March 1, 2007 - No. 33

Slater Steel and the Failed Political
and Economic System

• Slater Steel and the Failed Political and Economic System

March 17 Day of Action Against War and Occupation
• Canada Out of Afghanistan! U.S. Out of Iraq! Not a Single Youth for Imperialist War!

Britain
• Tens of Thousands on the Move against War and Aggression

United States
• Time for an Anti-War Government - Voice of Revolution
• Ruling Circles Attempt to Divert Public and Continue Building Empire
• Hillary Clinton's Iraq Legislation
• House of Representatives' Non-Binding Resolution on Iraq
• February 17 Day of Action
• Mistrial at Watada Court Martial - Jeff Paterson, Courage to Resist

Slater Steel and the Failed Political
and Economic System

Failure and collapse are not inevitable if those in authority
do their duty and uphold their social responsibility.

The political and economic system is failing the workers of Hamilton Specialty Bar - Slater Steel, their means of production and the community. Threatening talk of imminent collapse and liquidation fill the air. The local monopoly newspaper blares the headline: City mill faces grim outlook. Not one word in the article speaks of governments taking up their social responsibility. An atmosphere of paralysis and inevitable failure of the political and economic system pervades the situation. No politician of the so-called major parties is speaking out to stop the wrecking of this valuable means of production and the attack on the livelihoods of hundreds of active and retired working people.

Failure and collapse are not inevitable if those in authority do their duty and uphold their social responsibility. The people do not accept that modern politicians can remain aloof from such manmade disasters and simply wash their hands of any social responsibility. The obsolete worldview that HSB - Slater is private property and government cannot intervene in the situation is intolerable. Such an outdated viewpoint with regard to the socialized economy as a whole and its possible collapse puts all Canadians in grave danger. It is totally irresponsible for politicians to sit on their hands and declare that the market or some buyer/saviour may happen upon the stage and rescue the situation. The destruction of Canada's manufacturing base is an accumulating huge disaster in the making. Canadian workers and people refuse to believe the fairytale that we can just consume products from abroad and make virtually nothing here and just engage in service or retail jobs and export natural resources. Eventually it will all collapse and the people will be left to scrounge like animals for a bare existence. That is what happened in Argentina when the do-nothing neo-liberals let the international financial oligarchy grind Argentina's industrial base into the ground. The people were left with nothing.

To suggest that Canadians and their political representatives are blocked from taking any public action on the economy because of private ownership is old-fashioned and wrong. A steel mill of 360 working people, on which hundreds of retirees depend and many local companies are involved, which produces industrial products that are essential to a modern economy cannot be left to wither away because of an archaic private ownership relationship. Nonsense! That mill and others like it are Canadians' means of existence. Political representatives and the ruling elite have to accept the reality that the socialized economy is not a private matter. It involves the well-being of everyone in the community and across the country. Means of production like HSB - Slater are socialized enterprises whether some neo-liberal fanatics refuse to recognize that fact or not. They are the people's common responsibility and not the private playthings of an individual or small rich elite. Socialized enterprises cannot or should not be casually discarded because some wealthy individuals or groups are losing money or think they can make more money somewhere else. Failure in the form of industrial bankruptcy and liquidation is outmoded and intolerable. Canada is not in the early stages of capitalism with small private enterprises competing on every street corner. We are in the era of monopolies and the socialized economy. Liquidation solves nothing and leads to greater social and economic problems.

Final termination notices at HSB - Slater are said to be coming Friday with complete shutdown in two weeks. It must not pass! Firm resistance to each and every case of industrial wrecking and liquidation has to begin. A starting point could be made by demanding that politicians and governments take up their social responsibilities. The very least these governments could do is put HSB - Slater under public trusteeship to save those hundreds of livelihoods and valuable means of steel production. This could indeed be an alternative to industrial wrecking and liquidation. The working people cannot be expected to sit idly by as victims or spectators watching livelihoods and the socialized economy destroyed bit by bit.

Demand that Politicians and Governments Take Up Their Social Responsibility!

March 17 Day of Action Against War and Occupation

Canada, Out of Afghanistan! U.S. Out of Iraq!
Not a Single Youth for Imperialist War!

Britain

Tens of Thousands on the Move Against
War and Aggression

Up to 100,000 marchers joined the London demonstration on February 24 marching from Hyde Park to Trafalgar Square, calling for "Troops Out of Iraq" and "No Trident Replacement." Thousands more marched in Glasgow. The march and rally were called by the Stop the War Coalition, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the British Muslim Initiative.

The demonstration was marked by the breadth of the anti-war movement across all sections of society, showing the initiative, persistence, militancy and political consciousness of the working class and people in their stand against war, aggression and state terror.

At the rally, among many speakers, John McDonnell, MP, told the rally, "We want all British occupying troops out of Iraq immediately and we don't want any threats to Iran. We want a peace Prime Minister, not a warmonger in 10 Downing Street."

The Stop the War Coalition is holding a People's Assembly in London on Tuesday, March 20.

United States

Time for an Anti-War Government

- Voice of Revolution* -

January 27, 2007, Washington, DC: More than 100,000 demonstrators demand "U.S. Out of Iraq."

The failed U.S. state is deathly afraid of the anti-imperialist stand of the peoples worldwide. They are targeting the Islamic forces, in Iraq, Iran and elsewhere, because they refuse to yield to imperialist dictate and are standing for their rights to decide their own affairs. They are also targeting the anti-war movement in the U.S. People together are standing with the Iraqis on the basis of principle -- that aggressive war is a crime, that bombing raids and massacres of civilians are crimes, that Iraq belongs to the Iraqis and the U.S. has no business being there, that to safeguard the troops and the world's peoples, all U.S. troops must come home now. All means All! Now means Now! Americans too are taking their stand against imperialism and its aggressive wars and putting on the agenda the necessity for an anti-war government.

The ruling circles are caught in the contradictions of their failed system. They face increasing conflict with rival powers, such as Russia and China. Their only solution is threats and use of more force, insisting that the world belongs to them and that everyone must submit to U.S. empire. Using military might, they claim authority to occupy and police the Middle East and do so in the name of "preventing foreign intervention and widescale ethnic cleansing," as the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), a main voice of the ruling class, puts it. The U.S. rulers also face increasing conflicts within their own ranks and the growing resistance from the people and their just demand for change.

The DLC is now proposing a "Plan B" to replace President George W. Bush's "Plan A," and to specifically block what they call "Plan Zero," which is immediate withdrawal and an end to the Iraq war. Their plan, accompanied by legislation just introduced by Senator Hillary Clinton, far from providing a "roadmap out of Iraq" as Clinton claims, shows the ruling class is doomed. They have no solutions but repeating failure, whether the failure of Iraq-style Vietnamization, of attempting to demonize resistance by branding it as terrorism or "jihadist," of claiming the U.S. is preventing genocide when their occupations are all soaked in the blood of the peoples.

It is the refusal of the ruling circles to act to resolve the contradictions of their failed system by moving forward that forces them to continuously repeat failure. And faced with their own failure to solve any problem, they are unleashing their revenge.

The ruling circles have no where to go but backward, back to the racist claims that peoples who stand for their rights, as the Native peoples did, as the Iraqis and Palestinians are doing, are "savages" who must be defeated at all costs. Back to rule by presidential kings, back to unbridled government impunity and mass concentration camps, back to war and revenge as a way of life. These are all crimes that the people have determined have no place -- never again will they dominate the world. That is the lesson of the battle against fascism, that is what imbues the determined spirit of today to go forward to the new!

It is the working class and people that provide a way out. Their plan is an anti-war plan based on principles, reflected in the demand to bring all U.S. troops home now so as to block U.S. interference and criminal wars of aggression against any nation. Their stand is to outlaw use of force in settling problems and respect the right of all peoples to determine their own affairs.

The starting point for solutions is putting the rights of the peoples, abroad and at home at the center, as that is the basis for the peace and security of all. It is empowerment of the people and their anti-war government that can move things forward. Let us organize together to make this a reality.

* Voice of Revolution is a publication of the U.S. Marxist-Leninist Organization. Originally published February 23, 2007.

Ruling Circles Attempt to Divert Public

The Democratic Leadership Council, (DLC) a main voice of the ruling circles as a class, recently put forward a "Plan B on Iraq." The plan is specifically aimed at overcoming the intense fighting within the ruling circles on how to go forward with U.S. empire building, while also blocking the demand of the people for immediate withdrawal from Iraq and an end to all U.S. aggression.

Expressing the opposition within the ruling class to President George W. Bush and their concern with their loss of credibility, the DLC opposes not the war itself, but what they term President George W. Bush's "attitude" of imposing his "my way or the highway." They refer to the broad public opposition to the war, saying, "The American people have lost confidence in President Bush's policies in Iraq." Rejecting any plan for immediate withdrawal, the DLC says their plan "strikes the right balance between the unknown but potentially enormous risks of complete failure in Iraq, and the public's strong desire to reduce the pain and losses we are already suffering there."

Making clear the ruling class has no plan to implement the anti-war stand of the people to bring all U.S. troops home now, the DLC claims "A rapid and complete withdrawal from Iraq is not really a Plan B: it is a 'Plan Zero' for liquidating the whole Iraq engagement as hopeless." Showing their fear of growing resistance in the U.S., an earlier DLC commentary said, Bush's planned escalation is "almost perfectly designed to polarize the parties, the Congress and the country. Indeed, the big 'winners' in the new Iraq debate George W. Bush has launched since Election Day are those who are calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq."

Their plan represents a "better way," to protect national security and "build a domestic bipartisan consensus among those Americans who have rejected the administration's strategy yet are still concerned about the broader struggle against Jihadist terrorism and the consequences of a complete meltdown in the Middle East."

The plan reflects the fear of the ruling class to broadening resistance and their need to crush it by branding the resistance as terrorists. It states that "Our military and diplomatic operations should acknowledge the especially barbaric Sunni insurgent-Al Quida tactics in Iraq, which if vindicated as successful, may spread; they must be repudiated by the entire international community."

In an effort then to overcome the current fight within the ruling circles and to restore public confidence in the failed U.S. state, the DLC plan serves to "place a reduced but significant U.S. military presence out of the sectarian crossfire, accelerate momentum for a national and regional political settlement, and deter all parties within and outside Iraq from creating a true humanitarian or strategic catastrophe." The U.S., of course, is permitted to impose just such a catastrophe so long as its strategic geo-political interests are preserved. The DLC also emphasizes, "all the focus on deadlines [for withdrawal] obscures discussion of the need for a smaller, redeployed force with a crucially different but still urgent mission."

The plan specifically calls for:

1) essentially a repeat of the failed "Vietnamization" policy as applied to Iraq, meaning the Iraqis have greater responsibility for internal security and any failures of it, while U.S. "conventional" forces are "slowly withdrawn," starting immediately and ending by the first quarter of 2008. The timing, as other DLC materials have brought out, is to ensure that the 2008 election does not have the Iraq war "hanging around the neck" of whoever is elected president.

2) maintaining and increasing the use of U.S. special forces (notorious for their genocidal "black ops" and assassination squads). These are the forces for training the Iraqis and "fighting terrorists and preventing genocide."

3) bring "moderate Sunnis" into the Iraqi government, with or without current U.S.-installed Prime Minister Nouri al-Malaki.

4) use diplomacy to "build regional and international support for stabilizing Iraq." This would include "creation of a contact group with such key actors as Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, as well as the Arab League and Islamic Conference." This "contact group" would "launch parallel talks with Syria and Iran."

This is a plan to maintain U.S. domination and dictate in the region and to force others to aid the U.S. in this adventure or face military force. It indicates that the U.S. will now attempt to use potential "genocide" and "intervention by neighboring countries" as the basis to justify attacks on countries like Iran and Syria.

The plan continues to focus on crushing resistance, including the anti-war movement inside the U.S. Any plan for immediate withdrawal is attacked in much the same manner that Bush does: "The 'out now' option would likely compromise U.S. security interests, trigger a full-scale civil war, invite foreign intervention, provide an unprecedented propaganda victory for Sunni Jihadists and Shi'a theocrats whose savage violence has been aimed at creating exactly this outcome." Iraq would become a "dangerous recruitment point and training base for the international Jihadists who remain the key global threat to our, and the world's security interests." Echoing the claims made against the Native peoples as "savage," the U.S. rulers seem to think this will hide their genocide and occupation as the source of the instability and chaos in Iraq.

The failed U.S. state is deathly afraid of the anti-imperialist stand of the Islamic forces and the growing resistance to imperialism worldwide, including within the U.S. Yet clearly they have no solutions but repeating failure, whether the failure of Vietnamization, of attempting to demonize resistance by branding it as terrorism or "jihadist," of claiming the U.S. is preventing genocide when their occupations are all soaked in the blood of the peoples. This is a plan for more failure and more crimes against humanity. The peoples have a clear and just solution: End the War Now! All U.S. Troops Home Now! This is the path to safeguard the world's peoples.

(Voice of Revolution, February 23, 2007)

Hillary Clinton's Iraq Legislation

Senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed legislation on the Iraq war entitled, "Iraq Troop Reduction and Protection Act of 2007." Consistent with Clinton's pro-war stand, the legislation focuses on opposing President George W. Bush's escalation while maintaining the Iraq occupation, using fewer troops. U.S. troops are not to come home. Instead they are to be redeployed in Iraq and the region for "training Iraqi security forces; protecting U.S. personnel and infrastructure [in Iraq] and participating in targeted counterterrorism activities."

Redeployment is the general military term not for bringing troops home, but for deployment to combat missions elsewhere. While the specifics for redeployment and "targeted" terrorism activities are not provided in Clinton's legislation, they likely would include more troops for the war in Afghanistan, targeting Iran and Syria and whatever is needed, as Clinton regularly emphasizes, to "stand by our friend and our ally Israel." Israel, which continues to massacre and basically imprison the Palestinians, waged war against the Lebanese and threatens nuclear war against Iran, is, according to Clinton, "a beacon of democracy in the region."

Clinton calls for capping the number of troops in Iraq at the January 1, 2007 level and for a "phased redeployment of troops out of Iraq beginning in 90 days." She also calls for the troops to have "the body armor and training they need" before being sent to Iraq. Both are clearly an effort to mollify the anti-war movement that has directly targeted Clinton, while also seeking to gain support from within Congress for this direction.

Representatives, such as John Murtha, in the House, are also attempting to use the level of troop training, equipment and rest between combat rotations to force a "slow withdrawal." Clinton needs to get Congressional forces like Murtha on board as part of her effort to prove she can be a champion for the ruling circles and thus president. This also requires that she make headway in efforts to divert the anti-war movement from its aim to end the war and all aggressive U.S. wars now. Murtha has wider support in the movement, as someone who called for an end to the war more than a year ago and continues to do so, saying there can be no military solution in Iraq. He also, however, calls for redeployment, saying "The [plan] which I advocate, is to end the occupation of Iraq, redeploy and re-strengthen our military and turn Iraq over to the Iraqis." It will be important to see how the legislative battles play out in Congress, while the movement organizes to persist in its aim of ending the war now and bringing all U.S. troops home now.

Clinton also attempts to play on the broad opposition to President Bush. Her legislation stipulates that if the "phased redeployment" does not begin in 90 days from passage of the law, the Congressional authorization for use of force in Iraq would end. It does not elaborate what would occur if, as Vice- President Dick Cheney has asserted, whatever Congress does "will not stop" Bush. What is clear is that this open "tit for tat" blackmail within the ruling circles poses dangers to the people -- at what point will blackmail go to open revenge and assassination within their own ranks?

That the ruling circles are already unleashing their revenge against the Iraqis for resisting occupation, a revenge that now also includes those they put in power, is clear. Clinton's legislation blames the Iraqis for the crimes of the occupation and sets the following conditions on the Iraqi government: to have security forces "free of sectarian and militia influences" (meaning all resistance is crushed); that the Iraqis provide the security the U.S. has failed to provide; that the Iraqi government "provide an equitable distribution of the oil revenues of Iraq;" and that "there is significant progress made in political accommodation among the ethnic and sectarian groups in Iraq." The president is to "certify" this "progress." If the Iraqis fail, or if Congress disagrees with the President's certification, again comes the blackmail, this time in the form of "cutting off funds" to the Iraqi government. In this manner revenge and blackmail are not only being codified into law, but U.S. interference and dictate in the internal affairs of foreign governments are also being codified.

The U.S. has no right to decide Iraq's affairs or anyone else's. Its responsibility is to withdraw all U.S. troops and end use of force as its policy.

Clinton's legislation also attempts to extend this interference and force others to submit to it, by requiring the convening of an international conference. The conference is to "ensure that funds pledged for Iraq are forthcoming," and that the international community and Iraq's neighbors are "more actively involved," in determining Iraq's affairs. As the legislation puts it, "promoting a durable political settlement among Iraqis," while at the same time "reducing regional interference in the internal affairs of Iraq."

The translation for this contradictory plan to "promote" and "reduce" foreign interference is made by the Democratic Leadership Council, which elaborates the specifics. A "contact group" that includes "such key actors as Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, as well as the Arab League and Islamic Conference," would be formed to "promote" U.S. dictate and continued interference. This group then would have talks with Iran and Syria. If these two countries refuse to submit, then other action would be taken to "reduce" interference.

Taken as a whole, the legislation is an effort not only to continue U.S. occupation and interference in Iraq and the region, but also to make such interference and dictate "legal." Laws that sanction crimes cannot be legal or even considered laws. They are a cover for crimes, just as Clinton's legislation is a cover for her pro-war, pro-imperialist stand and ambitions.

(Voice of Revolution, February 23, 2007)

House of Representatives' Non-Binding
Resolution on Iraq

In mid-February the U.S. House of Representatives held a four-day debate on a non-binding resolution on Iraq. The resolution is limited to opposing President George W. Bush's plan to send 21,500 more combat troops to Iraq. It also implies, without stating directly, that war funding will continue. This is done by saying Congress will continue to "support and protect" troops in Iraq.

Representative Walter Jones, Republican of North Carolina, is a co-sponsor of the resolution. Estimates of the number of Republicans expected to vote for it, ranged from 15 to 60.

The resolution did not go to committee and no alternatives from the Republicans were permitted. Instead the resolution came straight to the floor for debate. Each member of the House was given five minutes to speak.

On Friday, February 16, the resolution was passed, 246-182. Seventeen of 201 Republicans voted for the resolution along with all the Democrats.

While House leaders say the resolution is a "first step," so far none of the bills calling for withdrawal of the troops have even made it out of committee and it remains unclear if any will. According to Democratic Party officials, a "slow" approach, that does not cut war funding, does not end the war and is directed mainly at discrediting President Bush, is underway.

Below is the text of the House Iraq non-binding resolution:

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), that:

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on Jan. 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq."

February 17 Day of Action

Building on the momentum of January 27 and more than 1000 actions on January 10-11, a number of organizations participated in a day of local actions across the U.S. on February 17. Demonstrations were held in Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, Raleigh, Atlanta, Detroit and Los Angeles. The focus for the actions was the demand: No Money for War! Congress Cut the Funding Now!

People are organizing to reject the claim that cutting off funding endangers the troops. It is the war that endangers the troops and endangers the Iraqi people. The solution and just demands of the people are All U.S. Troops Home Now! No Money for War!

Congress was targeted in the expectation of a vote on war funding in February. Bush is asking for an additional $100 billion for the occupation of Iraq and planned war in the region, with war plans against Iran already in motion. Congress has the power to stop the war by cutting off war funding and by passing a law to block war against Iran and end war in Iraq.

On February 17, activists across the country organized pickets, rallies, sit-ins, and other forms of creative resistance and direct action. in cities and towns across the U.S. They made it clear to Congress that the American people reject funds for war. Activists demanded funds for reparations for U.S. crimes and destruction in Iraq and worldwide and funds for meeting human needs, abroad and at home.

Student Strike Against the War

Students on various campuses across the country planned walk outs, strikes or demonstrations on that day, which marks the 4th anniversary of when millions of people came out around the world to protest President George W. Bush's planned war on Iraq. Actions took place at Mills College, Occidental College, San Francisco State, Sonoma State, UC Berkeley and Santa Barbara, Fordham in NYC, Georgia State University, University of North Carolina, Greensboro and others.

Statement of the Columbia Coalition Against the War, NYC

We, the Columbia Coalition against the War, are staging a strike followed by a teach-in on February 15, 2007. We are inviting the entire Columbia community, including students, faculty, staff, and the administration, to join us in publicly and actively opposing the unjust War in Iraq. We call upon the people of this country -- especially our generation -- to shoulder the responsibility of bringing an immediate end to this war.

This unjust war began without provocation and continues despite the opposition of the vast majority of American and Iraqi people. This war, criminal in its violation of the Geneva Conventions, has resulted in a catastrophic loss of life -- 3,300 coalition troops and more than 655,000 of our Iraqi brothers and sisters. In the name of this war, and the "war on terror," there has been a broad assault on our civil liberties including the violation of habeas corpus, condoning of torture, and rampant racism against Arabs and Muslims. This war has made the world less safe, and less free.

We strongly encourage the students of Columbia to walk out of classes in opposition to this war. We call on the faculty and administration to set aside business as usual, join our strike, and issue statements of support. Columbia, as a global university, has a responsibility to take a proactive stance against this illegal war.

By investing in corporations crucial to the war effort, our university has aligned its financial future with America's protracted occupation of Iraq. We therefore call on the administration to divest from these corporations for the duration of the war to hasten the war's end. We will work to build support in our schools and our communities for resistance to the war. We will give voice to the majority of Americans who have expressed their strong opposition to the war. We will show the leaders in Congress that we, the people, are the true "deciders." We will continue to struggle to end the war and bring the troops home now.

Call for Strike from Columbia College, Chicago Students

In the face of massive opposition to the war and destruction of the Middle East, with global opposition to the legalization and widespread use of torture and illegal detentions, President Bush has announced that he is going forward unapologetically with his proposed troop escalation. Coupled with the 21,000 troop surge has come threats against the sovereign nation of Iran and its diplomats in Iraq. If Bush is allowed to go forward with this, the horrific implications for the people of the world will be irreversible.

The time has passed to sit on our hands and wait for politicians to step up and stop this. The Democratic Party's refusal to take a stand against this is unacceptable. The debate in this country cannot remain focused on how to fight this war more efficiently: This war is illegal, immoral, and Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive war violates international law.

In the last two years, we have seen countless atrocities carried out on Iraqi civilians, increased violence in Iraq, the annihilation of habeas corpus, and the legalization of torture. As the Bush administration is gearing up for an attack of Iran, waiting two more years for this to stop is unconscionable.

We will no longer go on with business as usual as if this is not happening. For millions of Iraqis, daily life is characterized by bloodshed and horror. For Iraqi civilians, networking, grades, and career planning are not options. In solidarity with the civilians of Iraq and in opposition to the horrific crimes of our government, we the students of Columbia College Chicago are joining University of California, Santa Barbara and Columbia University by declaring a student strike on February 15. This strike commemorates the largest anti-war protests in human history 4 years ago. We will send a message to the world that we will not be complicit in war crimes. We are no longer asking, but demanding, that the war end now, and the Bush administration be impeached and tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. [...]

(Source: Voice of Revolution, Worldcantwait.org)

Mistrial at Watada Court Martial

- Jeff Paterson, Courage to Resist, February 14, 2007 -

Last week in the Army court martial of First Lieutenant Ehren K. Watada, the first officer to publicly refuse to fight in Iraq, military judge Lieutenant Colonel John Head orchestrated a legal mulligan. The prosecution had just rested a poorly argued case before the jurors. This "do over" proclamation appeared to offer the government a chance to get their act together and try again in the spring. However, given the likelihood that the entire case against Lt. Watada will eventually be dismissed due to the constitutional protection against double jeopardy, the question is why?

Lt. Watada never had a chance to take the stand in his own defense. Yet, on the basis of prosecution's case alone, where appeared little hope for the Army that they would win a conviction on either of the two "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman" charges. These stemmed from two of Lt. Watada's numerous public statements in opposition to the "illegal Iraq War" and the conduct of the Bush administration in selling the war.

What if the most vocal active duty opponent to the Iraq War were to be acquitted of making "unbecoming" statements? This would send a clear message to all of the troops now in the middle of an unpopular occupation war that public political speech is allowable-or at least legally defendable. This alone may have given the judge pause.

The principle "crime" Lt. Watada stood trial for was "missing movement" to Iraq with the Fort Lewis-based First Stryker Brigade. Even with a number of military jurors apparently open minded towards Lt. Watada's stand, it is more than likely he would have been convicted of this charge. Although "intent" was not an element of the missing movement charge, the prosecution itself entered into evidence that Lt. Watada was intending to resist an illegal war, and refusing an illegal order to deploy in the process, by way of charging him for "unbecoming" speech. While the defense was barred from presenting this kind of evidence, the prosecution did it for them. Ironically, the prosecution did so well enough to throw the entire outcome into question.

In military court martials, following the guilt phase of the trial, a separate mini-trial of sorts immediately follows to decide on punishment. During this phase, the defense has greater latitude in types of evidence that can be admitted.

Even if convicted of missing movement, the jury as selected seemed willing to take into account Lt. Watada's clearly articulated and consistent beliefs in sentencing. A likely outcome of the trial, had the judge allowed it to continue, might have been six months or less in the stockade. The Army clearly wanted the maximum two years allowable for missing movement, given they initially charged Lt. Watada with "crimes" totaling over six years in prison.

In December 2005, Navy sailor Pablo Paredes was convicted of publicly refusing to ship out to the Persian Gulf region from San Diego. However, Petty Officer Paredes was eventually sentenced to no prison time or discharge after the judge declared Paredes' belief that the Iraq War was illegal "reasonable." As I sat in the Fort Lewis court room last week, I began to wonder if something similar was about to unfold.

Judge Lt. Col. John Head may have been thinking the same thing. While cloaking his actions in complex and bizarre rulings, Judge Head seemed to have made the following decision: It would be in the military's best interests to attempt retrial at a later date, after the prosecution got its act together. Judge Head may have anticipated the chance that higher courts would toss the case altogether based on the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. In his haste, Judge Head may have underestimated the clear nature of double jeopardy (prosecuting someone twice for the same charges) applying to future proceedings.

Double jeopardy doesn't apply to defendants who cause or request a mistrial, but it certainly does when the government requests a mistrial for their own benefit, over the objections of the defense, as in this case.

If Judge Head's judgment was clouded that day, it was certainly for good reason. His court room is not usually the focus of national and internationally media. He has probably never had a defense lawyer challenge his dubious actions and correct him on matters of court marital procedures. The defendant usually doesn't have a thousand supporters rallying at the fort gates, and tens of thousands more writing letters and holding vigils. And the prosecution's subpoenas are not usually condemned by the nation's largest journalistic freedom advocacy organizations. In fact, it was the "stipulation of facts" agreement written by the prosecution in order to side-step the controversy subpoenas of journalists that played an important role in Judge Head's mistrial.

Would Judge Head have staged the mistrial even if double jeopardy was certain? I believe, beyond a doubt, "probably." Under national and internationally attention, Lt. Watada and the GI resistance movement would have claimed a significant legal and unqualified moral victory had Lt. Watada been sentenced to a few months in jail. A few months in jail for standing up to the entire weight of the U.S. military by articulating his beliefs to millions globally and, of course, not deploying to a brutal, endless occupation war for empire. Indeed, many service persons would be tempted to make such a deal.

Now we need to compel the Army to accept Lt. Watada's resignation sooner than later (see "Tell Army to Accept Lt. Watada's resignation now!" letter writing campaign). In the end, the military will spin our victory as, "a lucky bum who beat a wrap on a technicality." They will tell any troops considering a similar course of action, "Don't count on you being so lucky." With over a thousand active duty troops having recently signed a public "appeal for redress" to congress demanding that they end the war in Iraq now, it might be too late.

Read The Marxist-Leninist Daily
Website:  www.cpcml.ca   Email:  editor@cpcml.ca