You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Iraq-Jordan
Army officers face charges in alleged suffocation of Iraqi general
2004-06-25
U.S. Army officials plan to file negligent-homicide and manslaughter charges against two Fort Carson-based military intelligence officers who allegedly suffocated an Iraqi general during an interrogation in November, The Denver Post has learned. Two other enlisted soldiers face dereliction-of-duty charges in the fatal interrogation, according to a Pentagon document obtained by the newspaper. Prosecution of the two officers would mark the first time service members involved in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts have faced homicide-related charges in connection with the abuse of prisoners of war. Military experts say it could be the first such action in recent history. A decision on the case has moved slowly because the soldiers' commander, Col. David Teeples of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, has "been reluctant to pursue charges" while military lawyers have favored prosecution, according to a Department of Defense source.
Very long, rest at the link.
Posted by:Steve White

#5  Eheheheh long known. >_>
Posted by: Edward Yee   2004-06-25 5:27:34 AM  

#4  Your point is well taken, #3, except that I am not sure how much intelligence an Iraqi General would provide that we did not already know as of November 2003. But it's this that caught my eye and made me rant against JAG:
Military experts say it could be the first such action [homicide charges for POW abuse]in recent history.
War is brutal. Bad things happen...even death. What with the Abu Prison bruhaha, you'd think that JAG might put aside their noble high minded attorney principles[cough, cough] and do what's best for America, perhaps lodge a less severe complaint like involuntary manslaughter or assault with a deadly weapon. Lawyers are typically liberals and I suspect this has some personal goal in mind, like to help put a Democrat lawwwyerrrr in the Oval Office, do you think, maybe???
Posted by: rex   2004-06-25 3:52:36 AM  

#3  Argh; don't mind I temper the sentiment, rex? I don't like JAG or NCIS either, but excuse me if I'm not exactly happy to hear that a higher-up who could've squealed was instead snuffed. (Well, unless he already did.)
Posted by: Edward Yee   2004-06-25 3:29:05 AM  

#2  Col. David Teeples of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, has "been reluctant to pursue charges" while military lawyers have favored prosecution
And why are we not surprised that JAG is lining up against our enlisted men? We have JAG because... military lawyers are known for their valour??their desire to take a bullet for God and country?? No, we have lawyers so our soldiers can be betrayed, and I'll bet we pay JAG lawyers far better than we pay the men who actually protect and defend us. This stinks.
Posted by: rex   2004-06-25 12:54:36 AM  

#1  No Olympican pig piles, but how about photos?
Posted by: Capt America   2004-06-25 12:47:26 AM  

00:00