Full Version: Marines held without charge at Pendleton
The impetus for this topic is an AP report about 7 Marines and a Navy corpsman who are being held in Camp Pendleton, San Diego, pending an investigation into the death of an Iraqi civilian. It's important to note, however, that there have been no charges yet filed, according to the attorney for the Navy corpsman.
The attorney, Jeremiah Sullivan III, "said his client is being held in solitary confinement at Camp Pendleton and is allowed one brief exercise period a day, during which he remains shackled at the hands, waist and ankles and is accompanied by at least one military prison guard."
By all means feel free to read over the link (and please take the extremely irresponsible headline with a mighty big grain of salt) before answering the question for debate:
Is this an appropriate way to treat our servicemen when they haven't even been charged with anything?
The attorney, Jeremiah Sullivan III, "said his client is being held in solitary confinement at Camp Pendleton and is allowed one brief exercise period a day, during which he remains shackled at the hands, waist and ankles and is accompanied by at least one military prison guard."
By all means feel free to read over the link (and please take the extremely irresponsible headline with a mighty big grain of salt) before answering the question for debate:
Is this an appropriate way to treat our servicemen when they haven't even been charged with anything?
QUOTE(Blackstone @ Jun 20 2006, 01:20 PM) 
The attorney, Jeremiah Sullivan III, "said his client is being held in solitary confinement at Camp Pendleton and is allowed one brief exercise period a day, during which he remains shackled at the hands, waist and ankles and is accompanied by at least one military prison guard."
Well that's half of it, the other half by the people we're told to explicitly trust by conservatives across America concerning Gitmo and Iraqi prisons say:
QUOTE
Lt. Lawton King said: "given the preliminary findings" of the investigation, it was decided that the servicemembers would be held in "the maximum level of restraint" and are escorted as a safety precaution. King said the prisoners are allowed to have visitors, reading materials, television, music and visits by a chaplain and are allowed to shop at the brig convenience store.
Is this an appropriate way to treat our servicemen when they haven't even been charged with anything?
If what the lawyer is saying is completely true... (oh boy what a way to start a sentence), then that seems a bit rough, but if "solitary confinement" means reading materials, visitors, television, and music, then this isn't exactly the way solitary confinement is normally imagined.
Seems pretty cut and dry, eh? Sort of hard to debate when you have lawyers on one side, and prison wardens on the other. Guess we'll have to wait for some investigative journalism? I just wonder if it's OK to have Press there, since Mr. Rumsfield just kicked the press out of Gitmo.
As far as the shackles go, I'm not familiar with the Prison facility at Camp Pendleton. It is possible that the prison is not up to Maximum Security standards, and it may be required to ensure Prisoner security. Obviously, I would hope even if these guys are murderers, that they are treated fairly, as I would with any inmate.
Oh, and just found this:
http://www.cpp.usmc.mil/scout/archives/rel...ress/06-046.asp
QUOTE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Restraint level reevaluated for service members held in pre-trial confinement
CAMP PENDLETON, Calif.- The level of restraint for the eight service members in pre-trial confinement relating to the Hamdania incident was formally reevaluated by a Brig classification and assignment board June 15.
A periodic review of the confinement level is conducted for all pre-trial confinees at least every thirty days per Secretary of the Navy Instruction (SECNAVINST) 1640.9C and Department of Defense Brig regulations. These regulations establish an unbiased method and point system, for reviewing the level of confinement of pre-trial confinees.
As a matter of practice, these periodic reviews take place every twenty to thirty days. In this case, a periodic review was conducted June 15. Service members were initially confined to the Camp Pendleton Brig May 24. Following the review procedures above, and considering the daily review of the Marines’/Sailors’ condition and behavior, the board recommended that these eight service members’ level of confinement be reclassified from “maximum” to “medium-in.”
There are only two classifications of pretrial custody, "maximum" and "medium-in." The classification is made when any service member is confined (Initial Custody Classification).
*snip*
The eight pretrial confinees will remain in special quarters in individual cells based on their custody level. Special quarters are individual cells with a steel mesh that allows for plenty of fresh air. Windows to the outside are across from the door which allows for plenty of sunlight. Prior to evening taps, the confinees are not restricted from conversing with the adjoining cells. Special quarters should not be mistaken with solitary confinement. A level II confinement facility, such as the Base Brig, does not have solitary confinement.
Restraint level reevaluated for service members held in pre-trial confinement
CAMP PENDLETON, Calif.- The level of restraint for the eight service members in pre-trial confinement relating to the Hamdania incident was formally reevaluated by a Brig classification and assignment board June 15.
A periodic review of the confinement level is conducted for all pre-trial confinees at least every thirty days per Secretary of the Navy Instruction (SECNAVINST) 1640.9C and Department of Defense Brig regulations. These regulations establish an unbiased method and point system, for reviewing the level of confinement of pre-trial confinees.
As a matter of practice, these periodic reviews take place every twenty to thirty days. In this case, a periodic review was conducted June 15. Service members were initially confined to the Camp Pendleton Brig May 24. Following the review procedures above, and considering the daily review of the Marines’/Sailors’ condition and behavior, the board recommended that these eight service members’ level of confinement be reclassified from “maximum” to “medium-in.”
There are only two classifications of pretrial custody, "maximum" and "medium-in." The classification is made when any service member is confined (Initial Custody Classification).
*snip*
The eight pretrial confinees will remain in special quarters in individual cells based on their custody level. Special quarters are individual cells with a steel mesh that allows for plenty of fresh air. Windows to the outside are across from the door which allows for plenty of sunlight. Prior to evening taps, the confinees are not restricted from conversing with the adjoining cells. Special quarters should not be mistaken with solitary confinement. A level II confinement facility, such as the Base Brig, does not have solitary confinement.
Although your question is probably still valid as there are obviously some service members classified under the "Maximum" level or it wouldn't exist.
QUOTE(smorpheus @ Jun 20 2006, 05:50 PM)
Although your question is probably still valid as there are obviously some service members classified under the "Maximum" level or it wouldn't exist.
My primary concern isn't with the level of security (but thanks for the update all the same), but with the fact that they've been held all this time without charge. Now I realize that things work a little bit differently in the military than in the civilian world, but 3 weeks seems like an awfully long time to hold anyone without formally charging him. Does anyone know if this is normal procedure? I can't think of any excuse for it.
In civilian life, you can legally go 45 days through some legal hoops to hold someone without charges- in fact, if you want to go the mental illness argument- you could hold them in a max security psych wing for many years without charges if you think you can get through the judges every 30 days-6months during that entire time. Meaning the person had better be pretty crazy and incompetant. Judges tend to err on the side of stupid vs insane LOL
So three weeks is not even close to a long time. Gitmo prisoners are going on 4 years without charges! I think it would be an outrage and proseturial misconduct to go more than 60 days though. They ought to have enough evidence by then to CHARGE the soldiers- or let them go.
So three weeks is not even close to a long time. Gitmo prisoners are going on 4 years without charges! I think it would be an outrage and proseturial misconduct to go more than 60 days though. They ought to have enough evidence by then to CHARGE the soldiers- or let them go.
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Jun 20 2006, 10:48 PM)
In civilian life, you can legally go 45 days through some legal hoops to hold someone without charges
But that's still highly unusual, is it not? I thought the standard was something like 72 hours.
I'm sure that what they're doing is "legal", but it doesn't smell right at all.
It is only highly unusual in your "average" crime. When building a big case- it is almost routine. One of this size- definately NOT a big deal this early in the game- another 45 days- THAT would start to get more attention, as it should. At that point- the prosecution is simply either grasping at straws for evidence or not doing thier job- in fact, i would say incompetent. It starts to harm thier own case if they wait too long.
Is this an appropriate way to treat our servicemen when they haven't even been charged with anything?
This could be an attempt to find holes in the stories or contradictions. Each soldier is kept away from the others so they can't keep the story straight by reinforcing it, so if the individual stories continue to be the same, then maybe the Iraqi family is lying.
Solitary confinement is probably the wrong way to express the situation. Isolated from one another is a less charged way of saying it.
I agree that the AP story is yellow journalism. I thought the outfit had better editors, but I guess not.
This could be an attempt to find holes in the stories or contradictions. Each soldier is kept away from the others so they can't keep the story straight by reinforcing it, so if the individual stories continue to be the same, then maybe the Iraqi family is lying.
Solitary confinement is probably the wrong way to express the situation. Isolated from one another is a less charged way of saying it.
I agree that the AP story is yellow journalism. I thought the outfit had better editors, but I guess not.
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Jun 21 2006, 06:15 AM)
This could be an attempt to find holes in the stories or contradictions. Each soldier is kept away from the others so they can't keep the story straight by reinforcing it, so if the individual stories continue to be the same, then maybe the Iraqi family is lying.
That could make sense, although I'm still puzzled by the length of time they're in there without being charged. As CruisingRam pointed out, it appears to be "legal", but to me it still doesn't seem appropriate. Particularly given the fact that according to this Boston Globe story, charges were expected to be forthcoming over two weeks ago.
(By the way, the Corps's now saying that they will be charged. I guess I shouldn't hold my breath.)
QUOTE
I agree that the AP story is yellow journalism.
There certainly is yellow journalism in that link. Any headline which so unequivocally convicts servicemen who have yet to even be accused of anything is beneath contempt, in my book. And the leaks by "unnamed sources" adding weight to the non-existent accusations is such a nice touch, too. The right to face your accuser? What's that?
QUOTE
There certainly is yellow journalism in that link. Any headline which so unequivocally convicts servicemen who have yet to even be accused of anything is beneath contempt, in my book. And the leaks by "unnamed sources" adding weight to the non-existent accusations is such a nice touch, too. The right to face your accuser? What's that?
That's a legal issue, not a journalistic one. Alleged is supposed to be used, and what I see is improper editing. Facing an accuser has to do with courts. Word smithing has to do with journalism.
The court issue has a greater impact on lives than word smithing. All the reader has to do is a little editing on their own and move on. Courts take lives.
Actually, the AP is leaving itself open to a civil suit. Better get competent editors in there.
Is this an appropriate way to treat our servicemen when they haven't even been charged with anything?
I, personally, don't feel this is an appropriate way to treat anyone. Then again, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Subchapter II, Article 9, states that "An enlisted member may be ordered into arrest or confinement by any commissioned officer by an order, oral or written" but that "No person may be ordered into arrest or confinement except for probable cause" - without specifying how long they may be "confined" before charges are brought. Article 10 does add, though, that "When any person subject to this chapter is placed in arrest or confinement prior to trial, immediate steps shall be taken to inform him of the specific wrong of which he is accused and to try him or to dismiss the charges and release him." In short, it's vague enough that this is probably legal.
Welcome to the Bush administration. There is much that hasn't smelled right for the past five years. When civilians can be arrested, detained in military prisons, and held for over three years without charges and without access to a lawyer, we should be surprised that such policy also extends to the military? When a president feels he can rule by decree and break the law at will, we should only be surprised that such practices aren't more common. Then again, this administration still has a few more years to oppress us at will, so we shouldn't be surprised by anything that may yet happen.
I, personally, don't feel this is an appropriate way to treat anyone. Then again, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Subchapter II, Article 9, states that "An enlisted member may be ordered into arrest or confinement by any commissioned officer by an order, oral or written" but that "No person may be ordered into arrest or confinement except for probable cause" - without specifying how long they may be "confined" before charges are brought. Article 10 does add, though, that "When any person subject to this chapter is placed in arrest or confinement prior to trial, immediate steps shall be taken to inform him of the specific wrong of which he is accused and to try him or to dismiss the charges and release him." In short, it's vague enough that this is probably legal.
QUOTE(Blackstone @ Jun 20 2006, 11:27 PM)
I'm sure that what they're doing is "legal", but it doesn't smell right at all.
Welcome to the Bush administration. There is much that hasn't smelled right for the past five years. When civilians can be arrested, detained in military prisons, and held for over three years without charges and without access to a lawyer, we should be surprised that such policy also extends to the military? When a president feels he can rule by decree and break the law at will, we should only be surprised that such practices aren't more common. Then again, this administration still has a few more years to oppress us at will, so we shouldn't be surprised by anything that may yet happen.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Jun 23 2006, 07:49 PM)
Article 10 does add, though, that "When any person subject to this chapter is placed in arrest or confinement prior to trial, immediate steps shall be taken to inform him of the specific wrong of which he is accused and to try him or to dismiss the charges and release him." In short, it's vague enough that this is probably legal.
It's about the same level of specificity as the 6th Amendment's "speedy trial" requirement, if not higher. I can totally understand withholding charges for a spell if servicemen are arrested in the field, or on a ship, or somewhere else where the called-for judicial process can't realistically be organized properly. Sometimes in those situations, justice may even need to be carried out on the spot. But these guys were being held at a Stateside base this whole time.
Yes, they've finally gotten around to charging them since I first posted this topic. It still doesn't answer the question of why it took so long.
QUOTE
When civilians can be arrested, detained in military prisons, and held for over three years without charges and without access to a lawyer, we should be surprised that such policy also extends to the military?
It doesn't follow that such policy should extend to people arrested on criminal charges, instead of as unlawful combatants (which, just to make a friendly reminder, is not what this topic is about). At the very least, some kind of explanation is warranted. I've yet to hear one.
QUOTE(Blackstone @ Jun 23 2006, 10:35 PM)
It doesn't follow that such policy should extend to people arrested on criminal charges, instead of as unlawful combatants (which, just to make a friendly reminder, is not what this topic is about). At the very least, some kind of explanation is warranted. I've yet to hear one.
Not to persist in what you might construe as being off-topic, but no explanation was ever heard in relation to Hamdi or Padilla either. Indeed, when the Supreme Court required the Bush administration to prove their allegation that Hamdi was an "enemy combatant", they released him rather than trying him. And when SCOTUS said they were going to rule on the constitutionality of holding Padilla as an "enemy combatant" in a military prison, the Bush administration dropped their whole "dirty bomber" story and lodged conspiracy charges against him in a civilian court. The "enemy combatant" charges were outright, blatant lies - and when confronted with them, the Bush adminstration walked away from them instead of having to actually prove them. The only charges ever brought against Padilla were, indeed, criminal charges - brought after holding him illegally for three and a half years. And criminal charges, as you've reminded us, are what this thread is about.
Indeed, the only difference between these cases is that there actually appears to be some evidence of a crime in relation to the men held at Camp Pendleton.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Jun 24 2006, 01:26 AM)
Not to persist in what you might construe as being off-topic, but no explanation was ever heard in relation to Hamdi or Padilla either.
If, in the instant case, the Pentagon had claimed that there was some national-security reason why these soldiers were being held without charge, then that would have constituted at least some kind of explanation. Whether these explanations would have been considered satisfactory is another matter, but the point is, we haven't even gotten to first base here.
As for the truth or falsity or lack of context there might be to your stated facts about Hamdi and Padilla, this isn't the place to examine them.
QUOTE(Blackstone @ Jun 24 2006, 06:57 PM)
As for the truth or falsity or lack of context there might be to your stated facts about Hamdi and Padilla, this isn't the place to examine them.
Granted. I was just making the point that when lawlessness and disregard for our most basic rights are unabashedly embraced by the highest officer in the country, we should hardly be startled when watered down versions of such abuse trickle down.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.