Court Martial of Soldiers in Iraq Murder Case Falls Apart

As happens too often with American soldiers in combat operations in Iraq whenever questions arise regarding excessive use of deadly force, seven British paratroopers recently faced serious murder charges in the United Kingdom. However, the court martial of these seven airborne soldiers allegedly involved in the killing of an Iraqi teenager almost immediately began to fall apart with accusations of impropriety abounding.

Many supporters of the accused claim that the murder charges shouldn't have gone as far as they did. However, the family of 18-year old Nadhem Abdullah protested against an act of the "injustice" they believe is occurring in the military trial. They believe their son was beaten to death by the accused paratroopers.

During an emotional hearing, Judge Advocate General Jeff Blackett ruled that there was insufficient evidence to continue with the prosecution.

Many observers, including the victim's family, were shocked at the judge's ruling in the case. Fadil al-Saqer, a cousin, told the news media, "We did not even know that the trial had stopped. We had members of the family and neighbors go to England because we were told that there will be justice. But this is not justice. Who can you trust? This is very sad. We do not know what to do now. Are they saying Nadhem was not killed?"

This court martial was considered one of the highest profile cases arising from the Iraq war, and is believed to be the costliest in recent British military history. Expenses exceeded $10 million.

The soldiers, all current or former members of the 3rd Battalion, Parachute Regiment, were accused of using their "fists, boots, rifles and helmets" to kill Mr. Abdullah at an Iraqi roadside at 2003.

The prosecutor described the attack as "gratuitous, unjustified and unprovoked," and the military court was told that blood matching the dead man's DNA was found on a rifle used by one of the soldiers, Private Samuel May. The soldiers denied all charges stemming from their actions in the Iraqi war zone.

Judge Blackett said that he "understood the problems faced in carrying out [investigations of] the alleged murder because of the turmoil in Iraq."

"After discarding the evidence that is too inherently weak or vague for any sensible person to rely on it, [the prosecution's case] is such that a reasonable jury or court martial board properly directed could never reach the high standard of proof required to be sure of the guilt of any defendant."

The judge also said that the prosecution and the military police made "serious omissions" in searching for hospital and burial records in Iraq and not taking DNA swabs from the victim's relatives in order to exclude them as a "possible source of the bloodstain found on Private May's rifle." In addition, He stated that the defendants were not interrogated properly until six months after the alleged altercation between the soldiers and the victim.

As a result, Judge Blackett directed the military panel hearing the case to return a verdict of not-guilty on all of the defendants.

The prosecutions case began to unravel when one of the witnesses, an Iraqi woman who claimed to have been viciously attacked by the paratroopers while she was pregnant admitted she lied to investigators. Under cross-examination by defense counsel she admitted that this was a "wicked lie." She added, "I am ashamed of it. I don't know what I was saying."

Earlier the court was informed that witnesses were being paid $100 for giving false testimony against the soldiers during the court martial. The trial panel heard that witnesses frequently spoke of blood money and compensation to what were patently exaggerated claims.

The defense attorney Gilbert Blades told reporters, "This [investigation] was lamentably bad and it has been highlighted. The lessons to be learnt [sic] are that with cases like this with serious consequences they should be properly investigated. This case was not properly investigated."

The judge made it clear that, on the basis of the evidence presented, very serious allegations had been made and that it was perfectly proper to take the matter to trial. Soldiers are not above the law. However, military and security -- British and American -- observers of this case are concerned about witnesses lying during this trial and wonder how many other allegations made in other cases against soldiers are false or exaggerated.

It's why we have a "Law of War"/"Law of Armed Conflict" and a Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Forgive me if I bend your ear for a moment, this is something that bothers me, its a mistake I see people making and its going to lead us down a blind alley, its going to do a lot of damage in the end. That is this notion that war can be waged in the courtroom.

Its right and proper to subject soldiers to military codes of conduct, its part of the discipline necessary to control a great mass of armed men. And it is right and proper that there be military courts, which allows men who have committed an offense to be judged by fellow soldiers, in effect.

But war itself is extra-legal, it is the state of affairs that exists when normal law can not contain a conflict, or is insufficient to deal with a potential danger, or an actual realized danger.

The military is not a law enforcement body. It can be used in support of law enforcement, but it is not law enforcement. Its purpose is to respond to dangers that go beyond the reach of law.

Its targets are not guilty of any breach of law, or if they are, that is not the reason they are targets. They are targets because they are perceived by our elected leaders to be a danger. Being a danger to the US may or may not be a crime, once the military is involved any question of criminality or legal innocence or legal jurisdiction is beside the point.

The decision that a danger exists is always a political decision, and not a legal one. The decision to deploy troops, and to risk the consequences of military action is always a political decision. The decision that the danger has past, and we may now return to normal rule of law, is also a political decision.

The current controversy over whether or not to try war prisoners is distorted by this misunderstanding. An enemy is not take prisoner on account of his guilt, and he is not released later due to any innocence. He is imprisoned based purely on a military and political perception that he is a threat; not sufficient threat to warrant an immediate death on the battlefield, but sufficient that he can not be released to go free. When, if, later he is set free it is because the political judgement has been made that he is no longer a threat. Guilt, innocence, none of that matters.

It is not a crime necessarily to oppose the foreign policy of the US, but it may warrant a violent death on the battlefield. A man can be perfectly honorable, acting within the laws of his country, and still have a planeload of explosives dropped on his head. He can be perfectly honorable, and still be such a threat that he can not be released to return to his unit. That is and must be a military and a political decision.

We could release our German prisoners at the end of the Second World War, because few of them were convinced Nazis, and even the convinced Nazis were beaten and had no intention of continuing the fight. Had this not been the case, they could not have been released, perhaps ever, and criminal guilt would not have entered into the question.

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.