The War Profiteers - War Crimes, Kidnappings & Torture
The Massacre of Mahmudiya - The Rape and Murder of Abeer Qasim Hamsa
United States of America vs. Steven Dale Green - The 2006 Case File
Criminal Proceedings against Steven D. Green
U.S. vs. Steven D. Green
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
Case No.: 5:06-CR-00019-R (prior to November 3rd, 2006: 3:06 MJ 230)
November 30th, 2006 - Order
November 7th, 2006 - Indictment
October 30th, 2006 - Memorandum Opinion
October 30th, 2006 - Order Denying Motion to Quash
October 27th, 2006 - Order as to Steven D. Green Arraignment set for 11/8/2006
October 24th, 2006 - Motion to Quash Grand Jury Subpoenas
October 2nd, 2006 - Order granting Motion to Exclude Speedy Trial
September 15th, 2006 - Unopposed Motion for Speedy Trial Act Exclusion of Time
August 30th, 2006 - Order that arraignment of Nov. 8, 2006 will be held in Louisville, Kentucky
August 30th, 2006 - Order & Memorandum Opinion
August 28th, 2006 - Reply To Response to Motion to Restrain Parties
July 31st, 2006 - Transcript of Initial Appearance Proceedings
July 11th, 2006 - Motion to Restrain Parties
July 7th, 2006 - Order on Initial Appearance as to Steven D. Green
July 5th, 2006 - Motion for Preliminary Hearing
June 30th, 2006 - Criminal Complaint
“[…] By agreement and request of the parties on the Official Court Record, it is ordered.
“1. Due to the nature of the prosecution of this case, it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings, or for the trial itself, within the time limits established. Therefore, pursuant to 18 USC 3161 (h)(8)(B)(ii), this case is declared complex.
“2. A telephonic further proceeding/status conference is set February 27, 2007 at 8:45 a.m. Central Time.
The Court will place the call to counsel. […]”
“[…] The Grand Jury charges:
“[…] 7. On or about March 12, 2006, the defendant STEVEN DALE GREEN knowingly conspired, confederated, and agreed with others known to the Grand Jury to murder with malice aforethought, Abeer Kassem Hamza Al-Janabi, Hadeel Kassem Hamza Al-Janabi, Kassem Hamza Rachid Al-Janabi, and Fakhriya Taha Mohsine Al-Janabi, which conduct would have constituted an offense under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111 and 1117 had it been engaged in within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
“8. In furtherance of the conspiracy, and in order to effect the objects thereof, the following overt acts, among others, were committed by one or more members of the conspiracy:
“a) On or about March 12, 2006, the defendant STEVEN DALE GREEN and others known to the Grand Jury changed clothing.
“b) On or about March 12, 2006, the defendant STEVEN DALE GREEN and others known to the Grand Jury left a traffic control point to which they had been assigned.
“c) On or about March 12, 2006, the defendant STEVEN DALE GREEN and others known to the Grand Jury walked to the house of Abeer Kassem Hamza Al-Janabi (age 14), Hadeel Kassem Hamza Al-Janabi (age 6), and their parents Kassem Hamza Rachid Al-Janabi (father) and Fakhriya Taha Mohsine Al-Janabi (mother).
“d) On or about March 12, 2006, the defendant STEVEN DALE GREEN shot and killed Hadeel Kassem Hamza Al-Janabi.
“e) On or about March 12, 2006, the defendant STEVEN DALE GREEN shot and killed Kassem Hamza Rachid Al-Janabi.
“f) On or about March 12, 2006, the defendant STEVEN DALE GREEN shot and killed Fakhriya Taha Mohsine Al-Janabi.
“g) On or about March 12, 2006, persons known to the Grand Jury removed articles of clothing from Abeer Kassem Hamza Al-Janabi.
“h) On or about March 12, 2006, the defendant STEVEN DALE GREEN and others known to the Grand Jury committed focrible sexual acts against Abeer Kassem Hamza Al-Janabi.
“i) On or about March 12, 2006, the defendant STEVEN DALE GREEN shot and killed Abeer Kassem Hamza Al-Janabi.
“In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 3261 (a) (2). […]”
“[…] The arraignment is set for November 8, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time before Magistrate Judge James D. Moyer. On this occasion, for the convenience of counsel, the location of the arraignment shall be Louisville, Kentucky. It is so ordered. […]”
“[…] This matter is before the Court on motion of the United States to exclude speedy trial time, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161 (h)(9), on grounds that the United States Department of Justice has made an official request for evidence and assistance to the Government of Iraq.
“The Court having considered the motion, the defendant having no objection to the motion, and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised, it is ordered that the motion of the United States to exclude time in which an indictment must be filed under the Speedy Trial Act is hereby granted.
“The Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the United States Department of Justice made an official request, as defined under 18 U.S.C. § 3292 (d), to the Government of Iraq, delivered by the United States Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, with a Diplomatic Note dated August 8, 2006, seeking evidence and assistance associated with the offenses with which defendant Green has been charged by criminal complaint, and that it reasonably appears, or appeared at the time the request was made, that such evidence is, or was, located in Iraq.
“Accordingly, the time period between August 8, 2006 (the date of the Diplomatic Note presenting the official request to the Government of Iraq) until the scheduled arraignment date of November 8, 2006, shall be excluded in calculating the thirty-day period for filing the indictment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(9). […]”
“[…] Comes the United States of America, by counsel, and moves the Court to enter the attached tendered order to exclude speedy trial time in calculating the thirty-day period to file the indictment due to the government’s submission of an official request for evidence to a foreign government. The Court previously granted the government’s motion to continue arraignment and to exclude the intervening time from speedy trial calculation on grounds that such delay is in the interests of justice under 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(8). […] Although subsection (h)(9) excludes speedy trial time for pre and post-indictment delays of up to one year, the government presently does not seek to continue the currently scheduled arraignment date of November 8, 2006. The United States has conferred with counsel for the defendant regarding this motion, and has been authorized to advise the Court that this motion to exclude pre-indictment time until November 8, 2006, is unopposed.
“[…] The United States Department of Justice (the ‘Department’) has made an official request for assistance to the Government of Iraq to obtain evidence for this criminal investigation and prosecution. The official request, signed July 21, 2006, and sealed by the Attorney General on August 3, 2006, is filed under seal for the Court’s in camera review. See Ex. A, (filed under seal). The official request describes the desired evidence located in Iraq and the Iraqi government assistance sought by the Department.
“The United States Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, presented the official request to the Iraqi Ministry of Foreign Affairs on or about August 8, 2006. The Embassy’s Diplomatic Note, signed by a U.S. Consular Officer, and dated August 8, 2006, is also filed under seal for the Court’s in camera review. See Ex. B, (filed under seal).
“The Department is actively pursuing its official request with the Government of Iraq, and at the present time, the United States does not anticipate seeking additional excludable time beyond the currently scheduled arraignment date of November 8, 2006. If, however, the official request remains unresolved near the arraignment date or as the arraignment date approaches, the United States may petition the court for an additional excludable period of delay under 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(9). […]”
“[…] The defendant’s arraignment is currently scheduled for November 8, 2006, in the Paducah Division.1 On this occasion, for the convenience of the parties, the location of the arraignment shall be Louisville, Kentucky. It is so ordered. […]”
“[…] The Court takes very seriously its ‘primary responsibility’ of preserving Mr. Green’s right to a fair trial, and acknowledges the possibility that public statements could endanger or undermine that right. However, the Court has no reason as of now to believe that the Defendant’s right to a fair trial is in jeopardy, and, in light of the other interests involved, will not act pre-emptively, even to protect this most important constitutional right. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion will be denied. […]”
“[…] This administration has acknowledged, contrary to the response of its attorneys, that any public comment by the Executive Branch on the charges or on any facts relating to a pending criminal prosecution is inappropriate and unfair to the defendant. […] It has gone so far as to prohibit ‘White House officials’ from responding to questions or discussing the factual circumstances of at least one high profile federal criminal prosecution, […] recognizing that to do so ‘could prejudice the opportunity for there to be a fair and impartial trial.’ […]
“If the government were to be as solicitous of Mr. Green’s right to a fair and impartial trial as it seems to be of Scooter Libby’s, counsel agrees that there would be no need for the order requested herein. But this Executive concern for fair trials by impartial juries is spotty at best in its application, as evidenced by the abuses set out above.
“Absent a voluntary commitment in this case to refrain from the same type of comment deemed injurious to fair trials for White House officials, the Court should impose the relief requested herein. […]”
“[…] Comes the defendant, Steven D. Green, by counsel, and moves the Court to prohibit inflammatory or otherwise prejudicial extrajudicial statements to news media or the public by trial participants, attorneys, parties, civilian or military law enforcement officers or investigators, witnesses or prospective witnesses, jurors, or court officials in the above-styled action.
“This request includes, but is not limited to, the President, Attorney General, and Secretary of Defense of the United States, their respective agents, representatives, subordinates, employees, and any persons acting in concert with or on behalf of such officials, and is intended to restrain extrajudicial statements regarding the guilt or innocence of the defendant, the appropriate sentence should he be convicted, any statements made by defendant to officials, the invocation of any rights by defendant, the identity of prospective witnesses or their probable testimony, the results of any mental or physical examinations, the results of scientific or medical tests or experiments (including autopsies of any persons), statements concerning the merits of the case, or any other prejudicial or inflammatory fact or matter not of public record. […]
“This case has received prominent and often sensational coverage in virtually all print, electronic, and internet news media in the world. Strong and inflammatory opinion is rampant, including the President in a nationally televised interview deeming the alleged conduct of defendant to be a ‘despicable crime’ and opinion that he was ‘staining the image, the honorable image of the United States Military’ (Larry King Live, CNN, July 6, 2006); […] the Prime Minister of Iraq calling for an international oversight committee to monitor the prosecution (BBC, July 5, 2006); further the Prime Minister of Iraq. Clearly the publicity and public passions surrounding this case present the ‘clear and imminent danger to the fair administration of justice’ recognized by the Sixth Circuit as justifying the gag order requested herein. […]”
“[…] At his initial appearance, Mr. Green was furnished with a copy of the complaint, was advised of the nature of the charges contained therein, and was advised of his right against self-incrimination and his right to counsel. The court reviewed the financial affidavit executed by Mr. Green, questioned him under oath regarding his ability to afford counsel, determined that he was eligible for appointment of counsel, and appointed the Office of the Federal Defender to represent him.
“Through counsel, Mr. Green acknowledged his identity, waived formal reading of the complaint, and entered a plea of not guilty to the charges therein. Mr Green subsequently signed written waivers of his right to a preliminary examination and his right to a hearing on the issue of whether he should be detained pending further appearances before the court.
“Mr. Green’s counsel also informed the court that his client had decided to waive any challenge to whether the Western District of Kentucky or any other federal district (e.g., the federal district in which Mr. Green was arrested) was the appropriate venue for his initial appearance and any further proceedings. The court subsequently questioned Mr. Green directly and, after considering his responses, determined that Mr. Green’s decision to waive any challenges to venue in the Western District of Kentucky was an informed decision reached with the assistance of counsel, and was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made. […]
“It is further ordered that Steven D. Green be remanded to the custody of the U.S. Marshal pending hiss further appearance before the court. […]”
U.S. vs. Steven D. Green
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
Case No.: 3:06 MJ 131
“[…] Procedual history: On June 30, 2006, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville. The complaint alleges that Mr. Green violated Titles 18 United States Codes sections 7, 1111, 2241, and 3261 (a)(2).
“The acts allegeldy occurred on or about March 12, 2006 in Muhmudiya [sic], Iraq. Mr. Green was arrested on June 30, 2006 in Marion, NC. He was taken to the U.S. District in Charlotte, NC for his initial appearance on July 3, 2006. At this hearing, Mr. Green consented to detention and waived identity, but did not waive his preliminary hearing, […]
“On July 5, 2006, counsel for Mr. Green received notice that the preliminary hearing scheduled for July 10, 2006 in Charlotte, NC, had been terminated. Counsel was informed that Mr. Green was being transported to the Western District of Kentucky per Magistrate Court’s Tranfer Code. […]
“Mr. Green, who has not waived the preliminary hearing in this district, objects to the transfer and requests that his preliminary hearing be held in the Western District of North Carolina at Charlotte […]”
U.S. vs. Steven D. Green
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
Case No.: 3:06 MJ 230
“[…] 11. On 6/27/2006, and again on 06/29/2006, SOI3 was interviewed. On 06/29/2006, SOI3 confessed that SOI3, GREEN, SOI2, and KPI were drinking alcohol on 03/11/2006. SOI3 heard KPI and someone else talking about having sex with a woman. Shortly thereafter, SOI2 and KPI changed into black clothing.
“After this, SOI3, GREEN, SOI2 and KPI departed for the residence. Once there, SOI3 witnessed GREEN placing into a back bedroom, then close the door. SOI3 stood guard at the front foor to the residence. After hearing gunshots coming from the bedroom, SOI3 asked GREEN if he was alright as GREEN exited the bedroom.
“According to SOI3, GREEN and KPI proceeded to have sex with a woman. After GREEN was finished having sex with the woman, SOI3 witnessed GREEN with an AK47 in his hand. GREEN walked over to the woman and shot her several times.
“After returning to TCP2, SOI2 instructed SOI3 to dispose of the AK47 in a canal across the street. SOI3 advised that he did what he was ordered to do. SOI3 also provided CID investigators with a floor-diagram sketch detailing the layout of the residence and location of the bodies when they left the residence. SOI3 has provided, and your affiant has reviewed, his signed, sworn statement detailing the above events. […]”