The Ehren Watada case is not a good precedent on which to base general conclusions. Besides being a high-profile case, it is a complex case from the standpoint of military, constitutional and international law. Besides all those issues (in the original court martial), the case involves some complex habeas corpus issues (in the Federal District Court case following the original court martial).

This is an interesting case (to me; since similar cases came up during the Vietnam War), but I will spare you a blow by blow analysis. For those who might be interested in more, here are some links.

A long Wiki discussion, which seems well sourced (60+ links), is here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehren_Watada

You will find the webpage in support of the 1/LT (started by his mother according to the Wiki, sourced to a Seattle Intelligencer article) here.

http://www.thankyoult.org/

Ken and others here will love the list of the 1/LT's supporters - it will increase your blood circulation and lung capacity, thereby prolonging life.

The filings in the habeas proceeding before Judge Benjamin Settle are here (links to .pdf files).

http://www.thankyoult.org/content/view/2/77/

The Seattle Times article on Judge Settle's 21 Oct 2008 ruling that double jeopardy barred 3 of 5 counts - because of the military judge's improper handling of the stipulation between the government and Watada - is here.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...ruling22m.html

You will have to take this on faith in my opinion - which is, that perhaps 1 in 100 (more likely 1 in 1000) lawyers would be competent to handle this case on either side of the brief.

That brings me to a point that fits (IMO) very generally into the theme of this thread.

---------------------------------------
from Ken
... civilian lawyers. Some are better than others; a few are great, a few are pathetic and most are average.
My first impression was "that's logically correct" - "right on Ken !" But, then I got to thinking a bit deeper. Now, the "most are average" statement is logically and statistically correct, if the population follows a standard bell curve. In the case of civilian lawyers, I don't believe that is the type of curve (based on experience and a lot of MSBA statistics, which would make boring reading here).

What I come up with (even looking at all lawyers generally) is a double-humped curve - a smaller group of above-average lawyers and a larger group of below-average lawyers. The "average lawyer" lies between the two humps. That becomes more apparent when we realize that not all lawyers are fungible.

There are many areas of the law in which I am totally incompetent - the last time I saw them (if at all) was in cramming for the NY and MI bar exams nearly 40 years ago. The lack of competence shows up even in areas that are related to areas one knows well.

Recently, I had a matter where I completed about 95% of the work for a "nice guy" client. We hit a couple of remaining areas (related) where I simply didn't know the law; but more importantly, I did not know what the operational realities were - how the law is actually applied.

Could have faked it (and collected some ill-gotten $) - or spent many non-billable hours learning a skill set I would never use again. The correct choice was to refer to a lawyer, who happened to be a specialist in the areas making up the remaining 5% of the matter.

So, when one looks to specific legal skill sets, the curve would be very double-humped - a small group of real pros and a much larger group of rank amateurs as to that particular skill set. That should be no surprise to folks here, where the military obviously has its own specific skill sets.

Now, tis true that some specialities are quite generalized. For example, a good trial lawyer, with both civil and criminal trial experience, should be able to handle most litigation.

But, even there, there are areas where one shouldn't go. I would not try a divorce case because I have never been counsel of record in one (have advised divorce lawyers on non-divorce areas relevant to the cases). The military seems similar (based on what I have gleaned from reading the military posts here).

-----------------------------------
I have stated elsewhere that the military has to deal with more difficult problems than do lawyers (who primarily deal with micro, as opposed to macro, situuations - the micros are usually less "messy"). Thus, this civilian concludes that civilians should tread carefully in attempting to "rebuild the Army, Marines, etc."

And, just in this civilian's opinion, I don't think the "Army needs rebuilding". I do think that the Army needs some serious decompression time for personnel - and some serious refitting efforts for equipment.

I also agree with many of the other comments above that point to the need to "rebuild" our society as a greater need.

We shall see what President Obama will do about that, with solid Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. The voters will have a chance to review that in 2 years and 4 years.