thedrifter
08-11-09, 05:04 AM
Va. court upholds prisoner abuse conviction
By Larry O'Dell - The Associated Press
Posted : Monday Aug 10, 2009 21:43:55 EDT
RICHMOND, Va. —The first American civilian convicted of mistreating a detainee during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan failed to get the verdict overturned Monday but did win a new sentencing hearing.
A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected David A. Passaro's argument that federal courts had no jurisdiction over assaults at a remote U.S. military outpost in Afghanistan where he worked as a CIA civilian contractor in 2003.
Passaro, a former Special Forces medic, was convicted in August 2006 of beating detainee Abdul Wali with a flashlight and kicking him in the groin. Prosecutors said the assault took place in July 2003 during a two-day interrogation at Asadabad Firebase, an approximately 25-acre compound seized by U.S. and coalition forces a year-and-a-half earlier.
Wali died while in custody, and a federal jury in Raleigh, N.C., convicted Passaro of felony assault and three counts of misdemeanor assault. U.S. District Judge Terrence W. Boyle sentenced Passaro to eight years and four months in prison.
On appeal, Passaro argued that a law authorizing federal prosecution of crimes on American diplomatic, military or other government premises in foreign lands did not apply to areas temporarily occupied by U.S. soldiers. The panel concluded that Asadabad Firebase was substantial enough and permanent enough to be covered by the statute.
Passaro also claimed that federal prosecution intruded on the executive branch's broad war powers, but the appeals court said that argument was illogical because it was the executive branch that chose to prosecute the case.
The panel also rejected Passaro's claims that the law was too vague, that he was improperly singled out for prosecution and that the government should not have been allowed to withhold certain classified information that he wanted to use in his defense.
However, the court agreed with Passaro that Boyle improperly failed to explain his reasons for issuing a harsher sentence than federal sentencing guidelines suggested. Boyle relied on a provision allowing a longer sentence if the crime is "unusually heinous, cruel, brutal, or degrading" but did not explain how Passaro's offense qualified.
Prosecutors agreed that the judge erred by offering no rationale.
The judge also erroneously applied a sentencing enhancement for the threatened use of a dangerous weapon, the appeals court said. Again, Boyle did not explain how he reached that decision even though the jury convicted Passaro of actually assaulting Wali, not just threatening him.
Ellie
By Larry O'Dell - The Associated Press
Posted : Monday Aug 10, 2009 21:43:55 EDT
RICHMOND, Va. —The first American civilian convicted of mistreating a detainee during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan failed to get the verdict overturned Monday but did win a new sentencing hearing.
A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected David A. Passaro's argument that federal courts had no jurisdiction over assaults at a remote U.S. military outpost in Afghanistan where he worked as a CIA civilian contractor in 2003.
Passaro, a former Special Forces medic, was convicted in August 2006 of beating detainee Abdul Wali with a flashlight and kicking him in the groin. Prosecutors said the assault took place in July 2003 during a two-day interrogation at Asadabad Firebase, an approximately 25-acre compound seized by U.S. and coalition forces a year-and-a-half earlier.
Wali died while in custody, and a federal jury in Raleigh, N.C., convicted Passaro of felony assault and three counts of misdemeanor assault. U.S. District Judge Terrence W. Boyle sentenced Passaro to eight years and four months in prison.
On appeal, Passaro argued that a law authorizing federal prosecution of crimes on American diplomatic, military or other government premises in foreign lands did not apply to areas temporarily occupied by U.S. soldiers. The panel concluded that Asadabad Firebase was substantial enough and permanent enough to be covered by the statute.
Passaro also claimed that federal prosecution intruded on the executive branch's broad war powers, but the appeals court said that argument was illogical because it was the executive branch that chose to prosecute the case.
The panel also rejected Passaro's claims that the law was too vague, that he was improperly singled out for prosecution and that the government should not have been allowed to withhold certain classified information that he wanted to use in his defense.
However, the court agreed with Passaro that Boyle improperly failed to explain his reasons for issuing a harsher sentence than federal sentencing guidelines suggested. Boyle relied on a provision allowing a longer sentence if the crime is "unusually heinous, cruel, brutal, or degrading" but did not explain how Passaro's offense qualified.
Prosecutors agreed that the judge erred by offering no rationale.
The judge also erroneously applied a sentencing enhancement for the threatened use of a dangerous weapon, the appeals court said. Again, Boyle did not explain how he reached that decision even though the jury convicted Passaro of actually assaulting Wali, not just threatening him.
Ellie