Posted on 12/16/2007 8:42:01 AM PST by RedRover
As a young U.S. Marine deployed in Iraq, Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt fought for his country. Now he's fighting for his name.
The 23-year-old Sharratt is visiting his parents in Washington County during the holidays and preparing to move forward with his life. He served two eight-month tours in Iraq and was engaged in battles to clear insurgents from Iraqi cities.
But an incident two years ago in Haditha that left 24 Iraqis dead and the ensuing military investigation have overshadowed his service, even though he was cleared of any wrongdoing.
Murder charges were brought against Sharratt last December, and the court proceedings were torturous for his parents, Darryl and Theresa, who reside in Canonsburg, and sister, Jaclyn.
From the beginning, Sharratt maintained his squad followed the rules of engagement while they cleared houses of suspected insurgents. However, the words of a powerful U.S. congressman from this area biased the investigation, Sharratt said, and tarnished his record.
Rep. John Murtha, D-Johnstown, said in May 2006 that the Marines "killed innocent civilians in cold blood" and inferred that they lost control after one of their comrades was killed by a roadside bomb.
Although three counts of unpremeditated murder against Sharratt have been withdrawn, neither he nor his family has received an apology or retraction.
Among 'the best'
Born at Washington Hospital, Sharratt grew up in Irwin, Westmoreland County, before his parents moved the family to South Bend, Ind. There, he attended high school and played soccer. Just before graduating in 2003, he followed a boyhood dream by enlisting in the Marines.
The American invasion into Iraq was under way, but Sharratt had few reservations about going to war. He wanted to fight in the infantry with the Marines.
"They were said to be the best, and I wanted to fight alongside the best," Sharratt said.
He was placed in K Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, and sent to boot camp the summer after graduation.
Based in dangerous Al Anbar province, he engaged in the ferocious battle inside Fallujah during his first deployment. Marines were sent there in November 2004 to retake the city after it had become a haven for insurgents.
"It's a simple life," he said of living in a war zone. "Unfortunately, it's the worst of simplicities because it's basically live or die every day. Any time could be your time or someone else's time."
A year after the battle for Fallujah, Sharratt and his fellow Marines would be thrust into the national spotlight and become the center of a military investigation.
Sharratt declined to discuss all of the events of Nov. 19, 2005, because of a pending investigation against some of his fellow Marines.
He said the squad came under attack when an improvised explosive device, or IED, next to the road detonated and killed one Marine. Sharratt said his unit soon began taking small arms fire from nearby buildings.
An explosive ordinance disposal team also was fired upon while trying to help Sharratt's unit. A weapons platoon squad a half-mile down the road from his position was hit with grenades and another IED was found a half-mile from Sharratt's location.
During the Article 32 investigation - the military equivalent of a civilian grand jury - Sharratt testified that he and three other Marines were clearing houses looking for several suspicious men. He shot and killed three Iraqi men because, he testified, at least two of them were armed with AK-47 assault rifles and he felt threatened.
By the end of the fighting, the Marines had killed 24 Iraqis.
Sharratt is adamant the Marines followed military rules of engagement.
"From the beginning, I knew we didn't do anything wrong," Sharratt said, "so I really wasn't too worried."
But he never could have imagined what awaited him in the United States near the end of his second eight-month deployment in Iraq.
Comments still linger
After railing against the Iraq war for six months, Murtha was briefed of an investigation involving the fighting in Haditha. He told reporters on May 17, 2006, that the Marines snapped under stress and attempted to cover up the incident.
"There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people," Murtha said, alluding to an initial report that 15 civilians were killed by a roadside bomb. "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."
The press conference infuriated Sharratt and his family, and they feared it would eliminate any chance of a fair trial.
"This guy, before he knows any information of what actually happened, goes on public television and calls us cold-blooded murderers," Sharratt said. "We were thinking to ourselves that now (the investigation) is going to have a bias this entire time."
Darryl Sharratt feels his son was used as a pawn in a political chess match.
"It just shows his total disregard for the lives of these Marines in order to further his political career," Darryl Sharratt said of Murtha. "We know this was all politically motivated."
He was among four Marines charged Dec. 21, 2006, in the deaths of 24 Iraqis.
But in July, the investigating officer recommended all three murder charges against Sharratt be dropped. One month later, the charges were officially dismissed by Lt. Gen. James Mattis, who said he understood the challenges Marines face in Iraq.
"My family could rest easy because that entire time it just killed them to know that their son or brother is going through this," Sharratt said. "The day my charges were dropped was just a great feeling because I called them and said, 'You guys can get a full night's sleep tonight.'"
Sharratt was discharged from the Marines in September, but Murtha's comments still linger.
"I'm always going to have to fight for my name now," Sharratt said.
His squad leader, Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, has filed a defamation lawsuit against Murtha and still faces murder charges, although it appears likely they will be dropped. Murtha declined comment to the Observer-Reporter because of the pending litigation.
That is something to which the Sharratts have become accustomed since Murtha has never apologized for his May 2006 comments.
The Sharratts' dining room table, once filled with photos of the young Marine, is now covered with piles of military documents that they hope will further explain what happened in Haditha. The Sharratts have called Murtha's office 52 times and spoken to the congressman just once.
"It's still a roller-coaster ride," Theresa Sharratt said. "The other Marines are still in their hearings. We're worried for all of them and hope they're as fortunate as Justin."
Since an apology would be too late, the family wants Murtha to be removed from office. They are endorsing Republican candidate William Russell - a former lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army now living in Johnstown - in his bid to unseat Murtha next year.
But Justin Sharratt also is looking toward the future as he prepares to return to his home in Oceanside, Calif., next month. He plans to enroll at the NASCAR Technical Institute and earn a degree as a mechanic to continue his passion for working on motorcycles.
Sharratt has endured more in his 23 years than most people. Somehow, he takes his experiences over the past two years in stride.
"Just another pothole in the bumpy road of life."
A year ago, eight Marines were charged for the incident at Haditha. To date, charges have been dropped against four. Two Marines await decisions on their cases, two Marines have been ordered to court martials in early 2008.
I'd like to thank all the Freepers, especially the couple hundred members of the Haditha Marine Ping List, for their support of these Marines.
If you'd like to support SSgt Wuterich's defense, and his pursuit of Murtha, please visit his website.
Turda should be hanged.
Pray for W and Our Marines
If I were the attorney for Murtha, one critical legal arguments I would make would be the Speech & Debate clause. At the end of the day, I don't think it should apply since the statements at issue were made in press conference, but it'd be an argument worth making since it might stick.
A more formidable argument would be respondeat superior coupled with sovereign immunity. It's well-settled law that an employer is liable for the tortious acts of his employees, and that the employee is indemnified by his employer. Murtha is unquestionably an employee of the Federal Government, and equally unquestionably, the Government is immune from civil suits under most circumstances. I have the sense that this will be fatal to Mr. Sharratt's claim for relief.
The third hurdle he will have to clear is the merits of the case. The problem is that defamation suits require that the plaintiff show that the defendant either knew that his statements were false, or acted with a reckless disregard for the truth. Unfortunately for Sharratt, the Haditha allegations were credible - even if exaggerated. Murtha's claims, while sensational and clearly the most extreme interpretation of questionable facts in Haditha, were not so unrealistic to qualify (IMHO) as a "reckless disregard for the truth."
I hope I'm wrong - I'd love to hear otherwise from an attorney who practices in defamation law - but my training suggests that this case will be very difficult to win. Hopefully Sharratt's civil attorneys have a good game plan to get through the summary judgment stage.
Thanks for posting and the ping, Red!
To be added to the Murtha Watch ping list please notify myself or RedRover.
Slight correction. A year ago eight Marines were charged and convicted in the media and government for the incident at Haditha. This is the victory (such as it is) that we now have: At least some in the media and government are finally speaking as though the "innocent until proven guilty" phrase actually has meaning. Except Murtha, of course.
Unfortunately, it will be buried in a 1 inch blurb in the travel section
Thanks for posting. Good article. America’s finest! BTTT!
The Supreme Court has ruled (in the Proxmire “Golden Fleece” case) that there are limits to the “speech and debate” clause.
Still, you’re right a defamation case will be difficult. The lawyers for SSgt Wuterich won a victory when a judge ordered Murtha to appear at a deposition. However, DoJ lawyers (yes, they’re on Murtha’s side) are currently appealing that decision.
If the litigation doesn’t work, can we hook Murtha’s feet to a chain and drag him around the block a couple of times? Just to roughen him up a bit so the tar and feathers won’t slide off his porcine hide quite so easily?
The intent of that clause is for any and all utterance made during discussions and statements pertaining to business on the Floor of their respective Chamber. It was never meant to apply outside of there, and definitely not at a Member's Campaign Headquarters, as Murtha's was. Indeed, the USSC has stipulated that in Proxmire; bringing it up again is a waste of time and treasure to all involved.
Here we have a situation wherein the lawyers have perverted the true intent of the Constitution and its meaning in governance. Murtha is the Representative of his District, and as such is employed and paid by them. The Bank is the holder of my funds, but does not own them; so too the Fed is the disburser of the funds necessary for Murtha's salary and benefits. If anything, Murtha can be considered an employee of the State.
Murtha is not some First Year member, picking his way through the arcane brambles of the legal thicket. His statement was made from his campaign office, and as the timeline shows, was made prior to any valid briefing from competent authority. He acquired and disseminated pernicious propaganda planted by those intending to do harm to the US. His willful failure to verify and quantify that propaganda, and his intentional obfuscation of how he came into possession of that information gives credence to the Sharratt and SSgt Wuterich's claims.
I hope both suits are successful, and are able to put the rest of the hierarchy on notice that they are responsible for their statements and actions outside of their assigned positions. That the DoJ is 'supporting' Murtha is not a true characterization, anymore than a lawyer defending a murderer is condoning his clients acts. I do not begrudge Murtha's use of legal counsel; I do expect that counsel to be legitimate.
Go to hell.
Sorry, too late.
A lawyer already took me there.
An accountant got me out. :^)
Now that's funny.
I’ve been to hell and back a couple times, another trip won’t hurt. I’ll give it a bump.
Justin already has a good name, but here’s to getting what he wants!
>> “Just another pothole in the bumpy road of life.”
Continued prayers for Justin and the other Haditha Marines still struggling with this politically motivated fiasco.
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.