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.
LOL! It's really duct. As in ductwork. But it appears somebody got tired of trying to spell it correctly and came out with a whole new line LOL!
You win. I thought I spelled silence wrong...friends don't let friend drink and type. Duck, duct, goose....You got me.
And we're keeping you.
:)
No. The JAG Corps is like every other prosecutorial agency. Guilty pleas count towards that near perfect score. I linked to the San Diego DA's office which has a 94% conviction rate. A guilty plea is a conviction. When you get into contested cases, then the % drops. But all prosecuting offices have near perfect conviction rates.
The convening authority has the right to place judgment, no matter what your findings and the defense jag and the prosecuting jag answer directly to him.
No, the convening authority can reduce judgment, he can't increase it.
His own Defense JAG withheld evidence she new the Army Had. Is this the norm? or should she answer to some one?
I'm unaware of the facts but like any other charge of ineffective assistance of counsel ("why didn't my lawyer do XYZ?") it's a question of legal strategy. Of course, there's the issue of potentially unethical conduct or malpractice, but again I don't know the fact to which you're referring.
How about Col. Steel, Why dose he get a walk and have the opportunity to retire, He has admitted guilt in his NJP,
Again, without knowing the facts, that he is a Colonel has more to do with "being allowed to retire" it than anything...
Do we know why the JAG Corps is the only branch of the military that has grown by more than 10% in the past 5-10 years?
10% is not a large number. Especially for an entire branch that has only about 2000 people in it across all the branches.
No, it's my way of saying if the leak was by somebody in DOD but not in any particular service, then I don't know what the obligation would be on any service to investigate. Seems it'd fall under a DoD specific investigatory process (which I'm unfamiliar with).
That's not "lawfare." The term is defined in the article I linked to. I recommend reading it.
How is lawfare justifying that these Marines were arrested, confined, held in the brig, and it wasn't until the families read about it in the news that they knew their Marine sons were accused of murder? AFTER 1 to 2 full month's confinement??
See above. And w/r/t the rest of your comments, I'm not working on that case, I'm not following it, it's a different branch, and I won't comment on it.
Nope, like I've said, I have not been following the case. So i can't pinpoint where I heard the "DOD Official" version. That's just what I remember hearing, I could be (and likely am) wrong.
I don't follow. Are you saying that if a newspaper leaked confidential information, it would be up to the newspaper to police it's own? Or are you saying that the original leaker could only be pursued by his/her employer? Why do we have law enforcement agencies in that case? I would certainly think that if, while employed for a company, an agency, whatever, in an official capacity, I was violated-denied my due process-denied my civil rights-my employer would be obligated under the law to rectify the situation. A little like Worker's Comp or those insurance policies that cover a firms assets, or even like automobile insurance. Only this is a case in the extreme, as these folks were those who were WILLING TO LAY DOWN THEIR LIVES SO THAT PEOPLE WOULD NOT BE VIOLATED, FOR DUE PROCESS, FOR CIVIL RIGHTS while their own were interrupted by little things like IEDs and RPGs.
Don't mind my CAPS, I'm not yelling. I just wanted that to be clear.
Hi, ArmyLawyer05
I posted this question on another thread to you and others.
Does anybody know if these three NCIS agents(from the Phan hearing) will be read their miranda rights as suggested by the defense lawyer? What does this mean, by the way? I thought miranda rights were read when you were arrested.
Can you shed any light on this process, or why it was said?
Thankyou
The distinction b/w "panel" and "jury" is irrelevant. The 6th amendment doesn't apply to the military and the Congress has power (per Art I) to promulgate rules relating to the military. They've done so. Take it up with the Founders. Because honestly, you can't expect a civilian jury to be able to weigh evidence for things like disobeying a senior NCO--they simply have no clue. Or better yet, how familiar with the chaos of combat do you think a civilian jury would be? And could they weight that accordingly? I don't have faith in a civilian jury to be able to do that. A panel of military members does have a clue, however. That being said, accused does have right to appeal adverse judgments. And how the panel is comprised can be challenged on appeal just like any other jury. The rationale behind having higher ranking soldiers on the panel is that an subordinate soldier might be reluctant to convict a superior. The accused is entitled to a "mixed" panel of both officer and enlisted (if he requests it). That being said, rank cannot be used exclude otherwise qualified court members.
In the context of a military member doing the leaking vs a specific DoD employee doing the leaking, yes. There's a difference. For example, suppose, as a pure hypo, that Don Rumsfeld was the leaker. The Marines wouldn't investigate (or if they did, they wouldn't get very far since they have no authority over civilians at that level. It would be up to whatever civilian investigative agency (DoD Inspector General for example) (or criminal) to figure out what happened.
If suspected of criminal conduct and subject to custodial interrogation (testifying under oath would kind of qualify) they have a right against self-incrimination.
Technically it'd be their Article 31 rights under the UCMJ.
Thankyou. I'm still a little confused. So was "miranda rights" just a term thrown out there for the rest of us to relate to, or could they actually have been read their "miranda rights"? If they weren't under custodial interrogation (meaning they were locked up?) then what kind of oath would they have taken? If they were found to have lied under this oath, what punishment could they be subjected to, if any? Sorry for so many questions, just trying to understand the process.
Thanks
I don't buy that. Are you saying they would not investigate a civilian who "leaked" classified material such as might be found on a stolen computer on base with information that put troops at risk?
Custodial interrogation doesn't require being locked up. Testifying under oath qualifies. In the military, being questioned by a superior qualifies (as you're not free to leave).
Likely the use of "miranda rights" was just shorthand for their being advised of their right against self-incrimination and their right to consult with an attorney before being questioned.
On base that's different as that's under the auspices of a particular service (generally). But even on an installation you still have a bifurcation of enforcement b/w military personnel and civilians as the latter aren't subject to the UCMJ.
At the Pentagon it's a little trickier. (which service does the Pentagon belong to?)
And I'm not saying the USMC couldn't investigate, they could. But as they have no jurisdiction over civilians, they probably wouldn't get very far at that level and would have to turn things over to a different agency.
Again, back to my Rumsfeld hypo, suppose the USMC does investigate. Then what?
Clear as mud ; )
"And I'm not saying the USMC couldn't investigate, they could. But as they have no jurisdiction over civilians, they probably wouldn't get very far at that level and would have to turn things over to a different agency."
Well, who in the world WOULD be responsible?
I mentioned a couple possibilities, DoD IG, maybe DOJ if criminal in nature.
But as I said, I'm sufficiently unfamiliar with the internal processes at that level to not know.
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.