Posted on 01/20/2007 7:46:41 PM PST by RedRover
The Haditha Marine case, with its leaks of false information including, possibly, tidbits of confessions, has a recent parallel.
Remember the case of Petty Officer Daniel M. King? You don’t?
Evidently, neither does the Washington Post, Associated Press, National Public Radio, and the rest of the media that repeats every NCIS rumor as gospel. This is surprising because it wasn't that long ago that the NCIS lied to them all.
It was the Daniel M. King case, a few short years ago, that should make everyone suspicious of every leak, and every media report, in the Haditha Marines case.
Petty Officer King was a Navy cryptanalyst: Cryptologist Technician (Collection) First Class (CTR1). He was arrested in 1999 on suspicion of espionage, and was summarily stripped of all his rights as a citizen of this country.
NCIS agents administered a polygraph test. It is possible that the agents were not properly trained. In any event, Daniel King’s polygraph was ruled “inconclusive”. At the same time, no hard evidence was found to back up the charge. So the NCIS agents needed a confession.
Petty Officer King was detained by and subjected to a torturous interrogation that lasted over 26 days for 19 to 20 hours at a time.
At a Congressional hearing, attorney Jonathan Turley would testify, “The NCIS manufactured a theory of espionage without foundation and then took steps to compel statements to support that theory. The tapes and evidence secured by the defense in this case reveal agents seeking a trophy not the truth.”
At the same hearing, Lieutenant Robert A. Bailey (JAG, US Naval Reserve), stated:
“The conduct of NCIS agents in this case was nothing short of shocking. Independent reviewers have stated that their techniques were barbaric….
That such conduct occurred at the hands of NCIS is not surprising….Indeed, such conduct is predictable based on the training and guidance manual published by the NCIS.
According to the NCIS Manual, Chapter 14 - Interrogations, any person who adamantly denies any wrongdoing and points to his clean record is "subconsciously confessing."
If a confused suspect asks what is going to happen to him, the NCIS believes this is an indication that he "is beginning a confession."
Additionally, agents are to convey the idea that they will "persist as long as required to resolve the issue under investigation" and that they "will not give up the interrogation."….
[Petty Officer] King's only recourse was to confess to a crime he did not commit in the hopes that he would eventually receive a lawyer and the truth would come out.”
Finally, the truth did come out--despite the efforts of the NCIS. Petty Officer King was not a spy.
He was released in March 2001 after a hellish 520 days in confinement. Confinement in "Special Quarters," the equivalent to maximum security lock-down condition in which he spent approximately 20 hours a day in a six-foot by nine-foot cell.
Today, the NCIS is continuing the same criminal behavior of coercing confessions and ignoring rules and ethics in pursuit of its target. You haven't been reminded of this story in the mainstream media. But the truth is there for anyone willing to look. It's all right here at Documents in the Case of US v. Daniel M. King .
Spreading the word can be an act of patriotism. If the truth stays secret, the very worst of men will bring down our nation's very best.
The Camp Pendleton / Iraq Investigations webpage confirms that the hearings will resume Friday at 8:00 in the Lt. Phan case.
Here's the scoop (notice my emphasis)...
------------------------------------------
Media Advisory #07-004
Jan. 24, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Article 32 Investigation Hearing Resumes for Marine in Hamdania Investigation
CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. (Jan. 24, 2007) – The Article 32 Investigation hearing for 2nd Lt. Nathan P. Phan will resume Friday here. Phan is charged with assault for his alleged involvement in the assault on three Iraqi civilians in April 2006 near Hamdania Iraq. He is also charged with making a false official statement.
Charges were preferred against Phan on Aug. 16, 2006.
The hearing for Phan is scheduled to begin at 8 a.m.
The Investigating Officer is Lt. Col. William Pigott. The hearing will not be broadcast into the media center. A pool arrangement may be established depending on the availability of seating.
The hearing, which is similar to a civilian grand jury, will follow procedures set forth in Article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Additional information on Article 32 Investigation hearings and other military justice related information can be found at http://sja.hqmc.usmc.mil/JAM/MJFACTSHTS.htm
More information on the charges, specifications and legal proceedings can be found at www.usmc.mil/lapa/iraq-investigations.htm
---------------------------------------
There's more at the link.
In an earlier post, I had quoted the NC Times in reporting that the hearing would resume on the 25th. Friday is the 26th.
Mail: I sent a page with a question..no hurry.
Your Point #2 regarding the retired police officer hits pretty close to home for ol' Kelly. Wouldn't cause her to taint the evidence so she could become a hero, do ya think?
Oh, you made the daughter have one of THOSE faces when I busted out laughing!
Oh, I fully agree. Fully.
Well I am sooooooooooo glad to hear that! I woke up at 4:30 yesterday, and 3:30 today. I think I'll put the coffee on automatic tomorrow : (
Mail from you is always a priority.
January 24, 2007
Strategic Corporals? How about Strategic JAGs and the Rise of “Lawfare?”
We’ve all heard the term “strategic corporal,” that breed of soldier/marine that is able to process the larger picture and make the correct moral decision with the quick discipline and confidence in its rightness that he can make the correct tactical decision. Chester has a good example of such a corporal.
The September 2006 issue of The Army Lawyer (the real Army Lawyer, I’m just a pretender to the throne) has an interesting article by COL Kelly Wheaton titled: Strategic Lawyering: Realizing the Potential of Military Lawyers at the Strategic Level (PDF). An excerpt:
Doctrine recognizes that judge advocates in the 21st century will be challenged in accomplishing their objectives. In particular, to accomplish missions, Army judge advocates must thoroughly understand the military mission to better forestall and resolve legal issues affecting the mission and “must become more involved in the military decision-making process in critical planning cells, and at lower levels of command.” In accomplishing their objective of enhancing legitimacy, judge advocates will have to transmit their thorough understanding of U.S. values and constitutional and international law to assist commanders in integrating these laws and values into military operations.
More provocative is the notion of “lawfare,” or the use of the law (international and the law of armed conflict) as a weapon to be wielded both by and against US forces.
Lawyers at the strategic level, at a minimum, must be able to recognize lawfare when it occurs and react appropriately. Optimally, military lawyers should address lawfare that may damage U.S. defense interests before the damage occurs. Legal issues are decided by application of the law to the particular facts in question. Proactive lawfare, therefore, is working in advance of issues to shape the law and facts in such a way that the military attorney’s clients’ interests will be adequately supported once the issues arise.
So how should the “strategic JAG” operate?
Commanders’ decisions must be considered in light of legal considerations to ensure that the enemy is not given ammunition to destroy the will of the people (defensive lawfare). Furthermore, legal decisions must be considered in light of national strategy to ensure that they support that strategy (offensive lawfare). Additionally, to win the war on terrorism, military decisions must be sound and derive from U.S. values. While it is recognized that the fundamental values of American society are consistent with the role of the American military professional, military adherence to and spreading of the fundamental values of American society also are necessary to win the war on terrorism. Every time the actions of the United States and its military are seen as incompatible with the values the military espouses, the United States hands radical Islamism a round of ammunition.
The increasing importance of law in this conflict makes this an intriguing article and worth a read.
This sounds familiar...http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1772830/posts
Do you think Mr. Garbo wanted a son, but setteled for a daughter...ouch?
flightline further comments on the blog post above (via e-mail)...
-------------------
Pay close attention to the wording these JAGS are using. Warfare is the word they want to change( LAW FAIR). This is from a Army article. It goes with some of the mentality we were discussing and the ones who control how we fight. There is no room for trial attorneys on a battle field, unless they are willing to pick up a weapon and lead the way, Until then, they should not try and set the ROE.
Again, I am on JAG overload. So we have JAG and civilian attorneys working for the charged Marines, and then is it another JAG doing the prosecuting as well? I am also going to ask if the JAGs share a work environment? For example, all located at the same office? Rough.
The best and brightest JAGs prosecute. The least experienced JAGs play defense. Kind of like an intra-mural game between the varsity and junior varsity.
How do you think they get a 96% conviction rate?
Thanks for the refresher. It's nutz, as you stated the least experienced JAGs are the ones who handle the dui's,domestic problems, and power of attorneys....not murder charges. What a junk situation!
Take it easy on the JAG bashing here folks. We took the same oath. We serve just as honorably. Keep that in mind.
That being said, some of the statements in this thread have it precisely backwards.
JAG Trial Counsel (prosecutors) get a 96% conviction rate because the vast majority of courts martial are guilty pleas. For contested cases, the panels (juries) are made up of other servicemembers, which tend to be a little more hard-assed.
And the tendency is to move JAGs (following their initial time as a Legal Assitance attorney) to Trial Counsel --defense work tends to go to (a) those so inclined and (b) those with at least some time as a prosecutor under their belt.
The rationale being, in part, that it's better to screw up a prosecution of a minor offense than it is the defense. After all, the defense is defending somebody.
And prosecution and defense do work together in the same general location, sometimes (on my installation, we're in the same building). But Trial Defense Services (TDS) is a stovepipe organization, it has its own chain of command, its own rating chain, etc. The local Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) is required to provide logistical support to the defense, but the SJA advises the command (i.e. the gov't; the prosecuting agency), and has no input with the defense beyond that.
As to the article on "lawfare" I posted. Recommend reading it before going off on how off it is. It's a thoroughly non-controversial article.
Additionally, we (the vast majority of JAGs) do not write the ROE. We don't write really any of the rules. We just inform commanders and soldiers of what they are.
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.