Article 32 Proceedings re: Appointment of Article 32 Investigating Officer

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

sooTH POLICE BATTALION
CAMP BUCCA, IRAQ
APOAE 09375

.lEP1..YTO
ATTeNTION 01':

AFRD-JA ~(t}Lj bh-) (C)-z 16 July 2003
MEMORANDUM FOR LTC~Headquartersand Headquarters Company, 220tb Military Police Brigade
·SUBJECT: Appointment of Article 32 Investigating Officer
b(~}-S-/ b(7) {l)-S­
1.
You are hereby appointed to investigate the enclo~referred chargeS and specification
concerning Specialist Timothy F. Canjar,__HHC, 320th Military Police Battalion,
Camp Bucca, Iraq, APO AE 09375.

2.
You will conduct yout" investigation in accordance with Article 32a, UeMJ, and Rules for Courts-Martial405. You will use DA Pam 27-17 as a procedural guide. Additionally, you shall investigate and make a recommendation as to any uncharged offenses, except minor offenses as defined by Part V, Manual for Courts-Martial, brought to your attention during the investigation unless counsel for both sides agree that they should not be investigated. This duty takes priority

. over all other duties.
3.
A defense counsel will be detailed for the accused by Trial Defense Service. Each counsel" plays an adversarial role in the proceedings. A void talking to the legal counsels, the commanders ofthe accused, and any prospective witnesses about the merits ofthe case outside of fonnal sessions where all parties are present.

4.
Your legal advisor for this investigation will be MAJ~FLCCStaff Judge
Advocate. You can contact him at 825-2352 for legal advice as soon as possible upon
notification ofthis duty. Logistical support will be pro\ided by the Criminal Law Division,
CFLCC-OSJA. The hearing will be open.

5.
The Article 32 should be set as soon as possible from the date you receive this memorandum. Any request to delay this investigation by the attorneys must be in the writing and must detail the basis for the request. You have the authority to grant reasonable requests by the attorney to delay the investigation. However. any request, which would delay this investigation ariy more than ten

(10) calendar days. must be approved by myself .
.....:

C13508

AFRD-JA
SUBJECT: Appointment of Article 32 Investigating Officer
6. After the hearing is completed, the legal specialist assigned to the investigation shail complete a summarized transcript within 3 duty days. Upon receipt ofthe transcript, you have 3 duty days to submit the report of your ~vestigatio~ with five copies, on DD Form 457 (Investigating Officer's Report) to the Crimi~l Law Division, ~SJA. Your report will contain a detailed date and time chronology of your actions in conducting this investigation. to include all delays.
~.

~\..,.Q_~.---~
JANIS L. KARP.~~ .
BG, USA Commanding

013509

DOD 15167

( \

REPORT

DA TE OF CHARGES 141ULY 03
4. ARTICLE 32. UCMJ. AND R.C.M. 405. MANUAL FOR IHAVE INVESTIGATED lliE CHARGES APPENDED'HERETO I&lubit 1) .

x

b. STATE THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND DESCRIBE THE PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED IN THE ABSENCE OF ACCUSED DR COUNSEL
NOTE: If additional spac. Is required for any item. en'.r the additional material In Item 21 01 on B lepara," sh••t. ldeatlfy such ma,.rlal With the proper numenul aod, if appropriate. lettered beading (Example: "7e".) Secarely attach ,ay addidonel sheets to the fotm and add I natalA 1118 approp,lal1! IIBm of ilia form: ·S.. additional sheet."
DO FORM ~57. AUG 84 EDITION OF OCT 69 IS OBSOLETE.
Ct3'51 0
DOD 15168

013511
DOD 15169
........

.!" '.
I .
, .I

CONTINUATION SHEET, DD FORM 457, INVESTIGATING OffiCER'S REPORT
IteIil 12a, Witnesses
b(')-~; b('J)lc)-1
'E-4/SPC 744th MP BATTALION E-7/SFC 744th MP BATTALION E-5/SGT 744th MO BATTALION E-6/SSG 314th MP COMPANY E-4/SPC 314th MP COMPANY E-4/SPC 314th MP COMPANY E-4/SPC .314th MP COMPANY EPW CAMP BUCCA, IZ EPW CAMP BUCCA, IZ EPW CAMP BUCCA, IZ EPW CAMP BUCCA, rz
CAMP BUCCA, IZ CAMP BUCCA, IZ CAMP BUCCA, IZ .
CAMP BUCCA, IZ
EPW CAMP BUCCA, IZ .
SA
CID, CAMP BUCCA, IZ SA
eID, CAMP BUCCA, IZ
S,
CID, CAMP BUCCA, IZ SA
CIP, CAMP BUCCA, IZ 0-4/MAJ . 800th :MP BRIGADE E-4/SPC 320th MP BATTALION E-4/SPC 320th MP BATTALION E-4/SPC 223rd MP COMPANY

6(t)""Y; ~l'1)(C)-lf
. . By Telephonic Interview: SA

blC) -I; b (~)((,) -I
.. ..•
YES. YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES YES YES YES YES YES
YES
013512

CONTINuATION SHEET, DD FORM 457, INVESTIGATING OFFICER'S REPORT Item 138, Witnesses
OSIA. CFLCC, CAMP DOHA, KU YES
)-~, ~b)("}-) . .
OSIA. CFLCC, CAMP DOHA, KU .YES

#9:.AlR, OSIA, CFLCC, CAMP DOHA, KU YES
DTD 14 MAY 03
#10: SWORN STATEMENT, SPC T. OSJA, CFLCC, CAMP DbHA, KU YES DID 15 MAY 03
#11: SWORN STATEMENT, OSJA, CFLCC, CAMP DOHA, KU YES DID 16 MAY 03
#12: SECOND SWORN STATEMENT, SPC T. CANIAR OSJA, CFLCC, c~DOHA, KU YES DTD15MAY03
,

013513
CONTINUATION SHEET, DD FORM 457, INVESTIGATING OFFICER'S REPORT
SPC Timothy F. Canjar, 163-68-1050 Item 21, Remarks
1. Twelve pieces of evidence were submitted during the hearing~ The evidence presented and examined consisted of sworn statements or Agent's Investigation Reports taken or
, !, '~ .' ~'b:;& .
written by em Special AgentS. A manifest from the 744th Military Police Battalion,
dated 12 May 03, was also submitted during the hearing. In some cases, witnesses
. referred 'to their statements or reports to re-fresh their recollection of events under
question. Thirty-one separate witnesses were heard. The witnesses were credible,
although defense counsels attempted to. refute the testimony of certain witnesses and
highlight that previous testimony or statements were contradictory to the recorded
testimony during this hearing. Based on the testimony of the witnesses and the evidence

. presented, I am able to make a recommendation with regard to further action involving the accused soldier.
2. With regard to SPC Canjar, I make the following recommendations to the charges and specifications alleged against him:
a. Charge 1: Violation ofArticle 92, Dereliction·ofDuty: I find that apreponderance of the evidence exists to validate the specification alleged against him. Testimony

\,(~v:~ from SGT _and SPC _ and EPW witnesses, clearly indicate that ,,(')){c)-~
SPC Canjar had certain duties on the night in question, that he knew or'reasonably should have known ofthose duties, and that he was derelict ofthose duties.
b. Charge IT: Violation of Article 93, Cruelty and Maltreatment: I find that a preponderance of the evidence exists to validate Specifications 2 and 3 alleged against him. Evidence was not presented to sufficiently validate Specifications 1 and 4 alleged a¢nst hiin. The tes~ony of SGT.and SPC_ indicate SPC Canjar's participation in the cruelty and maltreatment of EPW

The testimony of SGT_and participation in the cruelty and maltreatment of I felt that insufficient evidence existed to confirm his p~cipation in the alleged cruelty and maltreatment of EPW Specification 4 was not specific with regard to the identify of the EPW.'There was insufficient evidence to suggest he participated in the cruelty or mistreatment of' any such unidentified EPW. Clearly EPW5 ~d
013514

any such unidentified EPW. Clearly EPWs and

b(6)-1
~eresubject to SPC Canjar's or d~rs and his actions were cruel and

'~t~)(G)'«1
represented maltreatment ofboth individuals.

c.
Charge ill: Violation of Article 107, False Official Statements: I find that a preponderance of the evidence exists to validate the specification alleged against him based on the, testimony of witnesses already identified. SPC ;anjar signed two sworn statements indicating justifiable use of force against EPWs that evening. The testimony of witnesees, specific8J.ly SSG _ SGT_ SGT _ and SPC_indicate that his statements were false, that he kIiew them to be false at the time of making them, and that his statements were intended to deceive the investigators.

d.
Charge N: Violation of Article 128, _ I find that a preponderance of the evidence .exists to validate Specifications 1 and 4 alleged against him. Evidence was not presented to sufficiently validate Specifications 2 and 3 alleged against him. Again, based on the testimony ·of SSG _ S'GT _ SGT. and SPC_ SPC.did bodily harm to these EPWs and the bodily hann Was done with unlawful force.

e.
During the course of the hearing, testimony from SPC prompted counsel for the government to request that the investigation be broadened to include violations of Article 81, Conspiracy, and Article 134, Obstruction of Justice, against all four of the accused. 1 granted that request over the objection of all defense counsels. Aside from the testimony of SPC_I do not feel that further, sufficient evidence was presented to validate these charges.

f.
I recoII).tnend that you proceed with a general court martial,. charging the accused with Violation ofArticle 92, as specified, Violation ofArticle 93, Specifications 2 and 3, Violation of Article 107 and its specification, and Violation of Article 128, Specifications 1 and 4.

3. Delays in proceedings:
a.
10 proposed original date of 28 July 03 for hearing. Defense counsels requested delay to 5 September 03 due to schedule conflicts. 10 set date of 27 August 03 after consulting all counsels. Defense counsels acknowledged that the time would not count against the speedy trial requirement ofthe government.

h.
28 August 03: Defense counsels requested additional time to prepare for EPW witnesses and CID Special Agent testimony. 10 granted recess until 290800

013515

roo,
{ )
, .
problems accessing EPW witnesses. 10 granted further delay until 291300 August
03.
c.
29 August 03: Hearing recessed until arrival of additional witnesses .on leave. Re.­convene at Camp Doha, KU.

d.
1 September 03: Hearing recessed until 021300 September 03 for additional witness. Further delayed until 021430 Sep 03 at request of defense counsels for additional time to interview witness.

4. Defense and Government Objections:
a. Defense: Defense counsels objected to introduction of sworn statern~t of SSG
in addition to his sworn testimony at the hearing. SSO_ did not refer to his report during his testimony. 10 sustajned objection JAW RCM 405(4)(g)(B), allowing introduction of sworn statements over defense objection
. when the witDess is not available.
b, GoVernment: Government counsel objected to defense line ofquestioning, asking whether certain witnesses had been advised 'of their rights under Article 31, or were being inv.estigated, or had been charged with violation of Article 32, UCMJ, Dereliction of Duty. 10 allowed defense counsels to ask this question due to its
_ relevance based on the testimony ofthe witnesses.
c.
Defense: Government counsel requested to broaden the scope of the investigation to include violations of Article 81, UCMJ, 80,. Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice,and Artic1e-134, UCMJ, Obstruction of Justice, against all four of the accused, based on testimony of SPC Based on het testimony, 10 allo~ed government to broaden the scope of the investigation to include these two charges.

d.
Defense: Defense counsels perceived an allegation of impropriety in line of questioning by government counsel and asked that hearing area be cleared to . further discuss the matter. 10 cleared the courtroom of all spectators, including

. the media. I was advised by the P AO representation of a potential violation of the FrOO4om of Information Act in doing so, since the hearing was declared open. My legal advisor also suggested that other spectators carried the same weight as the media Both were allowed back in, although -the gove~ent counsel assured all parties that no such implied accusation was intended against any defense counsel and withdrew any further line ofquestioning along these lines.

013516

~,,-.,
.
t j

. .'~l~)-" b(1){()-~­
e. Defense: defense counsels objected to line of questioning by the gO;~~tof
SA _ regarding a previous investigation by MSG _ as melevant to the proceedings at hand. Government did not prejudiced value of the questioning. I sustained the objection and QlS,al1'Eu.v~~C1 questioning.

f. Defense: after the testimony of the fina! witness, SPC government counsel asked that the scope of the inve~tigation be broadened to include violation of Article 134, Adultery and Article 128, Obstruction of Justice. Government withdrew its request for the adultery charge. I did not allow the inclusion of this charge due to inadequate notice to the defense to prepare for the additional charges.
5.
While EPW witnesses have agreed to be available for further testimony, their release might make it difficult to reach them once they have returned home.

6.
During the course of this hearing, testimony from SSG SGT_ _SGT SPC and SPC 1IDC11ca.teCl that .while the alleged incidents were occurring, they did not actively attempt to intervene as it

was their responsibility to do as soldiers, and in the case o~_and_ as non-commissioned officers and leaders. Beyond SSG _ verbal attempts to stop the abuse of these EPWs, nothing else seems to have been done. SGT_ testimony that he turned away becaUSe he could not bear to watch this treatment is especially disturbing. I recommend that you consider appropriate action with regard to these soldiers and their evident failure to act to protect the enemy prisoners ofwar in their charge or stop the mistreatment to which they have testified, unc;ler oath.
013517

10. CHARGE: VIOLATION OF THE UCMJ. ARTICLE
SPECIFICAnON:

CHARGE I: VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 92 .
Specification: In that Specialist Timothy Frank Canjar, U.S. Anny, HHC. 320th Military Police Battalion. Camp Bucca. haq. on active
duty. who knew of his duties at or near Camp Bucca, Iraq, on or about 12 May 2003. was derelict in the perfonnance of those duties in
he willfully failed to safeguard from assault or abuse captured Iraqi prisoners of war that he was escorting from Talil Air Base, Iraq,
1, (~)_y ; ~ l1'\ ( c)_~

VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 93
In that SPC Timothy Frank Canjar, U.S. Army, HHC.
or near Camp Bucca, Iraq, on or about 12 May 2003, did maltreatt
a person
ISUD1e~l to his orders, by throwing him to the ground and dragging him across his ankles.

active
u.s.
him in the groin, face and abdomen.
or near CaI}lP Bucca Iraq. Oil or about 12 May 2003, did w
by twisting his previously injured ann, causing him to scream in
In that Specialist Timothy Frank Canjar, U.S. Army, HHC, 320tb Military Police Battalion, Camp Bucca, Iraq, on

o.r n~ar C3J!IP Bucca; Iraq, on or about 12. May ~3,did maI~an.lraqi prisone~ of ~ar, a person subject to his orders, by
Iki4;kirtg hun m the thigh as he walked towards the mprocessmg tent, causmg him to cry out m pam.

013518

{.~.."'\
.

USAPPC Vl.00
013519
DOD 15177

,J'" ....~._
i )

CONfINUATION SHEET 2
CHARGE III: VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 107
Specification: In that Specialist Timothy Frank Canjar, U.S. Anny, HHC, 320th Military Police Battalion, Camp Bucca, Iraq, 'on active duty: did, at or near campi!ucIraq, on b/~}....~ or about 15 May 2003, with the intentto deceive, make to Special Agent ~ _ United States Anny Criminal Investigation Division Cornman ,an ,officiaJ
bl)~c)-~ statement on a DA Fonn 2823 Sworn Statement. to wit: that he did not kick an Iraqi prisoner of war, that he did not see any other U.S. soldier kick and Iraqi prisoner of war, that he did not strike an Iraqi prisoner of war, that he did not see any U.S. soldiers kick an Iraqi prisoner ofwar in the groin. whicll was totally false, and was known by the said Specialist Timothy Frank Canjar to be so false.
CHARGE IV: VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 128
, Specification 1: In that Specialist Timothy Frank Canjar, U.S. Anny, HHC, 520tb Military Police Battalion, Camp Bucca, Iraq, on active duty, did, at or near Camwwua, on or about 12 unlawfully twist the previously injured ann of ,an Iraqi prisoner ofwar with his hands, causing him
Specification 2: In that Specialist Timothy Frank Canjar, U.S. Anny, HHC, 320th
, Military Police Battalion, Camp Bucca, Iraq, on ac~veduty, did, at or near Camp Bucca, Iraq, on or about 12 May 2003, unlawfully kick an Jraqi prisoner ofwar in the thigh as he walked towards the prisoner processing tent, causing him to cry out in pain.
Specification 3: In that Specialist Timothy Frank Canjar, U.S. Army, HHC, 320th
Military Police Battalion, Camp Bucca, Iraq, on
~ about 2 May 2003, unlawfully throw
Iraqi prisoner ofwar, to the
around his ankles.

Specification 4: In. that Specialist Timothy Frank Canjar, U.S. Anny, HHC, 320th Military Police Battal~on, Camp Bucca, Iraq; on active duty, did, at or Bucca, ~((;,\"'5 or about 12 aid and abet Master
•J in unlawfully kicking
b(1)(C,)-f' the groin, abdomen
kick him.

013520

(")

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
COALITION FORCES LAND COMPONENT, COMMAND THIRD US ARMY , CAMP DOHA, KUWAIT 09304

REPLY TO
ATTEN110N OF:

AFRD-JA (27-10e) 8 November 2003
MEMORANDUM FOR Commanding General, Coalition Forces Land Component ~omtnand, APOAE 09304
SuBJECT: Advice on Disposition ofCourt-Martial Charges, SPC Timothy F. Canjar, 320th Military Police Battalion, Camp Bucca, Iraq
,1. ,PURPOSE: To provide pretrial advice in accordance with the provisions ofArticle 34, Uniform Code ofMilitary Justice (UCMJ) and Ru1e for Courts-Martial (RCM) 406.
2.
ACCUSED: SPC Timothy F. Canjar, 320th Military Police Battalion, Camp Bucca, Iraq

3.
PERSONALDATA:

a.
MOS: 95BIO, Military Police;

b.
Age: 21; ,

c.
Marital Status: Single;

d.
Education: High School;

e.
Current Enlistment Expires: 25 September 2008;

f.
BASD: 26 September 2000;

g.
Previous Convictions: None;

h.
Nonjudicial Punishment: None;

i.
Pretrial Restraint: None.

4.
CHARGES: Preferred 13 July 2003.

CRG Article Spec Summarized Specification
I. 92 The Dereliction ofDuty
ll. 93 1 Cruelty and Maltreatment
2 Cruelty and Maltreatment
3 Cruelty and Maltreatment
4 Cruelty and Maltreatment

CO)

AFRD-JA SUBJECT: Advice on Disposition of Court-Martial Charges, SPC Timothy F. Canjar
III. 107 The False Official Statement
IV. 128 1 Assault Consummated by a Battery 2 Assault consummated by a Battery 3 Assault consummated by a Battery 4 Assault consummated by a Battery
5. ADDITIONAL CHARGES: Prefered on 27 September 200) ADD CHG Article Summarized Specification
I. 134 The Obstructing Justice
II. 81 The Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice
6. LEGAL CONCLUSIONS: After reviewing the attached charges and their specifications and the allied documents, I have reached the following legal conclusions:
a.
Each specification alleges an offense under the UCMl

b.
The allegation in each specification is warranted by the evidence.

c.
There is court-martial jurisdiction over the accused and the charged offenses.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS:
a.
The accused's Company, Battalion, and Brigade Commanders recommend a General Court-Martial.

b.
The Article 32 Officer recommended trial by General Court-Martial.

c.
I recommend referral for trial by a General Court-Martial.

8. You may refer this case for trial by signing the attached memorandum.
2 013522
",'_.' ".::.
; j
' ..
I

AFRD-JA
SUBJECT: Advice on Disposition of Court-Martial Charges, SPC TimothyF. Canjar
"

4 Enel .
1.
Chafge Sheet COL,IA btl) ~l,

2.
Additional Charges Staff Judge Advocate b{l){c)-t.

3.
Allied Documents

4.CMC0#6
...
}.
3

013523
DOD 15181