Court Martial Attorney – Civilian Trial Begins for Ex-Iraq Soldier
By Jim Frederick / Paducah, Ky.
With its dark wood benches, plush blue carpeting and rich ornamental details, the second floor courtroom of the U.S. District Court in Paducah, Kentucky, is half a world away from Iraq’s hardscrabble Triangle of Death. But in a trial that opened here on Monday, Steven Green, a former Private First Class from the 101st Airborne Division, stands accused of crimes committed there, one the worst atrocities believed to be carried out by U.S. forces during the war.
Three previous trials have established this much: on March 12, 2006, a small group of junior soldiers slipped away unnoticed from a lightly defended traffic checkpoint just outside the insurgent-infested town of Yusufiyah 20 miles south of Baghdad. Nursing a hatred of Iraqis stemming from heavy losses their unit had suffered, and fueled by several bottles of Iraqi whisky, they embarked upon a premeditated crime of gruesome barbarity. Donning black long underwear outfits as disguises, even though it was the middle of the day, they traveled a few hundred meters to an isolated farmhouse where they gang raped Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi, a 14-year old Iraqi girl and murdered her, her parents, and her six-year old sister. The men returned to their checkpoint unnoticed and for months afterwards, the massacre was considered by the Army and locals alike to be just another outburst of the frequent Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence that plagued the area.
Three soldiers from that murderous expedition have already been tried by court martial for their roles in the crime. All were found guilty and all were sentenced to jail terms of 90 years or longer. But because Green, whom the three other soldiers have described as both the plot’s mastermind and trigger man, was discharged before the full extent of the crime was discovered, he is being tried in a civilian court, where federal prosecutors are seeking the death penalty. He faces 17 counts of conspiracy, rape, murder, unlawful use of a weapon and obstruction of justice. (See TIME’s story on the killings in Haditha.)
In opening statements, federal prosecutor Brian Skaret emphasized the barbarity of the slaughter, focusing almost exclusively on the events of March 12, and Green’s alleged role in it. In the opposing opening statement, however, defense lawyer Patrick Bouldin called attention to what he called “the context of the tragedy.” Although Green is pleading not guilty to all charges, Bouldin did not explicitly affirm his client’s innocence during his remarks, emphasizing instead to the jury that the events of March 12th cannot be fully understood without appreciating the horrific conditions that Green’s platoon labored under, the breakdown in leadership that it suffered, and the clear, repeated warning signs of Green’s instability that his superiors routinely ignored. (Check out a story on whether Iraq should prosecute U.S. soldiers.)
But getting a civilian jury to believe that the frequently dehumanizing extremes of life in a war zone can be mitigating factors for even the most heinous of crimes will be one of the defense team’s greatest challenges. Green is the first former soldier to face trial — and the possible death penalty — in a civilian court for conduct during war. And, during the first day of trial, Green’s lawyers clearly felt forced to assume a pedagogical role that would not be necessary with a military jury. They described not just the psychological toll that constant battle can take, but even the most rudimentary military basics like how many soldiers an infantry staff sergeant leads and how many platoons are in a company.
Over the past year, Green’s lawyers have filed several motions challenging the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA) of 2000 and 2004, a law designed to close the loophole that enabled military contractors or the spouses of servicemen and servicewomen to escape punishment for crimes committed abroad. Green’s lawyers (as well as several military law experts) have maintained that MEJA was never intended to cover cases like his, but, in August, U.S. District Judge Thomas Russell upheld its constitutionality. Green has offered to re-enlist in the Army and face a court-martial, but that request has also been denied.
Where Green is tried could be a matter of his life and death. While the Army punishes murderers severely, it has rarely executed soldiers in the post-World War II era; the last was put to death in 1961. Green’s lawyers have thus maintained that it is fundamentally unfair that their client faces a much harsher potential penalty than his already convicted co-conspirators, against whom the Army did not seek death, and who will be eligible for parole in 10 years. The day before the trial began, federal prosecutors asked the judge that this line of argument be barred from the court, saying it risked biasing the jury because, they wrote in their motion, of “our sense of indebtedness to the service and sacrifice of our fighting men and women.” Green’s trial is expected to last three to six weeks and, if a death penalty is handed down, an already notorious war crime may well become even more so.
Michael Waddington is a court martial lawyer – court martial attorney that defends military personnel worldwide as well as deployed civilian contractors subject to the UCMJ. He defends Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, Coast Guard, and civilian contractor court martial cases. He has successfully defended military personnel as a court martial lawyer Army Navy Marine & Air Force court martials in Germany, England, Italy, Iraq, Kuwait, Korea, Okinawa, Japan, Yokota, and throughout the United States. military-defense-lawyer-recentcases.htm.
Comments on this entry are closed.