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.
Watch all that coffee dear. heh heh. Been out of touch due to not feeling up to wading through the few dozen pings folks had sent me the past few days. But I thank all for keeping me in the loop.
You honestly didn't get further than the OPENING paragraph? Had you gotten all the way to page 6 you'd have found an elaboration on the "perception" point:
The CCR does not cite one actual instance of injustice, unlawful command influence, reprisal or any other threat to justice under the current system. Instead, it sees perceptions and potential perceptions of injustice as a "threat to morale and a public relations disaster." (51) The CCR relied on the existence of these groups to bolster their argument because the conclusions are based on mere perceptions--commission members' perceptions, supported only by the statements of witnesses devoted enough to pay their own way and testify before them. The commission finds in their report eight possible negative perceptions of justice, six bad impressions, two perceived injustices and one image problem.Nobody is suggesting that anybody be re-educated. Rather, that a system is "perceived" by some as being "broken" doesn't make it so. And the accuracy of those perceptions should be assessed. Rather straightforward.
We are concerned with what is happening now in military courtrooms.
Then you'd think you'd be inclined to learn how the process works rather the reinforce your preconceived (and accordingly, wrong) notions of how the process operates.
You seem to be concerned with the world of academic theory.
Hardly. When people get slightly hysterical when they hear that JAGs work in the same building, explaining why that's not relevant is not academic theory. Additionally, when people keep claiming that NCIS is JAG, correcting that isn't academic theory. Finally, when various arguments are trotted out that the UCMJ is not federal law or that various parts of it are unconstitutional (and hence, your pet case is a "travesty of justice!(tm)", correcting that is not academic theory. It's simply correcting factual errors.
Correct enough of them, and how people view the process becomes less fevered.
When asked about current events, you respond, "not my department"; "I won't comment"; "not my branch of the military".
Would you honestly want anyone to comment on a case they have no direct knowledge of? Seriously?
Anytime you want to present some case law to support your pet theories, I'm game...
Oh, Unc, how are you?!
Let me catch you up. Big fight in Najaf, the sun came up, and the trial...... OK, now then, pull up a comfy chair and put on your readin' glasses. Investigations up the yingyang and defense attorney called bullshit as the hearing was concluded.
This is the thread: Attorney: Accused Marine lieutenant is really a 'hero' [Conclusion of Lt Phan hearing] ^
And if you're feeling up to it, I'll introduce you to the two newest members of the forum: ArmyLawyer05 and The Original JAG Hunter.
I made a pot full of beef and nearly homemade ; ) noodles tonight, it would have done you a world of good. Served over mashed potatoes like a good fat german would LOL! Just the smell alone would make you feel better! Did you ever boil that chicken????! : (
; )
Well, what in the hell do you think WE'RE doing?
I guess we should all just keep quiet, eh?
It would be pointless to cite case law. I asked you, for instance, how many admirals or generals have been court-martialed since 1951 and you blithely ignored the question (the point of which was to force you to recognize but one of the defects, one of the clear inequities of this draconian form of punishment). More, you've ignored those citations supplied as unimportant. Besides this fight is being hammered out in other places by other people. I know being part of those efforts.
The people will decide.
We are adversaries. You stand for what I aggressively stand against.
The pre-constitutional form of military government has never been reconciled with the Constitution (this point sits at the core of the Ansell-Crowder debate).
I support the concept that admirals and generals be punished in the same fashion as the privates and corporals. You don't.
I support the notion that forced confessions are worthless (the work product of extreme duress) as evidenced by astronomical attainder rates and daily reports of junior enlisted men taking deals. You find incompetent confessions meritorious and champion and celebrate numbers like 98%, 99%, or 100%, as measures of success.
You believe Congress has the privilege of denying jury trials to the very same junior personnel. I don't.
You're O.K with Congress passing illicit bills, pointing to them with pride as sustainable legislation, while I see and condemn illegal conduct.
You're the JAG. I'm the JAG Hunter.
Laconically: You think legally, while I think morally. And there is the greatest difference between us. In a world wherein I categorize folks into only two groups, I find and declare you indecent.
Simple stuff.
I can continue, but why. We've staked out our positions in this public forum. Events I see unfolding in the days ahead will prove which one of us is on the right side of this argument.
In case you're a betting man, you'll be proven wrong.
Good exchange. Good workout.
Godspeed,
/s/
No, but recognize that you don't have all the facts (nor do I) and make your judgments and pronouncements accordingly.
That's it.
Am I dismissed?
Beef Barley soup!!!!!!!!!My favorite!! And you never called : ( LOL!
That was rude of me. I should have invited you. But I did not want to be coughing up chunks of rubbery phlym(sp?) all over the floor and have a guest accidentally slip on that stuff.
EWWWWWWWWWW!
Ma, stay away from Uncle's beef barley, I don't care if it IS your favorite!
Well no, it wouldn't be pointless. Case law would be powerful evidence in your favor. That you can't cite to it speaks for itself. You haven't even tried to argue that the case law I've cited to is wrong.
I asked you, for instance, how many admirals or generals have been court-martialed since 1951 and you blithely ignored the question (the point of which was to force you to recognize but one of the defects, one of the clear inequities of this draconian form of punishment).
I didn't answer it because (a) I don't know; and (b) it's irrelevant to the issues of the constitutionality of the UCMJ, the history of the AoW and UCMJ, and the interplay b/w the judiciary and the Congress w/r/t jurisdiction over military offenses.
Of course, I understand your implication that those of higher rank get off easier. Guess what, that happens in civilian criminal prosecutions too for those of higher social standing/wealth/etc. This is not unique to the UCMJ. Then again, the crimes committed by those of higher rank tend to be different than those committed by lower ranking soldiers. Your three-stars simply aren't out smoking weed, getting drunk at the club, and going home and beating on their baby-momma.
More, you've ignored those citations supplied as unimportant.
Actually I addressed each of them. They just weren't terribly convincing as they didn't present any information that covered what we are talking about.
The pre-constitutional form of military government has never been reconciled with the Constitution (this point sits at the core of the Ansell-Crowder debate).
Articles of War were passed by Congress in 1806. That would be post-Constitutional. And it mirrors those passed by the Continental Congress, including:
Article 64. General courts martial may consist of any number of commissioned officers, from five to thirteen, inclusively, but they shall not consist of less than thirteen, where that number can be convened, without manifest injury to the service.Facts are stubborn things.
I support the concept that admirals and generals be punished in the same fashion as the privates and corporals. You don't.
Nothing I have said supports that charge. Nor can you cite to any such instance. In short, you're kind of lying.
I support the notion that forced confessions are worthless (the work product of extreme duress) as evidenced by astronomical attainder rates and daily reports of junior enlisted men taking deals. You find incompetent confessions meritorious and champion and celebrate numbers like 98%, 99%, or 100%, as measures of success.
I've never suggested forced or coerced confessions should be valid in Courts-martial. Never.
I do support knowingly, intelligent, and voluntary submitted guilty pleas. Like any other DA's office in the country.
You believe Congress has the privilege of denying jury trials to the very same junior personnel. I don't.
Then you disagree with the Framers of the Constitution. Fine with me.
You're O.K with Congress passing illicit bills, pointing to them with pride as sustainable legislation, while I see and condemn illegal conduct.
Again, it's not a bill of attainder. Nor has it ever been held to be so. Nor have you presented an argument that it is beyond merely asserting it.
You're the JAG. I'm the JAG Hunter.
Crikey!
Laconically: You think legally, while I think morally. And there is the greatest difference between us. In a world wherein I categorize folks into only two groups, I find and declare you indecent.
Can I get a double shot of undeserved sanctimony please? Thanks. "Declare" all you want, but until you get some facts on your side, you're simply wrong.
lol! It really is my favorite!
No, I didn't mean to be rude, but "that's it" was that all I intended by my comment was that people recognize that they don't know the facts and comport themselves accordingly.
Good to know. In case I get invited to one of those free family potlucks!
Well, I don't want to sound rude, butbutbutbutbutbut
we are all well aware of the fact that we don't know the all facts, that there are a lot of non-existant facts, that there are missing facts, and even maybe some misrepresented facts and so, the fact remains that we're comporting rather well, in fact, because we haven't really said, "F" the lawfare.
; )
And with that, I'll bid you adeiu, and a "sleep tight, don't let the special agents bite."
Yeah, buddy!!
Sleep tight, all, and don't let the special agents bite.
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.