Article

2004-06-21 Iraq-Jordan

GIs to Head to Court in Prison Abuse Case

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2004-06-21 1:06:48 AM|| || Front Page|| [7 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Sylwester complains about female officers being scapegoated in 5.. 4.. 3..

Posted by badanov 2004-06-21 1:20:03 AM|| [http://www.rkka.org] 2004-06-21 1:20:03 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Gee, I wonder if the defendents will be permitted to snap off a few photos during the court proceedings?

Posted by Capt America 2004-06-21 2:23:10 AM|| [http://captamerica.blogspot.com/] 2004-06-21 2:23:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#3
Whether or not this is a good legal defense depends on how Sgt Davis himself explains his actions. If he indeed says that military officers were present and gave the orders, then I say it looks like a better legal defense than, than ..... than what?
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-21 7:44:19 AM|| 2004-06-21 7:44:19 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 A military courts martial is significantly different than a civilian court. Unless the defendent elects to trial by judge only, the court martial board unlike a civilian jury, has the authority to call forth witnesses and ask questions of witnesses. Neither the prosecution nor the defense can hide information. If this lawyer plays this card, 'I was only obeying orders', the CM board can call and question each member of the chain of command, even if both sides of the lawyers do not or want not. If the defense is relying solely upon this arguement for their client, he'd better have good reason to believe that will stand before the CM board. There is no bluffing here. Been there, seen it, done it. Oh, and one option for the defense is to ask to have a third of the CM board made up of enlisted members. His right. However, my personal experience showed that the other enlisted were far less tolerant of behaviors than the commssioned officers.

Posted by Don 2004-06-21 8:50:39 AM|| 2004-06-21 8:50:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#5
Neither the prosecution nor the defense can hide information.

So far there has been one trial. In that case two military-intelligence officers and one contractor refused to answer questions, citing the Fifth Ammendment. Certainly Davis' lawyer will put them on the spot, and they again will refuse to answer questions.

I assume that Sgt. Davis approves of his lawyer's active defense. This lawyer is a civilian, probably paid for by Davis' family. If the key military-intelligence personnel do refuse to testify, then Sgt. Davis and his family will declare a moral victory even if he is convicted. And most of the public will probably agree.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-21 9:01:43 AM|| 2004-06-21 9:01:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 If he indeed says that military officers were present...

Then he would be lying. It's already been established there were no officers present, Mike.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-06-21 9:02:57 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-06-21 9:02:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 If the key military-intelligence personnel do refuse to testify, then Sgt. Davis and his family will declare a moral victory even if he is convicted. And most of the public will probably agree.

No, Mike. Not "most of the public". Just the people who want to turn Abu Ghraib into a witchhunt.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-06-21 9:05:42 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-06-21 9:05:42 AM|| Front Page Top

#8
Re #:
So far, Robert, what I have read does indicate that no military intelligence officers were present, and also that none were involved in the incidents of this case.

I don't know what Sgt. Davis told his lawyer. I can only speculate from this article that perhaps Sgt Davis told his lawyer that military intelligence officers were present and gave the orders. Maybe, though, the lawyer is just fishing.

I expect that the definition of the word "present" will be an important issue. Even if the military intelligence officers were not present right there in that room at that moment, the lawyer will still be able to argue that they were present in the sense that they were close by and frequently came in and out and directly supervised the guards' treatment of the prisoners and generally approved these methods.

The refusal of two military intelligence officers and one contractor to testify would suggest to many people that this defense has a lot of validity.
.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-06-21 9:22:50 AM|| 2004-06-21 9:22:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 I expect that the definition of the word "present" will be an important issue.

Only for people who have problems with the English language.

Even if the military intelligence officers were not present right there in that room at that moment, the lawyer will still be able to argue that they were present in the sense that they were close by and frequently came in and out and directly supervised the guards' treatment of the prisoners and generally approved these methods.

That's such a reach it's fair to call it a "lunge". I love how you glide effortlessly -- some might say "mindlessly" -- from someone merely being nearby to them directly supervising. They ain't compatible; you're either there or you're not, and if you're not, there's no direct supervision.

And, of course, there's the little problem of the psychologist's report:

He [Col. Henry Nelson, USAF Psychiatrist] determined that there was evidence that the horrific abuses suffered by the detainees at Abu Ghraib (BCCF) were wanton acts of select soldiers in an unsupervised and dangerous setting.

I find it fascinating that none of the defense teams have leaked Annex 1 of the Taguba report, the section which gives "a more detailed analysis" of this part of the investigation.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-06-21 9:43:28 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-06-21 9:43:28 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 If Sgt. Davis is tried in Bagdad he will not get a fair hearing. Why should Sgt. Davis be standing trial for following orders anyway? He was told what to do and how to do it by the CIA and now his family spend thousands of dollars to fight for his right to remain free. Because he followed orders, That the CIA told him to do so that their (CIA'S)hands would look squeeky clean. Sgt. Davis and his family suffers while fighting for the same freedom he(Sgt. Davis was sent to obtain in bgdad. Tell me where is the justice in that?

Posted by A Loved One 2004-10-13 6:00:29 PM|| 2004-10-13 6:00:29 PM|| Front Page Top

14:18 Robert Crawford
14:18 Robert Crawford
14:18 Robert Crawford
14:18 Robert Crawford
14:17 Robert Crawford
14:17 Robert Crawford
18:00 A Loved One
22:37 Frank G
22:28 Anonymous6299
18:33 Anonymous5746
06:11 USMarine1980
09:21 B
09:10 Aris Katsaris
01:11 Zenster
00:57 Atomic Conspiracy
00:52 Atomic Conspiracy
00:44 Zenster
00:39 Dog Bites Trolls
00:28 Mark Espinola
00:23 Mark Espinola
00:13 Zenster
00:12 Traveller
00:09 Anonymous5184
00:07 Edward Yee