Letting military personnel accused of crimes against Iraqi prisoners escape courts-martial by kicking them out of the service sends the wrong message at a time when the United States is trying to recover from the Abu Ghraib scandal.

Yet that is what the Army has done in the cases of four military police officers accused of kicking and punching Iraqi prisoners at the Camp Bucca detention facility, and in the case of Spec. Juba Martino-Poole, a soldier who fatally shot an Iraqi prisoner in 2003. Martino-Poole, who claims he fired in self-defense, said he took the deal because "people were getting shafted" in courts-martial. He and other soldiers have been separated from the armed forces under what is called Chapter 10 with less-than-honorable discharges and without veterans' benefits.

Denver Post reporters Miles Moffeit and Arthur Kane learned that by a more than 2-to-1 ratio, the military has used administrative discipline rather than prosecute troops accused of prisoner abuse or sex-assault crimes in war zones.

Since the Iraq war began in February 2003 until mid-2004, 66 service members accused of prisoner abuse or sex assault received administrative punishments, compared with 29 who were court-martialed. Of course, in some of the 66 cases there may not have been adequate evidence to proceed with a court-martial.

In many cases, military prosecutors had recommended courts-martial but were overridden by commanding officers, who have the final say about who gets charged under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

"The questions (these) data raise is whether the decision to prosecute ought to be vested in professional prosecutors instead of commanders, and that is a gigantic issue," said Eugene Fidell, president of the Washington-based National Institute of Military Justice.

Retired Rear Adm. Donald Guter, the Navy's former top lawyer, said criminal actions deserve criminal punishments, not administrative discipline. "There's something wrong," he said. "If this is a pattern, it should get another look, not just by the media but by (Congress)."

Commanders need legal clout if their orders are to be more than just "optional." But Congress, which enacted the military code, should require commanders to justify any decision to choose administrative rather than judicial punishment for serious offenses.

True, less-than-honorable discharges can stick with a person for life. But the interests of the United States are ill-served by lightly punishing soldiers who face criminal accusations for acts committed overseas. And letting troops accused of raping comrades off easy is destructive of "good order and discipline" in a military that is 15 percent female.

Copyright 2004 The Denver Post

###