Posted on 07/09/2006 11:58:43 AM PDT by SandRat
WASHINGTON, July 9, 2006 – Charges have been preferred against four U.S. soldiers accused of rape and murder in connection with the deaths of four Iraqi civilians in March. A fifth soldier has been accused of dereliction of duty for failing to report the offenses, U.S. officials announced today. The five soldiers were charged yesterday in connection with their alleged participation in the rape and murder of a young Iraqi woman and the murders of three members of her family. The fifth soldier was charged with dereliction of duty for his failure to report the rape and murder of these Iraqi civilians, but is not alleged to have been a direct participant in the rape and killings, officials said in a statement.
All are charged with conspiring with former Army Pfc. Steven D. Green to commit these crimes. Green, 21, a former 101st Airborne Division soldier, was arrested June 30 in connection with the incident, according to a July 3 announcement by the U.S. Attorneys Office for the Western District of Kentucky.
Green was deployed from September 2005 to April 2006 and was discharged from the Army May 16. Army officials declined to disclose the circumstances of his discharge, citing privacy protections under the Health Information Privacy Protection Act.
The preferral of court-marital charges is merely an accusation, according to today's statement. "Those accused are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," officials stated.
The next step in the legal process will be an investigation pursuant to Article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Article 32 investigations are similar to grand jury hearings in civilian courts.
(From a Multinational Corps Iraq news release.)
Thanks for the PING. Something still stinks about this story. Hopefully, the discovery will lay all doubts to rest, one way or the other.
No judge will include the executive branch in any gag order. He doesn't have the authority.
In a civilian murder trial, when it goes to the grand jury, do they refer to accusations against the accused as "charges" at that point?
Technically, no. The prosecutor is asking permission to bring charges.
In the Federal system, the advesarial process doesn't really begin until arraignment, which occurs after indictment. (In New York, the advesarial process begins with the filing of an accusatory instrument for the purposes of an arrest warrant.)
Civilian analogies don't carry over well in military law, however.
The title of this thread says they've been "charged," but the text says it's an Art 32. See Art 32 fact sheet from Navy Jag here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1664053/posts
You think they were probably just searching for a word and "charged" was the only one that came to mind?
I think I remember from Army days that commanders would use the word "titled" once an accused was headed for an Art 32. (I think it's because some "Title X" part of the legal code was cited...but I'm not sure.)
Find me a journalist who's taken Criminal Procedure.
Do I have to?
:>)
No. Crimes committed while on active duty are punishable under the UCMJ. He will face a courts martial.
Much of the media has no idea how the military operates, its rules or its procedures. Terms, methods, etc., have considerably different meaning between the civilian world and the military world. Take the word "arrest". When a cvilian police officer arrests someone they take them into custody and can use physical restraint. In the military, that is apprehension. Arrest in the military is restriction on a person's movement but with no physical restraint; e.g. house arrest.
If the crimes were committed while on active duty in a location under which the military has jurisdiction he will be recalled to active duty (I believe this has already been done), and he will be tried in a military court. This will not and should not be a civilian trial. Discharge from active duty does not remove one from the jurisdiction of the military.
Glad to hear that. I thought I read he was being held under civilian jurisdiction.
No way it would be an Iraqi trial. It will be an American military court martial under the UCMJ.
No doubt the JAG prosecutors have high conviction rates. Regular prosecutors would drool at the chance to have a jury composed entirely of members of the military.
What an absolute nightmare.
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.