Wednesday, August 29, 2007

United States v. Jordan sentencing hearing

In a comment to the post about LTC Jordan's court-martial below, Anonymous alertly calls our attention to the article linked here.

The article includes the following:

In an unusual move, trial judge Colonel Steven Henley rejected a US newspaper column last week that portrayed the court-martial as a humiliation for prosecutors and claimed they had been reluctant to charge Jordan at all.

'The prosecutors and the defence confidently presented their cases,' Henley said in closing the trial. 'That is it - no more, no less.'

No doubt the article is referring to Dana Milbank's "Washington Sketch" column from the Washington Post, which we previously noted here.

Anonymous comments:

Interesting that the trial judge would specifically refute published newspaper article (the Dana Milbank Washington Post article from last week). I don't think I've ever seen that happen before. For whatever it's worth, I know MAJ Pavlovcak (one of the prosecutors criticized in the article) and he's a good attorney. I also know the defense team quite well. I had heard something to the effect that they recommended Article 15 for this case.

Based on how things turned out in court, I am not surprised by the sentence.


Anonymous said...

Sadly, LTC Jordan will now have the stigma of a federal felony-class conviction on his record, will never again be allowed to own or possess a firearm, since the possible sentence could have included more than a year in prison, and will most likely be required to leave the Army anyway, regardless of whether he was given a dismissal or not.

It seems that no matter what, the government will get their pound of flesh from someone and/or anyone, if there's a pound that needs to be had...

Anonymous said...

When I commented earlier, I meant to say that the prosecution team recommended Article 15 for the case. The original GCMCA was the Congressional Liaison when Abu Ghraib broke. Think he had other concerns when he rejected the recommendation for Article 15?

What a tremendous waste of money. LTC Jordan was retained on active duty for three years for this case. Both of his defense counsel are mobilized reservists, each of whom has served over a year. The main prosecutor, LTC Tracy, is either a reservist or national guard member. That doesn't even calculate the costs of flying witnesses back from all over the world. All to make a point.

This reminds me of the Baghram Abuse cases that the Army tried at Fort Bliss back in 2005 - 2006. They took everything to trial, respective merits of the case notwithstanding.

Anonymous said...

Regarding Jordan leaving the service, he has nearly 19 years of active service. I'm not sure if a GCM conviction and a reprimand in his OMPF will trigger an elimination action or whether he will fall under the sanctuary provisions of title 10 (at least I think it's title 10).

Anonymous said...

Similar comments from the Washington post about the prosecutor's recommendations not being followed:

Dwight Sullivan said...


Maybe there's hope yet. I often read that the CA's action is the accused's most meaningful opportunity for post-trial relief. Seeing that LTC Jordan was convicted of such a minor offense, might the CG be convinced this was an NJP case after all and set aside the findings?

Just being able to ask that question reinforces my view that the CA's action is a valuable part of the U.S. military justice system and that we shouldn't follow the UK's lead in doing away with it.

Wed Aug 29, 09:48:00 PM EDT

Anonymous said...

Col. S.,

Sure, the CA (the same one that allowed this lynching to continue) could do any number of things, and by all rights should throw this waste of time and resources of a case out with yesterday's trash. In the (more than) likely event everything is simply affirmed by the CA, then this "superb leader and officer," (as referenced by the BG presiding over the panel of members) will probably simply someday begin receiving his retirement checks (starting at age 60 for a reservist) and have very few civilian opportunities.

Could he get admitted to the bar in most states? No. Hold a professional license of just about any type? Probably not. Simply being convicted at a GCM, regardless of the punishment actually rendered, is enough to ruin lives and careers these days.

Truly justice has been served. This crminal has finally been punished and we as a nation are stronger for having spent so much time and effort to make it so. Makes me want to run right out and join up(again)! Military justice is to justice know the rest.

Mike "No Man" Navarre said...


I will give you my second pick of the week (it's football season so this one is a freebie). Think back to another politically tied court-martial involving a famous Naval Academy midshipman in the very recent past. The members awarded less punishment for the orders violation in that case than the members in the Jordan C-M, they actually awarded "no punishment." Instead of setting aside the GCM conviction, the CA and substitute CA, motivated by (??), did what? The result here will be the same.