|
The War Profiteers - War Crimes,
Kidnappings, Torture and Big Money |
|
October 20th, 2006 - Tougher
Stance on Crimes of US Troops? |
|
Tougher Stance on Crimes of
US Troops? The Army and Marines each refers troops to courts martial for three
separate atrocities in Iraq. By Richard Whittle The Christian Science Monitor October 20, 2006 Washington - Decisions by
both the Army and Marines to court-martial troops accused of atrocities in
Iraq, announced almost simultaneously on Wednesday, could reflect a new,
tougher attitude by the US military in such cases. A perception in Iraq that US
troops convicted of atrocities against Iraqis have received lenient treatment
- especially in the notorious Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse case - has led to
weakened support for the US-backed government, some analysts say. "One takes no pleasure
in noting that courts-martial in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be acquitting
individuals with unusual frequency," wrote Gary Solis, a former Marine
Corps lawyer who teaches the law of war at Georgetown University, in the
October issue of Proceedings, the magazine of the independent US Naval
Institute. Alleged atrocities by US
troops in the cities of Haditha and Mahmudiya have outraged many in Iraq. The
Mahmudiya case, one of two in which the Army brought charges Wednesday, has
prompted Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to question the immunity from
Iraqi prosecution given foreign troops under the nation's new constitution. Mr. Solis detailed numerous
detainee-abuse cases in which US troops accused of beating, torturing, or
even killing prisoners got no jail time. By contrast, he noted, an Army
private convicted of firing a weapon at fellow soldiers without hitting any
got 25 years in prison. None of the troops charged
by the Army and Marines on Wednesday has been convicted, so whether any
punishment will be more or less harsh than in past cases remains to be seen. In announcements the
services say were not coordinated, the Army's 101st Airborne Division at Fort
Campbell, Ky., and the Marine Corps arm of the US Central Command in Tampa,
Fla., said charges were being brought against eight soldiers and three
marines in three separate cases of alleged atrocities in Iraq. Detainee case. Four soldiers
will face courts-martial on charges of premeditated murder for allegedly
killing three Iraqi detainees during a raid on suspected insurgents near
Tikrit in May. All four soldiers could receive life sentences if convicted. Mahmudiya rape and murder
case. Four other soldiers accused of raping a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and
killing her and three family members in Mahmudiya in March were referred to
court-martial. Two of the soldiers, Sgt. Paul Cortez and Pfc. Jesse Spielman,
could face the death penalty if convicted. The others could get life in
prison. Steven Green, a former
private alleged to be involved in the incident, was discharged from the Army
and faces federal murder and rape charges in Kentucky in connection with the
incident. Hamdania kidnap/murder case.
Three marines were charged with killing an Iraqi grandfather they'd allegedly
kidnapped from his home in Hamdania in April. The three will not face the
death penalty. Previously, three other marines were referred for
courts-martial in this case, and a Navy corpsman has reached a plea deal with
prosecutors. The near simultaneous
decisions by Army Maj. Gen. Thomas Turner, commander of the 101st Airborne,
and Marine Corps Lt. Gen. James Mattis was pure coincidence, not coordinated
to signal that the US military is getting tougher with troops accused of
abusing Iraqis, their services' spokesmen say. "None of this was
coordinated between the two services," says Lt. Col. Sean Gibson, a
spokesman for General Mattis. Army Lt. Col. Mark
Ballesteros, a Pentagon spokesman, says the "commanders who are making
these decisions are doing it because it's the right thing to do, in their
minds. The trial process will determine if any wrongdoing has happened." A lawyer from another
military service, speaking on condition of anonymity because he is not
authorized to comment publicly, says an attempt by the Army and Marines or
the Pentagon to coordinate charges to influence politics in Iraq would risk
violating a ban on "unlawful command influence." "If a senior civilian
leader were to try to coordinate prosecutions for that political purpose, it
could contaminate the trial based on a finding of unlawful command
influence," this lawyer says. But the commanders might
separately have come to the conclusion that a tougher approach in such cases
is needed, the lawyer adds. Eugene Fidell of the private
National Institute of Military Justice says there is "no
coordination" between the services on such decisions. But that doesn't
mean the military isn't taking a tougher view of such cases because of the
political damage to the US and the Iraqi government from past verdicts, he
adds. "If you ask me whether some of the cases from a couple of years
ago today would be treated the way they were treated then, I would say probably
they would be treated more toughly," says Mr. Fidell. There's nothing improper in
that, he adds. "The military justice system ... recognizes the rights of
victims in the administration of justice," he says. "Nor is there
anything illicit in acknowledging that the Iraqi population has an interest
in seeing justice done." External link:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1020/p03s03-usmi.html |