Court Martial Lawyer | Military Attorney 706-821-2222

New court martial members sworn in
Wednesday, 16th September, 2009

Kakuru, Abigaba, Odoi and Kimora take oath before Rwehururu on Tuesday
By Charles Ariko

NEW members of the General Court Martial were sworn in by Brig. Bernard Rwehururu, who was recently appointed by President Yoweri Museveni to head the army court. Brig. Rwehururu took over from Lt. Gen. Ivan Koreta, who had served for two terms.

The swearing-in ceremony for the new officers took place on Tuesday, at the General Court Martial premises in Makindye. The officers who took oath were Lt. Col. Sam Kakuru, Maj. Johnson Odoi and Capt. Augustine Bwegendaho, who will serve as the judge advocate.

Judge advocates are lawyers seconded to the court as technical persons to advise the panel. The other officers are captains Godfrey Abigaba, Naboth Mugisha, and Simba Ongol and Warrant Officer II to Desire Kimora.

Although Rwehururu took his oath as chairman of the court on July 31, the court could not sit before it was fully constituted.
—————–
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, San Diego, Norfolk, Jacksonville, Fort Bragg, Fort Jackson, Fort Stewart, Fort Gordon, Italy, Iraq, Kuwait, Korea, Okinawa, Japan, Yokota, and throughout the United States.

Court Martial Attorney - Bangladeshi mutineers won’t face court martial

| Author : DPA
News Category : Asia

Dhaka – Bangladesh on Tuesday decided to prosecute nearly 3,500 border guards allegedly involved in a late-February mutiny at the Bangladesh Rifles Headquarters in Dhaka under the paramilitary force’s own laws, rejecting the military’s demand that they be court marshalled. “The mutineers will be tried under the Bangladesh Rifles Orders of 1972 and 1976, but those who were involved in killings and other offences during the rebellion will be prosecuted at a speedy trial tribunal under the penal code,” Law Minister Shafique Ahmed told reporters after an inter-ministry meeting which decided the mode of the trial.

The Bangladesh Rifles is a paramilitary force run under the Ministry of Home Affairs, rather than the Defence Ministry, and has different laws governing the conduct of its troops.

The 33-hour troop mutiny against their commanders that ended at the BDR’s Dhaka headquarters on February 26 left 75 people, including 57 army officers, dead, triggering tension in the regular armed forces.

The army has demanded the immediate prosecution of the mutineers under the Army Act of 1952, but the government of Sheikh Hasina Wazed sought the top Bangladeshi court’s opinion.

The Supreme Court opposed the court-martial demand.

Bangladesh’s Criminal Investigation Department, with the help of Britain’s Scotland Yard and the US Federal Bureau of Investigation, has been investigating the mutiny.

Once the department submits its report, the trial is scheduled to start sometime in November, the law minister said, adding the chief of the Bangladesh Rifles would run the trial outside Dhaka in line with the BDR Act by forming courts in those places.

“The trial will be fair and transparent under whichever law it takes place,” he said.

Rights groups have cast doubt on whether the alleged mutineers would get justice if they were prosecuted in a court martial.

Posted on : 2009-09-15 | Author : DPA
News Category : Asia

Dhaka – Bangladesh on Tuesday decided to prosecute nearly 3,500 border guards allegedly involved in a late-February mutiny at the Bangladesh Rifles Headquarters in Dhaka under the paramilitary force’s own laws, rejecting the military’s demand that they be court marshalled. “The mutineers will be tried under the Bangladesh Rifles Orders of 1972 and 1976, but those who were involved in killings and other offences during the rebellion will be prosecuted at a speedy trial tribunal under the penal code,” Law Minister Shafique Ahmed told reporters after an inter-ministry meeting which decided the mode of the trial.

The Bangladesh Rifles is a paramilitary force run under the Ministry of Home Affairs, rather than the Defence Ministry, and has different laws governing the conduct of its troops.

The 33-hour troop mutiny against their commanders that ended at the BDR’s Dhaka headquarters on February 26 left 75 people, including 57 army officers, dead, triggering tension in the regular armed forces.

The army has demanded the immediate prosecution of the mutineers under the Army Act of 1952, but the government of Sheikh Hasina Wazed sought the top Bangladeshi court’s opinion.

The Supreme Court opposed the court-martial demand.

Bangladesh’s Criminal Investigation Department, with the help of Britain’s Scotland Yard and the US Federal Bureau of Investigation, has been investigating the mutiny.

Once the department submits its report, the trial is scheduled to start sometime in November, the law minister said, adding the chief of the Bangladesh Rifles would run the trial outside Dhaka in line with the BDR Act by forming courts in those places.

“The trial will be fair and transparent under whichever law it takes place,” he said.

Rights groups have cast doubt on whether the alleged mutineers would get justice if they were prosecuted in a court martial.

—————–
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, San Diego, Norfolk, Jacksonville, Fort Bragg, Fort Jackson, Fort Stewart, Fort Gordon, Italy, Iraq, Kuwait, Korea, Okinawa, Japan, Yokota, and throughout the United States.

Interim military justice system passed in Australia
September 14, 2009
An interim military justice system which replaces a court set up under the former Howard government has been fast-tracked through the federal parliament.

Defence Minister John Faulkner on Monday welcomed the passage of legislation which means the Australian Defence Force (ADF) will revert to a system of trials by court martial.

A second bill dealing with past Australian Military Court sentences and orders also passed the lower house.

“It is critical that the ADF has a functioning military discipline system,” Senator Faulkner said.

The introduction of the temporary system follows a High Court decision last August which ruled the Australian Military Court was constitutionally invalid.

The court was set up, on ADF advice, by the Howard government in 2007.

Earlier, parliamentary secretary Mike Kelly told the lower house the reinstatement of the former system was a transitional arrangement while the government worked out a new permanent system that was impartial, independent and met the constitutional requirements.

Dr Kelly, a former soldier, said it would maintain “continuity of discipline” in the military.

Opposition frontbencher Bob Baldwin said the priority was to ensure the ADF had a constitutional system that was impartial, independent and transparent.

Mr Baldwin said the government’s temporary measures were “the best that can be done”.

Liberal Peter Lindsay said while he supported the interim measures it would have been better if the parliament could have passed a permanent solution on Monday.

The High Court decision wasn’t unexpected, he said.

“Perhaps it might have been prudent for those who advise the government to really have worked out what the long-term solution would be rather than just the interim solution.

“It would have been better to have been debating a permanent solution in the best interests of the ADF and the wider community tonight rather than a temporary solution.”

The Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No 1) 2009 and Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No 2) 2009 passed the lower house with the support of the coalition.

—————–
Michael Waddington is a court martial appeal lawyer – court martial appeals 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, San Diego, Norfolk, Jacksonville, Fort Bragg, Fort Jackson, Fort Stewart, Fort Gordon, Italy, Iraq, Kuwait, Korea, Okinawa, Japan, Yokota, and throughout the United States.

Federal Appeals Court Rules in Favor of CACI in Abu Ghraib Case

Mon Sep 14, 2009

ARLINGTON, Va., Sept. 14 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — CACI International Inc
(NYSE: CACI) announced today that it welcomes a ruling handed down by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit dismissing the claims in two lawsuits
filed in 2004. The Court held that the federal interest in the prosecution of
war was sufficiently strong to preempt the Iraqi plaintiffs’ state law tort
claims against CACI.

“The Court’s decision today is an important step toward resolving all legal
matters regarding the company’s mission and duties in Iraq. None of the Iraqi
plaintiffs in these lawsuits even alleged that they had any contact with
anyone affiliated with CACI. Indeed, the Court acknowledged that the Army’s
investigation found that the lead plaintiff was never actually interrogated or
abused. No CACI personnel appeared in any of the notorious photographs at Abu
Ghraib and no one affiliated with the company has been charged with any
wrongdoing. We have said from day one that these lawsuits are completely
without merit and today’s ruling vindicates that position,” said Paul Cofoni,
CACI President and Chief Executive Officer.

“CACI did its work at Abu Ghraib prison with professionalism and integrity. We
are proud of the work we did in very difficult and dangerous conditions, in a
war zone. The Army was in need of help and we provided qualified professionals
who made valuable contributions to the war effort in Iraq. We assisted the
Army in obtaining useful intelligence information that helped save the lives
of American troops on the battlefield,” Cofoni added.

In April of 2008 CACI released the book Our Good Name, which is a true and
factual accounting of CACI’s involvement at Abu Ghraib. The principal author,
Dr. J.P. London, CACI Chairman of the Board, was CACI’s President and CEO at
the time of the Abu Ghraib controversy. London stated, “Our thoroughly
researched book is based entirely on public documents and statements, sworn
testimony before Congress, official government reports, sworn courts martial
testimony, and other highly reputable sources in the public record. Our Good
Name is the definitive account of what CACI went through during the Abu Ghraib
controversy and media firestorm.” The book also tells the American people
about the real CACI – a company dedicated to helping our military and our
country. We invite people to visit http://www.caci.com/iraq/iraq_news.shtml
and http://www.caci.com/iraq/truth_error.shtml to learn the truth about CACI.

—————–
Michael Waddington is a court martial appeal 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, San Diego, Norfolk, Jacksonville, Fort Bragg, Fort Jackson, Fort Stewart, Fort Gordon, Italy, Iraq, Kuwait, Korea, Okinawa, Japan, Yokota, and throughout the United States.

Court martial system to replace AMC – in Australia
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/court-martial-system-to-replace-amc-20090909-fgeh.html

September 9, 2009

The federal government will attempt to reinstate the old court martial system following the suspension of the Australian Military Court (AMC).

The High Court ruled that the AMC, although expressly not a court according to its legislation, was exercising the judicial power of the commonwealth and that made it invalid under the Australian Constitution.

The AMC was set up in October 2007 and the High Court decision leaves in limbo 171 finalised decisions.

Under draft laws, introduced to the Senate by Defence Minister John Faulkner on Wednesday, an interim system will operate until a more permanent arrangement can be established.

The bill proposes to reinstate the military justice measures which existed prior to the establishment of the AMC, such as trials by courts martial and defence force magistrates, the statutory position of Chief Judge Advocate, the Judge Advocate’s panel and the Registrar of Military Justice.

The system of reviews and petitions in relation to summary trials, and trials by courts martial or defence force magistrates will also be restored, as will the powers of reviewing authorities.

The draft laws will provide transitional arrangements for all matters referred on appeal to the AMC but which were not finalised before the High Court’s decision.

Provisions will be made for AMC office holders to automatically transition into the new roles of Chief Judge Advocate, members of the Judges Advocates’ panel and Registrar of Military Justice.

In order to maintain the continuity of discipline in the Australian Defence Force (ADF), Labor’s legislation will impose disciplinary sanctions on convicted offenders in line with that already meted out by the AMC.

Senator Faulkner said there may be circumstances where a person, subject to AMC disciplinary action, might want to contest whether it should still be enforced.

The draft laws will allow personnel to seek a review of their circumstances and the reviewing authority will be able to overturn AMC rulings.

“In cases where the disciplinary liability imposed by the bill relates to detention – a serious disciplinary measure peculiar to the ADF – the bill requires automatic review by the reviewing authority to determine whether that disciplinary liability should be discharged,” Senator Faulkner said.

The government was committed to an impartial military justice system that was transparent, independent and treated all ADF members fairly.

“In the interim, it is critical and urgent that the ADF has a functioning military discipline system, particularly when it is engaged in operations overseas,” he said.

Labor will move to establish a constitutionally-compliant replacement military court as soon as possible.

“The temporary reinstatement of the military justice system which pre-existed the establishment of the AMC will not only address the hiatus in the disposition of higher level military discipline,” Senator Faulkner said.

“It will allow time for the establishment of a military court which meets the requirements of … the constitution including the introduction of appropriate legislation for this purpose.”

Debate on the bill has been adjourned.

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, San Diego, Norfolk, Jacksonville, Fort Bragg, Fort Jackson, Fort Stewart, Fort Gordon, Italy, Iraq, Kuwait, Korea, Okinawa, Japan, Yokota, and throughout the United States. military-defense-lawyer-recentcases.htm.

The 27 Soldiers Must Be Released

Chinedu Bosah 9 September 2009

Lagos — The 7-year jail term given to the soldiers by the Army High Command is still unacceptable to members of the Education Right Campaign (ERC).

The Nigerian Army, through the Director of Amy Public Relations, Brig-General Chris Olukolade and Director of Legal Services, Army headquarters, Brig-General Abdukadir Abubakar, as reported in Vanguard newspaper of August 29, 2009, has tried to justify its action. Gen. Olukolade stated that the decision of the army authorities was informed by the army’s attempt to achieve justice and equity in the delivery of justice. What a way to insult the sensibility of the 27 soldiers, their families and the generality of Nigerians! Between fraud and protest, which should be punished? In this case, the army authorities have unjustifiably punished the 27 soldiers who complained of brazen theft of their entitlements while the officers who committed fraud merely earned a demotion in rank.

How do we explain a situation whereby 850 soldiers who participated in peace-keeping for 6 months in Liberia were not paid their allowances, which was supposed to be $1,228 per month and $7,368 for the period, for each soldier? The soldiers, after waiting in vain for 3 months, protested on July 4, 2008. They had been offered $3,000 each for the six-month period instead of $7,368. They were later tried and condemned to life imprisonment by the Brig-General Ishaya Bauka-led Court Martial in May this year. The 27 soldiers have since July 5, 2008 been incarcerated and, to make matter worse, they are kept in deplorable conditions.

To the army authorities, the officers only committed an error in the discharge of their duty while the soldiers committed mutiny. According to the army authorities, “What actually happened was that a team was dispatched to pay two groups of soldiers that returned from the mission area; one in Makurdi and the other in Akure. The soldiers in Makurdi had collected their savings while in the mission area but those of Akure were to receive their own on arrival back home. The team which started with the unit in Makurdi mistook them for the unit that was yet to collect their savings and therefore paid them what should have been paid to the unit in Akure”.

It is only in a country like Nigeria that that kind of story could be comfortably told, which, in a way, was to absolve those officers who were convicted for stealing and fraud by the same Court Martial.

Colonel Awotoye, who was the commander of the Makurdi-based 72 Battalion, received the allowances meant for the Akure unit despite being paid its own unit allowance and, for several months, kept quiet until the soldiers protested the fraudulent diversion and the army authorities called it an ‘error’! Can we be made to believe that the officers of the Army Finance (Major Abubakar Shonwa, the Deputy Director of Army Finance, Lt. Col. P.A Bala and Major C.A Njoku) who paid this money twice to the same unit also acted in error? If the whole money was paid twice to the same unit in error, where did they get the money with which they attempted to pay the soldiers ($3000 each) and why did the army authorities earlier offer the soldiers of the Akure unit $3000 instead of $7368? Even the Court Martial, while delivering the judgment on the officers, said: “The prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you collected the allowance that you were not entitled to, pocketed it and walked away thereby depriving the owners of the allowances. This is fraud and you are hereby found guilty of the charge of stealing.” It is clear there is more to this scandal than we know and if properly probed by elected independent panel, we would discover that more top-ranking officers beyond the 4 convicted officers were involved in this fraud.

The Education Rights Campaign calls for the immediate release of the 27 soldiers. We make this call because the decision of the army authorities is unjust, unfair and undemocratic. We call on the NLC, TUC and other pro-people organizations and individuals in this country to stand up against this brazen robbery and injustice.

Chinedu Bosah is the National Secretary of Education Rights Campaign (ERC)
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, San Diego, Norfolk, Jacksonville, Fort Bragg, Fort Jackson, Fort Stewart, Fort Gordon, Italy, Iraq, Kuwait, Korea, Okinawa, Japan, Yokota, and throughout the United States. military-defense-lawyer-recentcases.htm.

Court Martial Hearings At Halt

Anthony Wesaka
9 September 2009

The general Court Martial (GCM) in Makindye, Kampala has for over a month not been hearing cases due to an incomplete panel, Daily Monitor has learnt.

President Museveni in July appointed Brig. Bernard Rwehururu as the new chairman of the GCM taking over from Lt. Gen. Ivan Koreta. The panel that is supposed to have seven members has only the new chairman, Brig Rwehururu.

During the hand over in July, Maj. Timothy Zakama, a prosecutor, said since 2002, a total of 554 cases were registered, out of which 391 were disposed of, leaving a backlog of 163 cases.

Lt. Col. Felix Kulaigye, the army spokesperson, yesterday said it is President Museveni, who is responsible for the appointment of the panel, adding that the courts management has written to him about the matter and waiting for his response.

Attempts to contact State House spokesperson Tamale Mirundi on the issue were futile as his mobile phone was switched off.

———–

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, San Diego, Norfolk, Jacksonville, Fort Bragg, Fort Jackson, Fort Stewart, Fort Gordon, Italy, Iraq, Kuwait, Korea, Okinawa, Japan, Yokota, and throughout the United States. military-defense-lawyer-recentcases.htm.

Lejeune corpsman pleads guilty during court martial

September 09, 2009 7:18 PM
AMANDA HICKEY
A Camp Lejeune hospital corpsman pleaded guilty Wednesday during special court martial proceedings to reckless endangerment for pointing a pistol at the chest of a lance corporal while deployed to Iraq.

Petty Officer 2nd Class Spencer H. Hamer, with 2nd Tank Battalion, was sentenced to 60 days of confinement and reduced in rank to seaman by Military Judge Maj. Glenn Hines.

Sometime in November — Marine officials said they do not have an exact date — while at Combat Outpost Hawas, Hamer pointed a 9mm pistol at Lance Cpl. Emerson E. Boutin for between five and 10 seconds and asked him “do you trust me?”.

The “so-called trust game,” as it was referred to during court proceedings, typically involves a non-commissioned officer pointing a weapon at a junior Marine and asking if they trust them.

Boutin, who earlier pleaded guilty to committing the same offense at the battalion level, testified that he said “no” and Hamer proceeded to start trying to catch rounds as they ejected from the pistol.

“Before I put (the pistol) away I got the crazy idea … to eject a round and catch it midair. I failed on my first attempt and I realized how dumb that was so I put my weapon away,” Hamer said during the proceedings.

Hamer said he was unsure if the magazine was fully inserted into the pistol and that he held the magazine with his pinky and ring finger to keep it from falling out.

“Any number of things could have gone wrong even though I mistakenly believed it was safe. … The more I think about it now had anything gone wrong I could have easily hurt or killed him,” Hamer said.

The unit was on their first patrol of their deployment, which was Hamer’s second and Boutin’s first, and had been guarding munitions for approximately 10 hours at the time of the incident, officials said.

“We’d been out there for about 10 hours; we had no idea when our relief was coming. I wanted a break from the monotony … I absolutely lost my mind, there’s no good reason for that. It was a stupid mistake,” Hamer said.

Minutes before Hamer asked Boutin “do you trust me,” Sgt. Michael C. Singles asked Boutin the same thing, according to court testimony. Boutin testified that when Singles asked, he answered “yes.”

Singles has also been charged with reckless endangerment and is awaiting an Article 32 hearing.

“I didn’t know HM2 (Hamer) as long as Sgt. Singles,” Boutin said.

The Marines and sailors are taught to “treat every weapon as if it’s loaded” and “do not point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot,” Hamer said.

“(The weapons safety rules) have been in the back of my mind since boot camp,” Hamer said.

Hamer also said that the incident is not one he intends to ever repeat.

“I thought I was being relatively safe, not completely; but now looking back at it, I’d like to go back and slap myself,” he said.

Another Camp Lejeune Marine will face reckless endangerment and other charges Thursday during a special court martial.

Cpl. Matthew Nelson was charged with involuntary manslaughter, 10 counts of reckless endangerment and negligent discharge of a firearm in a March 9 incident where he allegedly asked Lance Cpl. Patrick Malone, 21, if he trusted him a moment before pulling the trigger of his M9 sidearm and shooting Malone in the forehead.

—————–

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, San Diego, Norfolk, Jacksonville, Fort Bragg, Fort Jackson, Fort Stewart, Fort Gordon, Italy, Iraq, Kuwait, Korea, Okinawa, Japan, Yokota, and throughout the United States. military-defense-lawyer-recentcases.htm.

Court Martial Lawyer – Ex-soldier gets life for Iraq rape, murders

He admits role, says civilians can’t fathom war conditions

By Deborah Yetter
dyetter@courier-journal.com

PADUCAH, Ky. — A former U.S. Army private was sentenced Friday to life in prison with no possibility of release for the 2006 rape and murder of an Iraqi girl and the murders of her parents and younger sister.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Russell imposed the sentence on Steven Dale Green, 24, after Green spoke briefly, acknowledging his role in the atrocity, but arguing that few in the courtroom could understand the conditions of war or events surrounding the crime.

“I’m not gonna act like what happened was OK. It was all messed up,” he said. But “you don’t know what happened, you don’t understand anything about it.”

Green argued the three other soldiers convicted got lesser sentences through military court martial, including one soldier who outranked him and who Green said directed the attack on the Iraqi family in their home outside Baghdad.

“I wouldn’t have gone in there if he hadn’t told me to,” said Green, standing before the judge shackled and wearing a green jail uniform. “I’m not saying it’s an excuse or whatever. (But) if I hadn’t entered the Army or gone to Iraq I never would have got caught up in all that and that’s all I’ve got to say about it.”

Green, who’s originally from Texas, was tried in federal court because he was charged after he left the Army.

His lawyers said yesterday they may appeal the conviction, based on their question of whether he was entitled to a court martial.

Russell said he believed Green’s sentence was appropriate and he would have imposed it even if it were not required by law.

Russell was bound to hand down the life sentence because a federal jury that decided Green’s guilt early this year could not agree on whether to recommend the death penalty.

Although the judge said he understands Green was affected by the horrors of war, “what Mr. Green did was equally horrifying and almost unimaginable,” he said. “It is out of character for the vast majority of our men and women who serve in the military.”

Russell also noted that Green apparently had suffered an abusive childhood and was eventually discharged from the Army for mental health problems. He noted many defendants in his court come from disadvantaged backgrounds, calling it a “sad commentary.”

According to testimony, the three others convicted in the case, Spcs. Paul Cortez and James Barker and Pvt. Jesse Spielman, said they abandoned a traffic checkpoint and walked to the Iraqi family’s house March 12, 2006, after planning the attack while drinking whiskey and playing cards.

Cortez and Barker took turns raping Abeer al-Janabi, 14, while Green fatally shot her parents, Kassem and Fakhriya and her sister, Hadeel, 6. Then Green raped Abeer before shooting her in the head.

Cortez was the ranking soldier in charge that day, according to testimony.

The three agreed to testify against Green in exchange for a promise by prosecutors to report their cooperation to the Army parole board.

They received lengthy sentences but will be eligible for parole in 2016.

Friday’s 90-minute hearing — given largely to arguments about technical changes in a sentencing report that could affect Green’s placement or treatment but not his life sentence — contrasted sharply with a hearing in May in which relatives of the slain family angrily denounced Green.

At the sentencing hearing in May, Green apologized to the family members who attended, saying “something happened to me that I can only explain by saying that I lost my mind.”

But several family members who spoke rejected the apology, with the family matriarch, Hajia al-Janibi, Abeer’s grandmother, lunging at Green screaming, “May God ruin his life. He killed my son.”

A cousin, Mahdi al-Janabi, condemned Green and said, “You will see the innocent face of this girl in your dark cell for the rest of your life.”

On Friday, Green’s lawyers, federal public defenders Scott Wendelsdorf and Patrick Bouldin, argued Green should get credit for accepting responsibility for the crime — though that would not have changed his sentence.

Bouldin said Green had offered to plead guilty before the trial but the offer was rejected by U.S. Department of Justice officials in Washington so prosecutors could seek the death penalty.

“He did everything he could to try to plead guilty, Bouldin said.

But Assistant U.S. Attorney Marisa Ford objected, and Russell denied the request.

Other than speaking at the end of the hearing Green sat quietly throughout. No friends or relatives attended on his behalf.

Green’s trial was held in Paducah because Green, who is from North Carolina, had been deployed from Fort Campbell, in Western Kentucky and Tennessee, with the 101st Airborne Division.

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, San Diego, Norfolk, Jacksonville, Fort Bragg, Fort Jackson, Fort Stewart, Fort Gordon, Italy, Iraq, Kuwait, Korea, Okinawa, Japan, Yokota, and throughout the United States. military-defense-lawyer-recentcases.htm.

Mutiny: Army Confirms 27 Soldiers’ Conviction

•Commutes sentences to 7 years jail

From Juliana Taiwo in Abuja, 08.30.2009

The 27 soldiers of the 15th Nigerian Battalion that served in the United Nations Mission in Liberia earlier sentenced to life jail terms by a Military Court Martial, yesterday had their sentences commuted to seven years jail terms. They were court-martialed for demonstrating on the streets of Akure, Ondo State, in July last year over unpaid allowances.
Giving the update on the matter at a joint press conference, Director of Army Public Relations, Brig-Gen. Chris Olukolade, and Director Army Legal Services, Brig-Gen. Abdulkadir Abubakar, said the sentence of life imprisonment given to the convicted soldiers was commuted to seven years imprisonment and that the convicts were expected to have been moved into prison immediately.
“In arriving at the decision, the Nigerian Army authorities did not only consider the plea of mitigation by the counsel to the soldiers in which they pleaded for mercy as part of their responsibilities to their clients, but also the army’s attempt to achieve justice and equity in the delivery of justice. Accordingly, the findings of the General Court-Martial have been confirmed. The sentence of life imprisonment given to all the convicted soldiers has however been commuted to seven years imprisonment”, he said.
Olukolade and his colleague dismissed insinuations that the confirmation came rather too late since the mandatory 60 days after judgement allowed for such had expired. They said the Armed Forces Act was very clear on the proceeding. “The proceedings must transmit from court-martialed venue to the confirming authority within 60 days and this was done within the statutory period.”
They also said the fate of the officers that were involved in the mistakes that led to the delay of the payment which resulted in the protest by the soldiers will be determined by Army Council soon.
“They (officers) were tried for negligence and are expected to be duly punished in line with the outcome of the court martial. The Army Council is the approving authority for the confirmation of their punishment and any moment after now they will sit and is only after that we will discuss their punishment. But for now those cases remain subjudice”.
Olukolade, reading the Army Headquarter’s confirmation, said: “we wish to place on record our observations on the flurry of public sentiments which the trial process had generated while it lasted. Of utmost interest to us was the resolve on the part of the lawyers, who participated in the process to spearhead a media campaign which tended to sensationalise the entire process.
“By virture of their calling, one would have expected much more diligence than was exhibited. That a court-martial duly constituted, following the provisions of the Armed Forces Act, is a court of competent jurisdiction under extant Nigerian law is not any way in doubt.
“The fact that matters before a court are not subject to public debate wither on the pages of newspapers or on television screens or other organs of the mass media might be strange to laymen, but not to lawyers.”
Olukolade further said: “It must be stated in clear terms that what actually happened was that two teams were dispatched to pay two groups of soldiers that returned from the mission area – one in Makurdi and the other in Akure. The soldiers in Makurdi had collected their savings while in the mission area but those of Akure were to receive theirs on arrival back home. The team which started with the unit in Makurdi, mistook them for the unit that was yet to collect their savings and therefore paid them what should have been paid to the unit in Akure.
“On arrival in Akure, the team realised the error and was making necessary arrangements to correct the situation when some of the soldiers in Akure, resorted to rioting.
But lawyer to the convicts, Mr. Femi Falana, in a reaction to the confirmation of the sentences on his clients, condemned what he called the treatment meted to the soldiers and call for the “immediate release of the record of proceedings to enable us to challenge the charade at the court of appeal.”
He said: “On April 27, 2009, a court martial convicted and sentenced 27 soldiers to life sentence for protesting the stealing of $1m operational allowances paid to them by the UN through the Nigerian Army. The officers, who cornered the fund and exposed Nigeria to shame and ridicule were identified, tried but were only made to forfeit a rank by the same court martial.
“By commuting the life sentence to 7 years imprisonment, the army council attempted to redress the gross injustice which marred the inquisition of the victims of “authority stealing”.
He added that: “We had to sue the Chief of Army Staff when the verdict was not confirmed within the 60 days allowed by law, hence the belated confirmation announced today (yesterday),” he added.

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, San Diego, Norfolk, Jacksonville, Fort Bragg, Fort Jackson, Fort Stewart, Fort Gordon, Italy, Iraq, Kuwait, Korea, Okinawa, Japan, Yokota, and throughout the United States. military-defense-lawyer-recentcases.htm.