ShareThis Page
Army sergeant to plead guilty to making threat in case of Iraqi boys’ shooting |

Army sergeant to plead guilty to making threat in case of Iraqi boys’ shooting

Staff SGT Michael Barbera, small kill team leader shown here in Iraq in 2007

Sgt. 1st Class Michael Barbera, who faced murder and other charges in connection with the 2007 shooting deaths of two unarmed, deaf Iraqi boys, is expected to plead guilty to a lone charge of communicating a threat under terms of a deal.

Barbera was the leader of a Small Kill Team on reconnaissance for terrorists when he fatally shot Ahmed Khalid al-Timmimi, 15, and his brother, Abbas, 14, on March 6, 2007, squad members testified. The two boys were tending to cattle outside As Sadah village, Iraq, about 50 miles northeast of Baghdad and just a few miles from a forward operating base of the 5-73rd Cavalry in Diyala province.

Details of the shootings were published in December 2012 by the Tribune-Review in a special investigative report, “Rules of Engagement.”

The Army charged Barbera with two counts of premeditated murder. He also was charged with two counts of prejudicial conduct for allegedly lying to superiors about the shootings and for allegedly threatening the wife of Trib investigative reporter Carl Prine, who wrote the national award-winning report.

The threat charge involves one of several calls Barbera allegedly made to Prine’s home. A male caller told Prine’s wife, Deanna, that her husband was working on a story about something that happened in Iraq in 2007.

“For your personal safety, I suggest you tell him he needs to stop working on this story,” she testified the male caller told her. The call was later traced to Barbera’s cellphone and matched a contact number he posted on Google for an event.

Under the plea agreement, Barbera is expected to face less than a year in prison. The judge also likely would reduce Barbera at least one rank to his previous staff sergeant status, military justice experts say.

Lt. Col. Charles Floyd, the investigating or hearing officer for Barbera’s Article 32 hearing in April at Joint Base Lewis-McChord near Tacoma, had recommended Barbera face a general court-martial. The charges: one count each of premeditated murder, non-premeditated murder, obstructing justice, and communicating a threat.

The Army announced in September that Lt. Gen. Stephen Lanza, commanding general of Army I Corps and the Lewis-McChord base and the convening authority for Barbera’s general court-martial, had decided to dismiss the two murder charges “without prejudice” — meaning prosecutors retain the right to refile them later. The dismissal was necessary, officials said, because the unstable situation in Iraq with Islamic State militants makes it impossible at this time for prosecutors and Barbera’s defense team, led by attorney David Coombs, to get to As Sadah village to speak directly with relatives and other villagers about the deaths of the two brothers.

Witnesses from Barbera’s unit testified that after his older brother was shot to death, Abbas raised his hands before he, too, was shot by Barbera. The unpremeditated murder charge recommended in Ahmed’s death reflected Floyd’s belief that Barbera allegedly fired quickly and in response to something the squad leader did or did not see, such as a suicide vest. Abbas’ death was premeditated and deliberate, Floyd concluded.

Barbera was referred by Lanza to general court-martial on the remaining obstruction and threat charges. Coombs and Army prosecutors subsequently negotiated a plea agreement that drops the obstruction charge. An Army spokesman did not respond Friday to a request for comment.

Jim Wilhelm is investigative editor for Trib Total Media. Contact him at 412-320-7894 or [email protected]

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.