Closing Arguments

By Jean Aylward

In Friday's closing arguments, the Prosecution skillfully wove together itscase theory with the evidence presented. That was expected. Butit was the combination of the manner in which the argument was delivered, decidedlymatter-of-fact and lacking flourish, and the relative simplicity of its organizationthat suddenly strengthened the Prosecution's case to a level it had not achievedthrough witness testimony alone.

The Prosecution made a strong argument that S.Sgt. Michael Smith failed toexercise sound judgment and remove himself from some of the abusive situations. Onedog handler, MA1 William Kimbro, testified he walked away from incidents thatwere far from the scenarios for which his dog had trained. Whether or notthere was a lack of clarity in policies concerning the use of dogs in interrogations,the Prosecution stressed that Smith at least knew the rules and limits for useof his dog, which included rules like maintaining a safe distance between thedog and any individuals.

The theme repeated throughout the Prosecution's closing was that this is nota case of lack of instruction or guidance, but one in which a soldier willfullyused his dog as a weapon and as a toy for entertainment. The Prosecutionclosed with the argument that Smith stopped being a disciplined soldier whenhe arrived at Abu Ghraib in October 2003 and started using his dog as a toy forfun, asking panel members not to allow Smith to cloak his maltreatment in duty,love of country, and claims of "I was just doing what I was told."

Smith's attorneys also delivered a solid closing argument, repeating the themeof lack of clear guidance for the dog handlers regarding use of their dogs inintelligence interrogations. The Defense highlighted communication andcoordination failures between Military Intelligence (MI) and Military Police(MP) at Abu Ghraib and how those communication failures resulted in a lack ofclear direction to the dog handlers, who were being used in both MI and MP capacities. Militaryinvestigations document many of these failures. Read some of the investigations here.

It is obviously difficult to predict how long any jury will take to reachits verdict, but after closing arguments it certainly appears that the panelmembers will need time to work through the findings. More to come afterthe verdict.