Court Prevents Solder from self-defense
cn | 06 February, 2007 00:08Lt. Ehren Watada refused to go to Iraq, claiming the war to be illegal, so he is being court-martialed. All things considered, I have no argument with the government proceeding with such charges in and of themselves. However, the manner in which the trial is apparently proceeding I do take exception to (from the Associated Press):
The judge in the case against the first U.S. officer court-martialed for refusing to ship out for Iraq barred several experts in international and constitutional law from testifying Monday about the legality of the war.
1st Lt. Ehren Watada, 28, of Honolulu is charged with missing movement for refusing to ship out with his unit, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. He also faces charges of conduct unbecoming an officer for accusing the Army of war crimes and denouncing the administration for conducting an "illegal war" founded on "lies."
As his court-martial got under way, military judge Lt. Col. John Head refused to allow almost all defense witnesses to take the stand. Head previously ruled that Watada's attorney, Eric Seitz, could not debate the legality of the Iraq war in court.
The intent of the actions taken by the judge is my question. What would be the downside of allowing said experts to testify? Is the purpose of the court system, civil or military, to reach an objective verdict or is it to further a given agenda? And even if the stated purpose of a military court is not to come to an objective verdict, is that the system under which we want to live?
Posted in
World Culture/Travel .
Comment: (0).
Trackbacks:(0).
Permalink
«Next post |
Previous post»