« Previous · Home · Next »
'JAG'ged Justice?
By John
Unhappy about the Haditha investigation and military justice as a whole, Eric Umansky writes in Slate:
There is no independent prosecutor's office in the military. There's nothing like the Department of Justice or an attorney general. Prosecutions only happen when a commander decides to have them. If an officer believes somebody under his command might have done wrong, then the commander can go after him and bring charges. Or not. It's all up to his discretion.
Umanksy isn't necessarily wrong, but he isn't exactly right either. It is true that commanders have exceptional power when it comes to the prosecution and punishment of their troops, but the way Umansky spins the story makes it sound like individual commanders are the end all/be all for military justice. In reality, the military legal system -from investigation to prosecution- is an incredibly complex, multi-layered entity, in which the unit commander is a single stone in the technicolored mosiac.
Umansky props his argument up on this cornerstone:
It took the military four months to launch a formal criminal investigation of the killings at Haditha—and it came only after Time magazine started raising questions. The delay is going to make the case that much harder to prosecute.
The fact that the military considered Haditha a legal engagement prior to Time magazine politicizing the situation should be telling. But while the military is still trying to ascertain exactly what happened at Haditha, Umansky has already taken the next step, saying, in essence, that "there was a massacre, and shame on the military for taking 4 months and the prompting of a magazine to launch the proper investigation."
Even if the investigation discovered some sort of grand coverup that permeated the accused Marines' chain of command (right now there isn't), there is no evidence of other coverups that would indicate some sort of flaw in the military investigation process. There's no pattern here, no repeat offenders.
In fairness, Umansky isn't seeking a top down overhaul of the military legal system. He argues for improvements to the existing system. But his entering argument for the said improvements is based on a military investigation that is still very much in process, making his point as a whole a bit difficult to digest.
**Update** Army Lawyer takes a somewhat more aggressive stance on the Slate article.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://op-for.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/264
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'JAG'ged Justice?:
» qugezunocacisacn from qugezunocacisacn
nice post [Read More]
Comments
The allegations were made the same month the incident occurred and the video shown on TV within weeks. What happened "several months" afterward was that Time conducted their own investigation by conducting interviews and reviewing evidence.
So it might be more accurate to say the Army launched a proper investigation as soon as their original investigation was shown to be lacking.
What is notable though as to the question of a coverup is that during this intervening period of the Army learning of the allegations, concluding there was no wrongdoing, then becoming aware of the same allegations again once someone had conducted a proper investigation was they paid compensation to the victims.
Is it standard practice for the coalition to pay compensation to the victims of terrorist IED attacks as was the assessment when those payments were made ?
Because that detail does appear to be a tell.
Post a comment
Potential comment conditions listed here. Oh, and you may use basic HTML for formatting.
I was so harsh with Umansky primarily because of the assumption that the system is inherently corrupt (or corruptible) such that an Ind. Pros. is required.
The fact that the Army launched an investigation as soon as it learned of the alleged offenses (albeit several months after they occurred) is evidence against Umansky.
It's not like Independent Prosecutors throw down indictments within 20 minutes of hearing an allegation...