Red cautioned that the charges might have changed since the original specifications.
Charge I: Three specifications of a violation of the UCMJ, Article 92--Dereliction of Duty
Original specifications under this charge:
Specification 1: was derelict in the performance of duty by willfully failing to achieve Positive Identification (PID) of targets by engaging one or more unknown persons located near a white car with a loaded M16A4 service rifle.
Specification 2: was derelict in the performance of duty by willfully failing to ensure that the Marines under his charge obeyed the Rules of Engagement by ordering the Marines under his charge to “shoot first ask questions later.”
Specification 3: was derelict in the performance of duty by willfully failing to achieve Positive Identification (PID) of a person believed to be Yunis Salim Rasif.
It strikes me that agreeing to the white car dereliction is mitigated in the future by the judge at last allowing the intel about the white car to be admitted.
Can you appeal even a deal later on if more intel becomes available?
Thanks, xzins. I just don’t know on this or the possibility of appeal.
Hopefully we’ll find out soon, maybe a legal type will post or Nat will have something in his piece.