US soldier acquitted of assaulting Iraqi prisoner - How?

Sleipnir

So he hit's a guy in the chest, 3 people witness it and the guy dies from his injuries. How was he not guilty then?

Me smells "justice for all except us"



A US soldier has been acquitted of assaulting a 52-year-old Iraqi prisoner who later died of his injuries. Sergeant Gary Pittman had been accused of karate-kicking Nagem Hatab in the chest shortly before he was found dead in a yard at a makeshift prison facility known as Camp Whitemore. A post mortem found that Hatab had six broken ribs and several deep bruises and died from suffocation caused by a broken bone in his throat. Although Pittman was cleared of carrying out the attack at a court martial in California today, he was found guilty of dereliction of duty and abuse of prisoners and could face up to nine months in prison and a bad-conduct discharge. Three witnesses had told the court martial that they saw Pittman assaulting prisoners, including Hatab and a local Muslim cleric.

Stabshauptmann

need more info

RuggieBear

have you a source or link to the story? Sounds outreagous....

Sleipnir

it's on unison.ie

Nuttzz

Thats a misleading headline, he was still found guilty on two other charges, the quality of the 3 witnesses must be in question for him to be acquiited of assault, if course it is impossible to tell with such little detail

Sleipnir

it's not misleading at all, he was aquitted of assault.
Would it be misleading to say "U.S. soldier found guilty of abuse"
No, because it's true.
Headlines can't head read
"U.S. soldier found guilty of abuse and deriliction of duty but not of assault of an Iraqi prisoner"
because newspapers aren't that big

If it wasn't him, where the hell did he get six broken ribs and several deep bruises and died from suffocation caused by a broken bone in his throat.

Could you rely on that soldier's collegues as witnesses?

he was found guilty of abuse of prisoners but not of assault of a prisoner? Come on. Was he guilty of verbal abuse or what?

Stabshauptmann

There is very little detail here but what spring to mind is wide spread abuse of said prisoner, I would be interested to find out if he was an Officer of some sort in Saddam's regime, and that said soldier only inflicted one blow. Thats all that has been proved. One blow doesnt account for all these injuries and thus, he did not kill him but is most definitly guilty of abuse and deriliction of duty.

Did it say assault, or assault causing grievous bodily harm or something to that effect?

Nuttzz

hang on buddy, I didnt find him not guilty, I am just pointing out that the reason someone would be acquitted despite witnesses would be due to some perceived creditability issues around the witnesses, its up to the court to decide on his guilt.

When I say misleading headline I mean that when people hear someone has been acquitted they assume that he has been found not guilty of all charges, Unison (not us!) should really have entitled it US Soldier found guilty of Abuse IMHO.

bonkey

Sleipnir wrote:

So he hit's a guy in the chest, 3 people witness it and the guy dies from his injuries. How was he not guilty then?

Well, I would imagine that the prosecution failed to prove that the injuries which killed the guy were cause by this particular soldier hitting him.

Just because he hit him doesn't mean he was the one who broke all the bones and led to the guy's death.

jc

sovtek

"military justice is to justice what military music is to music."
Something like that anyway.

da_deadman

There is a saying that the first casualty of war is the truth. This extends into war crimes too. The only real war crimes that are punished are those committed by the 'losing' side. If Iraqi army personnel mistreated any American or British PoWs then they would be put on trial for it but since the Americans and British 'won' the war, then their soldiers have very little fear of being put on trial for their war crimes.

Although I do agree that the headline on this story was misleading.

Batbat

american justice, god help us all if Bush is re-elected, they deserve all they get if he is

da_deadman

Batbat, the problem is that if the Americans do re-elect Bush (or even if they elect Kerry), it affects everyone, not just the Americans.

Batbat

da_deadman wrote:

Batbat, the problem is that if the Americans do re-elect Bush (or even if they elect Kerry), it affects everyone, not just the Americans.

thats why I said god help us all

bonkey

da_deadman wrote:

then their soldiers have very little fear of being put on trial for their war crimes.

I'm sure that will come as a great comfort to those US soldiers who have already been put on trial for their warcrimes.

jc

Batbat

bonkey wrote:

I'm sure that will come as a great comfort to those US soldiers who have already been put on trial for their warcrimes.

jc

they were only following orders, its that piece of **** Bush who should be on trial and his cronies

bonkey

Batbat wrote:

they were only following orders, its that piece of **** Bush who should be on trial and his cronies

I bet when it comes to the trials of those in Gitmo, you'd demand such things as a fair trial, innocence until guilt is proven, evidence, and all the rest of it????

If Bush and his cronies are to be tried, there needs to be evidence. They've either done a really good job of hiding/suppressing that, or it just isn't there. In either case, there is nothing to try them for, other than what amounts to little more than a conspiracy theory right now - an insistance that they must be guilty....

But like I said....when Bush &co insisted that the Gitmo detainees "must be guilty" (make no mistake - these are very bad men)...I'm pretty sure you didn't apply the same standards of determining guilt/innocence that you're applying here to Bush & Co.

jc

sovtek

bonkey wrote:

I bet when it comes to the trials of those in Gitmo, you'd demand such things as a fair trial, innocence until guilt is proven, evidence, and all the rest of it????

There is evidence. The Red Cross presented them with it as I remember over a year ago. As well there are the Justice Department memos legally justifying the use of torture.
But like you said there should be trails and such to determine guilt or innocence in both cases. We aren't likely to see one in either case though...unfortunetly.

Batbat

bonkey wrote:

I bet when it comes to the trials of those in Gitmo, you'd demand such things as a fair trial, innocence until guilt is proven, evidence, and all the rest of it????

If Bush and his cronies are to be tried, there needs to be evidence. They've either done a really good job of hiding/suppressing that, or it just isn't there. In either case, there is nothing to try them for, other than what amounts to little more than a conspiracy theory right now - an insistance that they must be guilty....

But like I said....when Bush &co insisted that the Gitmo detainees "must be guilty" (make no mistake - these are very bad men)...I'm pretty sure you didn't apply the same standards of determining guilt/innocence that you're applying here to Bush & Co.

jc

Yeha I guess that 14 year old kid detaiined in Gitmo was a "very bad man", bush is clearly insane and and so is anyone who votes for him