Posted on 05/19/2004 3:09:06 AM PDT by kattracks
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) — Spc. Jeremy C. Sivits pleaded guilty Wednesday to three counts of abuse in the first court-martial stemming from abuse of Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison.Sivits was charged with maltreatment of detainees, dereliction of duty for failing to protect detainees from abuse, cruelty and maltreatment and maltreating one prisoner by escorting him "to be positioned in a pile on the floor to be assaulted by other soldiers."
Capt. Scott Dunn, Sivits' lawyer, entered the plea on his behalf and expressed concern about the huge media coverage of the trial, asking "can you make a fair decision?"
The judge, Col. James Pohl, replied: "Just because it's on TV, it doesn't mean it's true."
A question -
I recall my late husband (a Nam vet) saying that a bad conduct discharge was devastating because it would negatively affect your ability to get a job later on.
Is this still true?
It is if the employer thinks to ask to see the veteran's DD214. That is the document that specifies the character of a veteran's service, schooling, awards, assignments, rank at time of discharge, and nature of discharge.
My thanks to your late husband for his service, and to you for putting up with life as a soldier's wife!
Good point. I posted before I thought it all the way through. (first time I ever did that. lol)
Actually, Sivitz didn't get much of a deal. He got the maximum possible jail time, he got the reduction in rank, and the BCD. They didn't fine him or reduce his pay, which will ease the hardship on his family. That's it.
"Third, are you going to agree with the detainee Iraqi families, that the guilty should be put to death?"
The irony is strange. We are told that it is horrible and wrong for terrorists and killers in prison to be abused and humiliated. So that punishment is too harsh.
Fine.
But the abusers and humiliators themselves deserve long prison sentences and more horrible fates, even death?!?!
Somehow our 'kill 'em all' instincts are reserved *only* for the American soldier?
Have we adopted the double-standards and perfidy of our enemy as the normal and normative moral stance?
hmmm? If the problem is that we should not over-punish or mistreat people, even miscreants, it sure has gotten out of whack. Interesting way to fight terrorism: Be harsher on our own soldiers than on our enemy. ONly our enemy could love that.
A better rule: Single standard. Things are right or wrong.
If wrong, let the punishment fit the crime. 'Nuff said.
Yeah, right!
I listened to Judge Napolitano and a Navy JAG on Fox at lunchtime and learned quite a bit, especially the equation of a Special Court Martial to a misdemeanor offense. I was always under the impression that a Summary Court was for misdemeanors and that the difference between Special and General had to do with the presiding officer and the degree of punishment handed out...a General Court Martial is presided over by a Flag (General or Admiral) Officer and can really stick it to you.
As for Sivits' peers...well, the least we can say is that justice will be swift and fair.
hogwash.
guilty pigs are squealing like stuck pigs is all.
If all these people had done was to violate a minor traffic regulation, this outcome would be disproportionate. But that's not what happened, and the analogy does not hold. If these exact same incidents had been reported as having been committed in the U.S. by civilians, many of the same people defending Sivitz today would be screaming that it is further evidence of the moral decay of society. And they would be right. Further, a minor traffic violation would not have done the immeasureable harm to our PR campaign in Iraq, as this incident has done. The sentence is just.
They didn't fine him or reduce his pay
Sorry, bud, you're wrong. The reduction in rank automatically reduces his pay. The Bad Conduct Discharge removes any possibility of staying in until retirement, which will cost him nearly a million dollars in lost retirement pay and benefits.
The phrase "chain of command" is a DNC talking point.
Anyone using that phrase as a general attack on DoD needs to be considered suspect.
If they have any *real* info, rather than simple empty smears, they could and should specify the *specific person* responsible who gave an order that could be reasonably construed to justify the abusive actions of the grunt prison guards. The Taguba report thoroughly discounted such suppositions of such orders and made clear the problem areas wrt lack of training, unit discipline, malfeasance of a few small units, etc.
This was a bunch of 'cowboys' not an order being followed.
Because we are waiting for their to be a duly constituted government of Iraq to whom we may turn him over. Most of his crimes were committed against the Iraqi people, and this is appropriate. Nothing will do more for the furtherance of our Iraq policy than to see Saddam Hussein hanging from a rope at the hands of an Iraqi executioner, on the orders of an Iraqi judge.
"If Sivits told the truth he should receive leniency for cooperating now to mitigate the damage."
I agree. It boggles my mind that we seem to be saying we must have to be cruel to these bozos because they were too cruel to suspected terrorists.
It's contradictory!!!
That defense didn't work at Nuremburg. American soldiers specifically have an obligation to refuse to obey an illegal order.
Yeah, but in the context of a court marshall, what does that mean???
It doesn't make sense. Just because the court marshall is going to be televised, doesn't mean it's true???
I'm not sure I agree with your position, and I certainly don't agree with your premise. It's a fine distinction, but we aren't court-martialing these soldiers because they were too cruel to terrorists, we are doing it because they mistreated prisoners. And because they got caught.
Military judges aren't known for their leniency, despite what you see on JAG. Ask all the privates in Leavenworth.
"Some of the media response has been overblown, but the actions of these soldiers has damaged the United States' efforts immeasureably."
The soldiers alone did not damage US efforts.
Their UCMJ crime was no listed as "harming our efforts" but maltreatment of prisoners. This only harmed our credibility when it became public in a shockingly graphic way (the pics).
So, the implication of this is that the media is complicit in that wider crime of "harming US efforts immeasurably."
hmmm.
IF PFC Sivits gets 1 yr, then the punishment of media should be commensurate: New York Times editors get 2 years. Sy Hersh 4 years. Al Jazeera a dishonarble discharge from reporting (maybe delivered by JDAM?). Boston Globe and Daily Mirror, for slander, confined to the Brig of classified ads and local weather for 20 years.
We are not being "cruel" to these bozos. We did not erect whipping posts, we are not castrating them, we are not feeding them into plastic shredders.
That is the double standard. We hold our people accountable for their actions, and determine their punishments under the rule of law. We are better people than the savages who murdered Nick Berg, and the way this matter is being handled proves it.
Good. I hope the rest get the max as well.
"If these exact same incidents had been reported as having been committed in the U.S. by civilians, many of the same people defending Sivitz today would be screaming that it is further evidence of the moral decay of society. And they would be right."
Actually, it is, and several conservatives have commented on that. Rush himself compared the pics to a Mapplethorpe exhibit. But of course none of those other things are considered illegal nor even immoral.
" Further, a minor traffic violation would not have done the immeasureable harm to our PR campaign in Iraq, as this incident has done. The sentence is just."
Excuse me, but accidental shootings of civilians have made our job harder in Iraq, and we havent put soldiers in jail for it. The crime the soldiers are charged with is their actions vis a vis the prisoners, not the media fallout and operational impact from it.
Why not blame the idiot soldiers for taking the pictures?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.