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 dont?
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 Kings 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.
All the special agents are on walkabout in the outback. Didn't you hear? Night, darlin'.
by Colonel Michael H. Gilbert, USAF (Ret.), JAGC
I can assure you I would have done my best to avoid hitting the soup, but one never knows, a wise warning for her indeed.
You realize that article agrees with me re the Founders' position? Or at best, makes a half-hearted attempt to argue around the Founder's separation of the military and civilian judicial systems, with no mention of Quirin.
The article takes a normative approach and argues that the Court SHOULD be far more activist and contrary to the founders' intention in not being so deferential to Congress' plenary authority over the military...
That's a political argument.
Note that in doing so you're causing some harm to that "sacred constitution" you claim to be upholding (while subverting it).
Pointing to the Constitution as "case law," and as an "original writing," I'll give you one chance to redeem yourself.
Describe, in 25 words or less (I'm a generous guy), the status of America's (federal) Navy and Army between 1787 - 1789.
Give the effective dates of the Articles of War adopted for use in the Revolutionary War.
Explain in 25 words or less the Founder's position on a federal standing military from 1787 - 1789.
Given these factual nuggets, reconcile your argument regarding the Founder's original intent as to the separation of federal military government (the courts-martial system) from the remaining citizenry so far as the operation of the Constitution is concerned. Use as many words here as you may need. I can't wait to read them.
Being a trained, skilled, well-read, and experienced JAG we all recognize you to be, you should be able to answer my quires instantly. But I'll give you a day.
Here endth the lesson.
Oh, but I am EAGER to learn how the process works!
So let's just dive in, shall we?
NCIS investigators interview witnesses but do not record witness testimony. Agents take notes, and then go off to write up what they heard.
Am I right so far? Perhaps it works the same way in the Army.
Please enlighten me as to why this is preferable to a recorded interview. Doesn't it seem that the agents have a tad more room for creativity?
Next in the process, I understand that Marines are then given the statements to sign.
But what happens if a Marine who signed a statement later says a portion of the statement was false, what should happen?
Let's say the alleged falsified statement was evidence in an Article 32 hearing. Should the agents who wrote the statement appear and testify under oath about the veracity of their work?
Or should the presiding officer at the hearing announce the investigators are honest without having them appear to be cross-examined?
How about the Marine who claimed his statement was falsified. Should he be allowed to testify under oath?
Or should he be not allowed to testify and be placed under arrest?
I really, really want to learn how due process is ensured for men willing to die for their country.
Would you honestly want anyone to comment on a case they have no direct knowledge of? Seriously?
I've always imagined that any professional takes an interest in what's going on in his or her field. Live and learn.
Some do, Red, to the point that once was a thread in defense of prosecuted Marines becomes a CYA defense thread for the prosecution.
Just searching the web on a friend of mine. I want to give you an update on Mr. Daniel King. I am good friends with him. This whole event has scared him more than anyone could know! Someone posted that he never even had a sorry..that is so correct. Danny is even afraid to file a claim with the VA! He is paranoid to talk on any phone! He just reached 6 years since his release. Talk about someone to be haunted for the rest of their life. Danny is so humble that he just wants to go on with his life like it never happened. Most of his co-workers do not even know about the event. I cried when I found out. He is the most kind and gentle man....and for him to have gone through this. And to hear the thing that tops it off.....he is working for state government helping Veterans!!!
Remember this thread? Now that you know the man, you might find it fun to take a return trip.
And see the post above this one? Too bad it wasn’t to you or me.
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.