| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Iraq-Jordan | |
| Military Weighs Immunity in Drowning Case | |
| 2004-07-30 | |
| FORT CARSON, Colo. (AP) - A military hearing was abruptly recessed Thursday until commanders decide whether to grant immunity to three officers linked to the drowning of a 19-year-old Iraqi civilian earlier this year. Lt. Col. Nathan Sassaman, Maj. Robert Gwinner and Capt. Matthew Cunningham already have been punished for their roles in the incident under Article 15, which means there was no court proceeding or public record. Details have not been released, but the Army has said the punishment did not include jail time. The officers are refusing to testify without immunity at a hearing to determine whether three soldiers should be court-martialed on charges of shoving two Iraqis into the Tigris River north of Baghdad on Jan. 3. Officials say one of the victims drowned. Maj. Gen. James Thurman, commander of the 4th Infantry Division at Fort Hood, Texas, is deciding whether the officers will be granted immunity, spokesman Lt. Col. Jonathan Withington said. That decision was expected before the hearing resumes Friday.
| |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #2 That's one reason courts-martials have such high conviction rates (those twinkie prosecutors you see on JAG would last about three days losing that many cases) - if they can't get you on one thing, they'll do it on another. That's based on who's doing the prosecuting. In my now-admittedly ancient experience, Navy JAGs tend to be sticklers, and you didn't see "2 from Menu A, 3 from Menu B" charges. However, they got convictions because the evidence/testimony was solid enough to bring up multiple charges. A good JAGMAN investigation is thorough (also from experience). |
| Posted by: Pappy 2004-07-30 7:54:31 PM |
| #1 ...Yeah, but the Article 15 also means their careers are toast, all over, stick-a-fork-in-'em done. For officers, the US military is pretty much a one-mistake culture. Having said that, I would be inclined to agree with their insisting on immunity before testifying against the EMs. I ran across a couple of instances where someone thought they were getting away, only to find that they were about to be charged under a different article. Not knowing exactly what they were hit with in the first place, I'm guessing that they could have been - or may still be - charged under: ART. 9. IMPOSITION OF RESTRAINT ART. 10. RESTRAINT OF PERSONS CHARGED WITH OFFENSES ART. 11. REPORTS AND RECEIVING OF PRISONERS ART. 13 PUNISHMENT PROHIBITED BEFORE TRIAL ART. 80. ATTEMPTS ART. 81. CONSPIRACY ART. 82. SOLICITATION (specifically part B) ART. 92. FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER OR REGULATION ART. 93. CRUELTY AND MALTREATMENT ART. 97. UNLAWFUL DETENTION ART. 99. MISBEHAVIOR BEFORE THE ENEMY (specifically #3) ART. 191. MANSLAUGHTER ART. 124. MAIMING ART. 128. ASSAULT ART. 131. PERJURY ART. 133. CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN ...As you can see, the UCMJ pretty much covers everything. That's one reason courts-martials have such high conviction rates (those twinkie prosecutors you see on JAG would last about three days losing that many cases) - if they can't get you on one thing, they'll do it on another. And finally, when all else fails, you can be charged under Article 134, the General Article, to wit: "Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court." Hope those lads are reading the fine print VERY carefully. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2004-07-30 2:01:39 AM |