(immodest "ahem" at having said this last night)

Problem is they can't not prosecute him! The man is a military officer who refused an order. The entire military heirarchy collapses if soldiers can say "er, no, I don't think I'll do that sir."

But they can't prosecute him either without opening up the illegal-war can 'o' worms. Which they would lose. Which would leave everybody up through the Joint Chiefs unto Der Leader himself hanging out there twisting in the wind in whatever color jumpsuits they give people at The Hague.

Oh me oh my. I would sure like to have the popcorn cart and Tums concession outside wherever this matter is being conducted.

per xan's comment previously:
What are Lt. Watada's options now?
Can he stay in the service?
Is the military now open to ... ?
... heck, i dunno.
OR
Can he pursue having the iraq war declared illegal?
(the imagination runs wild ...)

How fuckin' fitting is it for these Colonel Cathcart-esque hacks-in-uniform to get caught in an honest-to-god Catch-22?

But I still believe
And I will rise up with fists!!

i wuz tired.

anyway- yes, Watada could prove to be much, much more important than just one righteous objector. wouldn't it be nice if he demanded prosecution, safe in the knowledge that the SCOTUS is on his side, and that every warmongering general and yes-man could go to prison as a result?

sure, it's a fantasy. but a nice one. Watada is one of those people who makes me proud of our military, in the face of so much else that is shameful. he gives me hope that one day our forces could return to being those working for good, and not just corporate profit, around the globe.

Being able to say "Ha, I had it first" is the best feeling in the world for an old news hand.

:)

i'm not sure that's good news. i'm sure the administration wants to keep it all quiet. i think it may do more good if it is a full blown trial with publicity covering it.

Wouldn't it be nice if they gave a war and nobody came? Didn't John Lennon make a movie about that?

I really don't know would stop any soldier now from claiming the same thing. Think of what this could start! What if 100, then 1,000 or more all demanded trials on the same grounds?

Oh, please let it happen ...

they have video.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020507...

this guy is awesome.

http://www.army.mil/cmh/faq/oaths.htm
The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

"defend the Constitution of the United States" comes meaningfully before "obey the orders of the President".

and, since Nuremberg, all officers are mandated to follow no illegal orders.