CBC wrote:BAGHDAD - The U.S. military filed criminal charges – including adultery and committing indecent acts – against a military police officer Friday in connection with the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal.
Military Police Cpl. Charles A. Graner faces seven charges, including:
Conspiracy to maltreat detainees.
Dereliction of duty for woefully failing to protect detainees from abuse.
Maltreatment of detainees.
Assaulting detainees.
Committing indecent acts.
Adultery.
Obstruction of justice.
Graner will be arraigned on May 20.
Six military police officers face criminal charges in connection with abuse at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison.
Spc. Jeremy C. Sivits will face a court martial on Wednesday, while Staff Sgt. Ivan Frederick II and Sgt. Javal S. Davis will be arraigned on May 20.
In transcripts published Friday by the Washington Post, Sivits told military investigators that prisoners were forced to strip, masturbate and punch each other. He alleges Graner put a sandbag over one prisoner's head and knocked him unconscious.
Sivits, who has agreed to co-operate in exchange for lesser charges, also told investigators the abuse would not have happened if higher-ranking officers had been present.
I have no problem charging him for abuse, but adultery? What is this the middle ages?
M1891/30: A bad day on the range is better then a good day at work.
SecondStorm wrote:Is adultery a crime in the U.S. ?
There must be another explanation..
I seem to remember that adultery is considered a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I consider that a "get'em" charge. As in if he gets off on the other charges they can still discharge him for adultery. But maybe some of the serving and ex-members of the military can shed some light on this.
M1891/30: A bad day on the range is better then a good day at work.
Apparently you *can* be punished for adultery if it hurts the US army.
But why?
Is it because that military is supposed to hold higher standards than non-military ?
Ah hah what he's really being charged with is "conduct which is prejudicial to good order and discipline". There is a similar article in the Canadian version of the UCMJ but to my knowledge no Canadian soldier has ever been charged with adultery under it. I'd really like to know the reasoning for charging this soldier with adultery, did he have sex with PFC England in front of Iraqi prisoners and take pictures of it?
M1891/30: A bad day on the range is better then a good day at work.
SecondStorm wrote:Is adultery a crime in the U.S. ?
There must be another explanation..
I seem to remember that adultery is considered a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. I consider that a "get'em" charge. As in if he gets off on the other charges they can still discharge him for adultery. But maybe some of the serving and ex-members of the military can shed some light on this.
It is, and it is used genreally as a 'get em' charge. You really shouldn't be too surprised at a long list of charges at the begining of a case. It is a know tactic to charge a defendent with everything including the kitchen sink, and then see what sticks.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong
But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red
My understanding is that relationships between people in the same chain of command (basically, subordinates/superiors) is what drives these charges (this is - "should be"). Theoretically, this makes sense.
In this case, it does sound like the equivalent of the US prosecutors tacking on "mail fraud" to 99% of the cases - a "gotcha" charge
Jalinth wrote:My understanding is that relationships between people in the same chain of command (basically, subordinates/superiors) is what drives these charges (this is - "should be"). Theoretically, this makes sense.
In this case, it does sound like the equivalent of the US prosecutors tacking on "mail fraud" to 99% of the cases - a "gotcha" charge
Not to mention at least according to some sources I've seen he even got PFC England pregnant (who was suppposedly one of his subordinates). I believe that and the fact he was screwing her to begin with would have gotten the both of them in trouble even with out the prisoner abuse.
As it is, yes it is simply something more they can be charged with.
The few times I've seen people charged with adultery in which it wasn't one of the military's "get 'em" moves is when there has been a complaint. The complaint usually comes from the spouse who's being cheated on. Basically, the military doesn't use this charge unless the activity is brought to their attention. It's not something they generally go around looking to enforce but they will definately use it.
This guy is screwed. Even if he weasles out of all the other charges I somehow doubt they'll let him off of this one. What's he going to say? "I was ordered to do her. You know, take one for the country?". If they've got a picture of him they've got him.
By the pricking of my thumb,
Something wicked this way comes.
Open, locks,
Whoever knocks.
You know, the more I hear about these bonheads the more I want to see a detailed breakdown of their drug test. These people had to have been on something freaky to be this completely and insanely stupid.
Were they on some kind of power trip that made them horny and fucking stupid?
By the pricking of my thumb,
Something wicked this way comes.
Open, locks,
Whoever knocks.
"If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training, you will be a weapon,
you will be a minister of death, praying for war." - GySgt. Hartman
"God has a hard on for Marines, because we kill everything we see." - GySgt. Hartman
Exmoor Cat wrote:IIRC, this is a shady character with a load of civil charges in his history. PRobably was him who got England to pose in the photos.....
The only sense in which he probably "got" her to pose was in offering to snap the pics, if at all. Just because she's a woman doesn't mean she can't be a vicious, vile, and stupid fuck-up like the rest.
If they've got a picture of him they've got him.
