Watch that Prosecutor

Since Katherine isn't around I'll post on a topic that I'm sure she would want to draw attention to.

This is worth looking at further.

FORT CARSON, Colo. (AP) - Three Army commanders were granted immunity from prosecution Friday in the case of two Iraqi civilians forced to jump from a bridge. One of the two allegedly died.

The decision by Maj. Gen. J.D. Thurman, the commander of the 4th Infantry Division at Fort Hood, Texas, cleared the way for the men to testify during a hearing to determine if three of their subordinates will face a court-martial in the case.

The three commanders, Lt. Col. Nathan Sassaman, Maj. Robert Gwinner and Capt. Matthew Cunningham, who have already received reprimands for interfering with the investigation of the case, had said they wanted to testify if granted immunity, defense attorney Capt. Joshua Norris said.

Two enlisted soldiers are charged with the death near Samarra on Jan. 3 and a third with assault for forcing the alleged victim's cousin to jump into the river. The cousin survived.

I would typically think that giving immunity to someone higher up the chain of command in order for him to testify against someone below him is a sign of responsibility avoidance. I can imagine theoretical scenarios where it might be a good idea--where the testimony would not expose the higher ranking person to prosecution to anything directly related to the case at hand, but rather to prosecution for some separate (and presumably less serious) offense. For instance if someone violated the rule against adultery in the military and found out about a murder, it would be appropriate to give them immunity from court-martial on adultery charges. It is not impossible that something like that is going on, but it seems highly unlikely. The most plausible similar situation would be if the commanders knew nothing about the murder but for some idiotic reason (worry that they would be blamed) tried to cover things up. However, if that were true it would be a bad policy to allow immunity because we really shouldn't encourage officers to cover up their lack of leadership skills through illegal means.

In short, I want to know what their testimony entails because that will let me know if the prosecutors are dealing with this case properly.

Comments

[sidereal]

That is a bit weird. You don't often see managers being granted immunity to testify against subordinates, although I can't think of any rational reason why not. I guess the prosecution always sees the biggest fish as the highest priority, if it's the same charge. So your guess that the officers' are being targeted with a lesser charge makes sense.

Is it typical when immunity is granted to make public the charges to which they are immune?

[Dave Schuler]

I believe that this is the case that was reported by Iraqi blogger Zeyad of Healing Iraq and has been followed pretty closely by Glenn Reynolds and other worthies. I haven't heard about this development before.

[carsick]

Considering the chain-of-command your story is all the stranger. Even with a potential cover-up charge, three superior officers?
Are 'hearings' in this case public?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

I don't believe the charges that could have been brought are formally reported, but it should be obvious from their testimony.

[carsick]

Do you know if their testimony will be made public or whether a pre-court martial hearing is similar to Grand Jury testimony.

[Anarch]

I spent a good three minutes trying to figure out what on earth you were talking about. Three minutes during which my mind stubbornly refused to acknowledge that the guys being granted immunity were the commanders and not the enlisted men. You were perfectly clear about it, mind. My best guess is that this runs so much against the grain that I must have assumed I'd made a mistake and subsconsciously edited the scenario so that it would make more sense.

[Man bites dog? Ridiculous!]

With my little bout of denial past, I'm guessing that you and sidereal are correct about the lesser (possibly unrelated) charge. Even at my most tinfoily (or whatever the appropriate adjective might be), I can't imagine any other plausible scenario that would account for this. Please keep us posted, though.

[sidereal]

"I don't believe the charges that could have been brought are formally reported, but it should be obvious from their testimony."

I'm not sure. If the charge is totally unrelated to this case, it may not. On the other hand, if that were the case, I'd think they could just be compelled to testify. I'm out of my legal depth, though. I need to watch some more Law & Order.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

If the charges aren't related to the testimony, they shouldn't be given immunity, because the whole purpose of giving them immunity is to get truthful testimony about things that would normally subject them to prosecution.

There are a bunch of other technicalities about this kind of immunity deal, but none of the ones I know about seem pertinent.

In any case this looks important to follow, because the reasons behind the immunity may give us insight into whether or not the Pentagon is dealing with these cases properly.

[wilfred]

good post Sebastian. this will be very interesting to follow. so many questions about why the immunity was necessary but hope alot will come out in the months ahead.

[Jesurgislac]

Excellent post, Sebastian.

I confess that the first time through I read it and my brain (I was very tired) did a complete I-don't-understand and switched off.

Now I do, and I'm aghast.

If these officers are being granted immunity from prosecution to testify against their own men, what the HELL happened to leadership in the US army?

...

No, I'm serious. What happened?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

I suspect it is their own men, but I don't know that for sure. Once again the reporters give us lots of facts, but omit some of the obviously crucial ones.

[Jesurgislac]

It say their subordinates - which could, I suppose, just mean soldiers lower in rank than them, but which I took to mean their own men.

[dmbeaster]

Sebastian:

I strongly suspect that you are right -- this is immunity for superiors who were initially complicit in the cover-up of a murder.

Kudos to Dave Schuler for recognizing this as the case mentioned by the Iraqi blogger. I read about it also long ago and was wondering. It sure seems to be.

Assuming that this is immunity to superiors regarding cover-up of a murder, I agree with it. The goal of punishing murderers of Iraqis is far more important. Plus, the military career for these superiors is over -- no aspect of immunity protects them from administrative reprimands that ruin their careers. Indeed, I suspect they knew that when they asked for immunity, and suspected that their careers were already over, and asked for immunity so that they could nail the murders without possible criminal repurcussions to themselves, but knowing that their military careers were destroyed.

In other words, after f***ing up royally, they did the stand up thing and only asked for the minimal protection for finally coming forward.

[Blain]

Seems to me that if there had been a murder, there would also be a body. Sure these guys were wrong, but until any of you can produce evidence that a person died, lets all say "alleged murder".

[ral]

Eh?? Isn't this the case of Zeyad's cousin, Zaydun?

Zaydun's corpse was recovered from the river days later, his family was denied an investigation so his mother wrote a letter to president Bush which was published on this blog.

Blain, what are you talking about?