Is the punishment enough?

Politics International Politics
1

Soldier receives maximum sentence for Iraq prison abuse

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Spc. Jeremy C. Sivits received the maximum penalty Wednesday – one year in prison, reduction in rank and a bad conduct discharge – in the first court-martial stemming from mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. forces at the Abu Ghraib prison.Sivits, who pleaded guilty to four abuse charges, broke down in tears as he apologized for taking pictures of naked Iraqi prisoners being humiliated.

His lawyer, 1st L. Stanley Martin, had appealed to the judge, Col. James Pohl, to be lenient, saying Sivits could be rehabilitated and had made a contribution to society in the past.

Sivits himself pleaded with the judge, Col. James Pohl, to allow him to remain in the army, which he said had been his lifes’ goal.

“I have learned huge lessons, sir,” he said. “You can’t let people abuse people like they have done.”

Sivits, a member of the 372nd Military Police Company, a Reserve unit, was found guilty of two counts of mistreating detainees, dereliction of duty for failing to protect them from abuse, cruelty, and forcing a prisoner “to be positioned in a pile on the floor to be assaulted by other soldiers,” a military briefer said after the proceedings.

Military officials said Sivits would be transferred to a military regional confinement facility to serve his sentence but did not specify which facility.

He had been expected to get a relatively light sentence and then testify against others. But prosecutors asked the judge to impose the harshest sentence despite Sivits’ willingness to provide details about the crimes of other defendants, saying that Sivits knew that abuse was banned by the Geneva Conventions.

The conviction and sentence will be reviewed by the U.S. military appeals court in Washington. Lt. Gen. Thomas Metz, commander of Multinational Force Iraq, can dismiss or reduce the sentence.

msnbc.msn.com/id/5006372/

Well, for what it’s worth, I think that the sentence in this situation was kind of light. Even though Sivits gave information inplicating his fellow guards, I think he should have received a sentence of at least 5 years for his role in this situation. One year, even with the bad discharge and loss of rank, is simply not enough to show the world that the US government sees what the guards did as very serious.
Perhaps some of you would care to share your feelings about the sentence of Sivits. I would love hearing what you all have to say concerning this matter.

2

Under the type of Court Martial he plea bargained for in exchange for a guilty plea the sentence was the maximum allowed. Please note that the military justice system is completely separate from the US civil/criminal system except for Supreme Court review upon appeal if it ever got that far. Just check out the charges he pled guilty to. No suitable counterpart under civilian law!

3

Gosh. really? Had no fucking idea,jeez

4

Well…here’s a typical European judgement in a case against some of their “peacekeepers”. Note the events happened in 1993 but the “peacekeepers” weren’t tried until 1997.

Belgian soldiers acquitted in Somalia trial

June 30, 1997
By Nieck Ammerlaan

BRUSSELS - A Brussels military court Monday acquitted two Belgian ex-paratroopers of maltreating a Somali child during a humanitarian mission in the African country in 1993 because of insufficient evidence.

``It could not be established that physical violence had been inflicted,’’ presiding judge Dirk Moereman said, adding that there also was no conclusive evidence that the child’s life had been in danger. The men were given the benefit of the doubt.

Kurt Coelus and Claude Baert had been identified from a photograph in Belgian daily Het Laatste Nieuws earlier this year which appeared to show them swinging a boy over a camp fire.

The prosecutor had demanded one month’s prison for Coelus, now in the Belgian Navy, and Baert who has left the army.

A separate case involving their Sgt. Dirk Nassel will be heard in September. He was also charged with threatening behavior and physical violence while serving in the same multinational peacekeeping mission in Somalia.

Nassel is alleged to have made a Somali Muslim boy eat pork and drink salt water.

Coelus and Baert, members of the Third Paratroop Battalion, had told the court they had meant no harm. They had merely played a game by grabbing one of the children attracted by the warmth of the fire, proclaiming they would ‘roast’ it.

The men had been playing with Somali children all day, mainly out of boredom.

The court said there had been no conclusive evidence that the child’s clothing had caught fire while it was being swung over the fire for 30 seconds to a minute. ``(The child) did not call out or cry…it started as a game,’’ Moereman said.

The court said the child had been treated roughly, but there had been no hostility.

It dismissed charges of racism and inhuman behavior brought by the Belgian Center for Equal Opportunities and the Fight Against Racism. It disallowed an application by the Center the charges be upgraded to war crimes under the Geneva Convention.

The court said there was insufficient evidence that the two men had had racist motives, although there might have been a generally racist atmosphere in their battalion or among other United Nations troops in Somalia.

Luc Walleyn, the Center’s lawyer, said after the trial the court did not reject the idea that racism had played a role in the incident. But it had been restricted to ruling on the two men’s behavior only.

He said that in the case of Sgt. Nassel there were ``more serious elements’’ of racist motives. The Center was considering appealing the verdict against Coelus and Baert.

Judge Moereman said: ``It is not this court’s duty to try the Third Paratroop Battalion or Belgium’s actions in Somalia.’’ Nor was it up to the court to comment on the behavior of Italian or Canadian troops serving in the same humanitarian mission.

Charges of maltreating Somali children have been made against Canadian and Italian troops who also served for the United Nations in Somalia.

Moereman reprimanded Coelus and Baert. ``I cannot congratulate you on what you did. It was unwise and dangerous.’’

He lashed out against the media, charging the men had been tried in public and as a result had ``gone through hell. For some parties the actual contents of the dossier did not matter. What happened with Italian and Canadian troops, other events in Somalia cannot be allowed to play a role here.’’

The photographs of Coelus and Baert together with others showing a soldier urinating on an apparently dead Somali and one with his army boot on the head of another Somali caused outrage among the Belgian media and cries of ``paras of shame.’’

5

[quote=“blueface666”]Well…here’s a typical European judgement in a case against some of their “peacekeepers”. Note the events happened in 1993 but the “peacekeepers” weren’t tried until 1997.

Belgian soldiers acquitted in Somalia trial

June 30, 1997
By Nieck Ammerlaan

BRUSSELS - A Brussels military court Monday acquitted two Belgian ex-paratroopers of maltreating a Somali child during a humanitarian mission in the African country in 1993 because of insufficient evidence.

``It could not be established that physical violence had been inflicted,’’ presiding judge Dirk Moereman said, adding that there also was no conclusive evidence that the child’s life had been in danger. The men were given the benefit of the doubt.

Kurt Coelus and Claude Baert had been identified from a photograph in Belgian daily Het Laatste Nieuws earlier this year which appeared to show them swinging a boy over a camp fire.

The prosecutor had demanded one month’s prison for Coelus, now in the Belgian Navy, and Baert who has left the army.

A separate case involving their Sgt. Dirk Nassel will be heard in September. He was also charged with threatening behavior and physical violence while serving in the same multinational peacekeeping mission in Somalia.

Nassel is alleged to have made a Somali Muslim boy eat pork and drink salt water.

Coelus and Baert, members of the Third Paratroop Battalion, had told the court they had meant no harm. They had merely played a game by grabbing one of the children attracted by the warmth of the fire, proclaiming they would ‘roast’ it.

The men had been playing with Somali children all day, mainly out of boredom.

The court said there had been no conclusive evidence that the child’s clothing had caught fire while it was being swung over the fire for 30 seconds to a minute. ``(The child) did not call out or cry…it started as a game,’’ Moereman said.

The court said the child had been treated roughly, but there had been no hostility.

It dismissed charges of racism and inhuman behavior brought by the Belgian Center for Equal Opportunities and the Fight Against Racism. It disallowed an application by the Center the charges be upgraded to war crimes under the Geneva Convention.

The court said there was insufficient evidence that the two men had had racist motives, although there might have been a generally racist atmosphere in their battalion or among other United Nations troops in Somalia.

Luc Walleyn, the Center’s lawyer, said after the trial the court did not reject the idea that racism had played a role in the incident. But it had been restricted to ruling on the two men’s behavior only.

He said that in the case of Sgt. Nassel there were ``more serious elements’’ of racist motives. The Center was considering appealing the verdict against Coelus and Baert.

Judge Moereman said: ``It is not this court’s duty to try the Third Paratroop Battalion or Belgium’s actions in Somalia.’’ Nor was it up to the court to comment on the behavior of Italian or Canadian troops serving in the same humanitarian mission.

Charges of maltreating Somali children have been made against Canadian and Italian troops who also served for the United Nations in Somalia.

Moereman reprimanded Coelus and Baert. ``I cannot congratulate you on what you did. It was unwise and dangerous.’’

He lashed out against the media, charging the men had been tried in public and as a result had ``gone through hell. For some parties the actual contents of the dossier did not matter. What happened with Italian and Canadian troops, other events in Somalia cannot be allowed to play a role here.’’

The photographs of Coelus and Baert together with others showing a soldier urinating on an apparently dead Somali and one with his army boot on the head of another Somali caused outrage among the Belgian media and cries of ``paras of shame.’’

[/quote] They’re Belgians. They can do what they want. Nothing Belgium does nowadays has any impact on world affairs. Different for America. You are held to a higher standard and you should uphold those standards. We expect better quality stupidity from US soldiers. And it seems we are getting it. :smiling_imp:

6

Belgian beer has an impact on my affairs. :blush:

7

:laughing: Any effect on the steady relationships?

BruinBier

8

:laughing: Any effect on the steady relationships?

BruinBier[/quote]
No, that’s South African wine. :cry:

9

Ach, jammer.

10

Well, that’s awfully convenient. One rule for me, another rule for you. At least you’re honest enough to admit you hold to a double standard. An honest bigot’s better than a lying bigot, I say.

11

[quote=“mod lang”]
Well, that’s awfully convenient. [/quote]

Isn’t it.

12

BF

Congratulations on your school yard defence of the US.

'but but look mommy, that boy there did bad but you’re not telling him off, it’s just not fair (stamp stamp stamp). Tell him off too!"

13

[quote=“butcher boy”]BF

Congratulations on your school yard defence of the US.
[/quote]

BF wasn’t defending the actions of the US troops. He was merely pointing out the inconsistency in the outrage that some of you demonstrate.

14

Nah, it’s more like, every kid in class is acting up, but you only single the richest kid out for punishment while letting all the other kids get away with doing the same thing. Because that kid, he needs to be punished because he’s got more money and power than you. Let’s just admit it, that’s what the vast majority of anti-Americanism comes down to at root - tall poppy syndrome. You Brits got the same treatment from the rest of the world back in the 19th century, when you ruled the roost (“nation of shopkeepers”, spat an envious Frenchman).

15

i don’t think that Europeans actually feel less well off than Americans. The japanese are pretty rich too but they don’t generate the same level of ill feeling.

16

[quote=“tigerman”][quote=“butcher boy”]BF

Congratulations on your school yard defence of the US.
[/quote]

BF wasn’t defending the actions of the US troops. He was merely pointing out the inconsistency in the outrage that some of you demonstrate.[/quote]

It is likely that a lot of the outrage comes directly from Americans and it is probable that they are outraged because the actions are carried out in their name. Is it reasonable to ask them to be outraged by the actions of armies which aren’t directly funded by their tax dollars?

17

[quote=“wipt”][quote=“tigerman”][quote=“butcher boy”]BF

Congratulations on your school yard defence of the US.
[/quote]

BF wasn’t defending the actions of the US troops. He was merely pointing out the inconsistency in the outrage that some of you demonstrate.[/quote]

It is likely that a lot of the outrage comes directly from Americans and it is probable that they are outraged because the actions are carried out in their name. Is it reasonable to ask them to be outraged by the actions of armies which aren’t directly funded by their tax dollars?[/quote]

wipt,

My point had nothing to do with the proper level of outrage that US citizens should or shouldn’t have. My point was that butcher boy mischaracterized BF’s statement. BF has not defended the acts of the US soldiers who committed the abuse. As such, BB should not have characterized BF’s statement as a defense of that abuse.