In United States v. Harman, __ M.J. __, No. 08-0804/AR (C.A.A.F. Feb. 4, 2010), CAAF rejected a legal sufficiency challenge to a conviction arising from abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib.  Judge Stucky wrote for a unanimous court.

CAAF briefly discussed and affirmed Specialist Harman’s convictions for conspiracy to maltreat subordinates; dereliction of duty by failing to protect Iraqi detainees from abuse, cruetly and maltreatment; and four specifications of maltreatment.

10 Responses to “CAAF affirms Abu Ghraib maltreatment conviction”

  1. hmm says:

    Grant review and then quote the CCA? Looks like CAAF wanted to make a historical record of this case.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Having watched the oral argument, and watched the civilian defense counsel say (and I could be confusing this case with another that same CDC did) “I don’t do floodgates” in response to a question about whether his position might open up said floodgates…I’d say that this decision was written an hour after argument, they just needed to check the spelling.

  3. mena says:

    no excuse for what happened here. No honorable service member enlisted or otherwise can do the things that transpired in this case and hide behind orders. The first thing you learn when you come into contact with military training is how to treat orders and whats legal etc. Further, its simply beyond comprehension that service members could forgo common sense no matter the orders which most of us dont believe exist. Bravo CAAF

  4. hmm says:

    What probably did exist is widespread encouragement, approval or at least acceptance of what went on. CAAF correctly holds in Smith that that doesn’t raise the defense of orders.

  5. Anonymous says:

    And why did CAAF grant this case? To restate the obvious?

  6. Anonymous says:

    Col. Jessep: We follow orders, son. We follow orders or people die. It’s that simple. Are we clear?

    //Just saying…

  7. Anonymous says:

    Of course, Col. Jessep left the courtroom in cuffs….maybe this debate IS over?

  8. soonergrunt says:

    Anonymous: Of course, Col. Jessep left the courtroom in cuffs….maybe this debate IS over?

    He also didn’t, you know, exist.

  9. Phil Cave says:

    “A few good men” is based on a case that reached the NMCCA. The appellate defense counsel in that case had a brother. She gave him the ROT and he wrote a play, which became, well . . .
    In the real case there was no death.
    So, the idea of Col Jessep did exist.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Did COL Jessup waive appellate review? I cannot find his case anywhere on NMCCAs website.