SEAL on trial
Questionable handling of a questionable case
By Milt Silverman
October 13, 2004
In death, terrorist Manadel al-Jamadi inflicted far more damage on the United States than he ever could have hoped for in life.
News reports from around the world, quoting American sources, claim al-Jamadi died as a result of a blood clot in his brain caused by a "butt stroke" inflicted by a Navy SEAL. Government spokesmen recently announced several members of SEAL Team 7 have been charged with abusing enemy prisoners. I represent one of the team's members. I am speaking on his behalf.
There are a lot of things I can't say about the case, but some that I can. Here are three things you should know: First, al-Jamadi did not die of a blood clot to the brain and was not killed by any SEAL. Second, official statements about how these allegations arose is misleading. Third, the Navy violated due process and the Uniform Code of Military Justice in initiating these charges.
This case is important because it affects the security of our nation. The untold story of the war in Iraq is the special forces story. Every day, special forces target and capture bomb makers, weapons suppliers, high explosives middlemen and terrorist operatives. These terrorists number in the hundreds, if not thousands. The operations are executed with clockwork precision and consummate skill.
One of these operations involved al-Jamadi, a terrorist bomb supplier, and former employee of Saddam Hussein. When the lead breacher set the charge to blow his door, al-Jamadi opened it and attacked. A hellacious fight ensued. Unlike scenes from "Cops," where everyone piles on, the other SEALs moved on to secure the rest of the house. When they returned, the front room was in disarray, and al-Jamadi was in custody. Like all prisoners, his hands were flex cuffed and head shrouded, making escape difficult and discovery of coalition force positions impossible.
Al-Jamadi was transported to the SEAL Team camp, handed over to representatives of other governmental agencies, and taken to Abu Ghraib prison. Except for some cuts and bruises, all consistent with the fight, he was in good condition.
Some time later – perhaps 45 minutes – he was reportedly found dead in a shower stall with his head still bagged and hands flex cuffed.
When I reviewed the autopsy report, I knew something was wrong. It was clear al-Jamadi had not died from blunt force trauma and had no blood clot in the brain, as had been reported.
I contacted three people whom I considered the best forensic pathologists in the world – Michael Baden, Cyril Wecht and Werner Spitz – and asked them to review the autopsy report. They worked independently. Each said the same thing. There was no blood clot to the brain. There were no significant internal injuries. Absolutely, positively, beyond a shadow of a doubt, al-Jamadi did not die from blunt force trauma.
They couldn't say more without additional information. It was obvious from his body that Al-Jamadi had a significant medical history, as well as an enlarged heart, but no one had apparently tried to get his medical records.
Seven months after al-Jamadi's death, his case took a dramatic turn. The government announced charges had been filed because a "former SEAL reported alleged abuse to the chain of command." Here's the real story. It starts with the informant's name.
SEALs are sometimes given nicknames. Long before the accuser made his allegations, fellow SEALs had nicknamed him "Klepto."
SEALs are issued two types of body armor. One is the standard, steel plate you see our soldiers wearing on the evening news. The other is a light, flexible armor called a "9 Mil Vest," which is worn beneath the steel plate armor.
Klepto forgot his 9 Mil Vest when he went to Iraq. One day, Klepto, along with a number of other SEALs, was ordered to another part of Iraq. Before leaving, they were ordered to muster with their gear. This meant their equipment was going to be checked.
That same day another SEAL's 9 Mil Vest went missing. When Klepto and the others who were leaving mustered, all the SEALs came out to wish them well. One of them joked about the missing 9 Mil Vest. Still joking, one of them said "Hey, Klepto, you've got sticky fingers, you don't happen to have it, do you?"
Klepto's reaction was strange. He looked defensive and was trying to cover his vest. Things turned serious. The SEAL with the missing vest told the others his had a cigarette burn on the front and his name written on it.
"Let's see your vest, Klepto" a SEAL said. The others stared at him. They made him take it off.
Klepto was wearing the missing vest.
Klepto was sent back to the states by the SEAL chiefs with the recommendation he be kicked out of the SEALs, which was followed. It was on an appeal from this decision that Klepto first made his accusations.
What kind of a SEAL steals the body armor of a fellow SEAL in a theater of war? The same kind who thinks he can blackmail / extort his commanding officer by making accusations of prisoner abuse with the implicit promise he will "keep quiet" if he gets his SEAL rating back.
The commanding officer did the right thing by initiating an investigation. From there, everything went down hill.
All I can say for now is that Klepto was treated with kid gloves and given extraordinary assurances. From what I have seen, no serious effort was made to gather the facts necessary to evaluate his credibility.
In contrast, the accused SEALS were treated like criminals. For example, when the lead breacher who had fought and subdued al-Jamadi appeared for an interview, he was searched for weapons by two female agents (whom, of course, he could have easily killed with his bare hands). When the lead breacher mentioned some discomfort he was experiencing because of an injury, he was treated like a liar.
Due process and military law were disregarded. The person who signs the charges is supposed to be neutral and detached. In this case, they were signed by a high ranking officer who had participated in the investigation and provided assurances to Klepto. This is prohibited by military law. So far, no effort has been made to correct this serious mistake by withdrawing these charges and having them reviewed by a neutral and detached authority.
It has been said we are fighting the war on terror in Iraq so we won't have to fight it here at home. Whether true or not, I leave to you. This, I do know: We are fighting a war in Iraq, and that war has a front line. It is behind every door where a terrorist hides. Every day, those doors are being blown down and terrorists captured by the special forces of the United States.
The men who break down those doors shouldn't have to look over their shoulder for a prosecutor with a subpoena. They have a right to know the nation they serve will not charge them with crimes for doing their duty. They have a right to believe those who investigate them will do so with the same skill and devotion we expect from them. They have a right to insist their reputations will not be besmirched by government sources who claim they killed someone by giving him a blood clot to the brain, when there is no blood clot, and they didn't kill him. They have a right to hope they will not be prosecuted on the word of someone the likes of Klepto.
Once in awhile, a case comes along which is a lot bigger than the people in court. This is one of them. The way this case has been, and is going to be, handled affects the security of the United States.
So far, it has not been handled well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Silverman is a trial lawyer in San Diego.
Mike D
I hate violence! I hate it so much I am willing to kill anyone who tries to use it against me.
-- Mike Waidelich
And, like a drill sergeant, you will continue to get the same canned responses... 
