Things to watch, things to do

Things to catch this week.



RadioNation with Laura Flanders, Sunday at 1:00 pm EST, on Air America Radio, XM satellite radio, and streaming online.



What's left of our rights, our Constitution, our presidential options -- and our Left! This week on RadioNation we take on all of the above, with the Nation's PATRICIA WILLIAMS, ALEXANDER COCKBURN and ARI BERMAN. And CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH, defender of more than fifty Guantanamo detainees, on his new book about his experiences, out now from Nation Books.



Democracy Now! [on Pacifica, NPR, community, and college radio stations; on public access, PBS, satellite TV stations (DISH network: Free Speech TVch. 9415 and Link TV ch. 9410; DIRECTV: Link TV ch. 375); on the World Radio Network's European Service and on the Community Broacasting Association of Australia service; as a "podcast", automatically downloaded to your computer or portable audio player; and streams live M-F at 8am EST] has a big week planned and it includes Yoko Ono. We believe Yoko is a guest on Tuesday. Among the topics may be a discussion of the Imagine Peace Tower.



And all week long don't miss the madcap, American sitcom, Life With Nancy. This week, Nancy Pelosi's hijinks include attempting to act as if she doesn't control every piece of legislation that goes through the House as she pushes through legislation to strip Americans of their rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Listen for her laugh getting excuse that if Congress doesn't leagalize illegal wire tapping by the Bully Boy, then some legislation will be pushed on them that's even worse. Pushed on by whom, Speaker of the House Pelosi? Exactly who are you saying pulls your strings?



Cindy Sheehan gives Life With Nancy two thumbs down: "No matter how many times Ms. Pelosi and George Bush share tea and giggles and no matter how often she 'prays' for him, George is not the Decider and she is only the Leader of the House of Representatives not the people. " Catch Life With Nancy while you can. There's talk that the show will be cancelled in November 2008.



And Friday is the Iraq Moratorium. This is the third day of each month and seeks to demonstrate that US troops need to be pulled from Iraq:



The Iraq Moratorium is striking a chord with the rising generation, as shown in the report by Lancaster (PA) SDS that most of the seventy people at their Moratorium Day vigil were high school students. The mother of another high schooler, this one in Washington State, writes:
"My daughter wore her black armband to school. She took extras and they were gone by the end of her first class. Several people asked her about the armband, she answered simply that she was protesting the war in Iraq. Nobody, students or teachers, reacted negatively. She intends to do it again next month and bring even more extra armbands with her. I'm one proud Mama :)"

Why "The Third Estate"?

"The Third Estate" is a question that pops up all the time and we addressed it the first week and every now and then. The Fourth Estate you refer to is in the US. We weren't going with journalism for our title. The Third Estate refers to France. Briefly, they were the left and they were neither the nobility nor the clergy (the other two estates). The estates voted amongst themselves and each estate then had one vote. The first two usually voted together. The Third demanded a head count vote (not a body count vote -- they represented more people and had more members and would win in a head count among the three estates). They took the Oath of the Tennis Court and started the French Revolution. That's the briefiest explanation.

Sometimes the issue pops up not as a question but as a 'correction' -- usely in an angry e-mail -- explaining that, "The press is the Fourth Estate, you idiots!" The ones making that claim are the idiots. We went historical with our title. Jess proposed it and Dona had a vague idea about The Third Estate. Ava and C.I. knew what it was. Jim and Ty were in the dark and asking, "Why that?" They liked the sound of it but didn't know the background. After it was explained, we all signed off on it. We think it's actually described this site in ways we weren't prepared for -- in ways we didn't expect. But that is what we've come to represent.

Those honestly wondering, we usually note the background twice a year.

Blackwater & Washington Week

Jim: Mike just informed me that in "Highlights," they mention my request last week of Ava and C.I. which was that they do a "quick write up" of PBS' Washington Week. As readers last week know, our opinion was the edition cratered when we made the decision not to include a book discussion we'd worked three hours doing (plus two hours of editing and discussion). It was at noon (here) when I made the request but I did and do believe they could have pulled it off. As it was, C.I. addressed it on Monday in an "Iraq snapshot." I think it's worth reposting here and still think they could have dashed off something together in a matter of minutes.





Turning to the subject of the mercenaries at Blackwater USA. Jeremy Scahill (Guardian of London via Common Dreams) observes, "A pattern is emerging from the Congressional investigation into Blackwater: the state department urging the company to pay what amounts to hush money to victims' families while facilitating the return of contractors involved in deadly incidents for which not a single one has faced prosecution." The relationship between the US State Department and Blackwater is one of repeated cover ups. On Saturday, John M. Broder (New York Times) got all excited on a new 'answer' -- the State Department would by utilizing "its own personnel as monitors on all Blackwater security convoys in and around Baghdad" and by placing "video cameras in Blackwater armored vehicles to produce a record of all operations". Friday NPR's Jackie Northam (All Things Considered) discussed the so-called measures with -- after noting that Rice's recordings "apply only to Blackwater and only in Baghdad" -- Peter W. Singer (Brookings boy) who said that most already had recording devices, questioned "embedding' a State Department monitor with a private contractor doing government work" (a monitor who will "be making somewhere between 3 to 500 dollars less a day than the people that he or she is supposed to be chaperoning") and sees the measures as "very small, and they don't deal with the fundamental issue". CNN reported over the weekend that the chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Henry Waxman, sent another letter to US Secretary of State Condi Rice regarding the State Dept's refusal to stop stonewalling Congress over the issue of Blackwater and CNN noted that Andrew Moonen (Blackwater gun for hire who shot the bodyguard of Iraq's vice-president -- allegedly while Moonen was drunk -- in December 2006) was working, in Kuwait, for a US Defense Dept contractor weeks later. For those who have forgotten, last week -- in Tuesday's hearing -- Blackwater CEO, Erik Prince, told Congress that Moonen (unnamed in the hearing) was stripped of his security clearance before being hustled out of Iraq. If Moonen was stripped of his security clearance, how is it that the DoD and their contractor didn't know that? If he was stripped of his security clearance and still made it back over to the region without it, how many other contractor employees are not in compliance with the basic guidelines?

Paul von Zielbauer (New York Times) reports that the Iraqi government has finalized their investigation and "found that employees of the American security company Blackwater USA shot unprovoked at Iraqi civilians at a downtown traffic circle three weeks ago, an episode that killed 17 people and wounded more than 20 others, a government spokesman said Sunday" quoting Ali al-Dabbagh who also declares that Blackwater's vehicles were not "even hit by a stone" before Blackwater initiated the slaughter of Iraqi civilians. James Glanz and Alissa J. Rubin (New York Times) add, "Those conclusions contradict Blackwater's original statement on the shooting, which said that a convoy operated by the company's guards 'acted lawfully and appropriately in response to a hostile attack.' The Iraqi findings are also at odds with initial assertions by the State Department that the convoy had received small-arms fire." Which again goes the issue that the US State Dept has repeatedly provided cover and falsehoods in order to protect Blackwater. AP reports, "Iraqi authorities want the U.S. government to sever all contracts in Iraq with Blackwater USA within six months and pay $8 million in compensation to each of the families of 17 people killed when the firm's guards sprayed a traffic circle with heavy maching gun fire last month."


Naomi Klein's new book [is] The Shock Doctrine: The Rise Of Disaster Capitalism and she uses the book and the research for her article "Disaster Capitalism: The new economy of catastrophe" (October's Harper's magazine, pp. 47 -- 58). this is from the article (page 48):

Everywhere in Iraq, the wildly divergent values assigned to different categories of people are on crude display. Westerners and their Iraqi colleagues have checkpoints at the entrances to their streets, blast walls in front of their houses, body armor, and private security guards on call at all hours. They travel the country in menacing armored convoys, with mercenaries pointing guns out the windows as they follow their prime directive to "protect the principal." With every move they broadcast the same unapologetic message: We are the chosen, our lives are infinitely more precious than yours. Middle-class Iraqis, meanwhile, cling to the next rung down the ladder: they can afford to buy protection from local militias, they are able to ransom a family member held by kidnappers, they may ultimately escape to a life of poverty in Jordan. But the vast majority of Iraqis have no protection at all. They walk the streets exposed to any possible ravaging, with nothing between them and the next car bomb but a thin layer of fabric. In Iraq, the lucky get Kevlar; the rest get prayer beads.

That's pretty clear. Except to the mainstream. Over the weekend on PBS' Washington Week (or Washington Weak) Linda Robinson of US News and World Reports decided to chat and chew the topic with star Gwen:

Linda Robinson: Well Blackwater has about 800 people who are primarily providing bodyguard service to the embassy personnel. And there are about, well there are some thousands of other contractors doing this exact kind of job. So they're moving around the city in convoys and they apply very aggressive tactics in general. There are some who are alleging that Blackwater in particular uses much more aggressive tactics. But let's just set the stage a little bit. Very, very violent city. You're driving around, bombs are going off, at any unpredicted time. So what happens is these convoy drivers uses a tactic: they throw things at people, they sound their horns their sirens if you don't get out of the way they will shoot. So Iraqi drivers generally pull over as soon as they see a convoy. The problem is SUVs cannot readily be identified often from a distance --

Gwen Ifill: Yeah, how do you know it's a convoy? How do you know it's not the military? How do you know -- tell the difference?

That's the problem. Washington Weak tells you that's the problem. For the record, Robinson informs Gwen that it's very obvious when it's the military and it's only confusing when it comes to civilian contractors. So the question is, were Linda Robinson or Gwen to be walking to their cars at the start of the day and a car came zooming through with those in it throwing things at them, would they see that as a problem? Should Jon Stewart attempt to find out for The Daily Show? In fact, it shouldn't even be a surprise. Gwen and Robinson should volunteer for it to prove what good sports they are. After ten to fifteen minutes of drive-bys where water bottles are hurled at them (the mildest object usually cited in press reports) from speeding cars, let's see their smiling, bruised (possibly bloodied?) faces and find out whether they now think that "the problem" includes a great deal more than being able to tell if a convoy is approaching? What's really appalling is Robinson admits to being selective in her report explaining that's why she "set up" because, apparently, reporters are not supposed to show any sympathy for the civilian populations they are allegedly covering but instead are supposed to be act as a p.r. hack for multi-billion dollar corporations. And the chat and chew only got worse as it was wondered if this was all just sour grapes due to Blackwater's "success"?

Last week, the Financial Times of London editorialized: "But privatising war is, in reality, financially, politically and militarily very expensive. The lawlessness of some of these outfits has stained America's reputation and stirred up rage against its troops. Blackwater, which has earned nearly $1bn from the Department of State for protecting its officials, is notoriously trigger-happy: opening fire first in 163 out of 195 shooting incidents since 2005, according to a report by Congress. A Blackwater employee killed a bodyguard of Adel Abdel Mahdi, an Iraqi vice-president Washington favours as a possible prime minister, in an argument last Christmas." Yet our Weak Washington gas bags couldn't explore the topic and, besides, Robinson vouched that the illegal war couldn't continue without mercenaries so they are needed. (Naturally, whether the illegal war 'needed' also went unaddressed on programming 'brought to you by viewers like you'.)

Highlights

This piece is written by Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Kat of Kat's Korner, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz and Wally of The Daily Jot. Unless otherwise noted, we picked all highlights.



Ruth's Report -- Ruth's latest addresses the issue of why, after you've informed online listeners of how important to you they are, you then attempt to 'beef up' your online presence.



"Disasters in the Kitchen" -- Trina didn't offer a recipe this week. Mainly because she was having difficulty posting C.I.'s Saturday morning entry (C.I., Ava and Kat were already on a plane headed home -- and the problem was with Blogger/Blogspot, Rebecca, Mike and Elaine all tried to post it as well with no success.). But also because she really wanted to emphasize that when something tastes bad, adding other ingredients to it will not strip away the bad taste.



"Friend or foe?" -- Betty's latest chapter finds Cathy Pollitt assuming the high profile position she will in Betinna's story over the next few months. This results from Betty plugging her into the storyline that was planned for Gail Collins back in 2005 when Betty wrote her outline for the site. Back then, Collins was an editor at The New York Times and it made sense for her to play the role she would. With Collins no longer an editorial, the role she was to play in the drama is being split between Pollitt and another (who Betty won't tell us!). She says Pollitt is the gateway to further "darkness."



"THIS JUST IN! BAMBI HAS TRUST ISSUES!" & "Can you trust Obama?" -- Wally and Cedric tackle Obama's latest nonsense.



Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Bully Mama Interrupts Playtime" -- You had to know it was coming. Since Jenna announced her engagement, Bully Boy's been playing dress up by wearing wedding dresses. Condi and Dick have noticed but ignored it. It was only a matter of time before Big Babs Bush found out and hit the roof.



"the horse race coverage" -- Rebecca on how uninformed the media keeps us despite the fact that they waste ink and hours providing alleged coverage of the 2008 presidential candidates.



"Robert Parry, Carl Bernstein" -- Elaine shares some thoughts on journalism then and now. (And asks some questions.)



"Iraq snapshot" -- Last weekend's edition was a nightmare. It could have been a free for all. Kat reports (and Jim confirms) that he asked Ava and C.I. (who had already written their TV commentary) at noon (on Sunday! when everyone was trying to get the damn edition done) if they could tackle Washington Week? No, they could not. There was no time to start a new feature, the point was to post what was ready and for everyone to get some sleep. C.I. addressed Washington Week on Monday. Jim asked that we note this snapshot and also says that C.I. and Ava could have done that here together on Sunday. (Ava and C.I. replied, "No comment.")



"Center for Constitutional Rights, Marjorie Cohn" -- This is a talking entry by Mike. Jim asked that it be noted and asked that it be noted it was "a talking entry." Mike was blogging at Elaine's office Thursday night while she was doing her group session. He was in a talkative mood and not watching the clock. He says when the session was over, he rushed to include the highlighted things in the title and get the post up at his site.



"the cowardly pelosi & the strong marjorie cohn" -- Rebecca says it all and then some in this post about Nancy Pelosi.



"Najad Abdullahi, Danny Schechter" -- Mike reports on the groups he, Kat, Elaine, Ruth, Rebecca, Ava and C.I. spoke with about Iraq on Friday.



"Thoughts" -- Kat explaining a piece and why she disagrees with the points of it (which, we agree, undercut the entire point of the piece being written and posted at Common Dreams).



"Some names can wait and wait and wait" -- Community member Lynda picked this as "the one to note from C.I. this week." It's addressing the issue of rendering the victim invisible, something we've seen happen repeatedly in this illegal war.

"Child Brides: Stolen Lives" NOW with David Brancaccio

On PBS this weekend, Friday October 12th in most markets, NOW with David Brancaccio will air a one hour program, "Child Brides: Stolen Lives" documenting "the heartbreaking global phenomenon of forced child marriage, and the hope behind breaking the cycle of poverty and despair it causes." They've created an e-Card you can send to friends and family or to yourself to provide a heads up to the broadcast (and there is no cost to send the e-Card). Maria Hinojosa will report from Niger, Guatemala, India, etc.:

On Friday, October 12 at 8:30 pm (check local listings), NOW's Senior Correspondent Maria Hinojosa travels around the world for a revealing exploration of early child marriage in developing countries, and how people can act locally and globally to solve the problem. The hour-long special, "Child Brides: Stolen Lives," marks the first time the subject has been documented in a primetime television newsmagazine. Countries visited include Niger, India and Guatemala.The stakes are high: child brides typically experience high rates of childbirth complications, HIV infection, partner violence, and a cycle of poverty. An estimated 100 million girls will be married over the next 10 years.In her report, Hinojosa takes viewers on a journey of sorrow, healing and hope, including scenes of an illegal midnight wedding in India where children as young as three are married. In each country, Hinojosa shares the work of brave community members who are campaigning to end the centuries-old practice of child marriage - sometimes putting their own lives at risk.

And Thursday, October 11th on Democracy Now! (NPR, Pacifica, and countless other radio and TV outlets including DishTV):

Clive Stafford Smith, an attorney for more than 50 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, joins us to talk about his new book, "Eight O'Clock Ferry to the Windward Side: Seeking Justice in Guantanamo Bay."

Charlie Savage, a Pultizer Prize-winning journalist for the Boston Globe for his reporting on presidential signing statements, joins us to talk about his new book, "Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy."

If you miss either program, you can visit the websites -- and you can visit the websites period.

Truest statement of the week

"In the meantime, it just makes it harder to smile but so does the world."

-- Amy Goodman, Tuesday, October 2, 2007, Democracy Now!

A Note to Our Readers

Hey --

What did Elvis say? It's a kinder murder? (Costello, not Presley.) It may not have been kinder, but this week felt like murder. And we thought it would be an easy breezy beautiful Covergril la la la edition.

Here's who worked on this edition:


The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
and Wally of The Daily Jot

And of course Dallas. We thank all of them for their hard work -- and this week was a killer.

Here's what we have:

Truest statement of the week -- Amy Goodman won hands down. After Tuesday, no one else was in the running -- not Michael Ratner or Susan Faludi who would have been a contender for their strong remarks any other week.

Editorial: No Court-Martial of Watada -- How will the judge rule? Who knows? But if the military had any idea what they were doing by continuing to persecute Watada, they would have dropped the court-martial long ago. If for no other reason that their own self-interests, we hope they soon make that move.

TV: Diveristy Network Style -- We took an extended break. Before we did, Jess suggested posting Ava and C.I.'s TV commentary because it was the only thing completed (that we were comfortable with). Ty pointed out that if it goes up, some won't bother coming back later. It's a hard hitting look at the network. And the sort of thing that you can only get from Ava and C.I. A note to Sherry, we read your e-mail and planned to work something up on it but ran out of time due to the BIG PROBLEM with the edition. We hope to pick it up at next week. You made wonderful points and pull quoted things that we had forgotten. ("We" does not refer to Ava and C.I. who didn't read the e-mail yet. They weren't avoiding it since Sherry's a community members -- they do, however, avoid fan mail -- but they had thought there would be plenty of leisurely hours in what was planned as an easy edition.)

Another war resister arrested in Canada -- Robin Long. Had we the time in this or in highlight, we would have noted every community member with a site posted on Tuesday to get the word out on Robin Long (except this site, Ty points out!).

Question for the week -- Credit Dona for rescuing this from the heap. It was supposed to be an extended piece. There was no time. In search of short features, she went through our kill pile and came up with this.

Faux or real? -- Much longer was the plan. We started this when Dona suggested everyone take a nap. Which we did for several hours.


Goodman's announcement -- Credit to Goodman.

Susan Blake -- Kimberly Wilder is working her butt off to get the word out on Susan Blake's passing. That's wonderful of Wilder but it's a sign of the times and the society how hard she's having to work to do this.

Highlights -- Mike, Rebecca, Cedric, Wally, Elaine, Betty and Kat wrote this and chose highlights except where noted. We thank them.

No book discussion this week -- Dona told me (Jim), "I have a bad feeling about this" as she was reading the book in bed Tuesday night. Knowing that some were supportive of Monica Benderman, I focused solely on Kevin Benderman (I can do that, I just ask questions in the book discussion for the most part). From that standpoint, the book wasn't a problem. If I had listened to Dona Tuesday or if C.I. had read the book before the plane trip on Saturday (C.I. read the intro and preface on Friday), we would have known this was a problem. Due to delays and daily life, we didn't all get together (all: Ty, Dona, Jess, Ava, C.I. and myself) on Saturday until we had everyone on the phone (Mike, Elaine, Wally, Betty, Cedric and Rebecca; Kat was physically present). If we had, we would have discussed Susan Faludi or Norman Solomon's book instead. Going in, there was a brief pre-discussion and I assigned C.I. the "pep talk" ending. Again, I didn't read the entire book. I assumed there was gold to be panned. It started off simple enough, if not enthusiastic. Then Rebecca reads an excerpt and Kat's words and tone made it clear to me that it wasn't going to go as planned. It didn't. Even C.I. couldn't pull together a pep talk. C.I. also weighed in the importance of knowing Constitutional Law before you start gas bagging on it. C.I. did this before knowing -- this came out as well -- that the female author had 'weighed in' on another war resister and her belief that the war resister, the war resister's attorneys and C.I. were all wrong (but of course she was right! always!). As bits and pieces like this came out, the gloves didn't come off. They were already off. Ava quotes an e-mail that came into C.I. (the only one that C.I. received from one of the two authors) last week and notes it's insulting. That wasn't known before the free for all started either. We are very serious that we never want to hear Monica Benderman -- community wide. No site, not Elaine, not C.I., wants to hear from you. If we do, we'll post the discussion. With Ava tearing into the Whiteness of the book, Kat noting the glorification of the military and C.I. pointing out both the guru nonsense and the lack of comprehension about the Constitution, it won't be pretty. Ty notes that e-mails have assumed -- since Elaine's covered the Bendermans repeatedly for two years now -- that Elaine was the reason we postponed. Not so. It was fear of Elaine's feelings and fear of Elaine being put into a difficult situation that factored in. However, Elaine said, "I'm only responsible for what I said and there's no need to fact check the rest of you because the points you're making are in the book." Dona says Elaine's only comments revolve around UPS.
Dona also notes Rebecca and C.I.'s talk about children and how that, more than anything else, pisses her off -- the fact that their exchange on that is not published pisses her off. When we had entered the third hour of the book discussion, she passed me a note saying we needed to wind down and also saying Rebecca and C.I.'s talk on children stayed in. Dona: "It's exactly the sort of thing that longterm readers would enjoy and it was a nice relief in the book discussion. It was also on topic." We can't believe we wasted so much time. We should also note that we floated the idea of ten minute (serious limit on ten minutes) second attempt. But as Mike pointed out, "We didn't like the book. I'm not honor bound to say I liked something when I didn't. He's a war resister, oh well. He's not facing any consequences so I have no reason to bite my tongue. The book does nothing to help war resisters although it offers plenty of slams at them." We agreed and washed our hands of it instead focusing on things that do matter. Dona says that one person e-mailing (any site) will cause it to be posted but also notes if community members really want to read it, we'll offer it up in a community newsletter. Our problem is not our opinions. We stand by them. Our problems are (a) people may need money and the discussion would kill chances of it (trust us, most people against the war would not want to read the book after reading the discussion) and (b) as Ava pointed out, you can't write a word about the Bendermans without Monica 'correcting' you. That was explained long ago by mainstream press who had covered the case and why C.I. avoided commentary on Kevin Benderman. Since Monica Benderman has now decided that not only can she weigh in on reports about her husband but she can also weigh in on how a war resister, his attorneys, C.I. and others are "wrong" we really didn't want to hear about it. And, we'd add, that attitude of it's just not worth it goes a long way towards explaining the lack of support Monica Benderman identifies in the book.

Editorial: No Court-Martial of Watada

You don't get made president of the National Lawyers Guild because you have a nice smile. That's not to imply that there's anything wrong with Marjorie Cohn's smile, that is to note she's a legal expert. The week of Ehren Watada's February court-martial, when Judge Toilet (aka John Head) gave the prosecution a do-over by calling a mistrial over the objection of the defense, Cohn was noting that double-jeopardy had long ago attached. The mainstream media appeared to have never heard of the Guild and didn't seem to have Cohn on their speed dial.

They did have Eugene Fidel on speed dial and never tired of utilizing him -- whether he possessed knowledge or not. Terry Gross' Not So Fresh Air felt the way to balance out an interview with Watada was to offer up Fidel which seems to suggest that she saw Fidel as the opposition to war resisters. His remarks only served to underscore that if the media needs a go-to on the UCMJ, Ann Wright (who taught it -- the Law of Land Warfare, at the JFK Special Warfare Center at Fort Bragg) is the resource to utilize. From her testimony at Watada's Article 32 hearing:

During my military service I have instructed military personnel in connection with their duties under FM 27-10. I did this as an instructor at the JFK Special Warfare Center at Fort Bragg. I taught about the Law of Land Warfare for approximately one year. During that time period I was able to explain to soldiers what the obligations and responsibilities of soldiers in an occupation scenario are.
As a part of our overall military training there is a history of service personnel being told that you do not have to follow an illegal order. It comes from the commissions that we take that we are to uphold the lawful orders of our superiors. Implicit in that is that if there is an illegal order you are under no obligation to follow it.
It is not to[o] often that a soldier will say; "I won't follow out that order, it was illegal." But it is part of our tradition that we call upon people in the military to use their brains to distinguish situations.
You don't want personnel who will carry out illegal orders and say that they were told to do it. You want military personnel who will think about what they are doing.
Yes, active duty personnel can be prosecuted for war crimes that they either commit or direct. There are two levels for that prosecution. The first are based on international laws against war crimes and the second is that the United States has codified the international laws on war crimes. This was done in 1996. This law says that you can be prosecuted for committing war crimes.
Right now there is a discussion going on within the Bush administration asking for modification to the domestic law. Because it appears that based on some of the actions in the administration may now fall under violations of that domestic law.
The obligation of someone such as the accused [Lieutenant Watada] who by participating in the current conflict in Iraq would be participating in war crimes would be to stand up and say that he cannot participate in it and that it would be an illegal order.
Under the Nuremberg Principles, both Germans and Japanese were executed for committing war crimes. The initiation of wars of aggression is the supreme crime under the Nuremberg Principles. They are codified in other international bodies of law such as the Geneva Convention.

Watada is not a CO. Watada went public in June of 2006, becoming the first officer to do so, in his opposition to the Iraq War. He had worked for months with the military prior to that in an attempt to devise an alternative route. Though all his suggestions were shot down (including serving in Afghanistan), he continued to act on good faith and only went public after it became clear that what the military was attempting to do was keep him quiet and get him to Iraq -- despite all their talk of working through this 'together,' there were never any intentions of working anything through.

Watada refuses to participate in an illegal war. That's not just his right and duty (and the right and duty of all who serve in the US military), it's also what his training taught him and before Fidel again offers his off-the-cuff 'analysis,' he might need to bone up on what officers are taught. The right-wing went into overdrive providing an echo chamber of what "soldiers" do and do not do. Some of them may have had the military experience they boasted of, none were officers, and none apparent were taught or retained some of the basics. As Ruth noted in August of last year, "The fact of the matter is that the military trains recruits to only follow lawful orders."



The US military attempts to say that, despite the teaching, those serving in the military can't "pick and choose" their wars -- as if Watada wasn't sure whether he was in the mood for lobster or burgers that day. This isn't "picking and choosing," this is Watada using the training and education the military provided him with to make the decisions the military told him were his duty to make.



Despite the training, the military argues that it's not the right of those serving in the military to make the determination. When the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, the talk was of a "few bad apples" and the punishment focused on those in the lowest rank. Those sentenced to prison time may have wished they questioned illegal orders. The military court system failed and provided cover to those higher up. Civilian courts largely take a pass and claim that they can't rule while a war is going on. So exactly who does get to stand up?



Watada's standing. Even though his faced personal attacks and punishments, he's still standing. His service contract expired long ago but the US military extended it because they want to punish him. It's not really about "justice," not even in the screwed up notion that the military courts have of justice.



When Judge Head wrongly ruled a mistrial, not only was Watada's defense ahead, he also provided everyone with the perfect cover to continue avoiding the issues at stake. The mistrial took the case away from war resistance (which the military doesn't want a ruling on) and took it into Constitutional areas. The smartest thing the military could have done to ensure their own stance was to drop the case and say, "Well he got off because of double-jeopardy. Our mistake." Like the press interest in other war resisters, attention on Watada would have faded and the military could tell itself that larger issues came into play and they had to learn how to ensure that didn't happen again. Instead they continued to pursue Watada, keeping the issue and the attention alive.



On Friday, an out presented itself in the civilian court of Judge Benjamin Settle. He issued a stay through October 26th (minimum) and ruled that "the record indicates that petitioner's double-jeopardy claim is meritorious." Had the stay not been issued, Watada's second court-martial would commence this Tuesday.



Prior to the Friday verdict, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer's edition had already been published. In it, they offered the editorial "Watada Court-Martial: Let him go:"



However the defense appeals turn out, we think there is a case for letting Watada leave the Army without further ado. That could be taken as a statement of higher-level confidence, a choice to focus on the larger military mission that President Bush and Gen. David Petraeus insist is making new progress. At a minimum, many of those who oppose the Iraq war would welcome the leniency for someone they view as a person of conscience.



We support Watada's stand. The military brass does not. They should consider dropping the attempts at court-martialing Watada and doing so quickly if only for their own selfish reasons. First, they really don't want to lose in a civilian court and though they may think they'll win, the reality is that they also thought Judge Toilet knew how to preside over a court-martial. Second, as we noted last week, Kat, Ava and C.I. regularly speak to groups of active duty service members. The war resister most widely known and known by name is Ehren Watada and continued attempts to prosecute him will only make him better known. The military cannot clamp down on war resistance within the military (it's spreading like wildfire) but continuing down the path they are on will only fuel the resistance.


As for the mainstream press that largely scoffed at the double-jeopardy issues raised by Cohn and other legal experts, they'd do well to expand their rolodexes.