Which, by the way, is why this sounds like a case of omission of pertinent facts. This is rare in the armed forces. But omitting facts is distressingly common in journalism. Someone ought to investigate... in fact if ABC News can interview Afghans, why can’t a private person do it.
MEGA UPDATE 12.15.2014
Ed Brown wrote: I’ve received a zipped file containing information from Lorance’s defense team which is alleging the prosecution is withholding vital elements of testimony and physical evidence which would exonerate Clint Lorance. The list is long and the value of each item, from the defense’s standpoint, is high. I asked for permission to publicize this file and it was granted. It can be downloaded in it’s entirety here.(656kb)
Among the items of evidence the government is allegedly in possession of are biometric identities of the individual enemy combatants involved in the case – along with fingerprint evidence linking each individual to previous involvement in attacks on U.S. and coalition forces(appendix A). The list is very thorough and includes the names and other digital identifiers associated with each enemy combatant involved. Item 11 from appendix A provides a very forthright summary of the prosecution’s non disclosure of that vital evidence during trial:
11. This evidence should have been developed and presented to decision-makers throughout the entire process. This evidence counsels against a General Court-Martial. And, it is certainly reasonable doubt. The Army has an officer imprisoned for twenty years. The Army also had this information at its fingertips all along. Nothing is known to have been done to develop it and use it. And, CID had IED terrorists standing before them. The third rider, on the very same motorcycle as the two EKIAs, is part of IED networks. Clemency as soon as possible resolves the matter for all concerned.
The first item in the file titled US v. Lorance 30 NOV 2014 PGS 1-3 expounds on the governments failure to disclose the evidence during trial:
1. REQUEST. The Army has in its possession evidence linking Afghan military-aged-males involved in this general court-martial to improvised explosive devices (IED) as well as IED attacks and terror networks in Afghanistan. The government failed to disclose this information to the chain-of-command, counsel for the defense, and the court-martial. These significant failures strike at the very heart of American due process and show that the government violated its discovery and disclosure obligations under Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 46, RCM 701, Army Regulation (AR) 27-26, and well-settled Supreme Court and military case law. This newly discovered evidence, standing alone or in combination with the many legal errors already raised, shows that this court-martial is not correct in law and fact.
And from section 6 of that file:
The new evidence implicating the Afghan military-aged-males to attacks on US and other terror targets during the relevant timeframe all but confirms hostile intent and hostile activities. The evidence underscores the validity of the split-second decision to fire at the three riders. This is especially so where it is beyond any doubt that moments and meters later, Afghan military-aged-males associated with the three riders (as shown in Appendix A) were scouting 1st platoon for an attack. And, the two Afghan military-aged-males detained shortly after the second engagement each had HME on their hands. This is reasonable doubt. But, the larger point is the prosecution had this evidence available and did not disclose it.
Section 8 alleges the obvious, failure to disclose by military prosecutors, as well as exactly who didn’t receive the information:
8. FAILURE TO DISCLOSE. Had the new evidence been properly developed and disclosed to decision-makers along the investigative, preferral, and referral processes, it is certain that there would have been a disposition other than General Court-Martial. Indeed, the Army did not court-martial SSG Herrmann or PFC Carson for killing and wounding military-aged-males that morning based on less than perfect information. The newly-discovered information was never presented to the chain-of-command when each commander recommended trial by general court-martial. It was not presented to the UCMJ Article 32 Investigating Officer. It was not presented to the Convening Authority when he referred the case to general court-martial. It was not disclosed to defense counsel.
Appendix B outlines 23 unique and very vital items which also weren’t disclosed during trial. That list includes photographs and sketches from the day and place in question as well as expert and eye witness testimony which could have exonerated Lorance of wrong doing. Item 7 in the list indicates that the actual taped communications from overhead reconnaissance – which was very much responsible for the information Lorance was receiving and basing his decisions on – was not presented at trial. Those tapes contain a relay from recon to Lorance indicating the combatants in question had the intention of bringing harm to Lorance and his men:
7. Wolfhound communications intercepts were taped and recorded of two military-aged-males that Staff Sergeant Herrmann and Private First Class Carson shot and killed 500 meters away from the first engagement and but moments later. The record of trial states that EKIAs were using ICOM radios and stated – “they could see the Americans on the roof and that they wanted to do something to them.” The tapes were not disclosed to the defense.
The defense was not able to use any of this information to prepare it’s case. On top of these omissions the defense has also identified 10 material legal errors during the processing of this court martial, four of which are included in the PDF file contained in the zipped folder. Those four items include:
Clint Lorance was right to suspect those men were enemy combatants based on the information he was being provided with, which has now been proven accurate. The biometric identifiers, which anyone can download and view in the zip file, are linked directly to fingerprints found at previous IED events. Lorance’s split second decision to take action protecting his men was justified. The government has in it’s databases the “biometric proof” they were indeed the enemy and needs to reconsider it’s entire case against Lorance. As it stands – they’re holding a U.S. war hero in captivity for doing his job and doing it well. As Lorance has stated, he has “always believed those men intended to harm my soldiers and if I had done nothing and some of my men had been wounded or killed, I would have been in a different kind of prison … for the rest of my life.”
Please share this post. You and I know the mainstream media won’t cover it … they’re too busy creating the next “Ferguson” to worry about doing what’s right and actually helping Americans who truly deserve it.
In their absence the burden of promoting truth falls on our shoulders. It’s why I created this blog and it’s why you’re here reading. I create the post, provide the information, you click the share button and/or bounce over to Clint’s petition page and give him a Christmas gift of your name on the line – where it matters. Let him hear your voice and let him know you know the truth.
If you’d like to take your involvement up a degree, you can contact your state Senators and/or Representatives and let them know what you think about this situation. In case you’d like a quick note to drop them, try this one:
Dear XXXXXXXX,
I just learned the government is withholding vital evidence in the case against LT Clint Lorance who is currently serving 20 years in Leavenworth for killing enemy combatants in Afghanistan. That evidence, which was not disclosed during the trial, identifies each combatant and ties them to previous IED attacks against U.S. and coalition forces . This evidence exonerates Clint Lorance, who has testified on numerous occasions he was just trying to protect his soldiers, and I want to see him freed immediately.
I’m closely monitoring this case to see if you take action on behalf of justice.
Sincerely,
name
Feel free to gut that or rework it to get your message across.
I believe in Clint Lorance. I think you do too. Please join me this holiday season in creating our own media event in his honor. Let’s let that clemency board know we want our hero freed from Leavenworth. Together we can do it but each reader must take action right now, tonight/today.
Clint did his best for us. Now it’s our turn …