|
The War Profiteers - War Crimes,
Kidnappings & Torture |
|
June 18th,
2009 - Soldier’s Crime Met with Clemency 1st feature article from the
Chicago Tribune 2nd feature article from the Chicago
Tribune |
|
Soldier’s Crime Met with Clemency He admits to executing Iraqis who were bound, and his family fought
for leniency By Joel Hood Chicago Tribune June 18, 2009 When Sgt. Michael Leahy Jr.
was sentenced to life in prison this year for his role in the grisly,
execution-style slayings of four bound Iraqi prisoners, the Downers Grove
soldier's supporters banded together. The verdict, for a crime
that prosecutors ranked among the most heinous attacks by U.S. troops on
Iraqi civilians, left Leahy's relatives shocked but undeterred. In letter
after letter to the top Army official reviewing the case, family, friends,
high school classmates and fellow soldiers attested to the character and good
heart of the 28-year-old former Downers Grove South High School student,
pleading for leniency. Despite the nature of the
crime, that leniency has been granted. Earlier this month, a brigadier
general in Germany gave Leahy clemency, reducing his sentence from life in
prison to 20 years with the possibility of parole after less than seven
years, according to Army officials. Leahy, whose discharge was
upgraded from "dishonorable" to "bad conduct," could
serve even less time if his attorney wins an appeal for an even greater
reduction from the Army Clemency and Parole Board, based on an argument that
the sergeant suffered from combat stress and fatigue and was following the
lead of higher-ranking officers against suspected militia fighters who had
attacked his troops. The details of Leahy's case,
along with those of others in his unit, laid bare some of the wrenching
quandaries presented by war, and the occasional blurring of right and wrong
for soldiers in the heat of combat. In Iraq, reports of abuses
and extrajudicial killings by U.S. soldiers have been met with outrage and
demands for severe punishment. But news of the clemency was
bittersweet for those closest to Leahy, many of whom had thought that the
remorse he expressed for the killings and the case's extenuating
circumstances might warrant a full pardon. Family members say they remain
unashamed by Leahy's role in the crime. "None of us really know
what these soldiers face when they are over there, the stress and strain they
are under," said Debbie Leahy, the soldier's mother. "I am not
embarrassed by what my son did. He did what he believed he had to do to
survive [in Iraq]." He is imprisoned in the U.S.
Disciplinary Barracks at Ft. Leavenworth, Kan. Leahy - "Mickey"
as he was often called - had a typical suburban upbringing in Downers Grove,
friends and family said. He played football and baseball at Downers Grove
South before graduating in 1999. By the time he joined the Army in 2003,
family said, he had become interested in medicine and thought the military
could give him the structure and training to make it a career. Leahy, who was wrapping up
his second tour in Iraq at the time of the slayings, had plans to transfer to
an Army Ranger training school in Georgia and later become a physician's
assistant in Texas, family said. Debbie Leahy, who attended
her son's two-day trial in Germany, said that when the jury announced its
verdict, she went numb. "I know he's never
going to be able to put this behind him," she said. "My heart
breaks for him." Army officials, who would
not talk about details in the Leahy case nor explain the latest ruling, said
a clemency review is triggered when soldiers are convicted of crimes and
sentenced to more than a year in jail. Leahy, who was sentenced to life with
the possibility of parole, would have been required to serve 20 years before
he became eligible for parole had the sentence been upheld. In considering clemency, the
convening authority looks at the merits and circumstances of the offense, the
soldier's civilian and military history, disciplinary records, and
testimonials from family, friends and others wishing to show support,
according to Army statutes. The ruling marks a dramatic
turn for a case in which Leahy gave Army investigators a blow-by-blow account
of how he and others in his unit transported four Iraqi detainees -
blindfolded and with their hands bound behind them - to a remote canal
outside Baghdad in March 2007, according to a transcript of the February
trial compiled by a court clerk in Germany. The soldiers lined up the
detainees and shot them in the backs of their heads and threw their lifeless
bodies into the canal, the transcripts say. "After I fired my
weapon, the detainee that I shot fell back on me," Leahy testified,
according to the transcript. "I saw the detainee to
the right of me flinch and turn after he heard the shot. And my weapon was
pointed at him ... I then pulled the trigger and it hit him on the left side
of his face, from the ear forward. ... The second detainee I shot fell to the
ground and he was making a gurgling, moaning noise." Another soldier, Leahy's
superior, stepped in and finished off the second detainee with a gunshot to
the chest, prosecutors told jurors. According to the transcript,
the incident began when Leahy's unit was driving toward a remote village west
of Baghdad and was fired upon by unseen forces. After a chase to a nearby
house, the soldiers found weapons and detained the four men. Some in the unit wanted to
take the detainees back to the base, but others were frustrated that they
might not have sufficient evidence to hold them, according to the transcript. Soldiers testified that one
officer said the killings were in retaliation for the deaths of two soldiers
from their unit who were killed by Iraqi militia fighters weeks earlier, the
transcript states. The prosecutor, Capt.
Derrick Grace, argued that Leahy and the other soldiers knew what they were
doing was unlawful. "A case of premeditated murder does not get much
clearer than that," Grace told the jury. Leahy was convicted of
premeditated murder. Two of Leahy's superiors - Master Sgt. John E. Hatley,
40, of Texas, and Sgt. 1st Class Joseph P. Mayo, 27, of North Carolina - as
well as two others pleaded guilty or were convicted. All were from the Army's
1st Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment. Hatley got life in prison
with parole. Mayo pleaded guilty and got 35 years with parole. Both also are
considered for clemency. Michael Leahy's wife, Jamie,
whom he married in 2007 while on leave in the U.S., said the last few months
have been difficult. But now, she said, she and her husband talk frequently
on the phone and she plans to visit him within the next couple of weeks,
after he's transferred into the general population. "I think he did what he
thought he had to do," said Jamie Leahy, 27. "Now when we talk,
we're actually able to talk about the future." External link: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-iraq-soldier-executionsjun18,0,3984420.story From the Chicago Tribune June 18, 2009 Excerpts from Army
prosecutor Capt. Derrick Grace's closing remarks to the jury at Sgt. Michael
P. Leahy's court-martial trial in Germany on February 20, 2009. "We stood them up
facing the canal. I got behind the one on the far left. We were standing
behind the detainees. I heard the shots from either Staff Sergeant Mayo or
First Sergeant go off, and then I fired at the detainee I was directly
behind. I was about a foot or two behind him, and my weapon was at the back
of his head, about six inches to one inch away from the back of his head. I
believe he was standing up but he could have been on his knees. ... After I
fired my weapon, the detainee that I shot fell back on me. "I turned to the right,
I saw the detainee to the right of me flinch and turn after he heard the
shot. And my weapon was pointed at him anywhere from a foot to a couple of
inches away. I then pulled the trigger and it hit him on the left side of his
face, from the ear forward. ... The second detainee I shot fell to the ground
and he was making a gurgling, moaning noise." Colonel Sorenson, members of
the panel, these are words of the accused. A case of premeditated murder does
not get much clearer than that. There is no doubt that the accused conspired
to kill the detainees. There is no doubt that the accused, Sergeant First
Class Mayo, and First Sergeant Hatley killed these four men. There is no
doubt that the accused personally shot two of the detainees. There is no
doubt that he killed one of them, leaving the other moaning and gurgling to
be finished off by First Sergeant Hatley. The accused joined the
conspiracy at the site that they detained the Iraqi males. First Sergeant
Hatley and Sergeant First Class Mayo are trying to find out who was willing
to go out and kill the detainees. ... First Sergeant Hatley asked his entire
truck, including the accused if they want to go along with the plan and they
all agree. Then again at the [Army
base], Sergeant Mayo and First Sergeant Hatley tell Staff Sergeant Evoy and
members of his Bradley crew of their plan, some of the Soldiers were in, and
some of the Soldiers were out. The accused was in. He decided that he was
going to go along when they were at the detention site. He decided that they
were going to - he was going to go along when they were at the [base], and he
reaffirmed that choice at the canal. He said that he was in; he withdrew his
pistol and he walked off toward the Bradley. "I knew that when I
followed him that I would end up shooting the detainees. I'm not
stupid." These are the words of the accused. Now the Judge instructed you
that a member of a conspiracy is criminally responsible for any offense which
was committed by any member of the conspiracy in furtherance of that
conspiracy. In other words, the accused was part of a plan. The plan was to
kill these four detainees, and the accused shot two of the detainees.
Sergeant First Class Mayo shot one, and First Sergeant Hatley shot one and
then finished off the accused's second detainee. Because all the executions
were part and parcel to the conspiracy, the accused is legally responsible
for all four murders that were committed that day. ... You know that four
Iraqis died at the canal. How do you know this? The accused, a medic, stated
he believed that they were dead. In fact, the only detainee that was moving
or making any noise was quickly silenced by First Sergeant Hatley. Private
Ribordy told you that they were dead as well. ... They were dead when he, the
accused, Sergeant Mayo, and First Sergeant Hatley threw them in the canal. He
saw the blood; he saw the bullet holes in the back of their heads, and he
felt their dead weight. ... You know that the
killings were unlawful. Just like you heard from Captain McFeatters, every
Soldier knew proper procedures on how to treat detainees, and there is no
question in any of the Soldiers minds that shooting the detainees in the back
of the head while they are blindfolded, while they are zip-tied, while
they're on their knees is unlawful. The defense witness, Captain
Nelson-Fischer also stated that everyone was trained in detainee operations.
While the standard for detainee packets may have changed, at no point did the
rules of engagement allow the detainees to be executed. Now, what's important here,
before you today, is that these unlawful killings by the accused and his
co-conspirators were premeditated; and here's how you know. You heard the military judge
state that the law states that "Premeditated design to kill does not
have to exist for any measurable or particular length of time. The only
requirement is that it must precede the killing." Here, the decision to
kill the detainees was far in advance of their actual deaths. The accused had
plenty of time to think about it. He had to ride in the HUMVEE to the canal;
he had to walk from the HUMVEE to the meeting here. Here, at the meeting he
had an opportunity to opt out of these killings when First Sergeant Hatley
said he was going to kill the detainees but he wasn't going to force anyone
else to join him. He had the 70 meter walk to
the Bradley to think about it. He had the time to think about what he was
doing while they unloaded the detainees from the Bradley, passing them one
from the other. He had the time to think about it while lining them up. He had
the time to think about it while they were on their knees. He thought about
it and then he pulled the trigger, and then he pulled the trigger again. That
is premeditation. Not only did the accused
commit premeditated murders. He attempted to ensure that the evidence of his
crime would be destroyed. They pushed the bodies into the canal; and after
the murders, the accused told Private Ribordy to destroy the pictures of the
detainees that he had on his camera. Now we know why he did it. In his
statement to CID in the DVD he says that he was worried about being caught;
he was worried about the bodies being found; ... he was worried that someone
would find out about it; and he was worried about what would happen to him
afterward. ... Source: Unofficial trial transcript
compiled by court clerk and defense attorneys. External link: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-leahy-prosecute-18jun18,0,138240.story The Defense Speaks: Take
your conscience ... [and] you'll find my client not guilty From Chicago Tribune June 18, 2009 Excerpts from the closing
remarks of Sgt. Michael P. Leahy's defense attorney, Frank Spinner, to the
jury in Leahy's court-martial trial in Germany on February 20, 2009. Colonel Sorenson, gentlemen,
ma'am, I want to read a quote to you and I don't have the author's name. It
has to do with another situation in which a war crime of sorts was alleged;
and I think it is somewhat appropriate to see the parallel here. "The tragedy resulted
not so much from design but, rather, from the working of that fear, danger,
and madness attendant on many combat operations." ... Do you think any of the
Soldiers on the patrol that day woke up that day saying, "Let's capture
and kill some detainees"; or do you think they just got up like any
other day in Iraq, another day to go face the risk of IEDs, snipers; the risk
of being shot at while they're bringing peace, security and stability to one
of the most dangerous parts of Iraq? What do you think they were thinking
that day, if they were thinking at all; if they were getting enough sleep?
One thing that they were probably thinking, based on the evidence that you
heard, was that "Wherever we go; whatever we do; whatever fire we come
under we're going to have First Sergeant Hatley there with us, as he has led
us in the past. He's going to be out in front and he's going to have our
back." ... What do we know in the
evidence in this case about the context in which they performed their mission
that day? You heard from Captain Nelson-Fischer, they were in the peak of
strife between the Sunnis and the Shia. They were in the location where the
soldiers were being fired on with more intensity than, perhaps, any other
location and time in the conflict other than the invasion itself. Captain
Nelson-Fischer said that they were picking 100 to 150 bodies a day, and
that's just what they were picking up; and these Soldiers had been living in
that environment for a number of months by the time they arrived in March of
2007. And just a month prior to this mission, this unit lost two of their
best Soldiers, who were their - that would have, perhaps, eventually become
first sergeants themselves had they survived. It didn't just affect the
platoon. It didn't just affect the company; it affected the entire battalion.
... They didn't just lose soldiers; they were not just statistics of
casualties in the war in Iraq, they lost their family; and they lost their
brothers. I think it's fair to infer from the evidence that First Sergeant
Hatley and Sergeant First Class Mayo, Sergeant Leahy and other members of
that unit were still frustrated, angry and upset over those loses and that
was weighing heavy on their mind. We also know from the
testimony from Colonel Hoge that not only were those - not only were those
losses impacting what was going on in their head on that day, but it was also
the experience, as testified to by Captain Nelson-Fischer. And the
frustration of capturing Iraqis that they believed were firing upon them,
capturing them with weapons, ammo, binoculars, vests, long range rifles, AK
47s; the frustration of capturing them after being fired upon, after finding
evidence of what they may have used to fire upon them and realizing that
under those rules that they - that we were constrained by, that our Soldiers
were constrained by that these same captives they would not be accepted at
the DHA or even if accepted, would probably be released within a few days.
Did you hear trial counsel argue about all of this or bring up these facts?
Do you see what trial counsel is doing in this case? They just want you to focus
on the act. Trial counsel doesn't want you to look at the greater context in
which these events unfolded and took place. And all I can do as an advocate,
as a paid advocate, all I can do is to bring this case back into its context
and ask you that when you go back to deliberate, very shortly, in your
deliberation room that you look at all the evidence; you don't just look at
the act, you look at all the evidence; you consider the entire context in
which these things happened. ... I want to close with
this; I want to close with a pretty minor witness, a very minor witness, and
you may have even thought after he testified, "Why did the government
bring this witness in to testify?" He's a lawyer, Captain McFeatters. When
he was talking about the rules of engagement, the laws of war and the
briefing they were given about that. Soldiers are supposed to know the laws
of war and the rules of engagement, we don't contest that. We certainly don't
think that there's a credibility issue of this witness. We don't contest
whether or not Sergeant Leahy received some briefings about the laws of war
and the rules of engagement. That misses the real point
and that is when we put Soldiers in harms way, when we put them in the
environment that they were in, was in West Rasheed, that part of Baghdad,
where when they're facing daily that level of intensity and almost daily
they're being fired upon, when fellow Soldiers are dying with IEDs and sniper
bullets, when you're experiencing fear and anger, and frustration about those
rules of engagement, when you see how the warriors have gotten together and
disarmed them and set up some rules for how we can take people who, in
another war, in another situation to be a prisoner of war, in this situation
soldiers are turning to policemen who have to come up with evidence before
they'll hold them and capture and keep someone who's shooting at them on the
street, when they have to go out on the street the next day, that's not a
fair fight and it put Soldiers at risk. To know someone is going to protect
them, and that's what that captain said. Gentlemen, ma'am, I am
asking you to not abandon reason when you go in to the deliberate the issues.
I am asking you to see this case and the truth of this case in the absence of
facts in this case. I am asking you, if you want, to ignore everything I've
said for the last two hours; just take your conscience, take the
instructions, take the evidence that you will received back to that courtroom
[sic] with you and hope you'll find my client not guilty of all charges and
specifications. Source: Unofficial trial
transcript compiled by court clerk and defense attorneys. External link: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-leahy-defense-18jun18,0,2799824.story
|