webnarc Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,17926420%255E401,00.html By Steve Saint in Fort Carson, Colorado A US army jury today ordered a military interrogator be reprimanded but not sent to prison for the killing of an Iraqi general who was stuffed head first into a sleeping bag. Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer, the highest ranking army official charged in the death of an Iraqi detainee, also was ordered to forfeit $US6000 ($7970) in pay and given 60 days of restricted movement. Welshofer, 43, was convicted of negligent homicide by the same jury on Saturday after it decided the death of the general, who was suspected of leading the Iraqi insurgency along the Syrian border, was not murder. The homicide conviction carried a maximum sentence of three years in jail and dishonorable discharge. Welshofer placed Major General Abed Hamed Mowhoush head-first in a sleeping bag, bound him with electrical cord and sat on his chest during a fatal interrogation in November 2003. Prosecutors described Welshofer's sleeping bag technique as "torture" and asked for a two-year jail sentence as well as dishonorable discharge. "He decided getting the job done was more important than getting the job done right," said prosecutor Captain Elana Matt. "The reputation of the army has been eroded by Mr Welshofer both here and around the world." US treatment of prisoners in Iraq and at the detention centre in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has become an issue around the world. The Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq became notorious after the release of photographs showing prisoners being abused and mocked by US military personnel. Former soldier Lynndie England, seen in pictures with naked Abu Ghraib prisoners in humiliating poses, was sentenced to three years in prison and two other soldiers were given sentences of 10 and eight-and-a-half years. Witnesses at Welshofer's sentencing hearing portrayed him as a dedicated soldier fighting the growing insurgency in western Iraq. Welshofer became tearful when asking the jury for leniency. "I have tried to be a loyal soldier, putting the needs of this nation before my own," he told the court. Barbara Welshofer also became tearful while testifying on her husband's behalf. She said her three children were hurt and confused and the family has spent its life savings on Welshofer's legal defence. "Fighting these charges is the hardest thing we've had to face in our life together," she said. Welshofer's lead defence lawyer, Frank Spinner, said the military chain of command failed to give clear guidance to soldiers on the ground in Iraq. Welshofer testified that he believed his techniques were authorised. "Chief Welshofer fought for his country and then they told him he was a criminal," Spinner said. "When you send men and women in to fight, you've got to give them clear rules." Welshofer's sentence will be reviewed by Fort Carson's commander, who has the power to lighten it further or dismiss it altogether. Welshofer will continue to serve in the post's security office, is up for promotion and can retire in July. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Think he'll get the promotion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 So we can all agree that this is torture or atleast a poorly done version of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Hey the guy killed someone but he did take a temporary pay cut. What do you want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 I can't get over this: "Welshofer's lead defence lawyer, Frank Spinner." I'm sure the Iraqis will be happy to see that we don't just slap the wrists of our people when they get caught torturing someone to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsBry Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 I've seen guys get similar punishments for testing positive on a drug test. The enlisted soldiers from Abu Ghraib they mentioned are serving significant time in prison. This officer kills someone in the process of torturing him and pretty much walks away. Effin officers. :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Air Force Cane Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Lock it up about officers.. Anyway, he was given orders to get the information from a Saddamist General- I have no problem with the sentence. It is a war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsBry Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Lock it up about officers.. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Lock it up about officers..Anyway, he was given orders to get the information from a Saddamist General- I have no problem with the sentence. It is a war. Lynndie England got 3 years for humiliating someone and this guy gets no jail time for causing a prisoner's death? How is the credibility of our military being protected here? In my humble opinion, this makes military justice look like a joke which is a slap in the face to the 99.99% who serve with honor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webnarc Posted January 24, 2006 Author Share Posted January 24, 2006 Lock it up about officers.. "Former soldier Lynndie England, seen in pictures with naked Abu Ghraib prisoners in humiliating poses, was sentenced to three years in prison and two other soldiers were given sentences of 10 and eight-and-a-half years." and this joker gets, well, nothing much really. Anyway, he was given orders to get the information from a Saddamist General- I have no problem with the sentence. It is a war. Didn't work because he murdered the guy; torture doesn't work fellas. Anyone strong enough not to speak will die, everyone else will say what they have to to get the torture to stop. How are you with the torture McCain endured? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 .How are you with the torture McCain endured? Oh, no no no. Those were BAD guys. We are the GOOD guys. Why do you hate freedom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Just surfing to see if there's more information on this, elsewhere. (Among other things, I was wondering why I had to hear about this from a Redskins site quoting a non-US article.) Here's something with some more information. A Denver Post op-ed has some other information. Among other things, the defendant claimed his superiors knew what he was doing and didn't object. It also contains the line And now we are asked to apply it [the "ends justify the means" defense] to a man so bad that "other government agencies" beat him savagely a few days before the Army crammed him into a sleeping bag and smothered him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webnarc Posted January 24, 2006 Author Share Posted January 24, 2006 (Among other things, I was wondering why I had to hear about this from a Redskins site quoting a non-US article.) Stupid liberal media selling out to the terrorists again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCRunner Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 Sounds like a good job by the defense attorney. He's probably close to retirement. He's got 3 kids and a wife. He may have an otherwise spotless record. Judges are also human beings - not matter what they would have you believe. Not knowing all the details, it does sound like an involuntary manslaughter case. Not sure if negligent homicide in the military covers involuntary or voluntary manslaughter or both - which is what he was convicted of. Probation is usually available for manslaughter/negligent homicide sentencing. I really have no opinion on whether this was appropriate given THIS defendant in THIS case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Sounds like a good job by the defense attorney. He's probably close to retirement. He's got 3 kids and a wife. He may have an otherwise spotless record. Judges are also human beings - not matter what they would have you believe. Not knowing all the details, it does sound like an involuntary manslaughter case. Not sure if negligent homicide in the military covers involuntary or voluntary manslaughter or both - which is what he was convicted of. Probation is usually available for manslaughter/negligent homicide sentencing. I really have no opinion on whether this was appropriate given THIS defendant in THIS case. Fair observations. A lot of things seem to be outside the realm of the current laws. There's plenty of folks responsible for this 'accidental' death, but they try to pin it on one guy, and a court which is dedicated to being fair to the one guy can't pin the whole crime on him. So he gets slapped on the wrist and justice waits for his friends to be brought to trial. It's getting clear that some laws need to change. I don't like the open discussion of tactics that we use to defend ourselves. There needs to be some kind of secret council of war that includes the President, the Supreme Court Chief Justice, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, CIA/NSA/FBI/ and leaders of Congress. 20 members max. They would decide what ethical policies we would use in the war. They would determine if existing laws/precedents allowed that policy. If the desired policy was ruled illegal, then what steps would need to be taken to make it legal. (Secret Court order, Presidential order, Congressional action, or revisions to the Constitution). Most of what this group would do would be done in secret. And if we don't like something that that they do, or don't do, we can elect new leaders. And while we wonder about what the secret folks are doing we can be happy that we are still alive to wonder about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I don't like the open discussion of tactics that we use to defend ourselves. Sorry, but I've got a problem with that statement. There is absolutely no "national security" reason why the US can't reveal what kind of tortures we use. The only reason this information is concealed, is so that Bush can lie, and say "we don't use torture". And the people he's telling that lie to isn't Al Qeda. They assume they're going to be tortured. They expect it. (Source: The former head of the FBI's New York counter-terror office, quoted here about a year ago. Al Qeda thinks the US is the Great Satan.) The people he's lieing to is the people of the US. He wants to declare himself dictator, and not lose votes. He's not concerned that the US will be weakened if Al Qeda learns the secret sleeping bag technique. He's afraid that if the voters find out how many whoppers he's fed them, he'll get fired. Edit: This post comes accross as an attack on you, and/or your statement, and that's not what I intended. I guess what I'm objecting to is the Right Wing Spin Machine's assertion that the only thing wrong with Abu Gahrab, torturing people to death, wiretapping without warrants, kidnapping american citizens, and government databases of uppity citizens, is that people are finding out about them. In order to defend these actions (and they have to defend them, otherwise they'd have to admit that somebody on their "side" isn't perfect) by claiming that they were done to protect the country (which I'd be willing to believe. I don't think Bush sits around the Oval Office rubbing his hands together and grinning at videos of last night's waterboardings. Cheney, maybe, but not Bush. ), and they have to claim that they were kept secret for national security reasons, too. (Which is utter BS). (The fact that that utterly bogus claim then leads into them hiding their redacted version of the Constitution inside a flag, while pointing at everyone but themselves and shouting "Treason!" is simply another political tactic.) I'm really tired of the line. But nothing personal at you, or, really, your use of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Sorry, but I've got a problem with that statement. There is absolutely no "national security" reason why the US can't reveal what kind of tortures we use. The only reason this information is concealed, is so that Bush can lie, and say "we don't use torture". And the people he's telling that lie to isn't Al Qeda. They assume they're going to be tortured. They expect it. (Source: The former head of the FBI's New York counter-terror office, quoted here about a year ago. Al Qeda thinks the US is the Great Satan.) The people he's lieing to is the people of the US. He wants to declare himself dictator, and not lose votes. He's not concerned that the US will be weakened if Al Qeda learns the secret sleeping bag technique. He's afraid that if the voters find out how many whoppers he's fed them, he'll get fired. You take my statement about the need for secrecy out of context and talk about lies that the Bush Administration may be telling. Try reading the suggested solution instead of picking out a sentence you don't like. The current laws don't fit the war we are in. They need to change. I'm suggesting a council of war that crosses discipline, branch of government and party to determine war policy. It wouldn't be George Bush determining what could be done and what to tell us about it. Instead, a legal group of the most knowledeable, invested citizens of this country would be deciding what to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuposse87 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I've always been for eye for an eye. I don't know how this guy being part of the military excludes him from such punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 You take my statement about the need for secrecy out of context and talk about lies that the Bush Administration may be telling. Try reading the suggested solution instead of picking out a sentence you don't like. The current laws don't fit the war we are in. They need to change. I'm suggesting a council of war that crosses discipline, branch of government and party to determine war policy. It wouldn't be George Bush determining what could be done and what to tell us about it. Instead, a legal group of the most knowledeable, invested citizens of this country would be deciding what to do. Apologies. Aparantly you were reacting to my (inflamatory) post, while I was attempting to backpedal. (And, as to your sugestions, I like the idea. A lot of the things Bush has done, I can see that there might be a need where a President might NEED that kind of power. My problem is the assertion that the Executive has the authority to simply grant itself any power it thinks it needs. I've even stated that I don't have a problem with things like disapearing people and using torture, if there's enough oversight.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Larry, sorry I was bored. I'm tired of liberals these days, and I'm a liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Kumbyah at my place, 10:30. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 There are a few things that this case brings to light. First and foremost, no one can deny anymore that we torture prisoners. Any information extraction process that might reasonably result in death is torture by anyone's standards. So at least we are done with the legal mess of what constitutes torture, and the only thing we need to argue now is whether or not torture is acceptable. As far as secrecy, no way. There is absolutely no reason (that I can see) to hide the tactics which are allowed to our troops. Maybe I'm missing something. I do not believe we should accept torture under any circumstances, but if it must be done, I think that it should be highly regulated. Individual cases of torture can be kept secret. I have no problem with that (other than the whole torture thing). We do not need to make public that we captured so and so and are torturing him. But what must be public is the methods we are using. If that happens I trust the american public to ban it. If that doesn't happen, then hey, we live in a democracy and I'll live with it, but keeping the fact that we torture hidden is unacceptable. I see wskin that you've made your position a little more clear, so I'll add this. Your idea is a good one. The specifics of those meetings need not come to light. In fact, in a limited situation where a doomsday scenario occurs, I could see them saying we need to take out all the stops right now. That information could be sensitive, and I could see how letting people know that we are pulling out the stops could let enemies know our plans. There is a balance. But as a matter of things troops can do without direct presidential oversight, I think that should be made public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 It's known as "Different Spanks for Different Ranks" If this had been an enlisted guy, he'd be in jail with the rest of the enlisted guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wskin44 Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 As far as secrecy, no way. There is absolutely no reason (that I can see) to hide the tactics which are allowed to our troops. Maybe I'm missing something. Whether it's interrogation techniques or high level electronic survelience, if these tactics are discussed openly we give the enemy a chance to take countermeasures. Terrorists can be taught what to expect if they are captured and how to resist certain interrogation techniques. Osucka stopped using his satelite phone when a newspaper reported that we could monitor his calls. I don't need to know what we are doing. I just want to know that a broad range of accountable Americans are making the decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Air Force Cane Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Relax Francis- I was just kidding. Although it is pretty easy to see your resentment for being enlisted rather than an officer, I just saw "Wedding Crashers" and wanted to use the "lock it up" "no YOU lock it up!" line :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Relax Francis- I was just kidding. Although it is pretty easy to see your resentment for being enlisted rather than an officer, Sorry LT, but I get a whole lot more respect as a SMSgt than a butterbar does, every minute of every day of the week. And we'll see about resentment when the RIF's start flying next year. The only thing I do resent though is looking at the list of general officers that have gotten a slap on the wrist over the years for stuff enlisted would be buried under the jail for doing. Name Ficus ring a bell? The general IN CHARGE of the whole JAG in the AF. The one that is supposed to prosecute crimes, including sexual harassment and adultry cases among other things, and yet had a harem of women all over the planet? Busted to Col. Ohhhhhhhhhhh, how rough. Still golfing and hanging with the boys in retirement, and probably making more in retirement than I make working. Shall I go on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.