The inevitible has happened.  The Army has formally charge LT Watada for his refusal to deply.

Army Files Three Charges Against Lt. Watada

The Army filed three charges Wednesday, including conduct unbecoming an officer, against a lieutenant who refused to deploy to Iraq last month because he believes the war there is illegal.

Military lawyers calculated that 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, 28, could face nearly eight years in prison and a dishonorable discharge if convicted, said his attorney, Eric Seitz of Honolulu. The other charges are missing movement and contempt toward officials.

I still maintain he is lucky.  He is disobeying a superior officer in a time of war, a charge that carries the death penalty.  He is fortunate that cool heads have prevailed.

By the way…I wonder which military lawyers they consulted?  I think for the 3 charges filed, they are being generous.  Let’s break them down.

The first (conduct unbecoming) is Article 133, the second (missing movement) is Article 87, and the final (comtempt towards officials) is Article 88.

Article 88 carries a max of one year imporisonment and dishonorable discharge.:

“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

I suppose by calling the president a liar, this qualifies.

Article 87 carries dishonorasble discharge and 2 years.

“Any person subject to this chapter who through neglect or design misses the movement of a ship, aircraft, or unit with which he is required in the course of duty to move shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

The law makes allowances for neglect or design, and this is clearly missing deployment by design, the higher penalty.

The final one has an unusual penalty.  It does not set one down specifically, it is based on similar acts in the UCMJ.  That is likely the uncertainty factor.

“Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

This one is really icing on the cake.

So I could be wrong, not being a lawyer, that his potential as stated by the lawyers is potentially 8 years.  It could also be enhanced byt "time of war" I suppose.

So, I dropped over to www.lewis.mil.gov, and lo and behold, the answer:

Charges

In accordance with the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 1st Lt. Watada has been charged with one specification of Article 87: Missing Movement. The maximum punishment is dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for two years.

1st Lt. Watada has been charged with two specifications of Article 88: Contempt toward officials. The maximum punishment for this offense is dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and confinement for one year for each specification. (that’s 2 more, equals 4)

1st Lt. Watada has been charged with three specifications of Article 133: Conduct unbecoming an officer. The maximum punishment for this offense includes dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for a period not in excess of that authorized for the most similar offense for which a punishment is prescribed in the UCMJ, or, if none, than for 1 year for each specification. (thats 3 more, total 7)

If convicted of all charges and specifications contained in the charge sheet, the maximum punishment is dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and seven years confinement.

So the lawyers were off, he faces 7 years.  He is still, in my mind, lucky.

It seems strange that they ignored Article 92, Failure to obey a lawful order.  In fact articles 89-92 all have some bearing.  But I am not a lawyer, nor am I his commander, so for now that is what he faces. 

The story doesn’t end there though.  His lawyer continues:

"The Army has made a very serious mistake by charging him with the content of the statements he has made, which are not only true with regard to the manner with which the war was inititiated and conducted, but are not disrespectful or contemptuous as alleged," Seitz said. "He was fully entitled to make those statements in the manner in which he did."

No offense but the presumption of truth is hardly a proven fact.  The war is in fact legal, as authorized by Congress.  That alone makes this defense seem shakey.

Watada, a member of the Army’s first Stryker Brigade Combat Team, refused to go to Iraq after researching the war and determining it to be illegal. He said he would be willing to serve in Afghanistan or elsewhere. The Army refused to allow him to resign his commission because his unit is covered by a stop-loss policy and he has not fulfilled his service obligation, which ends in December.

Watada’s stance prompted rallies of support near Fort Lewis, in Seattle and in Honolulu, his hometown, as well as some counter-demonstrations. Watada’s commanders barred him from attending a news conference by his supporters last month, but they played a video in which he said the "war in Iraq is not only morally wrong but a horrible breach of American law."

If I recall correctly, he was barred from attending during duty hours only.

"Although I have tried to resign out of protest, I will be forced to participate in a war that is manifestly illegal," Watada said. "As the order to take part in an illegal act is ultimately unlawful as well, I must as an officer of honor and integrity refuse that order."

Army officials warned then that the public announcement of his intent to disobey orders could lead to sanctions.

"Officers are held to a high moral and legal standard," the Army said in a news release announcing the charges. "Acts contrary to this standard may be tried by court-martial."

Watada did not apply for status as a conscientious objector because he isn’t opposed to war in principle, just the war in Iraq. Army regulations define conscientious objection as a "firm, fixed and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or the bearing of arms, because of religious training and belief."

Watada will face a preliminary military hearing on the charges to determine whether he will be court-martialed.

All I know is the lawyers must know there are differences in military law.  They might want to start shutting up.  This is not going to be decided by a civilian jury, but by a jury of his peers:  Military officers.

Not that they care, his supporters are just using him for tv face time.