Soldier Sentenced to 1 Year in Iraq Prisoner Abuse

[cumhail]

Soldier Sentenced to 1 Year in Iraq Prisoner Abuse

Three soldiers defer pleas at arraignment

Wednesday, May 19, 2004 Posted: 8:49 AM EDT (1249 GMT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Spc. Jeremy Sivits on Wednesday pleaded guilty to criminal charges in the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal and was sentenced to one year of confinement.

His sentence by a special court-martial judge includes discharge for bad conduct and demotion.

Sivits pleaded guilty to conspiracy to maltreat subordinates, or detainees; dereliction of duty for willfully failing to protect detainees from abuse, cruelty and maltreatment; and maltreatment of detainees.

Sivits, 24, of Hyndman, Pennsylvania, had to present evidence to the judge of his guilty plea.

After entering his plea, Sivits gave explicit details of abuses he said took place November 8 involving six or seven other soldiers, including beatings and positioning the prisoners in sexual positions.

He identified Pfc. Lynndie England -- seen in many of the photographs released to the media -- as pointing to the genitals of one detainee and laughing. At times, Sivits became emotional when describing two brutal abuses he said involved Spc. Charles Graner.

A total of seven U.S. soldiers have been accused of abusing Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison west of Baghdad.

Three soldiers named in the abuse case -- Graner, Staff Sgt. Ivan "Chip" Frederick and Sgt. Javal Davis -- did not enter pleas at their arraignments earlier Wednesday.

Their attorneys asked for more time to talk to two witnesses believed to be detainees at Abu Ghraib. The judge, Col. James Pohl, scheduled a hearing for June 21.

Frederick and Davis faced arraignment in general courts-martial -- military courts that handle felony-level offenses. (Full story)

Additional courts-martial against England, Spec. Megan Ambuhl, and Spec. Sabrina Harman will be held Thursday.

U.S. military regulations forbid cameras in the courtroom, but a few journalists were allowed in to watch the Sivits proceedings. Reuters reported that hundreds more would watch on closed-circuit TV in a nearby conference room.... Read the Entire Story at CNN.com

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Hope they have to sit out their time in Iraq.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Wow - they hammered him. This is the maximum sentence he could receive in a Special Court-Martial (though it's likely he had brokered a deal to plead in exchange for the government agreeing to refer the case to a SpCM, rather than a felony-level General Court-Martial). On the other hand, you'd rather get 12 months than 11, because a sentence of 12 makes him eligible for parole after serving 6 mo. Even if he is denied parole, he will get 5 days off per month for good behavior, and be released after ten. I believe the other cases are to be referred to General courts, so they are looking at a lot more exposure.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I wonder how the General Courts will decide the fates of the others? They can punish them far more severely, but I wonder if they will keep the punishments comparable given the same culpability.

DV- question. Courts Martial can deal pretty much just with the case before them or at least that's how I understand it. My question is that if testimony implicates higher ups, can the Court instigate hearings on the matter perhaps in another venue, or are actions based on findings completely dependent on others, perhaps the higher ups that MIGHT be implicated?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I wonder how the General Courts will decide the fates of the others? They can punish them far more severely, but I wonder if they will keep the punishments comparable given the same culpability.

DV- question. Courts Martial can deal pretty much just with the case before them or at least that's how I understand it. My question is that if testimony implicates higher ups, can the Court instigate hearings on the matter perhaps in another venue, or are actions based on findings completely dependent on others, perhaps the higher ups that MIGHT be implicated?

Interesting question. Basically, the court's sole charter is to handle the accused, and the charges, before it. It has no ability to expand its focus to other individuals. If, hypothetically, an accused took the stand and made statements under oath (or, more likely, made what's called an unsworn statement in sentencing - this is not under oath and does not subject the accused to cross-examination) that implicated someone else, investigators (probably CID in the Army) would have to pick up the thread and start investigating the matter. If the investigation were fruitful, charges could be preferred against others.

Technically anyone subject to the UCMJ can prefer court-martial charges, but generally (at least in the AF), charges are preferred by the accused's immediate commander. Not surprisingly, the higher-ranking the accused, the more macchinations that are involved in the court-martial process (particularly since the court-martial members always have to be higher-ranking than the accused).

 

[Martin]

1 year? Don't you guys have longer sentences if someone is caught with MJ?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
1 year? Don't you guys have longer sentences if someone is caught with MJ?

In accordance with Art 112a, UCMJ, use or possession of up to 30 grams of MJ has a max sentence of 2 years. More than that amount and it's 5 years. As a practical matter, MJ use or possession (as opposed to distribution) is normally handled with nonjudicial punishment and an administrative discharge (and in fact I believe the Army, unlike the AF, does not necessarily discharge people after 1-time MJ use).

In this case, the max sentence was set by the choice of forum - if the same charges were taken to a General Court-Martial, the max would have been much higher. I don't know the precise maximum because it's not clear to me what exactly he pled to. The UCMJ does not specifically criminalize "maltreatment of detainess," and the maximum sentences available under the catchall Article 134, which I imagine they used, depend on variables that are too complex to explain in this setting (generally the UCMJ will assimilate an applicable state or federal law's maximum sentence for a similar offense).

 

[CaptnKirk]

Circle the Wagons - Bunker Down !

Remember - this was a couple weeks before this story broke on the news

From the LA Times <CLIP>
Three key witnesses, including a senior officer in charge of interrogations, refused to testify during a secret hearing against an alleged ringleader of the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal on the grounds that they might incriminate themselves.

The witnesses appeared April 26 at a preliminary hearing behind closed doors for Cpl. Charles A. Graner Jr., who has been identified in court-martial documents as the leader of a band of military police guards who humiliated and abused Iraqi detainees and compiled a bizarre photographic record of their activities. The prospective witnesses' refusal to testify is described in court-martial documents obtained by The Times on Tuesday

That all of the prospective witnesses called up by prosecutors invoked the military equivalent of the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination indicates that key players in the abuse scandal may be closing ranks to save themselves and one another.

The documents show, however, that the military judge presiding over the hearing was undaunted by the unwillingness of anyone to step forward and speak about Graner.

Just a week after the hearing, on May 3, the judge, Maj. Dewayne McOsker Jr., ruled that there was enough evidence to proceed. He cited a CD-ROM containing photographs and videos taken inside the prison showing detainees being abused and humiliated, along with written statements from four of the other six guards implicated in the scandal.

"I believe there is enough credible evidence to establish reasonable grounds" that Graner is guilty, McOsker concluded.

Eugene R. Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, said no soldier is allowed to invoke his 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination unless he knows his testimony would leave him open to criminal charges.

There's more - sign in to LA times

 

[Moonbeam]

This crap makes no sense at all to me. The people responsible for these crimes of treason have damaged the reputation of the United States profoundly. We have evidence that it goes right up to the White House. That means we have traitors employwed at the highest levels of government at a time of war. This is a disaster far worse and potentially more dangerous that Al Quaeda ever hoped to be, much less the poor slobs in Iraqi prisons. The soldiers took the military equivalent of the 5th? What utter Bull Sh!t. They should be tortured till they talk. We're talking here of matters of the most extreme import, the destruction of the reputation of America. No end ever more justified the means.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
This crap makes no sense at all to me. The people responsible for these crimes of treason have damaged the reputation of the United States profoundly. We have evidence that it goes right up to the White House. That means we have traitors employwed at the highest levels of government at a time of war. This is a disaster far worse and potentially more dangerous that Al Quaeda ever hoped to be, much less the poor slobs in Iraqi prisons. The soldiers took the military equivalent of the 5th? What utter Bull Sh!t. They should be tortured till they talk. We're talking here of matters of the most extreme import, the destruction of the reputation of America. No end ever more justified the means.

Patience my friend. I believe there are those who are working quietly on this, and will be investigating. Although I do not generally trust politicians, I believe McCain is galled by this and will follow the trail upwards one level at a time. It is better to do this right than quickly, although I do not believe that the usual DC footdragging should be allowed. Yes it should have happened sooner, but politics being what they are, many would brand him and anyone who investigated as being a traitor, and that just to start. Let's see what happens, and if nothing comes of it I will gladly rant on about it.

 

[Passions]

He's only the one who took the photos. The higher ups who did the beats will get more severe punishment. I don't agree with Iraqi's who are calling for the death penalty under Islamic law.