CITIZENS' HEARING REPORT
with tribunal testimony & statement
(64 pages; 32 MB pdf)

CITIZENS' HEARING PANEL STATEMENT below

Preceding Lt. Watada Court Martial, Citizens’ Hearing Panel Declares Iraq War Illegal,
Issues Call to Conscience with Release of Tribunal Report

For immediate release: February 2, 2007
Contact: Cindy Sousa 206-734-5040 cindy@sdmcc.org
Linda Frank 253-537-1405 workforjustice@comcast.net

Tacoma, WA- In an unprecedented two-day Citizens’ Hearing held January 20 and 21, more than 600 citizens joined a distinguished tribunal panel in listening to testimony about the legality of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. The
twelve panel members, half of whom are military veterans from World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and more recent conflicts, stated in their report: “We believe that in a democracy the ultimate responsibility to make such a determination falls to citizens.” (See bottom for panelist list).

Russell W. McNutt, a veteran of three wars: World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, stated: “Our Citizens’ Panel found
the Iraq War to be illegal in both national and international law. In our document, we issued a Call to Conscience
for Congress to hold hearings on the legality of both the war itself and the ways that the war is being conducted.”
The panel listened to two days of testimony from Iraq War veterans and experts in international law (such as Daniel
Ellsberg, Professor Richard Falk, and former U.N. Assistant Secretary-General Denis Halliday), which is included
in the panel’s report.

The Citizens’ Hearing Call to Conscience, released today (below), details findings based on testimony about Crimes
Against Peace, War Crimes, and Crimes Against Humanity. Most boldly, the Call to Conscience charges that
the war in Iraq is a war of aggression that “constitutes a ‘crime against peace’,” under the terms of the Nuremberg
Principles. The panel’s document contends: “The U.S. has not fulfilled its responsibilities as an occupying power
under the 1907 Hague Convention and 1950 Geneva Conventions”, maintaining that the U.S. policy makers
intentionally planned and executed the bombing Iraqi civil infrastructure and that the use of indiscriminate
weapons, such as cluster bombs and white phosphorus, is common. The panel found that responsibility lies with the
command structure, rather than individual soldiers, that puts enlisted personnel at risk of violating human rights.

Panel member Elizabeth Falzone, whose cousin was killed while serving in Iraq, emphasized: “We cannot stand
idly by when military civilian leadership neglects their responsibility to soldiers during wartime. Citizens must hold
those officials accountable rather then let individual military members take the fall.”

The Call to Conscience also presents the panelists’ findings on Disobeying Illegal Orders, in which they state:
“The oath to support and defend the Constitution implies that if in conscience a person believes an order to be
illegal, he or she has an obligation to refuse the order.” The panel was explicit in its support for Lt. Ehren Watada,
the Army’s first commissioned officer to refuse deployment to Iraq based on his assertion that because the
Iraq War is illegal, it is his duty to refuse orders to deploy. The Citizens’ Hearing panel calls upon the presiding
officer in his court martial to hear all of the evidence about his contention that the war is illegal, and furthermore
calls upon every officer to fulfill their oath of allegiance to the Constitution by refusing orders they believe to be
illegal.

Citizens' Hearing organizer Ellen Finkelstein commented, "The report released today offers a full and fair
hearing to Lt. Watada's case that the Iraq War is illegal. The Citizens' Hearing report reads much as
the court martial transcript would read had his evidence and witnesses been admitted."

Panel Chair David Krieger asserted: "The Citizens' Hearing heard testimony from returning soldiers and
international law experts on the illegality of the Iraq War. It is testimony the military judge has excluded from Lt.
Watada's court martial. The evidence was devastating and conclusive on the illegality of the war and the pattern of
war crimes and crimes against humanity being committed in Iraq. It is testimony that every American should hear.
Lt. Watada has acted honorably in supporting and defending the U.S. Constitution. The same cannot be said for
those political and military leaders who designed, initiated and perpetuated the unlawful invasion and occupation of
Iraq."

Burk Ketchum, a World War II veteran and former Naval Reserve officer from Tacoma, Washington,, said:
“Having heard two days of testimony, I am convinced that all military officers have a responsibility, under the
terms of the Nuremberg Principles (which are part of the laws of this country) to refuse participation in an illegal
war. Our panel found the war to be illegal. In my book Lt. Watada deserves a medal for being the first officer with
the guts to bring the illegality of the Iraq War to national attention.”

Interviews with panelists or testifiers can be arranged through Cindy Sousa at 206-734-5040 or cindy@sdmcc.org.

The full 64-page report, which details the testimony presented from Iraq War veterans and experts in international
law, findings of the panel and the Call to Conscience, is available as a 32-MB pdf file at
http://www.wartribunal.org/REPORT.pdf Video and links to audio clips are on the website:
http://www.wartribunal.org , and more will be available.

Information about Lt. Ehren Watada’s case, his February 5th Court Martial and the mobilization leading up to it,
is at http://www.thankyoult.org.

###

A CALL TO CONSCIENCE:
Report from the Citizens’ Hearing on the Legality of U.S. Actions in Iraq
http://www.wartribunal.org/Press.htm

A Citizens' Hearing on the Legality of U.S. Actions in Iraq was held in Tacoma, Washington, on January 20-21, 2007. The Citizens' Hearing was prompted by the refusal of U.S. Army Lt. Ehren Watada to obey what he believes to be an unlawful order to deploy to Iraq. Lt. Watada based his refusal on the grounds that he is fulfilling his oath as a military officer to support and defend the Constitution of the United States by refusing orders to participate in an illegal war of aggression. Testimony on Lt. Watada’s assertions about the illegality of the war is not being allowed into evidence by the military judge in Lt. Watada's court martial.

The Citizens' Hearing was convened because of the failure of all branches of the United States government to investigate and assess the serious issues raised by the assertions of illegality of the Iraq War by Lt. Watada and many other U.S. citizens. We believe that in a democracy the ultimate responsibility to make such a determination falls to citizens. This is particularly true when their government fails to act in accord with its Constitution and the supreme Laws of the Land.

We are the 12 members of the Panel of the Citizens’ Hearing. We are a diverse group of U.S. citizens with grave concerns about the legality of the U.S. role in Iraq. Half our group are military veterans of World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and more recent conflicts. Several of us belong to military families, including a woman whose cousin was killed in Iraq, the father of a soldier who served in Iraq, and a high school student with two brothers who served in Iraq. Panel members come from all regions of the United States.

We heard two types of testimony: eyewitness accounts of veterans of the Iraq War and military families, and expert testimony on issues of international law, military law, constitutional law, and foreign policy. We heard from several Iraq War veterans, a family member of a National Guard soldier who served in Iraq, experts on international law, former diplomats, a former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations, an Iraqi human rights worker, and others.

The focus of the testimony was on the legality of the Iraq War. The Panel heard testimony regarding crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the duty of military personnel to refuse orders that they believe to be unlawful. Witnesses at the Citizens' Hearing included individuals who will not be allowed to testify at Lt. Watada's court martial.

PREAMBLE

We, the Citizens' Hearing Panel, place primary responsibility for initiating crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity on the civilian leadership of our nation. We cannot stand idly by when civilian leadership of our military neglects its oversight responsibility to soldiers during wartime. We, the citizens, must hold these officials accountable, rather then let individual military members take the fall for the illegal actions of their leaders. Military personnel are defending their lives – this is the situation in which the government has put our men and women in uniform. It is our responsibility as citizens to support them by speaking out and by holding the responsible civilian leaders accountable.

TESTIMONY AND FINDINGS

The Panel heard testimony related to the following:

Crimes Against Peace

1. According to the Nuremberg Principles “planning, preparation, initiation or waging a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties” is a crime against peace. Under international law, codified in the United Nations Charter, the use of force is only legal if authorized by the United Nations Security Council or used in self-defense and then only for a limited time until the United Nations can act to restore peace and security. Under Article 6, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, all duly ratified international treaties (including the United Nations Charter) are “the supreme Law of the Land.”

2. Though misrepresented to the American people as a defensive response to the September 11th attacks, there is no evidence linking Iraq to the terrorist attacks. The U.S. attack and invasion of Iraq was neither authorized by the United Nations nor undertaken in self-defense. And to date the U.S. government has failed to present evidence to validate the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

3. The war in Iraq is a war of aggression, in violation of the United Nations Charter. The initiation of this war constitutes a “crime against peace,” under the terms of the Nuremberg Principles.

4. The enduring lesson of the Nuremberg trials is that aggressive war is the supreme international crime since it incorporates all of the other crimes listed below.

War Crimes

1. War Crimes are defined by the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Tribunal, the Nuremberg Principles, and U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 to include:

a) Murder or ill-treatment or deportation . . . of civilian population;
b) Murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war;
c) Killing of hostages;
d) Plunder of public or private property;
e) Wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages;
f) Devastation not justified by military necessity.

2. The Panel heard evidence that a pattern of war crimes has emerged from the U.S. conduct of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. An atmosphere conducive to war crimes has been fostered through callous disregard for the lives of Iraqi civilians that originates at the top of the civilian leadership of our military. We heard the following testimony regarding the aggressive rules of engagement that have been passed down through the chain of command from the highest levels:

a) orders include “free fire zones” in which soldiers are ordered to shoot at all living targets;
b) soldiers have been ordered to run over anyone on the road, including children, if necessary rather than impede progress of a convoy;
c) soldiers were ordered to conduct “sweeps” of civilian homes to round up men of military age for detention, and nighttime transport to unknown destinations;
d) detainees in U.S.-run prisons such as Abu Ghraib are subject to systematic degradation and torture.

3. Soldiers reported that during deployment the rules of engagement changed without adequate training in how to implement new rules of engagement in a legal and humane way. For example, when ordered to shoot a warning shot if a car failed to stop while approaching a checkpoint, no instruction was given whether the warning shot should be into the air, into the grill of the car, or into the windshield of the car.

4. Soldiers reported receiving minimal or no training to aid them in recognizing orders that might be illegal, or conduct of war that might be illegal. They also reported that the military conditioning supported only unquestioning obedience to orders.

5. The Panel heard testimony that institutional racism is pervasive in military training and conditioning. Soldiers reported systematic dehumanization of civilians in military training and conditioning that creates a climate in which the commission of war crimes occurs. Derogatory terms for Iraqis (and Arabs in general), such as “Hajis,” were used routinely by persons of all rank. The enemy was talked about as if they were sub-human, and deserving of ill treatment and death.

6. Soldiers reported that soldiers on the ground are often placed in situations that call upon them to engage in acts that could result in war crimes. Current rules of engagement fail to adequately distinguish between civilians and combatants – a hallmark of counterinsurgency wars such as Iraq.

Crimes Against Humanity

1. Crimes against Humanity are defined by the Nuremberg Principles as “murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.”

2. The U.S. has not fulfilled its responsibilities as an occupying power under the 1907 Hague Convention and 1950 Geneva Conventions.

3. In the invasion, the civilian leadership of the U.S. military ordered the intentional bombing of Iraqi civilian infrastructure such as water systems, roads, bridges, sewage systems, and electrical systems and was negligent in planning for security and reconstruction following such bombing.

4. The U.S. has not met its responsibility as an occupying force to secure and rebuild the civilian infrastructure that was destroyed in the war.

5. The U.S. has violated the terms of the Geneva Conventions, which do not allow an occupying force to fundamentally change the laws or economy of the occupied nation. Beginning with the Coalition Provisional Authority in 2003, the U.S. gutted the existing government by throwing out civil servants and military personnel, and by issuing orders for the structural adjustment and privatization of the Iraqi economy and the non-competitive award of contracts to U.S. firms.

6. The use of indiscriminate weapons (such as cluster bombs and white phosphorus) is common, and the use of uranium-hardened munitions raises health concerns for U.S. veterans and Iraqi civilians alike.

7. The failure of the U.S. military to properly treat its own personnel for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and the return of mentally ill personnel to combat, has led to psychological trauma and suicide. Soldiers testified that untreated PTSD may be a contributing factor to abuses against civilians and that it also constitutes abuse against U.S. soldiers and their families.

Disobeying Illegal Orders

1. Officers in the U. S. Army take an oath of allegiance to the Constitution – not an oath to follow orders blindly regardless of their legality. According to U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (Section 509b), members of the armed forces are bound to obey only legal orders.

2. The fact that military personnel must follow only lawful orders places upon them the responsibility to exercise judgment in evaluating the legality of orders and the conduct of war. Whereas enlisted personnel take an oath to support and defend the Constitution and to follow the orders of superior officers, officers take an oath only to support and defend the Constitution.

3. The Panel heard testimony that soldiers receive minimal or no training to aid them in recognizing potentially illegal orders. Instead they are consistently taught to follow orders without question.

4. The oath to support and defend the Constitution implies that if in conscience a person believes an order to be illegal, he or she has an obligation to refuse the order.

5. Based on the testimony we heard, we find that the Iraq War is an illegal war. We, therefore, support the right of military personnel, who believe the war to be illegal, to follow their conscience in refusing orders to deploy to Iraq. We believe that a person of conscience, in accord with the Nuremberg Principles, should not be punished, but rather supported, for refusal to follow orders to deploy to an illegal war.

BASED UPON THE FINDINGS,
WE ISSUE THE FOLLOWING CALL TO CONSCIENCE:

1. We call upon the presiding officer in Lt. Watada’s court martial, to consider all evidence and witnesses related to the grounds of his refusal to deploy, specifically that the Iraq War itself is illegal. Further, we call upon every officer of every court martial to allow military personnel who are facing court martial for refusing orders based on their conscientious conviction of the illegality of orders or of the war to present testimony in support of their beliefs.

2. We call upon all Americans – particularly younger Americans who are most potentially involved in wars – to fulfill their responsibility as citizens, to examine all the evidence, to seek the truth, to listen to their conscience, and to act accordingly. Further, we call upon all citizens to support those military personnel who act upon their conscience by either refusing to deploy to Iraq or refusing to return to Iraq.

3. We call upon citizens of the United States to

a) hold hearings throughout the country to raise public awareness of the illegality of the Iraq War among all U.S. citizens and residents, including members of the armed forces.

b) uphold, whether military or civilian, the Constitution of the United States by peacefully resisting policies and actions of our government that do not comply with international law and that threaten the peace.

4. We call upon the Congress of the United States to

a) execute their constitutional responsibilities by holding hearings on the legality of the war in Iraq, including war crimes and crimes against humanity. In particular, we urge Congress, indeed all Americans, to listen to the compelling testimony of enlisted men and women about the atrocity-producing situations of the war and the systematic conditioning that leads to dehumanization of Iraqis.

b) abide by the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Tribunals, and the Nuremberg Principles by holding to account all national leaders who deceived the American people, led the U.S. into an illegal war of aggression, and are responsible for the crimes against humanity and the pattern of war crimes committed in the conduct of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

c) authorize payment of reparations to the people of Iraq to rebuild their infrastructure and repair the damage caused by the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

d) fully fund the costs of restoring soldiers and their families to health, as well as to fully compensate the families of those innocent Iraqi civilians who have been wrongly killed.

5. We call upon the President and the Congress to

a) take action to begin withdrawing troops, bases, and contractors from Iraq, and to take the path of international diplomacy and peacekeeping to stabilize Iraq.

b) use our military personnel only in defensive conflicts and not in aggressive conflicts that constitute crimes against peace.

6. We call upon the civilian leadership of the U.S. military to

a) institute mandatory training of all members to recognize their responsibility not to follow illegal orders that violate international law, and to cease training that may condition soldiers to view civilians as the enemy.

b) examine, redefine, and train soldiers in rules of engagement in order to provide maximum protection to civilian populations and to reverse the current pattern of high civilian casualties.

c) train all combat soldiers to wage war only by means that are legal according to international law.

d) ban the use of dehumanizing racial slurs to describe any persons, whether friend or foe, and to initiate a strict practice of disciplining violations of this ban throughout the chain of command.

e) uphold our existing obligations under international law to refrain from using weapons that are indiscriminate or cause unnecessary suffering.

7. We call on the U.S. media to investigate the roots of war crimes in Iraq and follow the investigation up the chain of command.

8. We call upon every officer in the Armed Forces of the United States of America to follow the example of Lt. Ehren Watada, fulfilling their oath of allegiance to the Constitution, by evaluating the legality of the war and acting on their conscience.

Citizens’ Hearing Panel:
David Krieger (Panel Chair)
Elizabeth Falzone (Gold Star Families)
Zeek Green (Labor Union Member)
Maricela Guzman (New Veterans)
Burk Ketcham (Veterans of Former Wars)
Emily Lutz (Health Care Community)
Staughton Lynd (Academia)
Russell W. McNutt (Veteran of Former Wars)
Rich Moniak (Military Families)
Lyle Quasim (Government Leaders)
Rev. Elaine Stanovsky (Religious Organizations)
Estella Villarreal (High School Students)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

CITIZENS’ HEARING PANEL

(affiliations listed for identification purposes only)

Chair: David Krieger
President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Former
Army 2nd Lieutenant stationed in Hawaii during Vietnam War;
Juror of Conscience in the 2005 World Tribunal on Iraq (Istanbul).

Gold Star Families: Elizabeth Falzone
From Seattle; cousin David was killed in action in Tikrit, Iraq

Military Families: Rich Moniak
From Juneau AK; son served in Iraq & Afghanistan

Veterans of former wars: Russell W. McNutt
From Centralia WA; Marine Corps veteran; enlisted 1945,
commissioned 1950 served in Korea; served 3 years in Allied
Air Forces Naples, 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing Vietnam,
HQ MACV Saigon 1968-69

Veterans of former wars: Burk Ketcham
World War II veteran; former Naval Reserve officer, Tacoma

New veterans: Maricela Guzman
From Los Angeles; Navy veteran in Diego Garcia & Italy

High school students: Estella Villarreal
Ida B. Wells School at University of Washington in Seattle

Government leaders: Lyle Quasim
Former Secretary of Washington Department of Social and
Health Services; Vietnam veteran from Tacoma

Religious organizations: Rev. Elaine Stanovsky
United Methodist Church; Superintendent of the Seattle-Tacoma
District; ex-President-Director, Church Council of Greater Seattle.

Labor union members: Zeek Green
International Longshore Workers Union member, Tacoma

Academia: Staughton Lynd
Historian, attorney and activist from Youngstown OH; Ph.D from
Columbia; taught at Yale; outspoken objector to Vietnam War.

Health care community: Emily Lutz
Army Reserve medic, Los Angeles; Individual Ready Reserve

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 22, 2007 www.wartribunal.org
CONTACT: Cindy Sousa 206-734-5040 cindy@sdmcc.org
Linda Frank 253-537-1405 workforjustice@comcast.net

Veterans, Military Families, Community Leaders Deliberate on Two Days of Testimony Charging that the Iraq War is Illegal:

Citizens’ Panel to Announce Findings Before Watada Court Martial

Tacoma, WA- In an unprecedented two-day Citizens’ Hearing held over the weekend, more than 600 citizens joined a distinguished tribunal panel in listening to testimony about the legality of the US invasion of Iraq. The Hearing was convened to present evidence that Lt. Ehren Watada would have presented in his February 5 court martial on the question that the military ruled barred from entry last week — the question of the Iraq War’s legality. Lt. Watada has repeatedly asserted that because the Iraq War is illegal, it is his duty to refuse orders to deploy. He is the Army’s first commissioned officer to take such a stand. Panel Chair David Krieger asserted: “If Lt. Watada cannot get a full hearing about the war’s legality in a military trial, then his case should at least be presented in the court of public opinion. This Citizens’ Hearing was about giving Lt. Watada’s position equal time.”

Many of those who testified, most of whom would have been called to testify at the court martial if the judge had allowed that evidence, agreed that Lt. Ehren Watada had not only the right to refuse to deploy to Iraq in an illegal war, but had a duty to do so. Whether violations of the Nuremberg Principles or the US Constitution, some testifiers asserted that Lt. Watada should be recognized for his courage rather than undergoing a Court Martial.
Panelist Rich Moniak from Juneau, Alaska, whose son served in Iraq and Afghanistan, said during the deliberation: “The testimony presented to me highlighted how this war has failed the Iraqi people and placed our soldiers at risk of being accessories to war crimes.”

Law professors Benjamin G. Davis and Richard Falk agreed that there are clear legal grounds on which the war is illegal. Falk, citing the sections of the US Army Field Manual, emphasized that international law is applicable to the behavior of US soldiers in a times of war and that soldiers have the duty to refuse unlawful commands. Davis sharply criticized the decision of the military judge to not hear Watada’s full defense, stating that Americans have a right to have their defense heard.
The most compelling testimony came from former members of the US military, including five veterans of Iraq. According to Ann Wright, a former Army Colonel and US diplomat who served three and a half decades for the US government, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell created the preconditions that led to torture. She added: “We must ensure that members of the US military are not put in the position of being ordered to carry out crimes against humanity.”

Darrell Anderson, who received a Purple Heart for his service in Iraq, talked about a situation he was involved in when orders were issued to “shoot everyone” regardless of whether they were civilians, including children. He stated that they used, what he called, “excessive force.” He said: “I realize it was my duty as a soldier to refuse this illegal war.”

According to Chanan Suarez-Diaz, who also received a Purple Heart for his service in Iraq, the psyched up emotions among the troops resulted in US soldiers taking “trophies” of brain matter from Iraqis they killed and putting such in their refrigerators on base.
Immediately following the closing statements, the panel retired to discuss the testimony, consulting the US Army Field Manual and the Nuremberg Principles. They discussed the testimony until well into the night. Panelist Staughton Lynd, an attorney who holds a PhD in history from Columbia University, said: “The overpowering testimony from Iraq veterans highlighted the conditions that soldiers on the ground are facing.”

Russell McNutt, a veteran of three wars: World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, stated: “I was exposed to a lot of knowledge. The soldiers who served in Iraq that we heard from were facing the dirty end of war. In urban warfare there are no definite boundaries, in different instances the enemy can be in front of you or behind your back. There is a lot of tension about who is a civilian and who is an insurgent. Under those circumstances, instantaneous decisions must be made in responding to threats. Time to exercise discretion is limited, but every effort should be made to ensure innocent bystanders are not injured through the use of deadly force.”

Tribunal organizer Zoltan Grossman commented: “It is the command structure, rather than individual soldiers, that puts enlisted personnel in the position where they feel they have to commit war crimes to survive. The command structure is ultimately responsible for war crimes or crimes against humanity. For example, testimony indicated that the dehumanization of Arabs through the use of racial slurs comes from a systematic training process, not only from individual soldiers’ prejudices or fears.”
Elizabeth Falzone, whose cousin was killed while serving in Iraq, reflected: “The Citizens’ Hearing provided a real venue for citizens to hear from soldiers who are returning from Iraq. Hearing from them and more from family members is especially important with the “surge”, and the repeat deployments that we’re seeing.”

The Citizens’ Hearing and the distinguished panel will release the full report prior to Lt. Watada’s court martial, including the panel’s final statement and excerpts from the testimony. Interviews with panelists or testifiers can be arranged through Cindy Sousa at 206-734-5040 or cindy@sdmcc.org.

There are now video and audio clips on the web site: www.wartribunal.org, and more will be available.

Information about Lt. Ehren Watada’s case, his February 5th Court Martial and the mobilization leading up to it, is at www.thankyoult.org

###

FREE SPEECH RADIO NEWS coverage
http://www.fsrn.org/news/20070122_news.html

Z-NET
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=51&ItemID=11935

NEWSPAPERS:

400 attend forum on Iraq War
Tacoma News Tribune/AP, Jan. 20, 2007
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/updates/story/6332946p-5519762c.html

Antiwar activists hold hearing
Seattle Times, Jan. 21, 2007
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003534204_citizenhearing21m.htmlPanel explores Watada debate

Panel explores Watada debate
The Olympian, Jan. 21, 2007
http://www.theolympian.com/112/story/61644.html

Upcoming Watada trial drew Army deserter to Northwest
Seattle Times, Jan. 20, 2007
http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=anderson19m&date=20070120

Faux tribunal contends war in Iraq is illegal
Seattle PI, Jan. 22, 2007
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/300639_watada22.html

Tacoma forum hears Iraq war denounced as illegal
KOMO-TV, Associated Press, Jan. 21, 2007
http://www.komotv.com/news/local/5281921.html

Related:
COVERAGE ON DEMOCRACY NOW! TUESDAY, Jan 23
of Ehren Watada and Bert Sacks
http://www.democracynow.org

BLOGS:

Fort Lewis blogger Ken Swarner's "Blog-Ah!"
"Gearing up for the Watada Show" quotes from tribunal article
by J.M. Simpson of Fort Lewis Ranger (includes photo of Ehren there)
http://blog-ah.typepad.com/blogah/2007/01/gearing_up_for_.html
Watada Primer #1
http://blog-ah.typepad.com/blogah/2007/01/watada_primer_1.html

Washblog live blog of Saturday
http://www.washblog.com/story/2007/1/20/134540/099

Interview with Darrell Anderson
http://www.washblog.com/story/2007/1/21/213959/546

Common Ills (with Wright excerpt)
http://katskornerofthecommonills.blogspot.com/2007/01/elizabeth-dinovella-on-mexico-and-nafta.html

Common Ills (the War Drags on)
http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2007/01/and-war-drags-on_22.html

Sunday, January 21, 2007 - 12:00 AM

Anti-war activists hold hearing

By Hal Bernton
Seattle Times staff reporter

TACOMA — A question banished from the upcoming court-martial trial of 1st Lt. Ehren Watada surfaced Saturday at a citizens hearing on the Iraq war. Are the legal underpinnings of the war shaky enough to justify the Fort Lewis officer's refusal last year to deploy with his brigade?

Watada's efforts to raise that defense were struck down last week by a military judge. It was a ruling anticipated by peace activists who had planned the citizens event at the conference hall on the Tacoma campus of The Evergreen State College.

Attended by more than 340 people, it was initially billed as a "tribunal" to put the war on trial, although organizers said they were not trying to conduct an impartial hearing on the war. Instead, it was a daylong indictment of U.S. war policies. Several Iraq veterans, law professors and whistle-blowers condemned United States actions as violations of international law and war crimes.

"U.S. citizens have the responsibility to start asking tough questions about the underlying premises of the war, to start asking why instead of how," said Zoltan Grossman, an Evergreen faculty member who helped organize the hearing.

Watada, whose court-martial begins Feb. 5, also made a brief appearance. He thanked the conference organizers and denounced last week's decision by Military Judge Lt. Col. John Head to block the presentation of his defense.

"I believe that it is a travesty of justice," said Watada, who faces up to six years in military prison if convicted. "That it is a violation of our most sacred due process, and indeed it is un-American." In a pretrial ruling, Head — citing federal court decisions — concluded that the legality of the war was a political issue that could not be litigated in military court.

Saturday, plenty of people were eager to speak to the issue.

Richard Falk, a professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University, cited the Army Field Manual, which holds soldiers accountable for crimes that violate international law. He argued that the war breaches international law because the Bush administration did not go to the United Nations Security Council to gain specific approval for military action.

U.S. officials dispute that assessment, saying that a 2002 Security Council resolution, which threatened Iraq with serious consequences, put the invasion in compliance with the U.N. charter.

Some of the harshest attacks on the Bush administration came from Daniel Ellsberg, who in 1971 as a military analyst leaked to the press the secret Pentagon Papers, which detailed the U.S. conduct of the Vietnam War. Ellsberg accused President Bush of war crimes that could be prosecuted under international law.

"... Our country is engaged in clear-cut aggression," Ellsberg said.

At the hearing, there was no discussion of insurgent and sectarian attacks that have resulted in thousands of civilian deaths, nor did any speaker seek to outline the U.S. position on the legality of the war.

Grossman said the State and Defense departments were invited to send representatives but did not respond.

W.J. Hardiman, executive director of Evergreen's Tacoma campus, said that the conference sought to offer perspectives on the war that she said are often absent from public discussion.

The hearing concludes today. A citizen panel will compile the findings of the hearing and send them to members of Congress.

Hardiman said she would welcome supporters of the war if they seek to have a conference on campus.

Hal Bernton: 206-464-2581 or hbernton@seattletimes.com

Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company

THE IRAQ WAR ON TRIAL:

Already bogged down in Iraq, the US military must now deal with a
court martial hearing that threatens to put the invasion itself in the dock

Mark Tran
Thursday January 4, 2007
Guardian Unlimited (London)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1982931,00.html

Lieutenant Ehren Watada, the only US military officer to refuse deployment to Iraq, is due to appear in court today for a pre-trial hearing at Fort Lewis in the state of Washington.

Lt Watada, the first military officer charged with public dissent since 1965, faces charges of "missing movement" and "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman". If convicted, he could spend up to six years in prison.

At today's hearing, defence lawyers and prosecutors are expected to file several motions in preparation for his court-martial. The legal preliminaries already have the makings of a media event.

Peace activists, international law experts and war resisters past and present are girding themselves for events designed to drum up support for Lt Watada, recently described by Rolling Stone as "one of this year's greatest mavericks".

In many respects, Lt Watada is just the kind of officer the US army wants, so his act of dissent is doubly embarrassing. A star student at Pacific University, in Hawaii, he enlisted after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.

After officer training, he was deployed to South Korea, where he served with distinction. Knowing he would eventually be deployed to Iraq, Lt Watada began reading and came to the conclusion that the war was both illegal and unconstitutional.

From January until June, he requested to be reassigned, volunteering to serve in Afghanistan or even be discharged. When he had exhausted all alternatives, Lt Watada refused to go to Iraq with his 4,000 strong Stryker brigade unit.

That led to the charge of "missing movement". The charges of unbecoming conduct stem partly from statements Lt Watada made at a Veterans for Peace convention in August near Seattle.

"This administration used us for rampant violations of time-tested laws banning torture and degradation of prisoners of war. Though the American soldier wants to do right, the illegitimacy of the occupation itself, the policies of this administration and the rules of engagement of desperate field commanders will ultimately force them to be party to war crimes," Lt Watada said at the time.

The court martial of Lt Watada has also raised first amendment free speech issues as the army has subpoenaed two journalists - though there are signs that the army is backing down from its demand that one of them, Sarah Olson, testify at today's pre-trial hearing.

Ms Olson interviewed Lt Watada last May. The army says statements he made during the interview constitute one charge of conduct unbecoming an officer, and wants Ms Olson to verify those statements in a military court.

Another journalist, Dahr Jamail, is on the prosecution witness list for his reporting on Lt Watada's address to the Veterans for Peace convention last August. The army says it wants him to authenticate his reporting of the event.

Mr Jamail says: "I don't believe that reporters should be put in the position of having to participate in a prosecution. This is particularly poignant in this case, where journalists would be used to build a case against free speech for military personnel."

Supporters of Lt Watada plan to turn the tables on the military by putting the increasingly unpopular war on trial. The Evergeen state college Tacoma campus plans a "citizens' hearing on the legality of US actions in Iraq" later this month.

The organisers say those planning to "testify" against the government include Daniel Ellsberg, a former military analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam war, Denis Halliday, a former UN assistant secretary general who coordinated Iraq humanitarian aid, and Eman Khammas (by video), an Iraqi human rights advocate.

Lt Watada remains on desk duty at Fort Lewis and is confined to the state of Washington until his court martial is scheduled

Lt. Ehren Watada: Resister

by Marc Cooper
The Nation
[from the January 8, 2007 issue]
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070108/cooper2

Since the US invasion in 2003, a handful of active-duty troops have openly refused deployment to Iraq. But the lightning rod case of resistance has been that of 28-year-old Lieut. Ehren Watada of the US Army.

The highest-ranking commissioned officer to resist deployment, Watada faces a court-martial showdown as early as February, a trial that could land him an eight-year jail sentence. He has been charged with missing a troop movement, conduct unbecoming an officer and contempt toward officials. What particularly irked the Army was Watada's August appearance before a Veterans for Peace convention in Seattle, where the young officer called for more resistance to the war in Iraq. "The idea is this," Watada said, "that to stop an illegal and unjust war, the soldiers can choose to stop fighting it."

Watada's father, Robert Watada, was a conscientious objector to the Vietnam War and did alternative service in the Peace Corps. But the younger Watada was no pacifist. "It was all about September 11," Watada says in an interview from his home off base near Fort Lewis, Washington. "Any way to serve and defend our country. I was no different. And I had other reasons as well: wanting to be part of something bigger and more noble."

After finishing college and considering a career as a police officer, Watada entered the Army and went into Officer Candidate School just as the United States was invading Iraq. Neither a fervent supporter of the war nor an opponent, Watada describes himself as then being "a little bit too naïve in trusting the government." Later, while assigned to training with a Stryker Brigade, Watada became consumed with doubt. "When I saw there were no WMD, when I saw what was happening, all of a sudden I felt that reality wasn't in sync with what we were being told," he says. Following a stint in Korea, his unit got the word that it would soon be mobilized to Iraq. After months of unsuccessful closed-door negotiation with the Fort Lewis command, and after Watada made an offer to serve in combat in Afghanistan instead of Iraq, the situation came to a head. On June 22, Watada formally refused deployment.

Watada argues that he's not afraid of combat and doesn't feel any disloyalty to the military. He swore an oath, he says, not of personal loyalty to the President but rather to defend and uphold the Constitution. When a war is "illegal and unconstitutional," as he labels the Iraq War, a soldier's obligation is to oppose it.

Watada has picked up the support of a long list of traditional peace groups as well as a number of prominent retired military officers, the National Japanese American United Methodist Caucus, and the Honolulu and Berkeley chapters of the Japanese American Citizens League. Oregon State Representative Peter Buckley has also given Watada full public support. In late January, a "Citizens' Hearing on the Legality of U.S. Actions in Iraq," featuring Daniel Ellsberg and Princeton professor emeritus Richard Falk will be convened in Tacoma, Washington, in support of Watada (see www.thankyoult.org).

Watada's attorney, veteran civil rights lawyer Eric Seitz, says the case coalesces antiwar sentiment. "When Ehren emerged in June it was like a bold strike that enlightened a lot of people," says Seitz. "He's had a tremendous effect on so many."

Watada's soft-spoken, diminutive father, a retired Hawaii state official, says, "The mistake the military made with Ehren is that as a lieutenant he had to study. And the more he read, the more he came upon the lies of Bush and Cheney." He continues, "We talked a lot about the consequences of his decision. I told him he would be called a traitor, and a coward. I told him that the best thing he could do was to hide in the Green Zone for a year and then come home. But he told me no, that he had already made his decision and that he would stick to it."

Watada says the greatest effect has been on his own consciousness. "At first I felt really ashamed to be part of this war, by not knowing about it in the first place, by condoning it, by enabling it," he says. "But fortunately I live in a country where I can't be tortured or executed for what I say. I feel so fortunate to have been given this opportunity to make real change. That's why I joined the military in the first place."