Free Republic

It’s crazy irresponsible journalism. I heard one blurb, about an hour ago on CNN, attibuting the situation to Indian Muslim alienation because of the situation in Kashmir and resentment of Indian internal security forces This is at the same time CNN is reporting that British and American citizens were being singled out. There was no attempt by CNN to square the two accounts.... How can you report news if you can’t even execute grade school level logic?

Gents, think that was pretty obvious sarcasm.

such is fate

Go for it. A lot of Americans don’t forget all the American blood on the Iranian regime’s hands. And a lot of American’s don’t play fair, either, against charlatans.

Ahmadinejad and Khamenei’s silly arrogance has them way over-extended. Good time for sane Persians to seize power before someone else does it for them.

Let’s remember Brazil after the cooky fickle Iranian regime’s soon demise. Good luck.

that’s nice

What a sham is this thing called the “Islamic Republic of Iran.” Who is the manic monster Ahmedinejad to talk about elections being “steered toward a determined derection,” when Iran’s “Council of Guardians” screens and knocks heavy percentages off the candidates put forth in any election by the Iranian people? Of course, this is determined by the “Voice of God,” who would be the all-knowing and pure Swami/Ayatollah Khamenei, whose diplomatic minions in Pyongyang present nepotistic atheist dictator Kim Jong Il flowers and fruitbaskets on the occassion of the dictator and dear old dad’s birthdays. If Khamenei and the idiot Ahmedinejad will kowtow to a pathetic Asian dictator like Kim Jong Il, I guess it’s pretty easy for the Iranian people to see what the priorities of Khamenei and his theocratic clan are, how altruistic they are towards their professed ideals, and how quickly Khamenei and Ahmadinejad would mow them down and walk on them, simply to keep power for the sake of keeping their power.

True, there’s tough quick calls in intense combat situations where the enemy routinely hides behind civilians (when not targeting and blowing them up, themselves, in a bid at the 72 virgins or whatever). I think most know who’ve been over there know that it’s just good fortune/luck of the day that they haven’t been in a situation that consequently comes under judicial scrutiny. It’s a hazardous job that our service members routinely roll out and execute, because if they didn’t the rest of us would be speaking jihad.

The judicial wheels are turning now, and everyone’s getting their chance, so, I concur, let the facts fall where they belong. I just hate to see Staff Non-Commissioned Officers using serious judicial inquiries as a haphazard forum for preventing their own opinions and viewpoints vice the facts. I’m sure I’m seeing a lot of stuff out of context (particualry like the comment that comes across as light-hearted humor about the look of an Afghani child’s face in the back of a small arms fire-swept vehicle). As for the fault finding of the incident itself, I’m content to wait for the outcome of the proceedings.

Oh, yeah, and the cited article to complement my rant:

Marine testifies he saw no enemy fire
Up to 19 Afghans died when a convoy, fleeing a bomb, shot at traffic. His position was poor; a 2nd witness heard shots.
By David Zucchino
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

January 9, 2008

CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C. — A former Marine counter-intelligence sergeant testified Tuesday that special operations Marines fired into oncoming civilian traffic in Afghanistan last March even though he saw no evidence that their convoy was fired upon.

Appearing before a rare military court of inquiry, Nathaniel Travers, a former staff sergeant, said Marines in his convoy were rushing back to their base after a car bombing when Marine Humvee gunners fired into civilian vehicles on a highway in eastern Afghanistan.

As many as 19 Afghans died in the March 4 incident, which is being reviewed by a court of inquiry — the first such hearing by the Marines in half a century. The board of inquiry is an administrative fact-finding body, not a criminal court.

“There were a lot of people who died that day who really didn’t need to,” Travers said in a slow, halting voice during the inquiry’s opening day of testimony. “They were just driving in their cars.”

An Afghan human rights group accused the Marines of firing indiscriminately, killing civilian men, women and children. Two months after the incident, a U.S. Army colonel in Afghanistan, saying he was “deeply, deeply ashamed and terribly sorry,” paid $2,000 each to families of the victims for what he called “a stain on our honor.”

The next week, Marine Corps commandant Gen. James T. Conway said Col. John Nicholson’s apology was premature because an investigation was still underway.

The board of inquiry is looking intodiscipline in controlling gunfire, rules of engagement and the “command climate” of Marine Special Operations Company F, the first special operations unit deployed in combat. Its top two officers were brought to court as “designated parties,” not defendants.

Lawyers for the officers, Maj. Fred C. Galvin and Capt. Vincent J. Noble, have said the Marines came under enemy fire shortly after an explosives-packed SUV slammed into their convoy near Jalalabad.

Galvin’s civilian lawyer, Mark Waple, said Marines involved will testify that they saw convincing evidence of enemy fire before shooting back. Forensic experts will testify that the convoy was struck by bullets, Waple added.

Staff Sgt. Jose Queiro, the gunner in Travers’ Humvee, testified late Tuesday that he heard gunfire but did not know its source. He described “controlled fire” by three Marines over a short distance.

“They did an awesome job,” Queiro said. “They should’ve been commended.”

Under cross-examination, Travers conceded that he was “an unhappy Marine” who believed U.S. forces should not be in Afghanistan. He acknowledged he was in a poor position to see or hear enemy fire. Confronted with photos showing armed men in a dry riverbed near the car bomb site just before the explosion, Travers said he had not noticed them.

The court of inquiry consists of three senior Marine officers, all with combat experience. They will forward their findings to Lt. Gen. Samuel Helland, commander of the corps’ Central Command. Helland will decide what action to take, if any. No Marines have been charged in the case.

The tribunal, expected to last two weeks, is separate from an ongoing Naval Criminal Investigative Service investigation. The court will review and evaluate that evidence.

A public court of inquiry is reserved for special cases, said Eugene R. Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice. “It’s for matters of great import,” Fidell said. “It has very large horsepower.”

Courts of inquiry have looked into Custer’s Last Stand, Pearl Harbor and the sinking of the USS Maine. They also have investigated lesser events, such as the 1900 hazing death of a West Point cadet and rotten canned beef that sickened soldiers sailing to Cuba in 1899.

The last Marine court of inquiry investigated the drowning deaths of six Marine recruits in 1956. Other military services have held inquiries more recently, among them the 2001 sinking of a Japanese fishing vessel by a U.S. Navy submarine.

Even before the Marine convoy was rammed, Travers testified, he was alarmed when a Humvee gunner threw a rock through a driver’s windshield. Later, Travers acknowledged that he had provided rocks to the gunner.

Travers said he told Capt. Noble, who sat in front of him inside the third Humvee in a six-vehicle convoy: “That’s the kind of stuff that’s going to get us blown up.”

Minutes later, the 28-man convoy was rocked by the car bomb. One Marine was slightly wounded, and the convoy decided to return to base in Jalalabad.

After the smoke cleared, Travers said, he heard gunfire but was not sure who was firing. As the convoy moved west, he said, gunners in the lead Humvees began firing into vehicles. A Marine in the second Humvee also fired his rifle into cars, he said.

In all, Travers said, five to 20 vehicles were fired on.

He said he saw an Afghan man slumped over his steering wheel. Another vehicle, filled with people, was raked with gunfire, he said. “There was a kid in the back seat who looked pretty surprised,” Travers said.

He heard radio traffic mentioning enemy gunfire from a hilltop overlooking the highway, Travers said. He did not see any hilltop gunfire or feel rounds hit his Humvee, he said.

Asked whether he saw anyone fire on the convoy, Travers replied: “No. I specifically remember not observing any kind of fire.”

Travers said the firing stopped after Noble ordered his men to cease fire. “I think by that time maybe people had started to realize we had passed through the danger area,” Travers said.

Both Noble, 29, and Galvin, 38, sat a few feet away from Travers in court Tuesday, flanked by military and civilian defense lawyers.

Noble was a platoon commander and Galvin the company commander. Travers left the Marine Corps in October.

The company was ordered out of Afghanistan shortly after the shootings.

Asked to describe Noble’s behavior in the first hectic moments after the car bomb, Travers said: “He was very collected . . . very effective.”

Asked whether he would want to serve in combat again with Noble, Travers replied: “Absolutely.”

david.zucchino@latimes.com

The below LA Times coverage adds a little more clarity to the character of the individual testifying: 1) Travers claims that he had stern objections to the gunner of his vehicle allegedly throwing rocks through the windshield of an Afghan civilian vehicle — but who was feeding the gunner the rocks — Travers, a Sergeant (I use the term loosely) in the Marine Corps. I know all about peer pressure, but I would not have done this as a LCpl in the Marine Corps, partially because we build men into Marines and NCO’s, not brainless, conscienceless cowards. 2) While Travers admits he was in a poor position to observe completely around his own vehicle, needless to say the length of the convoy, he is not content to make a statement saying that he personally observed no small arms fire, but states: “There were a lot of people who died that day who really didn’t need to,” .... “They were just driving in their cars.” How the hell does he know what went on the length of the convoy (particuarly, in retrospect, after he himself later witnessed what appeared to be small arms fire impacts on the vehicles???). This is undoubtedly a politically or ideologically-oriented statement which potentially could weigh against individual Marines under judicial scrutiny.

I personally do not believe Col Nicholson should have made statements in regard to being “ashamed” prior to armed service members operating in his service under his chain of command having full opportunity to present evidence on their own behalf in a judicial inquiry. If he wants to say he’s “sorry,” and pay solatia, that I can understand. Good on Gens Conway and Heljik (and the North Carolina congressman who also, early on, represented this viewpoint).

This kind of crap as testimony during a judicial inquiry is not representative of our Marine Corps intelligence community.

Yes, he has done some herculean work with the military and general social fabric — but, as the commenter states above, this gives him the good domestic political legitimacy to finish the job and roust out AQ and Taliban strongholds.

I expect this “where did the Pakistani CT money go?,” thing currently breaking on the news, however, will be heavily exploited by the political candidates, nonetheless. Hopefully, it’s done fairly responsibly as this could really screw our common foreign policy.

Concur on the tactics; never say never on how people can be manipulated and influenced — most likely AQ, but we’ll wait and see (earlier posts w/links say official AQ spokesperson already claimed credit).

If AQ is claiming credit, Musharraf needs to regain control of his country. He can’t be criticized for doing this on behalf f the US gov now, as these attacks directly opposed the will of at least a significant majority of the Pakistani people. He needs to clean FATA out, arresting or killing Taliban and AQ. He needs to cut some alliances and build new ones. He’s on a downhill slope if he doesn’t act now, not to mention his credibility’s shot to hell.

I sensed it was because he was rather angry, upset and didn’t want to say a lot — knew Bhutto, personally, of course.

AQ looks like most likely suspect. If that’s the case, it’s within their M.O. to strike other prominent targets within next 24 hours.

Such is the price of appeasement of terror — the FATA should have been weeded out a long time ago — this is what happens when you cut deals with terrorists. It’s too bad Bhutto had to pay the price for this, as apparently she was willing to crack down on Islamic terror.

Quick strike on Iran might not be such a bad idea -- it's not like if we take the govt out here, something even worse will come in its place -- the nutbag mullah kleptocracy is about as anti-american and terror-proliferating as it gets.

Great article. I read it in its entirety then sent it out on distro. Common sense is SO MONEY these days.

Thanks for linking Iran with Dear Leader's projects -- right on the money.

Strange bedfellows doing the Muta.

Great post and follow on threads. This looks like a significant and ominous shift in Russian attitudes (either that or the general will find himself castigated in the morning). Russia is for some reason suddenly taking a harder line towards testing than they were at the prospect of the Norks developing nuclear weapons. Could be a diplomatic shift, or possibly a ruse.... Definitely not the usual Russian PR line towards the latest NK nuclear blackmail. Very interesting.