re. Watada case by Paterson,first to re

WRITER WAS IN 1990 FIRST MILITARY SERVICE MEMBER TO REFUSE TO DEPLOY IN SUPPORT OF OPERATION DESERT STORM--writer, Paterson, was also represented by civilian attorney, Eric Seitz. 
 
Not my site but there may be some light today at LewRockwell online updating re. this case. Here at the very end article -Lt. Watada Clear Mistrial- by Jeff Paterson (now a California-based organizer for Courage to Resist) Excerpt from his article:  
 
Realizing things were going from bad to worse for the government, prosecutor Cpt. Van Sweringen rallied to support defense attorney Eric Seitz. "Both parties agree to the facts. There was a meeting of the minds, sir. There is no question that Lt. Watada has pled not guilty based on his belief that he believes the war is illegal," explained Van Sweringen...  
However...Judge Head had ruled that Lt. Watada’s beliefs were irrelevant, and was committed to enforcing those ruling with extremist vigor... One last time, "What does deploy mean to you?" asked Judge Head. "To me sir, it means to participate in a war that I believe to be illegal," explained Lt. Watada. 
 
Both the defense and prosecution explained that Lt. Watada’s belief was consistent..."Do you understand my problem, government?" asked Judge Head. "Frankly, no" replied Van Sweringen, standing with his arms crossed and head down. "The accused has pled not guilty. If the accused has evidence, the court should hear that evidence," offered Van Sweringen, apparently welcoming the introduction of the "Nuremberg Defense" or any other issues in the hope of moving forward with the court-martial. 
 
Mistrial Granted Over Defense Objections 
"I don’t know how I can accept (it) as we stand here now," noted Judge Head in tossing the agreement. With the stipulation voided, the prosecution no longer had any evidence to the facts before the jurors. Although Judge Head offered to allow the prosecution to reopen its case against following a continuance, he rhetorically asked "how do we unring that bell?" in reference to undoing a day of testimony – all based on a voided stipulation already studied by the seated jurors. 
 
...After repeated and lengthy recesses to allow the prosecution team time to consult with their superiors on a course of action, "Government, what’s your druthers?" asked Judge Head. Defeated and dejected, Van Sweringen muttered, "At this point the government moves for mistrial." 
 
Judge Head quickly set a new trial date for the week of March 19, but agreed the timing would be subject to availability of the defense lawyers – probably no sooner than May. "This case moves to the top of the docket." 
 
Future of U.S. v. Watada Questioned 
It is unlikely that Judge Head fully realized what he initiated, unless he was actually trying to toss the case on a technicality.Seitz explained following the day’s drama: "It is my professional opinion that Lt. Watada cannot be tried again because of the effect of double jeopardy. We did nothing to warrant a mistrial. The judge made all of his rulings himself, or based upon motions by the government. . . . The protection against double jeopardy applies as a constitutional matter."  
 
...Many things are possible at this point, including the possibility that the government will re-subpoena journalists...It is impossible to provide odds on numerous potential outcomes. 
 
One thing is clear: Over one thousand people from around the Pacific Northwest, the nation, and even the world, converged on Fort Lewis to rally for Lt. Watada against any real hope that he would not be imprisoned by the weekend. This unprecedented mobilization based and a national organizing effort launched this last June in support of Lt. Watada and military resisters, undoubtedly contributed to the outcome in the courtroom. 
 
...the mistrial also opens the very real possibility that the Army’s first commissioned officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq could be retired and allowed to leave active duty service in March if the government is unable to mount a new trial, stated a Fort Lewis spokesperson to the New York Times. 
February 12, 2007