Posted on 08/10/2007 3:27:00 PM PDT by stm
n exonerating Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt of all charges against him arising out of the incident in Haditha in November 2005 including murder, Lt. Gen. James Mattis praised the young Marine who is among the Marines who were accused of cold-blooded murder by Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa.
As correspondent Nat Helms has written, Murtha publicly labeled the Marines cold-blooded murderers and liars who covered up the crime to protect their skins last year. He repeatedly told reporters interviewing him on CNN and other news outlets that he obtained his evidence from the Time magazine stories, which he failed to explain were based on statements by two known insurgent propagandists.
After agreeing with the Investigating Officer's recommendation that all charges against Sharratt, a veteran of the bloody battle of Fallujah in 2004 and the insurgent ambush in Haditha on Nov. 19, 2005, Mattis assured Sharratt that he could reflect with satisfaction over his service in Iraq.
"You have served as a Marine infantryman in Iraq where our nation is fighting a shadowy enemy who hides among the innocent people, does not comply with any aspect of the law of war, and routinely targets and intentionally draws fire toward civilians," Mattis wrote in his decision.
"Operational, moral and legal imperatives demand that we Marines stay true to our own standards and maintain compliance with the law of war in this morally bruising environment," he said.
"With the dismissal of these charges, you may fairly conclude that you did your best to live up to the standards ... In the face of life or death decisions made by you in a matter of seconds in combat."
In recommending that the charges against Sharratt be dropped, Lt. Col. Paul Ware who conducted the grand jury-like Article 32 hearings found that murder charges brought against Sharratt were based on unreliable witness accounts, insupportable forensic evidence and questionable legal theories.
"The government version is unsupported by independent evidence," he wrote in his report to Mattis.
"To believe the government version of facts is to disregard clear and convincing evidence to the contrary."
Prosecutors had charged that Sharratt and other members of his battalion went on a rampage and killed Iraqi civilians after a roadside bomb killed a fellow Marine. Sharratt said the Iraqi men he confronted were insurgents and at least one was armed with AK-47 rifle when he shot him.
Ware maintained that prosecution of Sharratt could set a "dangerous precedent that ... May encourage others to bear false witness against Marines as a tactic to erode public support of the Marine Corps and its mission in Iraq."
"Even more dangerous is the potential that a Marine may hesitate at the critical moment when facing the enemy," Ware said.
Here is Mattis's statement concerning his decision to drop all charges against Sharratt in the Haditha murder case:
"The events of November 19, 2005 have been exhaustively reviewed by Marine, Army, and Naval Criminal Investigative Service investigators. An independent Article 32 Investigating Officer has considered all the facts and determined that the evidence does not support a referral to court-martial for LCpl Sharratt. Based on my review of all the evidence in this case and considering the recommendation of the Article 32 officer, I have dismissed the charges against LCpl Sharratt.
"LCpl Sharratt has served as a Marine infantryman in Iraq where our Nation is fighting a shadowy enemy who hides among the innocent people, does not comply with any aspect of the law of war, and routinely targets and intentionally draws fire toward civilians. The challenges of this combat environment put extreme pressures on our Marines. Notwithstanding, operational, moral, and legal imperatives demand that we Marines stay true to our own standards and maintain compliance with the law of war in this morally bruising environment.
"The experience of combat is difficult to understand intellectually and very difficult to appreciate emotionally. One of our Nation's most articulate Supreme Court Justices, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., served as an infantryman during the Civil War and described war as an 'incommunicable experience.' He has also noted elsewhere that 'detached reflection cannot be demanded in the face of an uplifted knife.'
Marines have a well earned reputation for remaining cool in the face of enemies brandishing much more than knives. The brutal reality that Justice Holmes described is experienced each day in Iraq, where Marines willingly put themselves at great risk to protect innocent civilians. Where the enemy disregards any attempt to comply with ethical norms of warfare, we exercise discipline and restraint to protect the innocent caught on the battlefield. Our way is right, but it is also difficult.
"With the dismissal of these charges LCpl Sharratt may fairly conclude that he did his best to live up to the standards, followed by U.S. Fighting men throughout our many wars, in the face of life or death decisions made in a matter of seconds in combat. And as he has always remained cloaked in the presumption of innocence, with this dismissal of charges, he remains in the eyes of the law - and in my eyes - innocent."
Lt. Gen. James Mattis also dismissed charges against Capt. Randy Stone in the Haditha case.
"I have thoroughly reviewed and considered all of the evidence surrounding the Haditha incident and Captain Stone's conduct with respect to command reporting of and response to the incident," Gen. Matttis wrote. "It is clear to me that any error of omission or commission by Captain Stone does not warrant action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice."
He concluded his statement by writing "Now that his case is resolved, I know that he will continue to serve with motivation and dedication, and with the understanding that he has much to contribute to the success of his unit and the Marine Corps."
Do we have a GOP Congress critter with backbone enough to stand up in the house and DEMAND Murtha publicly apologize (or better yet, demand his resignation from house leadership positions)?
I’d call for his public tar and feathering but, that darn Bill of Rights....
The General meanwhile, should be going after the NCIS members and JAGs who perpetrated this abomination.
I'd certainly be willing to put my name, and address, on a public petition calling for him to resign not only from the leadership positions, but from Congress. Surely there is a better person, even a better Democrat of the Lieberman/Nunn/Jackson type, to represent Pennsylvania's badly Gerrymandered, 12th Congressional district.
I wonder what this means for the other accused?
Only applies restrictions to actions of the Government, not the actions of individuals. He can't be prosecuted, but there are other sorts of sanctions, most of which are perfectly legal.
The best we can hope for is a lawsuit, and removal in the 2008 election cycle. Even the DemonRats *should* want to get rid of him now, although they probably don't, so running a primary candidate against him might be problematic. But there is still the general election.
But you know, if I'd defamed a bunch of Marines, I think I'd be looking over my shoulder for the rest of my life. Hope he does.
Of course if he an honorable man, he could at least issue a very public, and unambiguous, apology. But he's not an honorable man, so I won't be holding my breath.
Words fail me - I thought our districts in California were bad...
Well the Constitution says:
Section. 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
It's generally been interpreted to mean they can say anything about anybody and not be sued for it. However most cases have involved other political or public figures. Then again his words have give aide and comfort to the enemies of the United States. That's treason, for which even CongressCritters of the liberal persuasion can be charge, tried and convicted.
Probably true, but wouldn’t it just be worthwhile for the Corporal to sue this waste of skin and get the issue in front of Scalia, Alito and Roberts (oh my!)
.
I've always been under the impression that immunity from prosecution ends outside the Capitol building. Surely the founders did not mean to create an imperial privileged class.
Well neither am I, (although my daughter and son-in-law are) but it does say "shall not be questioned in *any* other place", which would seem to include a civil court.
Of course Murtha hasn't restricted his diarrhea of the mouth to "any Speech or Debate in either House", so such a civil suite might be successful.
Of course they didn't, but their successors have done just that. But still you are correct, it would seem that, under that old rag, The Constitution, it should be possible to question them in *any other Place" for things said other than in "either House". The privilege from arrest is likewise limited to when traveling to and from a session and during a session, but even then they can be arrested for felonies, breach of the peace, and of course, Treason.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.