against Lt. Watada for publicly expressing his opinions that the war was illegal. Numerous times through out this week’s proceedings Judge Head appeared to pause in order to intellectually untangle this catch-22.

In fact, during the January 4 pre-trial hearing, Judge Head even had to ask then-lead-prosecutor Cpt. Kuecker, “Hasn’t the prosecution made these questions [of war legality] relevant by the way you have charged this case? Aren’t you trying to block these issues for coming in the front door, but opening up the back door?” “You have charged motive as an offense,” declared Judge Head to the prosecution last month.

http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/content/view/249/1/

Wow! His lawyer "vowed" to appeal. So what! Means nothing. His lawyer is simply playing the media card, which in the end will land his client in prison. And with his perty mouth he will not enjoy his stay.

Mike

__________________
Visit USFK Classifieds, the FREE classifieds in Korea!

You're wrong Mike. Double Jeopardy exists beyond the death penalty and loss of limb. Pray tell, Mike, what crimes are punished in America with loss of limb?

Mike, it's not always that simple. Take this paragraph for example from www.findlaw.com:

Looks like the measurement of a person's knowledge of law may not be their website. The Findlaw website doesn't look so hot either, so it might be hotair too. It's too bad that Johnnie Cochran died. I heard his website was the best and gave him lawyerly skills beyond belief.

Our discussion of the law as generally practiced in the U.S. can, and does, differ in some respects with the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I have seen some verdicts stand under the UCMJ that would not under civilian justice.
Certain "Constitutional rights" are given up when one joins the military.

Does that matter? It's called the constitution Doutes and NOTHING supersedes it. Is the LT facing death? NO. Is the LT facing loss of limb? NO. Just because people are not going to lose an arm, doesn't make the constitution obsolete.

I can't believe we are even talking about this. Should I show the thousands of cases that have mistrials and went on to a second trial? Is the precedence enough for Doutes, Kaf and the others that feel this mistrial is the end of this?

The LT was facing for years, had a mistrial and his next court date is already set.

I can't believe people don't understand that a mistrial is a mistrial, not a verdict of not guilty. I can find thousands of cases that went on for months, ended in mistrial and went on to a second trial.

__________________
Visit USFK Classifieds, the FREE classifieds in Korea!

Mike, you can use all the CAPITAL LETTERS you want, but you're still wrong. So wrong, in fact, that I'm not even sure where to begin to correct you. This is simple stuff that you should have learned in Jr. High School. The constitution is perhaps our most important legal document, but American Jurisprudence follows the tradition of "precedent" going back to the Roman Empire. Previous courts have ruled that the "death and limb" portion also covers prison time or financial loss. Because of precedent, current courts follow that ruling.

I believe it either. It's like arguing that the 3rd amendment only bars soldiers from forcefully taking residence in your home, so the garage and toolshed are fair game. If you're thinking of crashing in my toolshed, it's not fair game.

And the thousands of precedent that you'd show me probably wouldn't have anything to do with this situation. If you had read the link I provided, you would have read precedents of double jeopardy being envoked in cases of mistrial. If the the jury can't determine guilt or innocence, RETRIAL. If mistrial happens because of natural disaster, witness dies, or other unforceable or uncontrollable event, RETRIAL. If the defense requests a mistrial or agrees to a mistrial, RETRIAL. However.... However.... If the PROSECUTION requests a mistrial over the defense's objections there is the possibility that another trial may be declared double jeopardy.

That information was in the previous link I provided. Perhaps next time I'll link to a snazzier website that you may deign to look at.

Mike, we understand what a mistrial is. We have a small idea of how the legal process work. Of course a new trial has been set. At the beginning of the new trial is when the defense will move to dismiss the charges based upon double jeopardy. If the judge refuses, then they will appeal his ruling, even if the trial continues. It's not like legal decisions are made overnight.

Do I think this is over? No, but I felt that I needed to correct your horribly incorrect assertions. Do I think he should go to jail? Yes, but I'm not willing to circumvent constitutional protections to make sure that happens.