Accused Afghan shooter's lawyer wants military counsel fired

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The civilian attorney representing the U.S. soldier accused of murdering 17 Afghan villagers wants to replace the military lawyer assigned to the case after disagreements over how to handle his defense.

"You are fired, sorry, but we have much more experience than you," Seattle-based John Henry Browne, the outspoken lawyer who has been the public face of the defense of Staff Sergeant Robert Bales, said in an email to military lawyer Major Thomas Hurley.

The Army assigns defense counsel such as Hurley to soldiers facing court martial but defendants also have the right to hire additional civilian counsel, in this case Browne. Any change in military counsel would have to be approved by the Army.

Browne's associate Emma Scanlan confirmed the decision, saying she and her boss looked forward to working with another lawyer. "We wish Major Hurley the best in his future endeavors," she said by email. Hurley declined to comment.

Browne's team wants to work with a military attorney with death penalty case experience, the email to Hurley from Browne, part of a chain obtained by Reuters, showed. Hurley has more than 60 military cases under his belt, with three involving homicide charges, but none were capital cases.

The decision comes after friction between the civilian and military lawyers over Browne's aggressive media strategy, and each side has accused the other of not being team players.

"Major Hurley is not a team player and has no experience in murder cases, we do," Browne wrote in a separate email to Reuters. "We have gotten 17 not guilty verdicts in murder cases and have gotten life verdicts in all our death penalty cases."

For his part, Hurley said Browne was the one who was not playing his role on the team.

Last week, Browne unleashed a unilateral public attack on the way U.S. prosecutors are handling the investigation into the shooting and accused U.S. authorities of blocking access to potential witnesses.

There was also disagreement over the decision to put Bales' wife on the Today show, where she said her husband showed no signs of post-traumatic stress disorder, potentially damaging Bales' most likely defense.

Karilyn Bales also said her husband was ready to be deployed to Afghanistan, in the interview with Today's Matt Lauer, parts of which were broadcast on March 25 and 26 on NBC.

Bales said she was not sure what post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms might be, but her husband did not have nightmares, trouble concentrating or display any erratic behavior shifts.

Such interviews "limit our options at trial or expose important witnesses to effective cross-examination that they would otherwise not have to face," Hurley said in the email chain obtained by Reuters.

Browne told Reuters Karilyn's ignorance of the signs of PTSD helped the defense, showing the extent to which soldiers try to keep the "hell of war" away from their families.

Bales, 38, has been formally charged with the murders of eight adults and nine children in a pre-dawn shooting rampage in southern Afghanistan on March 11.

The incident further eroded U.S.-Afghan relations already strained by a decade of war. He is awaiting mental evaluation at a military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

Bales, whose family hired Browne's team, has the right to request new military counsel under the court martial system, so any request to replace Hurley will have to be confirmed by the accused soldier and approved by the Army.

(Reporting By Peter Henderson and Bill Rigby; editing by Todd Eastham)

View the original article here

People Who Lie About Military Medals Could Start Getting Into A Whole Lot Of Trouble

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

When Xavier Alvarez stood up and introduced himself at a local

water district meeting in July 2007, he had no idea he was about to commit a federal crime.

“I’m a retired Marine of 25 years,” he told the other board members in Pomona,?Calif.?“I retired in the year 2001. Back in 1987, I was awarded the?Congressional Medal of Honor. I got wounded many times by the same guy. I’m still around.”

In most social situations, such statements might elicit interested nods, admiring smiles, and perhaps heart-felt thanks for his brave service to the nation.

But it turns out Mr. Alvarez never served a day in the?US military, had never been wounded, and – most important – was never awarded the Medal of Honor.

After his false claim was exposed, the?Federal Bureau of Investigation?showed up. Alvarez was soon indicted for allegedly violating the?Stolen Valor Act of 2005, a law that makes it a federal crime to falsely claim to have been awarded a military medal.

His lawyer attacked the indictment as a violation of the?First Amendment, arguing that Americans have a free-speech right to make false and outrageous claims about themselves without facing criminal prosecution from a government truth squad.

A federal judge upheld the indictment, but a US appeals court panel reversed.

On Wednesday, Alvarez’s case arrives at the?US Supreme Court, where the justices are being asked to decide whether the Stolen Valor Act is an unconstitutional regulation of free speech or an acceptable effort by the government to punish an alleged liar.

The high court has never directly addressed the issue of lying about military awards, and it is not clear how the justices may decide it.

The Supreme Court has recognized a number of categories of speech that are unworthy of full First Amendment protection. They include obscenity, libel and defamation, incitement to imminent harm, and fraud. In each of those areas the underlying speech causes a concrete injury.

Critics of the Stolen Valor Act say it requires no underlying injury. Any false statement claiming receipt of a medal may be punished. These critics suggest the best remedy for such false statements is not criminal punishment but more speech, particularly truthful speech to expose the lie.

The?Obama administration?is urging the court to uphold the restriction as a valid regulation of a discrete kind of false speech that lacks significant constitutional value.

Alvarez counters that the court has never before declared that such false statements are unworthy of constitutional protection. His lawyer says the government’s position marks a radical departure from free speech principles that could lead to sanctions against those who exaggerate, use hyperbole, or engage in satire.

“For good or bad, right or wrong, everyone lies. Xavier Alvarez is no exception. He told a bunch of whoppers,” wrote Alvarez’s lawyer, Deputy Federal Public Defender Jonathan Libby, in his brief to the court.

“Exaggerated anecdotes, barroom braggadocio, and cocktail party puffery have always been thought to be beyond the realm of government reach and to pass without fear of criminal punishment,” Mr. Libby said.

The US Solicitor General’s Office disagrees, arguing that the Stolen Valor Act is aimed at achieving an important government objective and that it is narrowly focused to achieve that objective.

“The government employs military honors to convey a message to the public that the recipient has been endorsed by the government as part of a select group,”Solicitor General Donald Verrilli?wrote in his brief to the court. “The aggregate effect of false claims undermines that purpose … by diluting the medals’ message of prestige and honor.”

The law seeks to punish only those who knowingly make a false claim of having been awarded a medal, Mr. Verrilli said. A person is unlikely to make such a claim out of confusion or by mistake, he said.

“Content-based restrictions on false factual statements are consistent with the First Amendment if they are supported by a strong government interest and provide adequate ‘breathing space’ for fully protected speech,” Verrilli’s brief said.

Alvarez’s lawyer, Mr. Libby, openly admits his client is a liar. But he says Alvarez was pilloried in his community as an “idiot” and a “jerk” after his false statements were exposed.

Libby says Americans lie all the time in social situations and that if his client loses his case, the government may soon be investigating the veracity of a broader range of facetious statements.

“Xavier Alvarez lied. He lied when he claimed to have played professional hockey for the?Detroit Red Wings. He lied when he claimed to be married to a Mexican starlet whose appearance in public caused paparazzi to swoon. He lied when he claimed to be an engineer. He lied when he claimed to have rescued the American ambassador during the Iranian hostage crisis, and when he said that he was shot going back to grab the American flag,” Libby said in his brief.

What’s the harm, Libby asked in his brief. There is no evidence that anyone relied on Alvarez’s false claims about hockey or military heroics.

“The government’s interest in protecting the reputation of military medals is legitimate, but not compelling,” Libby said. “False claimants cannot tarnish the reputation of medal winners.”

“The government seeks to create a new test – completely un moored from this court’s precedents,” Libby said.

“Falsehoods are valuable for innumerable reasons: in refining truth, in expressing personal autonomy, and in greasing the wheels of social interaction,” Libby said. “More than that, there is a realm of harmless prattle and puffery generally considered beyond government control.”

View the original article here

People who lie about military medals could start getting into a lot of problems

When Xavier Alvarez stood up and introduced himself at a local

water district meeting in July 2007, he had no idea he was about to commit a federal crime.

"I am a retired Marine of 25 years," he told the other Board members in Pomona, California "I retired in the year 2001. Back in 1987 I received the Congressional Medal of Honor. I have many times wounded by the same guy. I'm still around.

In the most social situations, such declarations interested nods, adoring smiles and maybe heart-felt thanks for his gallant service to elicit the nation.

But it turns out that Mr. Alvarez never served a day in the u.s. Army, had never wounded, and-most important – never received the Medal of Honor.

After his false claim was exposed, turn up the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Alvarez was soon sued for allegedly violating the stolen Valor Act of 2005, a right that it makes a federal crime to falsely claim to have gotten a military medal.

His lawyer attacked the indictment as a violation of the first amendment, arguing that Americans a free-speech rightly have a false and outrageous allegations about himself without facing criminal prosecution of a Government truth squad.

A federal judge upheld the indictment, but an appellate Court U.S. reversed.

On Wednesday the case to the Supreme Court, where arrives Alvarez the justices are being asked to decide whether the stolen Valor Act unconstitutional regulation of freedom of expression or an acceptable effort by the Government to punish an alleged liar.

The high court has never directly addresses the issue of lying about military awards, and it is not clear how the justices may decide.

The Supreme Court has a number of categories of speech that are full first amendment protection recognised unworthy. They include obscenity, libel and slander, incitement to imminent harm, and fraud. In each of these areas causes the underlying speech a concrete damage.

Critics of the stolen Valor Act say that it requires no underlying injury. The false information claiming after receiving a medal can be penalized. These critics suggest the best remedy for such false statements are not criminal punishment but more speech, particularly truthful speech exposes the lie.

The Obama administration is urging the Court to maintain the restriction as a valid regulation of a separate type false speech that important constitutional value is missing.

Alvarez has never declared that the Court counters that such false statements are unworthy of constitutional protection. His lawyer says that the Government position marks a radical departure from free speech principles which can lead to sanctions against those who use hyperbole, exaggeration, or engage in satire.

"For good or bad, right or wrong, everybody lies. Xavier Alvarez is no exception. He told a bunch of blunders, "wrote the lawyer, Deputy Federal Public Defender Alvarez Jonathan Libby, in his letter to the Court.

"Exaggerated anecdotes, barroom braggadocio and cocktail party have always thought to be puffery than the realm of Government to reach and pass without fear of criminal penalty," said Mr. Libby.

The U.S. Solicitor General's Office disagrees, arguing that the stolen Valor Act is aimed to an important goal and that the eng is aimed to achieve that goal.

"The Government has sent a message to the public that the military decorations receiver is approved by the Government as part of a select group to convey," wrote Solicitor General Donald Verrilli in his letter to the Court. "It undermines that purpose … statistical effect of false claims by diluting the message of the prestige and honor medals".

The law would punish only those who knowingly make a false claim of a coin are issued, said Mr. Verrilli. A person is unlikely to make such a claim from confusion or accidentally, he said.

"Content-based restrictions on actual false statements are consistent with the first amendment if they are supported by a strong government interest and sufficient ' breather ' for fully secure voice offer," Verrilli said the briefing.

Alvarez the lawyer, Mr. Libby, openly admits that his client is a liar. But he says that Alvarez was nailed to the pillory in his community as an "idiot" and a "jerk" after his false statements were exposed.

Libby says Americans lie all the time in social situations and research that if his client loses his case, the Government may soon get the accuracy of a wider range of funny statements.

"Xavier Alvarez lied. He lied when he claimed to have played professional hockey for the Detroit Red Wings. He lied when he claimed to have been married to a Mexican starlet whose appearance in public causing paparazzi to swoon. He lied when he claimed to be of an engineer. He lied when he claimed to have rescued the American Ambassador during the Iranian hostage crisis, and when he said that he was shot going back to grab the American flag, "said Libby in his letter.

What is the damage, Libby asked in his letter. There is no evidence that anyone is on Alvarez de false assertions about hockey or military feats.

"The Government interest in the protection of the reputation of military medals is legitimate, but not compelling," said Libby. "False claimants cannot tarnish the reputation of medal-winners."

"The Government wants to create a new test-completely UN moored out of this Court precedents," said Libby.

"Falsehoods are valuable for countless reasons: in the refining of truth in the expression of personal autonomy and in the wheels of social interaction, greasing" Libby said. "More than that, there is a realm of harmless puffery, chat and generally considered to be outside the control of the Government."

View the original article here