Marine's Iraq killings trial to go forward

AP ^ | March 26, 2010 | Elliot Spagat

[jazusamo]

CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. — A military judge in California has denied a motion to dismiss charges against a Marine sergeant whose squad killed 24 Iraqi men, women and children after a bomb killed a Marine.

Lt. Col. David Jones ruled Friday at Camp Pendleton on a defense motion claiming there was unlawful command influence while a general considered a court-martial for Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich.

The judge ruled there was no record of any "meaningful comment" between the general and an aide who had investigated the case as a military lawyer.

Wuterich is facing trial on reduced charges of voluntary manslaughter and other crimes in the November 2005 attack in the town of Haditha.

[RS]

C'mon Fred - When you say don't trust them, don't turn your back on them it's because you can't identify the enemy. By claiming there are no civilians you are advocating just killing everyone, wiping out the entire population of Iraq. If that IS your position then read your tagline and say what you mean.

If you pick and choose which information to use you can always find a path that leads to the conclusion you have previously determined.
There IS a non-subjective truth, fixed on the day the events occurred ... we simply don't have a clear look at it with all the conflicting testimony we are presented.

If the charges are dismissed because of procedural issues, it does not change that truth.

[bigheadfred]

By claiming there are no civilians you are advocating just killing everyone, wiping out the entire population of Iraq.

Yes. Yes I am.

Conflicting

Maybe there are individual truths, but just because of the conflicting testimony the "truth" is subjective, IMO.

[RS]

I appreciate your honesty if you are being honest with yourself.

The conflicting testimony is not only between different individuals, but between various statements by the same person. Perhaps as you say the "truth" is subjective and can change based on what the person thinks is the best thing to say at the time - but the Truth ( without quotes ) is absolute.

[bigheadfred]

absolute

"We know this well. It can be said in your words. There is no beginning, there is no end, There is only change. There is no teacher, there is no student, There is only remembering. There is no good, there is no evil, There is only expression. There is no union, there is no sharing, There is only one. There is no joy, there is no sadness, There is only love. There is no greater, there is no lesser, There is only balance. There is no stasis, there is no entropy, There is only motion. There is no wakefulness, there is no sleep, There is only being. There is no limit, there is no chance, There is only a plan. This is as we know it to be."
Robert Monroe

[RS]

Pure flummery - Taken from Monroe's book Ultimate Journey
This is supposedly an answer to the question "what it is to become complete ? " given to Monroe by some astral entity during an out of body experience.

[bigheadfred]

So much for absolutes. Bodaboombodabing. :-))

[RS]

Not quite - this is a prime example of something that is absolutely hogwash

[bigheadfred]

That is EXACTLY how I feel about this prosecution.

[RS]

If it is your ( conflicted ) idea that every person in Iraq should be liquidated then I can see how you can come to the conclusion that ANY action whatsoever that furthers that goal is legitimate, making any laws or restraints on those actions unsuportable.

[bigheadfred]

I can see how

Does this mean I'm winning? :-)

[RS]

LOL

From your ( conflicted ) view, I can understand how you come to your conclusions - not that I in any way agree with them, my big headed friend :-)

[bigheadfred]

I can say the same for your views.

Back to the main topic.

I don’t really think there is a Truth that can be gleaned empirically or absolutely in this case. There are too many conflicting statements. Too many inflammatory statements. Too much time has passed. Too many running for cover. That is why I say the truth is subjective. I think. I think I thought. I thought I thought.

We can debate the points over and over. It will be interesting to finally get to the trial and see just what is presented.

IMO, the only people who can accurately give a determination, panel wise, are people who have direct combat experience in Iraq. What either of us deem reasonable (or unreasonable) may mean something else entirely, to them.

[RS]

There's the rub - We are getting all these contradictory statements from people who HAVE had direct combat experience in Iraq. I'm not refering specifically to conflicting statements by different individuals, but to statements made at different times by the same person. Hopefully a trial will be able to reconcile these differnt stories and get us close to understanding what actually happened
Only THEN can it be determined if any individual oversteped the bounderies.

If it goes to trial, the prosecution must feel they have a case.
At the risk of making you smile :-) Based on what we are given, even ignoring all the "firefight" rhetoric being tossed around, I don't see them putting enough of these statements together coherantly to have a good case.
That said, you will recall that the best thing about telling the truth is that you don't have to remember what you said last time.

[bigheadfred]

If you haven't read this story I think you should. Might give you a better understanding of just how screwed up things can get over there.

The Six Letter Word

[RS]

Not quite sure what "lesson" you want me to learn from reading this.

If I recall this event from a while back the Iraqi was killed because he may have compromised their position, and I was curious that these Marines would have thought using a pistol to silence him would have been a better idea then a knife.

Is the lesson that once someone questions the actions that the Marines will try to cover-up and if that doesn't work will change their stores to point at their former comrades ?

[bigheadfred]

Just trying to point out how perception is in the eye of the beholder. To these snipers, and they weren’t Marines—Army, the ROE of the day was “If you feel threatened, pull the trigger, and we have your back.” And what is interesting is that Hensley admits it was his decision to kill this guy. He was asked at the Vela trial why he ordered Vela to kill the Iraqi. Hensley said-paraphrase- “I thought about using my knife on him, but Vela had the pistol so I ORDERED him to shoot.” Hensley thinks he did the right thing. Vela thinks he did the right thing. I believe the Marines at Haditha that day think they did the right thing. And I side with them.

BTW. Evan Vela Carnahan is my nephew.

Freepmail.

[RS]

"the ROE of the day was “If you feel threatened, pull the trigger, and we have your back.”

So just how did that work out ?