Friday, May 08, 2009

Is 1st Lt Watada Free and Clear?

As we noted on Tuesday, here, the US Government has decided not to proceed with further appellate proceedings challenging the double jeopardy ruling of US District Judge Benjamin Settles in Watada v. Head, No. C07-5549BHS (W.D. Wash. Oct. 21, 2008). Some reports have said that Watada will not be retried, but without citing any evidence other than the withdraw of the appeal.

If you will recall, the trial judge ruled that the military could proceed to retry Lieutenant Watada on two conduct unbecoming charges, see order here. The court wrote that the government could re-try Watada on two conduct unbecoming charges that were dismissed "without prejudice to ripen into prejudice upon completion of trial proceedings." Since the plea proceedings were never completed, the Court reasoned, there is no double jeopardy issue. See our prior report here.

Yesterday, according to the Honolulu Advertiser, here, a Fort Lewis spokesman said that leadership at Fort Lewis "is considering a full range of judicial and administrative options that are available, and those range from court-martial on those two remaining specifications, to nonjudicial punishment, to administrative separation from the Army."

If anyone has any information indicating that the government won't or will proceed on those charges, please drop us a note at

[UPDATE: Just after posting I received an alert that quotes 1st Lt Watada's lawyers as saying the Army won't pursue additional charges, story here. If anyone can confirm that please let us know.]


John O'Connor said...

I assume that Watada will soon become a regular commentator on the blog.

Mike "No Man" Navarre said...

JOC: Now that he is going to law school I don't see why we he could not comment on this blog. I mean we let former Wossamotta U. students comment on this blog.

Christopher Mathews said...

A prior court-martial conviction is a handy thing to have, but it is not a prerequisite.

John O'Connor said...

I guess law schools no longer ask whether you are a skulker on the application.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately, many schools would probably view desertion as a positive trait.

Anonymous said...

Concur, it's his ticket to the Ivies (although without a big trial he'll probably lose his movie deal).

COSSIO said...

"Unfortunately, many schools would probably view desertion as a positive trait."

Yes they would. Also it helps to be a cross dressing freakshow. When I went to register for the LSAT online I saw LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bi Trans Sexual) propaganda:, they ask such questions as:

How do you determine if a law school is LGBT-friendly? [Follow the rainbows] Do the research. LSAC conducted a survey of our member law schools to help get you started.

Should you be open about your sexual orientation in your application? [NO]Even if you have already “come out” as a member of the LGBT community, will you be accepted, valued, and supported by the institution at which you enroll? If you have a partner, spouse, or significant other, will the law school you choose be welcoming of your relationship?

As you plan your professional career after law school, will you find supportive and understanding career services professionals with whom you can be open about your sexual orientation? [ Join the ACLU or NAMBLA ] How might your LGBT identity be perceived by future employers? [Great for Diversity] ---------------------


Anonymous said...

TC I had no respect for you in prior posts and now it has moved beyond that to pure distain. You have gone above and beyond! Equating gays with membership in NAMBLA is beyond any rant you have posted in the past. Congrats!

Anonymous said...

I think he was equating the ACLU with NAMBLA, which is only fair if the ACLU's amicus in Free Speech Coalition is to be taken seriously.

COSSIO said...

Anon 1134, you missed the point which anon 1716 apparently got.

Having said that I do not have a problem with ACLU lawyers in general, I am sure not ever ACLU lawyer agrees with everything the ACLU advocates. Just as not every Thomas Moore, or any firm's lawyer would agree with every position that they take.

It is useless to point out that I was not equating gays with membership in NAMBLA.

But, since you stumbled on the subject let me take you down the yellow-brick road of logic:

"All gays are not NAMBLA members, but all NAMBLA members are gay"

There, that should confound you for a while.