Shafted in Seattle

The ill treatment of veterans in the US continues, only this time the administration reached waaay back and poured salt in the wounds of a 2nd World War veteran.

A month after the Army said it made a mistake when it court-martialed Samuel Snow and 27 other black soldiers in World War II, the Pentagon has cut Mr. Snow a check for back pay, money withheld while he served a year in prison on a rioting conviction.

That should be a pretty hefty back pay cheque. It has, after all, been almost 62 years since the event which caused the problem in the first place.

Brace yourselves.

The check was for $725. No interest. No adjustment for inflation.

The army explained themselves thusly:

Col. Daniel L. Baggio, chief of media relations for the Army, said in an interview and in e-mail messages that he could not discuss Mr. Snow’s specific payment because of privacy laws. Colonel Baggio said a private of Mr. Snow’s grade was paid $50 a month in 1945.

He said Mr. Snow’s $725 appeared to reflect money withheld from his conviction on Dec. 18, 1944, to what would have been his likely discharge date, March 2, 1946. In an e-mail message, Colonel Baggio said the law controlling the board “does not authorize payment of interest, pain and suffering or damages.” If the back pay had been calculated at 8 percent for 61 1/2 years, compounded annually, Mr. Snow could have received more than $80,000. If the $725 was simply adjusted for inflation, it would amount to more than $7,700, a calculator on the Labor Department Web site shows.

What happened to cause this unbelievable generosity and the return of Mr. Snow's 1945 army pay at the 1945 rate?

In October, an Army board effectively overturned the convictions of Mr. Snow and the other former soldiers on rioting and other charges. The men, two of whom are known to survive, were imprisoned in many cases and dishonorably discharged after a riot at Fort Lawton here in August 1944 that led to the hanging death of an Italian prisoner of war held at the post.

The Army Board for Correction of Military Records specifically set aside the convictions of Mr. Snow and three others whose families requested reviews of the cases. The board found that the convictions were flawed because two lawyers defended 43 soldiers, the lawyers had 13 days to prepare for trial and, most critically, the prosecution withheld important evidence that could have potentially helped the defendants.

“All rights, privileges and property lost as a result of the conviction should be restored to him,” the board said of Mr. Snow. Rulings in the other cases were similar.

In 1975 Mr. Snow's records were adjusted to reflect a "General discharge under honorable conditions".

The case involving Samuel Snow and 42 other black soldiers has its own twists. Former NewsHour Seattle bureau chief Jack Hamann discovered a headstone which led him on a lengthy investigation. He overturned a story of racial discrimination and questionable behaviour on the part of army prosecutor, Lt. Col. Leon Jaworski, who would go on to become the special prosecutor who faced-down Richard Nixon during the Watergate scandal.

Hamann discovered that at Fort Lawton, now Discovery Park near Seattle, Guglielmo Olivotto, an Italian prisoner of war, had allegedly been lynched during a riot by black troops.

The base itself was crammed with up to 10,000 troops returning from or embarking for wartime theatres in the Pacific. The black troops were employed as stevedores loading and unloading ships. Worse however, was the fact that there was a large contingent of Italian prisoners of war who enjoyed a great deal of freedom and liberty as a condition of parole. The black American troops were treated somewhat differently. From Publishers Weekly:

The Italians had freedom of movement and received hospitality in Seattle homes; the African-Americans were subject to massive discrimination and restrictions. The resulting tension led to escalating scuffles, which in turn led to a riotous assault by the GIs on the Italians' quarters and to the death of one Italian.

Hamann produced the results of his research in his book On American Soil. It was only as a result of Hamann's research that the US Army reviewed the case and, this October, set aside the convictions of all those tried and granted them full honorable discharges.

Samuel Snow, now 83, is the only survivor of that event to have received the whopping $725 that constituted his back pay at 1945 rates.

Injustice heaped upon injustice.

One of life's little monsters walks free

In Southwark, England, the message seems clear. You can brutalize and torture your spouse, be charged with causing actual bodily harm and, if you make enough money because you work long hours, you can just pay the toll and walk away free.

A management consultant branded his wife with a hot steam iron because she had failed to press his shirt.

Cambridge graduate Colin Read, 25, also slashed her with a knife because she had forgotten to make his sandwiches.

But the £90,000-a-year [$189,000] executive walked free from court - with just a £2,000 [$4200] fine.

His wife Elizabeth, also 25, sat quietly in the corner of the courtroom at Southwark Crown Court as he indicated he could pay the fine within 28 days.

He was spared even a community punishment because the judge ruled that "special circumstances" suggested he was unlikely to reoffend and his job meant he was too "busy" to find the time to complete any order.

Special circumstances? He was too busy to actually, you know, accept punishment and correction? Well maybe the devil is in the details.

The couple had met as students at Cambridge in 2003, where he studied engineering and rowed for his college, Magdalene, and she was a sciences student at Downing.

Later they moved to London, where she began medical training at King's College and is now in her second year. They moved into a flat in Herne Hill and married in June 2006.

Read began working for management consultancy LEK Consulting in 2005 and was soon reaping the financial rewards.

But he put in 17-hour days and his moods darkened whenever he returned home. Violence began three months after their marriage.

The first attack came on September 19 when he returned home in the small hours and found his wife had not prepared his sandwiches for the next day.

Enraged, he slashed her foot with a knife as she lay sleeping. When she complained, Read responded by beating her with his fists.

A day later she tried to speak to him about what happened. He beat her again.

Eight days later, even worse was to follow. Read complained that a shirt printed with palm trees that he needed for a corporate "beach party" function was apparently unironed.

He lashed out again, branding his wife twice on the back with the iron. He pressed so hard that the iron's steam holes were burnt into her flesh.

Too scared to even call a doctor, Mrs Read simply stood under a cold shower for half an hour and then attended lectures as normal.

Police were called only after a friend alerted officers. Read was arrested within days.

I'm struggling while I look for another word to describe this guy but the only one I can come up with is "monster".

At this point it would be beyond comprehension as to what could have taken place at trial to cause a judge to go lightly on this swine.

Read told police that his wife was "self-harming".

Surprisingly, that excuse is used a lot by spouse-beaters, particularly men who beat women.

Later, he claimed it was "possible" he had attacked her but he "couldn't remember".

A judge swallowed this. The Alberto Gonzales defence. The little prick makes a six figure (North America) salary for a management consulting firm. He's apparently got a degree in engineering. At 25-years of age, I find it inconceivable that any company would pay out that kind of money to someone with a memory that faulty. The judge, however, bought it.

[H]e walked free from court with his mother at his side after a judge decided not to jail him.

A report recommended a community service order, but Recorder William Featherby questioned how Read would fit it in around his long working hours.

Really! Yes, that would be inconvenient for the little bastard, wouldn't it? And we wouldn't want to interrupt that six-figure income now, would we? Best just let him go back to earning the big bucks and let's just forget the whole thing.

He said he was concerned that Read had denied the offences despite overwhelming evidence and he called the iron attack "appalling".

So... if you simply deny it, that injects reasonable doubt? Apparently not. Read was found guilty, after all. And the iron attack would have been the most compelling evidence. It's pretty tough to jam a hot iron on your own back. Try it with a cold one and see what happens. So, the judge did believe Elizabeth Read but the denial of Colin Read was enough to mitigate the sentence.

Yeah, and that's not all. You aren't near angry enough yet. This should do it to you.

But the judge said it was the circumstances of the marriage that had provoked Read and that now those circumstances had gone, sending him to prison would "help no one".

P.r.o.v.o.k.e.d him. Let me guess. After spending all day in medical school and him coming home at oh-dark-thirty, she didn't make his sandwiches for the next day and he decides to slash her foot with a knife. Because, at his salary he can hardly afford to go out for lunch. And it's not like there is any kind of lunch delivery in London these days. Yeah, that's real provocation alright. The complaining about having her foot cut up? That would provoke a beating - from an animal. And not having his tacky-tourist shirt ironed is beyond the realm of acceptable. But apparently he knew how to heat up an iron.

Sending him to prison would "help no one"? It would meet all three criteria in sentencing, but apparently the judge has a different view of those things. Read used a weapon in two instances. That requires punishment. As underwhelming as it was, the fine serves as punishment and only punishment. Then there is protection of the public and rehabilitation. Those things were not addressed... because the kid is just too busy at work.

The next time you wonder why women are so hesitant to report abuse at the hands of their stronger male partners, come back and read this.

It's a good thing the nasty little sonofabitch left with his mother. No doubt she'll go back to making his sandwiches and keeping his party shirts ironed. And hopefully there is a senior partner at LEK Consulting who takes a dimmer view of Read's behaviour than the Southwark Crown Court.