US soldier gets ONE year for abusing prisoners.

[JME2]

Why not a regular court marshal to give the bastard what he deserves and also to not piss the Iraqis off so much?

So, you would rather this guy go down harder, but as a result some of the others get off scot free ? That was the condition of the plea bargain: In return for ratting out some of his fellow miscreants, he gets a special court martial and thus a maximum sentance of 1 year. I doubt any of the others will get off so easy.

And of course, there's the whole revenge factor to consider once the longer sentences are served.

[Ma Deuce]

And of course, there's the whole revenge factor to consider once the longer sentences are served.

Yep. Add that to the life-long consequences of dishonerable discharge, and this guy is easily getting his fair share of punishment. The Iraqis won't see it that way, of course. The only thing that'll satisfy them is a brutal public execution...

[Plekhanov]

Why not a regular court marshal to give the bastard what he deserves and also to not piss the Iraqis off so much?

So, you would rather this guy go down harder, but as a result some of the others get off scot free ? That was the condition of the plea bargain: In return for ratting out some of his fellow miscreants, he gets a special court martial and thus a maximum sentance of 1 year. I doubt any of the others will get off so easy.

Putting morality and justice aside for a second (as the military seem to have done pretty much permanently) this guy is going down first, his case will get the most publicity, it is likely to be the one remembered by the Iraqis as such it would make sense not to go so easy on him.

Why couldn’t they have given him a cast iron guarantee of a low sentence and used him against the others to gain convictions to send the other low ranking offenders down for a good long sacrificial stretch, and then quietly slipped his low sentence through later?

[Plekhanov]

And of course, there's the whole revenge factor to consider once the longer sentences are served.

What revenge factor? what the hell are you talking about?

[Ma Deuce]

What revenge factor? what the hell are you talking about?

He means that some of the folks that Sivits ratted out might stalk him down for betraying them (and ruining their lives) after they get out of prison.

[Plekhanov]

He means that some of the folks that Sivits ratted out might stalk him down for betraying them (and ruining their lives) after they get out of prison.

First of all it wasn’t him but they (or the higher ups who ordered them to do so) who ruined their lives when they gleefully engaged in the torture and humiliation of powerless human beings.

Plea bargains are very common in the states I expect the authorities are well used to dealing with the negative after effects up to and including revenge attacks, so I expect they have provision for witness protection if necessary.

If I was feeling a little heartless, which I am to pretty much everybody on the coalition side involved in this case apart from the wholly innocent troops on the ground having to deal with consequences of these sadists’ actions, I would say that the risk of revenge is one of the potential consequences of ratting out your mates.

[Ma Deuce]

First of all it wasn’t him but they (or the higher ups who ordered them to do so) who ruined their lives when they gleefully engaged in the torture and humiliation of powerless human beings.

True, but they won't see it that way after they are court martialed and discharged based on Sivit's testemony. Many people have a strong tendancy to shirk personal responsibility...

[RogueIce]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't DDs reserved for a general court-martial? I don't think a special CM can give them out...

Still, I know a general CM will, in addition to everything else, count as a federal (felony most likely) conviction on your record; does a special CM hold that same status?

I only got a fairly brief overview on military law, and that was over a year ago, probably not going to get an "in-depth" one here for awhile yet.

[Vympel]

So what does this fucking scumbag get?

[Tsyroc]

The 24-year-old Sivits will face a year of confinement, discharge for bad conduct, and demotion to the rank of private. His sentence will automatically be appealed.

Bad Conduct isn't as bad as a dishonorable discharge but it's definately not good.


CNN's explaination about military prosecutions.

U.S. military prosecution, step by step
Court-martial similar to civilian court process



(CNN) -- U.S. military authorities have filed charges against seven soldiers accused of abusing Iraqi prisoners -- but that is only the beginning of the military prosecution process.

The military legal system is dictated by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a federal law that sets the foundation of U.S. military law.

First, the accused person's commander recommends charges and forwards them to a special court-martial convening authority, usually a senior officer, according to David Sheldon, a military law expert and former military defense attorney. That officer, or authority, normally oversees the trial from beginning to end.

The authority reviews the material and orders a hearing -- known as an Article 32 hearing -- to determine if the charges merit a general court-martial.

Unless security concerns prohibit it, Article 32 hearings are open to the public, said Eugene Fidell of the National Institute of Military Justice.

At the hearing, similar to a civilian preliminary hearing, a legal officer decides whether the evidence is adequate to pursue charges. The prosecution and defense may call witnesses, and the accused may testify, but that is rare.

The legal officer then recommends whether the charges should be pursued or dropped, but the convening authority is not required to adopt the recommendation.

If the case does move to court-martial, the convening authority selects jurors and decides whether the accused will face a possible death penalty.

The jurors are officers and enlisted personnel, but the defendant can choose to be tried solely by a military judge.

There are different types of courts-martial, convened according to the severity of the charges:


A special court-martial -- military equivalent of a civilian misdemeanor court -- is used in less serious cases and requires only a jury of three.

A general court-martial is for felony-level offenses. It carries heavier sentences and requires a jury of at least five members. General courts-martial that carry a potential death penalty must have 12 jury members.

A summary court-martial governs petty offenses and has a one-officer court. This type of court-martial is becoming increasingly rare.
As in civilian court proceedings, the charges must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a court-martial, and defendants have the right to a lawyer, a jury trial and to question the evidence against them.

Not all jurors must agree in a military court. Imposing the death penalty demands a unanimous vote, but in most cases, conviction and sentencing require a two-thirds majority.

Jurors, called panel members in a court-martial proceeding, vote by secret ballot. While mistrials are possible in a court-martial, it is impossible to have a hung jury that would allow a new trial. If the government fails to obtain the required two-thirds majority, the defendant is acquitted.

Sentencing is conducted by the jury. Unlike in civilian courts that often have mandatory minimum sentences, a jury can impose zero punishment on a conviction in a court-martial.

Also unlike in civilian courts, in cases that carry multiple charges, only one sentence is returned for a guilty verdict in a court-martial.

Guilty verdicts in a general court-martial are subject to automatic review, Fidell said.

The justice code also allows the U.S. president to prescribe the procedures for courts-martial.

The president's rules have to "apply the principles of law and the rules of evidence" recognized in the civilian justice system. The president's instructions are detailed in an executive order known as the Manual for Courts-Martial.

[GySgt. Hartman]

What I find a little troubling is this:

But FoxNews legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said the soldier was unlikely to level accusations against his commanders.

The judge said prosecutors most likely told Sivits only to "squeal" against fellow soldiers and not commanders or the he would face stiffer penalties.

From here.