History > 2006 > USA > Military justice (III)

The Lawyers

Military Lawyers

Caught in Middle on Tribunals

September 16, 2006
The New York Times
By MARK MAZZETTI and NEIL A. LEWIS

WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 — On Wednesday evening, the night before a crucial Senate vote on the Bush administration plan for the interrogations and trials of terrorism suspects, the Pentagon general counsel, William J. Haynes II, summoned the senior uniformed lawyers from each military service to a meeting.

The lawyers, known as judge advocates general, had been pivotal players in years of debate over detention, interrogation and prosecution.

They had repeatedly sparred behind the scenes with Mr. Haynes, the top civilian lawyer in the Defense Department. This summer, the judge advocates general emerged in public after the Supreme Court struck down a Bush administration plan to take an important role in opposing parts of a White House effort to resurrect military commissions for terrorism suspects in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

But at the meeting on Wednesday, Mr. Haynes sought to enlist the lawyers on the administration’s side by asking whether any would object to signing a letter lending their support to aspects of the White House proposal over which they had voiced little concern.

The lawyers agreed, but only after hours of negotiating over specific words, so that they would not appear to be wholly endorsing the plan.

What followed was a scuffle that left at least some of the military lawyers embittered and stoked old tensions at the Pentagon between civilian leaders and uniformed military officers, who under Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have often found themselves privately at odds.

Early Thursday morning, White House allies distributed the letter that the lawyers had signed, as evidence that the group, known as Jags, now supported the administration plan.

That prompted loud protests from Republican senators opposed to the plan. They dismissed the letter on grounds that the lawyers would have signed it only under pressure.

The truth lies somewhere in between, said one of the senior lawyers and other current and former military officials familiar with their views.

“I didn’t have any problem signing what I signed,’’ Maj. Gen. Charles J. Dunlap Jr., deputy judge advocate general of the Air Force, said Friday in an interview. “How people use it and what they use it for I can’t control.’’

General Dunlap represented the Air Force at the meeting because the top lawyer was out of town.

A spokesman for the Pentagon, Bryan Whitman, said it was nonsense to suggest that the military lawyers had been coerced, a point that General Dunlap agreed with.

“Do you really think that an officer with 30 years’ service could be coerced by the Pentagon bureaucracy to sign something he didn’t want to sign?” General Dunlap asked.

Of the five senior military lawyers, just General Dunlap agreed to comment for the record. Spokesmen for the other four — from the Army, Marines, Navy and Joint Chiefs of Staff — said those senior lawyers would not speak publicly because of the sensitivity of the topic.

Other military officials insisted on anonymity, saying the lawyers’ experience had demonstrated the perils of active-duty officers’ speaking openly about sensitive subjects.

The views of professional military lawyers have been much sought after in the five-year debate over what permissible techniques in the fight against terrorism.

In early 2002, the administration brushed aside the objections of the military’s most senior uniformed lawyers to the original plans for military commissions. When the lawyers’ role as dissenters became known later, they were lauded by human rights advocates and others as having tried to be an independent voice and brake on the administration.

According to documents released last year, the military lawyers later objected strenuously to the conclusions of an administration legal group that said in early 2003 that President Bush had authority as commander in chief to order harsh interrogations of Guantánamo Bay detainees.

In public testimony to Congress last month, the lawyers voiced objections to specific parts of the White House plan, which was an effort to resurrect the Guantánamo military commissions that the Supreme Court struck down. Most significant, the lawyers disputed the provision prohibiting defendants from access to classified evidence against them.

The top uniformed Marine lawyer, Brig. Gen. James C. Walker, said in his testimony that no civilized country ought to deny defendants the right to see evidence against them and that the United States “should not be the first.’’ The lawyers stand by those objections, military officials said.

The letter signed on Wednesday focused instead on two different parts of the White House proposal, the provision amending Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and a provision of the War Crimes Act that enforces that article.

Mr. Haynes drafted the letter focusing on these provisions because neither had been a sticking point in the military lawyers’ objections. But when the lawyers reached Mr. Haynes’s office, they declined to sign immediately, people with knowledge of the meeting said.

The lawyers spent more than an hour huddled in a private room wrangling over language they could agree on and trying to call Rear Adm. Bruce MacDonald, the Navy judge advocate general.

A participant in the meeting said Admiral MacDonald told his colleagues that he could not sign a letter saying he supported the Common Article 3 definition in the White House legislation because he advocated a broader definition that relied more on international law, rather than a narrow interpretation of American constitutional law.

In the end, the military lawyers all agreed to language in the letter saying they “do not object“ to the provisions in the administration bill.

But the letter included a sentence that the clarification would be “helpful to our fighting men and women at war on behalf of their country.”

White House officials said that sentence demonstrated the military lawyers’ support.

General Dunlap said in his mind that signing the letter meant just to convey that trying to clarify ambiguous language was helpful and that it did not mean that he and his colleagues fully endorsed the administration view.

    Military Lawyers Caught in Middle on Tribunals, NYT, 16.9.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/16/washington/16jags.html?hp&ex=1158465600&en=1218dc09761fbf8d&ei=5094&partner=homepage

The Overview

Lawyers and G.O.P. Chiefs Resist Proposal on Tribunal

September 8, 2006
The New York Times
By KATE ZERNIKE

WASHINGTON, Sept. 7 — The Bush administration’s proposal to bring leading terrorism suspects before military tribunals met stiff resistance Thursday from key Republicans and top military lawyers who said some provisions would not withstand legal scrutiny or do enough to repair the nation’s tarnished reputation internationally.

Democrats, meanwhile, said they were inclined to go along with Senate Republicans drafting an alternative to the White House plan, one that would allow defendants more rights. That left Republicans to argue among themselves about what the tribunals would look like and threatened to rob the issue of the political momentum the White House hoped it would provide going into the closely fought midterm elections.

A day after President Bush unveiled the plan at the White House, senior administration officials said Mr. Bush was willing to negotiate with Congress about the shape of legislation to establish tribunals, which would replace those struck down in June by the Supreme Court.

The administration officials, who agreed to discuss internal administration deliberations in exchange for anonymity, said the decision to transfer high-level terror suspects from Central Intelligence Agency prisons to military custody had been the result of months of secret debate at the highest levels of government.

The officials said the change had been most vigorously championed by the State Department, under Condoleezza Rice, against some resistance from a range of officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, who had defended the status quo, in which high-level leaders of Al Qaeda, including the man identified as the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, have been held in secret C.I.A custody.

The 14 terror suspects recently transferred to the American detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, under the administration plan would face war-crimes trials if Congress approves the proposed tribunals. On Thursday, Rear Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr., the commander of the American detention facility, said the 14 prisoners had been registered for the first time with the International Committee of the Red Cross, but he would not say when they had arrived, whether they had arrived together or how long he had known in advance that they were coming.

In Congress, Republican leaders said the House would vote on the president’s proposal the week after next, and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Representative Duncan Hunter of California, argued in favor of the administration’s approach in a hearing on Thursday morning with military lawyers.

But the military lawyers argued back. And the Senate Republicans said there were still several areas of contention between them and the administration, chiefly, a proposal to deny the accused the right to see classified evidence shown to the jury.

Brig, Gen. James C. Walker, the top uniformed lawyer for the Marines, said that no civilized country should deny a defendant the right to see the evidence against him and that the United States “should not be the first.”

Maj. Gen. Scott C. Black, the judge advocate general of the Army, made the same point, and Rear Adm. Bruce E. MacDonald, the judge advocate general of the Navy, said military law provided rules for using classified evidence, whereby a judge could prepare an unclassified version of the evidence to share with the jury and the accused and his lawyer.

Senate Republicans said the proposal to deny the accused the right to see classified evidence was one of the main points of contention remaining between them and the administration.

“It would be unacceptable, legally, in my opinion, to give someone the death penalty in a trial where they never heard the evidence against them,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who has played a key role in the drafting of alternative legislation as a member of the Armed Services Committee and a military judge. “ ‘Trust us, you’re guilty, we’re going to execute you, but we can’t tell you why’? That’s not going to pass muster; that’s not necessary.”

President Bush announced his proposal for bringing terror suspects to trial on Wednesday as part of a round of speeches on national security aimed at drawing a sharp distinction between the two parties: Democrats as weak on terror, Republicans strong. The administration created its system of tribunals shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but the Supreme Court struck down those tribunals in June, saying they violated the Constitution and international law.

Senior administration officials said the decision to acknowledge the C.I.A. program, to move the 14 “high value’’ detainees to Guantánamo and to set up a new system for putting them on trial emerged from a committee President Bush established in January, six months before a Supreme Court decision forced his hand on some of those issues.

The committee, run by J. D. Crouch, the deputy national security adviser, held more than 20 meetings in secret at the White House and a half-dozen higher-level sessions with Mr. Bush’s national security team, which included Mr. Cheney, Ms. Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the director of national intelligence, John D. Negroponte.

While the White House described those meetings today as a largely harmonious effort to remake a detainee system that had raised objections around the world, other officials said Ms. Rice’s State Department was often pitted against Mr. Cheney’s staff.

“There were a range of opinions on a number of issues, but it’s pretty fair to say that the State Department had been arguing for 18 months that we needed to put this whole thing on a strong legislative footing, and end the dispute with the allies,’’ said one official who was part of the process. “And there were others, from the vice president’s office to some in the Justice Department and the White House, who wanted to maintain the status quo.’’

The standoff was broken by the Supreme Court’s decision in June in the tribunal case, which took many in the White House by surprise, the officials said.

Administration lawyers on Capitol Hill said Thursday that the military trials now proposed by the administration were markedly different from the previous system and would pass court scrutiny. Among other changes, the proposal sets up tribunals overseen by a judge who could not also serve as part of the jury. Defendants would be given two appeals, and could not be tried twice.

But Senate Republicans remained divided over the White House proposal.

On one side, Mr. Graham and Senators John McCain of Arizona and John Warner of Virginia have argued that the system must provide enough fairness guarantees that the nation would feel comfortable having American troops tried under it. This is important, they argue, to repair a national reputation that has been damaged internationally by revelations of abuse at Guantánamo Bay and at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and to set a model for how other countries might try American troops.

On the other side, Senators John Cornyn of Texas and Jeff Sessions of Alabama have shown more inclination to endorse the president’s proposal. Mr. Cornyn said after a round of meetings Thursday that he still supported the president’s approach on classified evidence, but that he hoped the differences could be bridged. “We’re trying,” he said.

Democrats have essentially said they would back Senators Warner, Graham and McCain, leaving the Republicans to lead the fight against the administration, and allowing the Democrats to avoid political fallout from challenging the administration while maintaining their criticism of the administration’s handling of the war in Iraq.

“I think you’re looking for a fight that doesn’t exist,” Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader, told reporters.

In testimony on the Hill, an administration lawyer stood firm on the importance of denying suspects the right to know the classified evidence against them.

“In the midst of the current conflict, we simply cannot consider sharing with captured terrorists the highly sensitive intelligence that may be relevant to military-commission prosecutions,” said the lawyer, Steven G. Bradbury, the acting assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel.

David E. Sanger contributed reporting.

    Lawyers and G.O.P. Chiefs Resist Proposal on Tribunal, NYT, 8.9.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/08/washington/08detain.html?hp&ex=1157774400&en=fa1da1053abb2a24&ei=5094&partner=homepage

3 Republican senators among critics of military tribunal plan

Updated 9/7/2006 12:17 AM ET
USA TODAY
By Joan Biskupic and Andrea Stone,

WASHINGTON — President Bush's long-awaited plan for military commissions to try foreign terrorist suspects was criticized Wednesday by fellow Republicans who said the proposal, which omits many of the usual safeguards of a military trial, doesn't go far enough to protect prisoners.

"I do not think we can afford to again cut legal corners that will result in federal court rejection of our work product," said Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who with fellow Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and John Warner of Virginia has been most critical of the president's position on tribunals.

The three senators expressed optimism about a compromise. Warner, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he hoped to introduce a bipartisan bill soon and said Congress could pass a bill before members go home to campaign for the Nov. 7 election.

He and the others refused to provide details of their plan, but Graham made clear that among the "points of contention" was the White House proposal to bar a defendant from seeing all evidence against him. Graham and others expressed concern about setting precedents that could be used against captured U.S. troops.

Bush's plan would allow classified information to be shown to the jury but not the accused and would allow prosecutors to introduce hearsay evidence that traditionally is barred. Such evidence, under the Bush plan, would be allowed if it came from witnesses who were dead, imprisoned or otherwise unable to testify. As a result, the person on trial would not be able to sufficiently challenge the evidence against him. Some statements obtained "by coercion" could be used if a military judge found that they were reliable.

Human rights groups offered the harshest criticism. They said Bush's plan too closely mirrored the tribunal arrangement struck down by the Supreme Court on June 29.

"The draft may say it's modeled on the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but it's a pale imitation," said Deborah Pearlstein of Human Rights First.

Similar criticism came from Georgetown University law professor Neal Katyal, who represented Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni national accused of being a driver for Osama bin Laden. His case led to the rejection of the original Bush plan for military tribunals.

Katyal said the administration was shunning fundamental rules used in World War II tribunals. "We've had a tradition that we don't kick criminals out of their trials," he said.

Others applauded the plan. Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice said the proposal will "protect the integrity of the process for all involved while at the same time protecting vital national security interests."

Bush's first plan for trying foreign terrorism suspects was announced two months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The high court said it lacked sufficient safeguards, in violation of the U.S. military code of justice and the Geneva Conventions.

Bush's new proposal tracks many of the procedures used in military trial and ensures a defendant's access to a lawyer. The plan would specify which war crimes could be heard by tribunals rather than allowing vague charges.

The plan stops short of matching the code cited heavily by the justices. Bush said allowing detainees to see classified information to be used against them could jeopardize national security. He said hearsay evidence should be allowed because some foreign nationals are too dangerous to be brought to the USA or Guantanamo Bay to testify.

    3 Republican senators among critics of military tribunal plan, NYT, 7.9.2006, http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-06-gitmo-senators_x.htm

Legislation

Proposal for New Tribunals for Terror Suspects Would Hew to the First Series

September 7, 2006
The New York Times
By KATE ZERNIKE and NEIL A. LEWIS

WASHINGTON, Sept. 6 — Under the measure that President Bush proposed on Wednesday, Khalid Shaik Mohammed and other major terrorism suspects would face trials at Guantánamo Bay in military tribunals that would allow evidence obtained by coercive interrogation and hearsay and deny suspects and their lawyers the right to see classified evidence used against them.

The proposed tribunals would largely hew to those that the Supreme Court rejected in June. The measure says Congress would, by approving the proposed tribunals, affirm that they are constitutional and comply with international law, which the Supreme Court said they did not.

Senate Republicans, who have been working on their own bill, said they were wary of the provisions on hearsay and classified evidence and questioned whether the administration had resolved the problems that the court raised.

The Republicans said that the administration had come a long way in resolving differences with Congress in the last month and that they expected to smooth over remaining differences in time to pass a bill before breaking for the final burst of election campaigning.

“I do not think we can afford to again cut legal corners that will result in federal court rejection of our work,” Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said.

A former military judge, Mr. Graham is pivotal in the negotiations between the White House and Congress.

At the same time, the Pentagon released a new Army Field Manual that requires humane treatment of all terrorism suspects and sets strict limits on interrogation techniques.

The rules apply to the 14 members of Al Qaeda who the president announced had been transferred from Central Intelligence Agency prisons to the Guantánamo Bay naval base in Cuba. Those prisoners have been interrogated in C.I.A. prisons and could be questioned further and brought to trial under whatever provisions Congress approves.

The manual covers specific methods that, although never authorized in the previous version, have been disclosed in abuse cases, including at Guantánamo and at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, since 2001.

The manual, held up for more than a year by debates in the administration and with Congress, specifically bans forcing a detainee to be naked or perform sexual acts; using beatings and other forms of causing pain, including electric shocks; and placing hoods over prisoners’ heads or tape on their eyes.

Also barred are staging mock executions; withholding food, water or medical care; or using dogs against detainees. In addition, the manual bans a technique known as waterboarding, in which a prisoner is strapped to a board and made to feel as if he is drowning.

“No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices,” Lt. Gen. Jeff Kimmons, a senior intelligence officer, said at a news conference in the Pentagon.

Democrats and Republicans praised the changes in the manual. Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, welcomed them as long overdue.

“If the administration had behaved this way before Gitmo and the drifting of Gitmo to Abu Ghraib,’’ Mr. Levin said, “we would have been a lot more secure country, our troops would have been more secure, and our position in the world would have been more favorable.”

Mr. Levin and others contested points in the president’s proposal for tribunals, in particular denying the defense the right to see, and therefore respond to, classified information that is shown to the jury and allowing the introduction of hearsay and coerced evidence.

Those two categories would be allowed if the judge decided that they were probative and reliable.

“If the defense cannot see what the jury sees and argue against it in some way, then it’s inconsistent with our current federal rules, which are applied in trials against terrorists,” Mr. Levin said.

Senator John McCain of Arizona, another important Republican on the committee, which will take the lead on bills, said a judge should decide whether classified evidence could be introduced.

“That’s pretty much been a 200-year standard for treatment of classified material,” Mr. McCain said.

According to the proposal, only in “extraordinary circumstances” could a judge allow classified evidence, and if it was allowed, the defendant could not be present when it was introduced.

Senators and top military lawyers had urged the administration to use military law as its guide in drafting proposal.

Mr. Graham emphasized again on Wednesday that the military justice system outlined ways to allow classified evidence to be introduced without jeopardizing national security.

“I do not believe it is necessary to have trials where the accused cannot see the evidence against them,” he said.

He predicted that this would make the bill vulnerable to more court challenges and that it would establish a bad precedent that could be used against American troops if other countries brought them to trial. In the bill, the administration says military laws for courts-martial were inappropriate for terrorists. To use those rules, the measure says, “would make it virtually impossible to bring terrorists to justice for their violations of the law of war.”

The proposal found some support.

Senator John Cornyn, the Texas Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he would endorse the approach over legislation drafted by colleagues.

“I just believe that as a matter of principle that you don’t unnecessarily share classified information with terrorists in the course of a military tribunal,” Mr. Cornyn said.

Senator John W. Warner, the Virginia Republican who is chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he would release the panel’s proposed measure in a few days.

The House Armed Services Committee is scheduled to meet on Thursday to hear testimony on the proposed legislation from military and administration lawyers.

In rejecting earlier tribunals, the Supreme Court said they violated a provision of the Geneva Conventions known as Common Article 3. The provision mandates the humane treatment of captured combatants and prohibits trials except by “a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized people.”

The court said those minimal rights were missing in the first commissions because of the failure to guarantee the defendant the right to attend the trial and the prosecution’s ability under the rules to introduce hearsay evidence, unsworn testimony and evidence obtained through coercion.

The proposed legislation deals with the objections by saying Congress stands by the president in deeming them in compliance with Common Article 3. In effect, the legislation, if enacted, would pit Congress and the executive branch against the court in interpreting what was meant by the laws that say the United States will comply with Common Article 3.

To inoculate officials and civilian interrogators from the potential of being charged under the War Crimes Act for what they may have done, the bill has a provision making it retroactive to Sept. 11, 2001, the day of the terrorist attacks.

    Proposal for New Tribunals for Terror Suspects Would Hew to the First Series, NYT, 7.9.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/07/washington/07tribunal.html

U.S. troops face court-martial in rape case

Tue Sep 5, 2006 3:36 AM ET
Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Army investigator has recommended that four soldiers be court martialled over the killing of a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and other family members, which could lead to the death penalty, a lawyer for one of the soldiers confirmed on Tuesday.

Lawyer David Sheldon said the investigator agreed with military prosecutors that his client, Specialist James Barker, and three other soldiers charged with raping the girl and killing her, her 6-year-old sister and their parents at their home in Mahmudiya, be court martialled.

"The investigating officer recommended that my client and the other three soldiers face a general court martial," Sheldon said, adding the soldiers could face the death penalty.

At a military hearing in Baghdad a month ago, a prosecutor demanded a court martial for Barker, Sergeant Paul Cortez, and Privates First Class Jesse Spielman and Bryan Howard.

The prosecutor said that Abeer al-Janabi, 14, was found shot dead at home along with the other family members. He said some of the accused testified they and other members of their checkpoint unit killed the four and raped the teenager.

The case shocked Iraqis otherwise accustomed to violence and angered the U.S.-backed Iraqi government.

The prosecutor dismissed a defense case that they were "driven nuts" by the strain of combat in an area where insurgents are active.

Mahmudiya is said by U.S. infantrymen to be the "triangle of death" because of the constant deadly attacks by Iraqi insurgents.

Sheldon said he will file objections to the recommendation concerning his client by the close of business on Friday. Counsel for the other soldiers also are preparing challenges to the investigator's report, the New York Times reported.

"The investigating officer denied critical witnesses to Barker and the others accused. He also denied their right to a public hearing," Sheldon said.

A fifth soldier is charged with dereliction of duty.

Former private Steven Green, since discharged from the unit, faces trial for rape and murder in a U.S. civilian court.

    U.S. troops face court-martial in rape case, R, 5.9.2006, http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-09-05T073640Z_01_N05303213_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-RAPE-COURTMARTIAL.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C2-TopNews-newsOne-1

Death penalty urged for soldiers accused of murder in Iraq

Updated 9/2/2006 3:42 PM ET
AP
USA Today

PHOENIX (AP) — An Army investigator has recommended that four soldiers accused of murder in a raid in Iraq should face the death penalty, according to a report obtained Saturday by The Associated Press.

Lt. Col. James P. Daniel Jr. concluded that the slayings were premeditated and warranted the death sentence based on evidence he heard at an August hearing. The case will now be forwarded to Army officials, who will decide whether Daniel's recommendation should be followed.

The soldiers, all from the Fort Campbell, Ky.-based 101st Airborne Division's 187th Infantry Regiment, are accused of killing three Iraqi men taken from a house May 9 on a marshy island outside Samarra, about 60 miles north of Baghdad.

Staff Sgt. Raymond L. Girouard, Spc. William B. Hunsaker, Pfc. Corey R. Clagett and Spc. Juston R. Graber have claimed they were ordered to "kill all military age males" during the raid on the island. According to statements from some of the soldiers, they were told the target was an al-Qaeda training camp.

Hunsaker told investigators that he and Clagett were attacked by the three men, who were being handcuffed, and shot them in self-defense. Clagett said he was hit in the face, and Hunsaker claimed he was stabbed during the attack.

Prosecutors argue the soldiers conspired to kill the men and then altered the scene to fit their story. They contend Girouard stabbed Hunsaker as part of the killing plot.

Clagett, Girouard and Hunsaker also are accused of threatening to kill another soldier who witnessed the slayings. Girouard, the most senior soldier charged, faces several additional charges, including sexual harassment and carrying a personal weapon on duty.

Paul Bergrin, Clagett's civilian attorney, said he was surprised that Daniel recommended the case be taken to trial at all.

"I'm extremely disappointed and disheartened," Bergrin said Saturday. "They are being used as pawns in the war on terror. They followed the rules of engagement. They were confronted with violence by a known al-Qaeda training camp member."

Other lawyers in the case, several of whom are deployed to Iraq, did not immediately respond to e-mail requests for comment.

The soldiers are expected to be tried at Fort Campbell. They have been jailed in Kuwait since their arrests this year.

The U.S. military has not executed a soldier since the 1960 hanging of a soldier convicted rape and attempted murder.

    Death penalty urged for soldiers accused of murder in Iraq, UT, 2.9.2006, http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-09-02-soldiers-accused_x.htm

Army Recommends Death for Accused GIs

September 2, 2006
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 2:50 p.m. ET
The New York Times

PHOENIX (AP) -- An Army investigator has recommended the death penalty for four soldiers accused of murder during a raid in Iraq.

Lt. Col. James P. Daniel Jr. made the recommendation in report obtained Saturday by The Associated Press.

Daniel found several aggravating factors that warrant a sentence of death in the case of four soldiers accused of killing three men during the May raid in the Salahuddin province.

Staff Sgt. Raymond L. Girouard, Spc. William B. Hunsaker, Pfc. Corey R. Clagett, and Spc. Juston R. Graber, all of the Fort Campbell, Ky.-based 3rd Battalion, 187th Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division, were accused in the deaths.

The soldiers have claimed they were ordered to ''kill all military-age males'' during a raid on an island on a canal in the province. According to statements from some of the soldiers, they were told that the target was an al-Qaida training camp.

Hunsaker told investigators that he and Clagett were attacked by the three men and shot them in self-defense. Clagett said he was hit in the face and Hunsaker claimed he was stabbed during the attack.

''I had felt this action necessary for they had tried to use deadly force on me and my comrade,'' Hunsaker wrote in a statement.

    Army Recommends Death for Accused GIs, NYT, 2.9.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Iraq-Soldiers-Charged.html?_r=1&oref=slogin