The Army yesterday added a charge to those already faced by 1st Lt. Ehren K. Watada for refusing to deploy to Iraq on the grounds that the war is illegal and unjust.

The additional specification under the charge of conduct unbecoming an officer for comments made in an Aug. 12 speech means the Honolulu man faces another possible year in prison — now a total of eight years — if convicted, his attorney, Eric Seitz, said.

Seitz said the Army "is trying to shut up and stifle" Watada.

"It's part of a continuing process where, even before he did anything, they called him in and threatened him that he's got to be quiet," Seitz said, "and that if he says anything, he's going to get into more trouble."

The 1996 Kalani High School graduate several times tried to resign his commission, and publicly made known his intentions to refuse to deploy with his Stryker vehicle unit when it left on June 22 for northern Iraq.

But Joe Piek, a spokesman at Fort Lewis, Wash., where Watada is based, said ever since the lieutenant's first press conference, "the Army has at no time infringed upon his right to speak."

"Nobody has ever told him to be quiet," Piek said.

On Aug. 12 at a Veterans for Peace convention in Seattle, Watada advocated a strategy that he said became instrumental in ending the Vietnam War. "The idea is this: that to stop an illegal and unjust war, the soldiers can choose to stop fighting it."

Watada was accused of missing a troop movement, conduct unbecoming an officer and contempt toward officials, including using "contemptuous words" against President Bush in media interviews.

The 28-year-old has become a lightning rod for controversy over the definition of military duty as an officer and for a nation polarized over the unpopular Iraq war.

An Article 32 hearing, similar to a civilian grand jury or preliminary hearing, was held in August. An Army officer recommended that Watada face court-martial on the three charges against him, but Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the Fort Lewis commander, has the final say.

Seitz said that when Watada was summoned by officials yesterday, he expected to be told the case had been referred to court-martial. Instead, he was told the new specification had been added.

A video of the Veterans for Peace speech was shown at the Article 32 hearing, but Seitz said it's the first time the Army has said Watada would face a charge related to it, and the defense did not have a chance to litigate the charge at the hearing.

"If they go ahead and add this charge without reconvening an Article 32 and we get to trial, we're going to move to dismiss it because it wasn't presented at the Article 32, and my belief is a military judge is probably going to dismiss it," Seitz said.

Seitz said it appears more and more likely the case won't go to court-martial until 2007.

The Honolulu attorney said he hopes to convince the court that Watada was sincere and that he acted in the best of faith. Watada maintained he had a constitutional duty to oppose participation in the Iraq war.

The investigating officer agreed that every officer is duty-bound to evaluate orders for legality, but due to the complexity of U.S. and international law, it would be "very difficult" and Army officers should not try to determine the legality of combat operations ordered by the president.

Watada was assigned a desk job and has been doing administrative planning work. "He's doing fine," Seitz said. "He's very committed to what he said and what he's done."

Reach William Cole at wcole@honoluluadvertiser.com.