The War Profiteers - War Crimes, Kidnappings & Torture


War Profiteers Main Index

Killing of Iraqi Civilians Index

The Mahmudiya Massacre



The Massacre of Mahmudiya - The Rape and Murder of Abeer Qasim Hamsa


United States of America vs. Steven Dale Green -  The Appeals Process File



U.S. vs. Steven D. Green

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Case No.: 09-6123 (09-6108)

Filed on September 18th, 2009


March 15th, 2010 - Reply Brief for Appellant

February 25th, 2010 - Brief for the United States

November 30th, 2009 - Brief for Appellant

September 18th, 2009 - Notice of Appeal



March 15th, 2010 - Reply Brief for Appellant


“[…] A. Green’s discharge was invalid. […]


“The government views a service member’s discharge to be complete when a discharge certificate […] and final pay are ready for him. […] Green acknowledged that those two components of the discharge process were met. […] The discharge, however, is not complete until the service member undergoes a mandatory clearing process. […] As Green noted in his original brief […], the clearing process is not simply an administrative task but is an essential element of a valid discharge and is therefore essential to establishing in personam jurisdiction. […] Therefore, insisting on compliance with the components of the clearing process identified on pp. 44-49 of Green’s brief is not ‘hypertechnical’ […] because Army Regulations (AR) make it clear that the military, i.e., the government, has the burden of ensuring compliance with all aspects of clearing process. […]


“The government also seems to suggest […] that Green waived any challenge to the validity of his discharge by his offer to re-enlist and subject himself to the UCMJ. But Green’s willingness to re-enlist was not a concession of the validity of his discharge. As far as the Army was concerned the discharge was valid. If the Army accepted Green’s request to re-enlist, it might be argued that his reenlistment waived any defects in the discharge process but the Army’s rejection of the re-enlistment offer rendered that point moot. Thus, Green can still challenge the validity of his discharge in this appeal.


“The government argues […] that Green is not entitled to relief even if the Army failed to strictly comply with all of the requirements of the clearing process because he was neither prejudiced thereby nor deprived of his substantial rights. But as Green demonstrated in his original brief […], he was indeed prejudiced and deprived of substantial rights because his prosecution in a civilian court resulted in grossly disparate treatment from his co-accused who were prosecuted by court-martial. For the reasons set forth in his original brief and in this brief, Green’s discharge was invalid and at the time he was accused of the Iraq crimes he was subject to the UCMJ.




“For the foregoing reasons, appellant Steven Dale Green, respectfully submits that he is entitled to the relief requested in his original brief. […]”


February 25th, 2010 - Brief for the United States


“[…] In this appeal, Green does not dispute that he devised a plot to murder an innocent family of Iraqi civilians or that he carried out his senseless murderous plot in cold blood. Nor does he raise a single assignment of error regarding the fairness of the ensuing criminal trial that sought to hold him criminally accountable for those acts. Instead, Green launches an array of legal challenges to the very legitimacy of the federal government’s effort to hold him accountable, assailing the constitutional validity of the MEJA statute itself - a law that Green does not seem to appreciate was specifically enacted to prevent the absurdity of allowing people like him to escape any prosecution solely because they happened to have been discharged from the service before their criminal conduct was uncovered - as well as the prosecution’s exercise of its discretion to charge him under that law.


“Green’s arguments do not withstand scrutiny, and they provide no basis for disturbing his convictions or his resulting life sentences. Indeed, as we will demonstrate, Green’s arguments evince a deep-seated and fundamentally flawed view of the source, nature and breadth of the prosecutorial discretion constitutionally entrusted to the Executive Branch. […]”


November 30th, 2009 - Brief for Appellant


“[…] Argument I - MEJA is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers and the non-delegation doctrine. Congress as the Legislative Branch of government has improperly delegated its constitutional powers to the Executive Branch by allowing the Executive to have the unfettered discretion to decide whether person, who commits a crime while a member of the Armed Forces, is to be tried by the military under the UCMJ or in district court under MEJA. Moreover, the disparate treatment of Green and the more severe punishments he faced as compared to his military co-accused violated Green’s rights to equal protection and due process.


“Argument II - Green was improperly subjected to prosecution in district court under MEJA because his discharge from the Army was invalid. The ‘clearing process’ that is an essential component of a soldier’s separation from the miliary failed to comply with Army Regulations thereby rendering Green’s discharge invalid and subjecting him to prosecution under the UCMJ rather than MEJA. […]”


September 18th, 2009 - Notice of Appeal


“[…] This appeal has been docketed as case number 09-6123 with the caption that is enclosed on a separate page.


“Even if the defendant filed the notice of appeal, Sixth Circuit Rule 101(a) requires that counsel continue representation on appeal until specifically relieved by this Court. […]


“[…] At this stage of the appeal, the following forms should be downloaded from the web site and filed with the Clerk's office by October 2, 2009. […]”


The 2009 Steven Green Case File


Back to the Mahmudiya Massacre Main Index

Back to the Second Gulf War/Iraq Invasion II

Back to U.S. Department of Defense

Back to main index



Website Statistics