announced that it had preferred another charge against Watada of "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman". This brought the potential prison term faced by Watada to eight and a half years in prison if convicted of all charges. Six and a half of these years would have been for statements that he made concerning the war rather than his refusal to deploy to Iraq; "missing movement" is punishable by a maximum of two years. Keith justified the additional charge by asserting that "contempt for the President and the suggestion that US soldiers can stop the war simply by refusing to fight borders on mutiny and sedition. Seitz asserted that the Army added the new charge to make a public example of him: "He's not doing anything other than saying things he believes to be true, and that we believe are true. This makes it that much clearer that this is just a political prosecution, and that's really all this case has been about from the beginning." Keith recommended Watada for court-martial on all charges, even as he said that he thought that Watada was "sincere in his beliefs". Of the court-martial recommendation, Seitz accused the Army of trying Watada without looking seriously at his arguments and that of the other experts appearing at the trial about the legality of the war. On November 9, 2006, the U.S. Army announced the decision of the Fort Lewis commander, LTG James Dubik, that Watada would face a court martial. The charges of "contempt toward officials" were dismissed without comment. Without the "contempt for officials" charges, Watada could face up to four years confinement, two for missing movement and two for statements that he made, as well as a dismissal, and forfeiture of all pay and allowances, if convicted of the remaining charges. Watada's defense team had intended to demonstrate that the war was illegal by maintaining that the required congressional approval was granted only on the basis of the existence of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq and ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. They also intended to subpoena witnesses to testify and to cite the Nuremberg Principles, which require soldiers to disobey illegal orders. However, on January 16, 2007, Judge John M. Head ruled that Watada would not be allowed to present any defense based on the Nuremberg principles, stating that the legality of a war was a "nonjusticiable political