The New York Times reported today that a military judge dismissed two of the most serious charges against Army Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan, the only officer charged with abusing detainees at Iraq's Abu Ghraib, after Maj Gen George Fay, the officer who investigated the scandal, told Army prosecutors that he had "misspoke" when he testified during the Article 32 investigation that he had advised Jordan of his rights during an interview in 2004. "In that 2004 interview, Jordan had told Fay he never saw detainees being abused and never saw nude detainees."
Wow! Now, after all that time, the General decides he didn't advise the guy of his rights? And "misspoke" is rather an interesting choice of words. If you misspeak, you correct it soon thereafter. So how is it that he waited all of this time to correct the error?
It looks like the general won't have to testify now.
4 comments:
If you were the prosecutor in this case, isn't this exactly how you would like to start off--one of your main witnesses on two of the most serious charges retracting his Article 32 testimony.
Speaking of Article 32s, is Colonel Murphy ever going to have one? Based on the time this is taking, you would think he was accused of espionage and they had to scrub mountains of paperwork to ensure they weren't releasing any classified info.
How long has it been since CAAF denied Col. Murphy's request to remove the I.O.?
30 July. Although it has been only 3 weeks, I take it that the Art 32 had been scheduled before the defense started attempts to move the case to a different service.
Probably so. If memory serves, however, Col. Ambrose, the I.O. listed on Col. Murphy's petition, is a sitting military judge. I'm sure there are some issues involving the demands of his docket and the availability of Col. Murphy's counsel. Three weeks doesn't seem to be an overlong interval under the circumstances.
I'd counsel patience. I'm sure the colonel will have his hearing in due course.
Post a Comment