Blackwater battle: what are the rules of engagement?

[CommunityEditor]

A tense scuffle last fall on the side of an Afghan highway has two officers sweating the early end of their Air Force careers.

More frightening for them, however, is the prospect of spending a decade or more in prison for actions they say were carried out in self-defense, actions they argue followed all the rules.

The Air Force’s case against Lt. Col. Gary W. Brown and Lt. Col. Christopher R. Hall, who now wait to learn if they’ll face a court-martial for the September fracas with a Blackwater contractor in Kabul, has aroused no shortage of questions, chief among them for airmen in or about to enter harm’s way, “What would I do in that situation?”

It’s a good question.

Analysis: Kabul clash tests combat rules, raises question
Related: Officers in scuffle called sticklers for rules

Read the stories, then tell us what you think: Is sending these two officers to trial the right move?

[The Universal Curmudgeon_guest]

Originally Posted by CommunityEditor

Is sending these two officers to trial the right move?

Considering that a prima facae case has been made out against them, then sending them to trial may not be "the right move" it may well be "the only move". If the Article 32 Investigation recommends a trial, then a trial MUST be held.

About the only way that people will believe that you support the rule of law is if you show, clearly, that you are ruled by the law - even if you don't like what it compels you to do. "Star Chamber" trials, and/or exemptions from the operation of the law depending on factors like race, religion, position, nationality, or political persuasion do NOT convince people that you actually support the rule of law - no matter how frequently and loudly you proclaim that you do.

On the other hand, I suspect that there is one heck of a lot more to the story than we have heard so far (a "more" that I strongly suspect includes the "civilian contractors" engaging in activities that would likely net them lengthy prison sentences were they to have been engaging them in the United States of America against Americans) - but,then again, I've always been sort of cynical that way.

[VinCar]

I hope the Col's get the best civilian representation out there, and not leave their life to the hands of an ADC or Cicuit DC (not that all are not good, but you know...). Heaven knows the Air Force as a whole isn't defending these guys.

[BEEMER]

The USAF JAG Corps seems to be morally bankrupt. If what I've read is true, the real crime is the behavior of the chain of command in charging these officers. I guess if a Colonel can serve as a JAG officer for 20 years after being twice disbarred, officers defending themselves can be charged with crimes. My thoughs include the coverup of the truth ,presumably by elements of an organization that routinely operates in the "Black".

[The Universal Curmudgeon_guest]

Originally Posted by BEEMER

The USAF JAG Corps seems to be morally bankrupt. If what I've read is true, the real crime is the behavior of the chain of command in charging these officers. I guess if a Colonel can serve as a JAG officer for 20 years after being twice disbarred, officers defending themselves can be charged with crimes. My thoughs include the coverup of the truth ,presumably by elements of an organization that routinely operates in the "Black".

I see that you don't quite understand how the system works.

The officers were NOT "charged" they were investigated to see if there was any reason to charge them.

The investigation found that there wasn't and that's the end of the matter.

What WOULD be "morally bankrupt" would be if all allegations made against members of the US military were routinely dismissed as total fabrications without any investigations whatsoever.

One more point, in most jurisdictions one need not be "a member of the bar" to practice law PROVIDED that one is acting in a "house council" role - i.e. one isn't charging members of the general public for legal services but is being paid solely by one employer and only providing legal services to that employer (or as that employer directs - just as long as the employer isn't charging anyone else for your legal services). Being "a member of the bar" is primarily an "income protection" measure on the part of Law Societies.

[AirForceRetired]

Does anyone know why the Blackwater contractor left Afganistan?

[AirForceRetired]

Prima facae is exactly what happened. Fancy pants-it all you want, but I think that’s what Beemer is pointing out. Oh, for the un-legalese types, prima facae, or prima facie, means: evident without proof or reasoning; obvious, true or authentic. It’s Latin for, ‘at first look’ or ‘on its face.’ So, who’s responsible for this mess? Let me see… my guess is whoever signed the paperwork for restriction in lieu of arrest and ordered the drafting of charges for the two officers. The restriction, by the way, lasted for at least 172 days. No right to a speedy trial for these two!

Or could responsibility fall to whoever apparently didn’t notice the lack of evidentiary proof of the contractor’s claims? Oh wait, I forgot, that’s right, the government couldn’t explain from whom or from where the evidence (a video tape of the alleged altercation) came from. We’re talking the evidence that initiated the Article 32 hearing. And, get this; the video ends up being thrown out at the Article 32 hearing by the investigating officer because it was not factual. Meaning somebody made something up to get someone else in big trouble—not nice.

So, I’m wondering, how was it possible for this incident to become a prima facae? Let’s see, you have two military members with decades-long careers with excemplatory service. One, who in his civilian career, is a commercial pilot and the other, a pilot who trains other pilots. I’m going to take a leap here and go with the idea that military members who have spotless records and have jobs that require extremely good judgment and stability are not prone to road rage, purposely crashing government vehicles, beating up, and threatening to kill contractors.

So, who is responsible…? Could it be the governmental entity that should have made a quick assessment of the situation? For example: On one hand two military members who have outstanding performance records and glowing reports from supervisors and co-worker. On the other hand… Oh look, the person in the video tape (the apparently non-factual evidence against the military members) of the alleged incident isn’t Lt Col Brown, and the SUV isn’t the one he was driving that day, and whaddya know, the person pretending to be Lt Col Brown, isn’t even wearing the right uniform, hmmm… what to do? Who could possibly be telling the truth?

And what’s this I hear about one of these officers using the F-word?! “Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman,” No kidding, that was one of the charges. Also, tripping a contractor. Seriously. As in trying to make the person threatening to kill you fall on the ground--in a war zone. So, here’s a lesson to take home-- if you’re an officer in a F@#$%in’ war, you better not use the F-word or even think about tripping anyone; even if you have a crazed nutcase threatening to kill you. Otherwise you’re looking at jail time, pal.

So what’s the fallout of all this? Two dedicated men, who are already in a war defending their country and trying to stay alive, have to defend themselves and their reputations. Depending on that free representation provided by the ADC? Good luck with that. There’s one, as in o-n-e, ADC for the Iraq and Afghanistan AOR. I hope nobody’s wondering why the JAG has a 95% conviction rate. So, the families of these two men, both of whom have young children to support, have to retain civilian defense. Any guess how difficult and expensive it is to find and arrange for a defense attorney who’ll have to travel thousands of miles to foreign country, into a war zone, knows military law, and just so happens to have a security clearance? For those of you not in-the-know, that costs tens-of-thousands of dollars. Good-by kid’s college fund, hello second mortgage. I’m with Beemer, I think someone needs to audit the JAG morality account.

[EDWARDW4]

Thank God saner heads prevailed. This thing didn't pass the "smell test" with me from the get-go.

3/31/2007 - SHAW AIR FORCE BASE, S.C. (AFNEWS) -- Assault charges and specifications that were preferred against two Airmen deployed to Kabul, Afghanistan, were dropped March 31.

The general court-martial convening authority, Lt. Gen. Gary North, commander of U.S. Central Command Air Forces and 9th Air Force, dismissed all charges and specifications against Lt. Cols. Gary W. Brown and Christopher R. Hall after careful consideration of all the evidence in the case, to include the Article 32 report.

Colonels Brown and Hall were charged separately as a result of an incident that involved the assault of a U.S. civilian contractor in Kabul, Afghanistan, Sept. 19, 2006.

An Article 32 hearing is a proceeding under the Uniform Code of Military Justice that is similar to a grand jury proceeding in civilian law. The purpose is to inquire into the truth of the matter set forth in the charges, consider the form of the charges, and make a recommendation as to the disposition that should be made of the case in the interest of justice and discipline.

In this case, the Article 32 investigation uncovered information that someone may have attempted to influence the testimonies of several local national witnesses. The possibility of witness tampering raised questions about the integrity of critical evidence in the case. An investigation into this allegation is under way.

"Investigating these incidents through the Article 32 process was the proper course of action, and the process shows that our military justice system is fair and balanced and the right mechanism to bring the evidence in a case to the commander," said General North.

[The Universal Curmudgeon_guest]

Originally Posted by EDWARDW4

Thank God saner heads prevailed. This thing didn't pass the "smell test" with me from the get-go.

3/31/2007 - SHAW AIR FORCE BASE, S.C. (AFNEWS) -- Assault charges and specifications that were preferred against two Airmen deployed to Kabul, Afghanistan, were dropped March 31.

The general court-martial convening authority, Lt. Gen. Gary North, commander of U.S. Central Command Air Forces and 9th Air Force, dismissed all charges and specifications against Lt. Cols. Gary W. Brown and Christopher R. Hall after careful consideration of all the evidence in the case, to include the Article 32 report.

Minor point here. The charges etc. were not "dropped" they were "dismissed".

"Dropping" the charges still leaves the officers "tainted". Having the charges "dismissed" clears the decks completely.

[AirForceRetired]

Originally Posted by The Universal Curmudgeon_guest

Minor point here. The charges etc. were not "dropped" they were "dismissed".

"Dropping" the charges still leaves the officers "tainted". Having the charges "dismissed" clears the decks completely.

Does anyone happen to know why the charges were dismissed and not dropped? Is there anyway for the charges to change from dismissed to dropped?