Spc. Jeremy Sivits found guilty

Spc. Jeremy Sivits found guilty in first court-martial in Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal.


BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. soldier Specialist Jeremy Sivits was found guilty on Wednesday of three charges he faced in a court martial over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, CNN reported. Sivits, the first U.S. soldier court-martialed over the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib jail, had pleaded guilty on all four counts he faced, with a reservation related to the taking of a photograph of naked prisoners.


Sivits was charged with two counts of maltreating detainees, one of conspiracy to maltreat and one of dereliction of duty.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20040519/ts_nm/iraq_trial_dc

Court-martial accepts Iraqi abuse guilty plea
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/19/court.martial.sivits/index.html

U.S. Soldier Pleads Guilty in Iraq Abuse Trial
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38672-2004May19.html

Plea deal?
Legal analysts had said it was likely the Sivits case would proceed quickly and had mentioned that a plea deal was likely, if not already completed.

Last week it was reported that Sivits was cooperating with investigators and describing harsh actions by members of his unit. (Full story)

"The fact that he has been cooperating, that he has made a statement to give evidence against others, suggests that this might not even go to court-martial, and if so, it will be over quickly," said Neal Sonnett, a Miami defense lawyer who has represented civilian and military defendants.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/19/court.martial.sivits/

Not that CNN doesn't spin or anything. I am just curious if there was a deal or not.

His representative and the military were able to work out a deal on the wording of the most serious charge. A guilty plea does, in fact, result in a finding of guilt. I believe that this fellow will now testify against his friends. Further, he will apparently testify that no one further up the chain of command was aware of the torture. This is similar to any criminal ring the local police "bust": there's a weak link who will make and plea, and testify to anything, to save himself.

Now we can get back to the campaign trail and do the work of God an country...

FWIW, here's my LTE going in Friday's paper:

Taking Liberties in Iraq

The President says they are the misdeeds of a select few. Rumsfeld says it’s politicking. Rush says its just frat boy antics while others call it rape. Most agree it’s torture. What remains clear is that America has always prided itself on being the model for the protection of the rights of all people, regardless of race, ideology or any other factors. The inexcusable crimes perpetrated against Iraqi prisoners represent the most serious transgression in a trend that really started over 3 years ago.

I was struck by the immediate defense offered by one of the accused torturers. It was the tired drumbeat excuse that he was doing it in the interest of “National Security.” There's alot of that going around.

The Bush Administration has overdrawn its blank check on the trampling of rights in the interest of National Security (i.e.: fighting terror.) They have legislatively diluted the Constitution with the Patriot Act and its arbitrary phone taps and cyber-spying on Americans. They’ve embraced the absence of human rights in Guantanamo Bay (despite its own reports of torture) in favor of National Security. They have censored news stories and spent hundreds of billions of unaccountable tax dollars on unbid contracts and vague budgets for Counterterrorism. All in the interest of “National Security.”

The message from The Top: “You’re either with us or against us.” (And if you’re against us, you’re a terrorist. And if you’re a terrorist, you do not deserve rights.) Under the powerful example of the Commander in Chief, we have seen frightening examples of stateside politicians, judges and local police quickly mutate the concept of National Security to be synonymous with restriction of rights. Taking liberties for the protection of freedom? It’s the anti-democracy Democracy.

When pro-war Americans have oppressed the opposition by confusing hostility with Patriotism, our very own authority figures have often stood in silent approval. A man arrested for wearing a peace sign at a mall…dissenters called “terrorists”…a (War)Veteran Senator speaking out against the war morphed on tv into Osama Bin Laden…citizens stopped and strip-searched on their way to a protest. These are just a few of America’s stories where this kind of abusive “patriotism” has been glamorized or even promoted. In a military atmosphere such as Iraq, similar unchecked aggression can have even worse consequences. We are now seeing its very ugly results.

“Following orders” is no excuse for the shameless acts of torture shown on the news, and the offenders and their superiors must be prosecuted. But it can’t stop there. The Bush Administration and its hypervigilant public deserve a heavy dose of responsibility for creating and allowing an atmosphere where aggression and restriction of rights are embraced as a patriotic crusade for National Security. As shocking as the reports of the torture of Iraqi’s are, they are a predictable result of policy that encourages the removal the basic protections of individuals and their rights.

True patriots uphold the Constitution. Our National Security depends on it. Same as it’s ever been.

Did they buy this guy off to get him to go so quietly?

<<Sivits, 24, of Hyndman, Pennsylvania, had to present evidence to the judge of his guilty plea. The court -- the military equivalent of a misdemeanor civilian court -- took a break and the judge is expected to hand down a sentence, which could be a maximum of one year.>>

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/19/court.martial.sivits/

Just heard on BBC World Service, Sivits was sentenced to a year.

he gets a slap on the hand.
This makes me sick.

KC

Sivits is going to be the finger man for prosecuting the rest of the lower ranking troops. He gets a reduced sentence for ratting out his fellow enlisted men and women and for not ratting out the officers and intelligence agents that instigated the torture in the first place. Military justice like civilian justice is a farce. If you have money or connections your facing a whole different ball game.

The NEOCONS and (Goebbels Senor), the MOUTH PIECE to Pontius Paul Bremer, are spinning this for all its worth.

works for me. Sadly true.

1 year in jail (hard labor? probably not but it is an option) and bad conduct discharge, loses 3 grades (to E-1). They didn't say if the MAX (as outlined last night on several shows) included losing 2/3 of pay. Sounds to me as if they get his testimoney and still gave him the max-for being first (PR) and taking the pictures.

It will be a lot tougher on the other enlisted personnel he testifies against. I don't expect we'll be seeing any interviews with him unless it's on government approved FOX.

to do the "Up YOUR Chain of Command" dance!

Assholes!

It would be hard to put on a trial in one or two days. They also report that Sivits claims that Military Intelligence oredered them to continue "doing what they were doing."

Sounds familiar doesn't it?

when he serves his time. It would truly be a shame if he weren't.

What a sham! He shut his mouth, copped a plea, and walks in a year.

The coverup continues.

He was a specialist so he loses three grades (to E-1), haen't heard if they take 2/3 of his pay yet (NPR said Maimum sentence which would include that), and he is booted out of the service for bad conduct.

Yes he was "part" of the group that did it, in that he took the pictures, but his time in service is basically a non-event now-he won't be able to mention it on his resume/application-time wasted.

It sounds to me that he got screwed over, he copped a plea and agreed to testify against the others but still gets the max. He got slammed for being the first.

How many people?

Wouldn't those have been multiple and separate counts in the US or in a war crimes trial?!

Least among torturers is a torturer nonetheless. He should be doing years. They should disclose the deal, if there was a deal.

A year and a messy resume isn't exactly going to tell the world "we're" serious about this.

Whether or not his name fades from the headlines or not. He has time that he can't account for.

First of all, "conspiring" is a very lose and ambiguous word. Anyone could "conspire" (or be said to have "caonspired") on almost anything.

Secondly, He didn't actually do the torture as far as I have seen and I am certain that all of them were just following orders. That does not excuse them from responsibility but this has to go up the chain. How far? Looks as those Rummy not only knew of it but set this in motion by policies and standards he not only approved but wrote. The brass up the chain has to be held accountable as well but I sense that these underlings are going to be thrown to the wolves (as I said they do have responsibility) in hopes that that quenches the thirst for justice, it shouldn't. Everyone who was involved or SHOULD HAVE BEEN INVOLVED needs to be held accountable, with rank and command come responsibility and higher standards. The lower enlisted are not the only ones who should be slammed for this but I see the whitewash being delivered through the backdoor.

But this guy failed to act.

I've read (I think--ignore this if I'm wrong, on scandal overload here) he was the one taking some of the photographs, so we know that at least for those camera documented acts of sexual abuse and torture, this guy was holding the camera and not actively participating at the moment.

But he is in in the room, which had me saying, as an offense, some sort of conspiracy at the least. (IANAL.)

And what is the camera being used for? Apparently to further intimidate the prisoners. In the present the camera adds to the torture (or mental anguish) by the prisoners knowing that they are being photographed in homosexual and embarrassing acts. The camera makes the situation worse. Later, according to Hersh, the pictures will be used to coerce the prisoners by threatening to release the photos to the prisoner's family and community. The pictures are also to be used, again, according to Hersh, to show new arrivals--"this is what could happen to you."

So the point I'm making is that the camera isn't any small part or passive part of this abuse/torture/war crime/whatever you want to call it. In fact, remember back in early Gitmo days, Bushco making a big deal about how prisoners can not be photographed (humiliated) under the Geneva Conventions. It was self-serving then, of course, but that's exactly what the purpose of some of the photographing appears to be, again per Hersh.

And from Nuremberg we have:

Principle IV
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-nurem.htm

I agree completely that this guy is low on the totem pole, and that full cover-up mode is active. But that doesn't excuse him, and a year and career problems strikes me as light, and just the thing to really inflame Arabs and the world for our first trial about this. They should quickly point out that a deal is in effect (they have, but highlighting that would help prove this isn't going to be a complete sham).

Scandal overload myself. That is a very good way to frame the debate/discussion. Well said.

And contributing to the "chain of evidence" that SecDef, DoD and their masters couldn't control.

He was guilty but a lot of people are counting on his conviction not to end their careers.

The reporter said that his hometwon folks think he got reamed because he was the first. Meat thrown to the "lions" to see if it will appease the masses.

The reporter said that his hometown folks said that he just did what the military appointed attorney told him to do. NEVER trust them (I know from guys I saw busted int he Army) they have their own careers to think about you know.

What charges would have been brought against Mr. Sivits, and what sentences would likely have been given to him, had the same thing happened in the civilian world?

People aren't accustomed to the swiftness of military justice.

Prisoners aren't held in much regard here either and it would be difficult for the info to get out of a prison, let alone reach any prosecutor. Lotsa people here in the U.S. feel that pretty much whatever happens to prisoners is okay. I believe instead that people are sent to prison AS punishment, not to be further punished.

From the BBC Online
Dated Wednesday May 19 13:02 GMT (6:02 am PDT)

US soldier jailed for Iraq abuse

An American soldier convicted of abusing prisoners in an Iraqi jail has been sentenced to one year in prison . . . .
The US is keen to show these were isolated incidents and will be dealt with swiftly, firmly and openly.
But the International Committee of the Red Cross has cast fresh doubt on the treatment of detainees.
ICRC director of operations Pierre Krahenbuhl told the BBC Panorama programme procedures at Abu Ghraib jail were still a cause of concern, despite being highlighted in a confidential February report.

Read more.

Sivits receives harshest penalty in first court-martial for Iraqi prisoner


Sivits receives harshest penalty in first court-martial for Iraqi prisoner scandal

ANTHONY DEUTSCH, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, May 19, 2004

05-19) 07:34 PDT BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) --

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 at the Abu Ghraib prison.

Sivits, who pleaded guilty to four abuse charges, broke down in tears as he expressed remorse for taking pictures of naked Iraqi prisoners being humiliated.

"I'd like to apologize to the Iraqi people and those detainees," he said in his statement. "I should have protected those detainees, not taken the photos."

During the hearing, Sivits, 24, told the court he saw one U.S. soldier punch an Iraqi in the head and other guards stomp on the hands and feet of detainees. He also recounted that prisoners were stripped and forced to form a human pyramid.

more... http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/a/2004/05/19/internation...

"I'd like to apologize to the Iraqi people and those detainees," he said in his statement. "I should have protected those detainees, not taken the photos."

It is still about taking the pictures. That is the only thing rummy and others are concerned about. Not the torture. This is sickening.

This is being sweeped under a rug and these show trials are ridiculous.

And Sivits maintained that the soldiers carried out their campaign of terror at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad with the full backing of military bosses.

He told how some soldiers said they abused detainees on the explicit say so of American Military Intelligence.

"They said that they were told by Military Intelligence for them to keep doing what they were doing to the inmates because it was working, they were talking," he said to a US military court in the Iraqi capital.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14255528%26method=full%26siteid=50143%26headline=troop%2dabuse%2ddone%2d%2don%2dorders%2dof%2dsuperiors%2d-name_page.html

Then all will be right in Juniorville: the guilty have been punished, and we can resume our righteous mantle as freedom-givers

Psst: don't tell god, but Junior is freelancing; he's not only god's chosen messenger, but now he's Johnny Freedomseed. He looks cute with that little saucepan on his head, doesn't he?

Then they court-martialed the low level soldiers involved and gave them a year in the slammer, and a demotion. The public would be clamouring for nuclear war.

I wonder what else they "offered" him to get him to lay down like that..

I seriously doubt that he was in a position to do this on his own or to get the others to do it as well..

Do they play show tunes at a show trial??