Bill Simpich | Big Win for Lt. Watada: A Study in
Courage and Honor

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/111107A.shtml

Civil rights attorney Bill Simpich, writing for
Truthout, says that "Benjamin Settle, a federal
court judge, issued a preliminary injunction
halting any further court-martial proceedings of 1st
Lt. Ehren Watada and effectively ruling against the
Army on virtually every issue in the case."

Good News!:woohoo:

This is worth pointing out.

In my view, Judge Head's order was not only nonsense, but intentionally designed to prevent Lt. Watada from challenging the Iraq War to the mass media in a dramatic fashion. It was identical to the treatment that Fathers Phil and Dan Berrigan and their allies have received in American courts for the last forty years in their challenges to American military policy by committing minor property offenses by symbolically "beating swords into plowshares." In politically sensitive cases, judges go to great lengths to prevent criminal defendants from explaining why they resisted unlawful government acts.

Since when does the Federal court system have anything to "say" on the Military courts? (not being an ass... just curious)

Civil rights attorney Bill Simpich, writing for
Truthout, says that "Benjamin Settle, a federal
court judge, issued a preliminary injunction
halting any further court-martial proceedings of 1st
Lt. Ehren Watada and effectively ruling against the
Army on virtually every issue in the case."
REAL good!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Uppa US, Bush-fans!!!!!!!!!!!!! :p

Since when does the Federal court system have anything to "say" on the Military courts? (not being an ass... just curious)
Sorry, I didn't make it large enough for some to read.

since when does the military court system find itself outside federal law???

perhaps you can read this with your glasses.

Military court is NOT under standard federal court jusisdiction. There is a special Appeals Court for the Armed Forces and finally the the Supreme Court as the court of last appeal.

Unless the law has been changed recently regarding that fact.

So outside of a Supreme Court decision, a Federal judge's ruling would hold no legal merit.


I read fine, thank you.... can you?

so you did not answer my question, military courts are still subject to federal law are they not?

They are subject to U.S. Military law.

Here... I'll post a link for you to read up on this...

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/l/aacmartial2.htm

So basically, no. A federal Judge not in the military appelate system or serving on the Supreme Court, would have no jurisdiction on a military court marshal case. (like I said... unless they have changed the system recently).

There has always been a separate judicial system entirely for the military. It is "Federal" in the fact that the government (via the armed forces) presides over it, but is completely separate and unique from the standard Federal judicial system (save the Supreme Court... as a last appeal).

So basically, no. A federal Judge not in the military appelate system or serving on the Supreme Court, would have no jurisdiction on a military court marshal case.

Well gee fucking whiz.

I think you, with your vast knowledge of the minutiae of military legal matters, need to weigh in on this case and get busy telling these silly Federal judges and prosecutors who are adjudicating this case just how wrong they are!

Obviously, you have FAR more legal experience than they as to what is allowed and what is not allowed.

______________________________

:rolleyes:

Watada's lawyers petitioned the Federal District court for a stay on the grounds that his Fifth Amendment right to not be tried twice for the same crime had been violated. The first court-martial was declared a mistrial over Watada's objections. His attorney's claim the mistrial was declared "without there being the requisite manifest necessity for such declaration". The federal court is claiming jurisdiction because the issue is now one of double-jeopardy.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/334146_watada04.html

LOL... read up some more FT.

Watada's lawyers petitioned the Federal District court for a stay on the grounds that his Fifth Amendment right to not be tried twice for the same crime had been violated. The first court-martial was declared a mistrial over Watada's objections. His attorney's claim the mistrial was declared "without there being the requisite manifest necessity for such declaration". The federal court is claiming jurisdiction because the issue is now one of double-jeopardy.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/334146_watada04.html

Right, the question will be whether the Federal courts will actually be given controlling jurisprudence over the military court in this case. It is interesting and I think it may likely go to the Supreme court for a final ruling (but there again, FT considers my knowledge of law to be inferior to a snail's arse... so what do I know?)

LOL... read up some more FT.

But thanks to you, I don't have to read anything.

All I need to know about the legality of this case is being supplied by YOU.

YOU, with your vast knowledge of the minutiae of military legal matters, obviously know far more than these silly Federal judges and prosecutors who are adjudicating this case.

You go, Oldphart!

I'm sure that as soon as the dimwitted lawyers and Federal judges involved in this case read an e-mail from an internet poster with the self-chosen nom de plume of **Oldphart** , they will be extremely impressed, and will immediately realize that your legal expertise far outweighs theirs.

__________________________

:rolleyes:

I guess I must have pissed in FT's oatmeal again. I forget that if anyone does not see the truth and beauty of FT's Socialist ideals, they cannot have any worthwhile knowledge or a valid opinion on any subject.

Ass.

I guess I must have pissed in FT's oatmeal again.

No.

You simply took a ridiculous position that you had NO way of backing up, and then you got called out on it. (And were subsequently embarrassed. As you should be.)

And now you are reduced to whining -- ""Daauuuuuh, I guess i musta peed in his oatmeal....."" -- like the puerile little twit that you are.

Sorry, I didn't make it large enough for some to read.

Now you are just being an ass.

No.

You simply took a ridiculous position that you had NO way of backing up, and then you got called out on it. (And were subsequently embarrassed. As you should be.)

And now you are reduced to whining -- ""Daauuuuuh, I guess i musta peed in his oatmeal....."" -- like the puerile little twit that you are.
Why would I be embarrassed? That only sedan had enough sense to read and evaluate the judge's issue? That you wrongly assume that I have no knowledge of military law?

If a federal judge states that the someone has been put in "double-jeopardy" based on his intepretation of military law I have every right to question it. Just like you have the right to question the current U.S. government policies without having a doctorate in political science. Or are you "special" and "without peer" in your knowledge of all things?

BTW... you are the one that came "out of the gate" attacking me (surprise, surprise) with your initial post on this topic. That is why I asked if I had "peed in your oatmeal".

If you care to see a "puerile little twit" I would suggest locating a mirror.

I'm still waiting for the good Professor to post his touching and incisive Ode to Ethel--- a masterpiece of iambic pentameter extolling the virtues of the great freedom-fighter Mrs. Rosenberg, bless her saintly soul....and bless the good Professor too. His touching concern for the unwashed American masses brings a tear to my eye.

BTW... you are the one that came "out of the gate" attacking me (surprise, surprise) with your initial post on this topic. That is why I asked if I had "peed in your oatmeal".

Attack?!?

Not at all.

You obviously know more about the correctness of this case being heard by a Federal judge than the legal people themselves who are involved in the case.

There was a Federal court judge who issued a preliminary injunction halting any further court-martial proceedings of Lieutenant Watada. You indicated that this was wrong, and that this judge had no business being involved in the case.

I am simply saying that with this knowledge in hand, you need to contact these poor misguided legal people and tell them they are doing something wrong.

From your perspective, they are obviously totally unaware that they are in violation of judicial procedures as it relates to military matters.

You need to wade in there and show these people the way.

Attack?!?

Not at all.

You obviously know more about the correctness of this case being heard by a Federal judge than the legal people themselves who are involved in the case.

There was a Federal court judge who issued a preliminary injunction halting any further court-martial proceedings of Lieutenant Watada. You indicated that this was wrong, and that this judge had no business being involved in the case.

I am simply saying that with this knowledge in hand, you need to contact these poor misguided legal people and tell them they are doing something wrong.

From your perspective, they are obviously totally unaware that they are in violation of judicial procedures as it relates to military matters.

You need to wade in there and show these people the way.


Oh, I'm sorry... all Federal judges are always right in thier interpretation of the law. I forgot that constitional matters are all black and white, and that judges are beyond reproach in their decisions.

:rolleyes:

That being the case.... until you can prove to me that you are one of the top 10 or so political scientists in the world today (and one of the foremost theologians)... please refrain from all your political (and anti-religious) tripe that you spew in "how the U.S. should conduct itself (and how superstitionalists are fools)".

Deal?

:thumbs:

How many times has a civilian judge ever issued rulings in court martial proceedings?

Oh, I'm sorry... all Federal judges are always right in thier interpretation of the law. I forgot that constitional matters are all black and white, and that judges are beyond reproach in their decisions.

Ahh.....it's interesting that NOW you dishonestly try to change the basis of the argument.

Your first criticism was not that the judge was somehow incorrect in what he ruled about the case.

Your criticism was that the judge should not have anything to say about the case.

Here's your comment;

""Since when does the Federal court system have anything to "say" on the Military courts?""

IOW, you were placing yourself in the position of knowing whether or not it was legal for the Federal judge to hear the case or to make any ruling on it.

So; as I said, with your vast legal expertise, you need to contact these poor misguided people running the legal system and tell them they are doing something wrong.

Here's your comment;

""Since when does the Federal court system have anything to "say" on the Military courts?""

IOW, you were placing yourself in the position of knowing whether or not it was legal for the Federal judge to hear the case or to make any ruling on it.

So; as I said, with your vast legal expertise, you need to contact these poor misguided people running the legal system and tell them they are doing something wrong.

You are correct in quoting me. A federal judge has no jurisdiction in military court matters.

How many times has a civilian judge ever issued rulings in court martial proceedings?
I was wondering the same thing.

Oh, and stop being such an asshole, FT. :rolleyes:

You are correct in quoting me. A federal judge has no jurisdiction in military court matters.

OK.

Then why don't you contact the Federal Court system and tell them!?!

Obviously, if the case IS being heard before a Federal judge, (as it obviously is, per the article) then -- according to your perspective-- these poor unenlightened legal people are doing something that is not permitted under our legal system!

They do not realize that they are not following (your interpretation of) the rules!

Get out there man, and straighten these people out!.........the basis of our entire judicial system seems to rest on your knowing shoulders!!

I'll give you an "E" for effort, FT.:rolleyes:

Now silly games aside, I think this will obviously go beyond the Federal Circuit Court. There are several Constitutional "freedoms" that are not "enjoyed" by military personnel. Such as; no rights to a jury of peers, no rights to "bear arms" (kinda funny, that), and no right to free speech.

Also it should be stated that a mistrial does not always constitute being put into a double jeopardy situation. I think the initial Military judge made several mistakes and that Appelate Court for the Armed Forces will ferret out what trial/punishment (if any) that Watada will receive.


If it's any consolation FT, I think the injunction to stop the second trail (until the appeals court can rule) was a good decision... I'm just questioning the legality of it. Mixing Civil and Military jurisprudence would be a bad idea.


Where is Lionel when he's needed?

I think the injunction to stop the second trail (until the appeals court can rule) was a good decision... I'm just questioning the legality of it.

Thank you for the explanation, OldPhart.

My unrelentingly sarcastic replies were all aimed at making one salient point;

IF this case was somehow not being carried out within the framework of the legal system in the U.S. for a Federal judge to be having the case in question put before him, then a Federal judge would not have been hearing the case.

Eh??

Do you understand now what I am getting at??!?

Thank you for the explanation, OldPhart.

My unrelentingly sarcastic replies were all aimed at making one salient point;

IF this case was somehow not being carried out within the framework of the legal system in the U.S. for a Federal judge to be having the case in question put before him, then a Federal judge would not have been hearing the case.

Eh??

Do you understand now what I am getting at??!?
And that was basically my initial question at the front of the thread. The Federal judge's decision, based on the defense attorney's petitioning him for a injuction, is not within the boundaries of "normal" military law. The only reason that he could even be petitioned on this, is the fact that the soldier is stationed in the geographic area under his jurisdiction.

Legally, I think that the military court could proceed without paying any mind to the injunction, but the initial judge's "goofs" while trying the case are well known... and they will hold until the appelate court can review it.

IOW

Do I think the injuction is legally binding in the military courts? No

Do I think the injunction is correct? Yes

Do I think that a precident of cross over between military and civil laws is an interesting legal "story"? Yes, and that is why I posted in this thread to begin with.

My unrelentingly sarcastic replies were all aimed at making one salient point;

IF this case was somehow not being carried out within the framework of the legal system in the U.S. for a Federal judge to be having the case in question put before him, then a Federal judge would not have been hearing the case.

Eh??

Do you understand now what I am getting at??!?
Oh, really - then using that logic, why haven't they put a stop to this "illegal" war you keep referring to? The "stolen" elections? The Plame incident? Etc, etc....