Posted on 04/24/2007 8:31:32 AM PDT by RedRover
Smells like BS to me.
What Murtha said is irrelevant in the court proceedings, with the sole exception of a command-influence motion.
You didn’t answer the question, counsel.
Murtha's statement served only to inflame the civilian world. Absent any evidence of attempts to dictate outcomes, it has absolutely no bearing on the proceedings. The Court will take no notice of it in its fact-finding.
This article is the converse. It's trying to argue that the interrogators coerced the Marines into making inculpatory statements. The problem is that most of what happened there has been explicitly held to be non-coercive. It's entire purpose is to rile up the public against the prosecution.
Neither is the appropriate forum for those arguments. Ultimately, it also appears that both statements are more inflammatory than they are accurate. Murtha's allegation of cold-blooded murder misrepresents what was, at worst, a serious violation of the rules of engagement in the fog of war which resulted in the deaths of civilians. This article asserts coercion because Army soldiers were yelled at by interrogators, interrogated for a long period of time, and had to pee in a bottle.
I gotta agree with you. I wish the Thomas Moore Law Center were as adept at handling complex litigation as they are at writing press releases.
The only purpose that this press release exists, however, is to stir up outrage that the Marines were interrogated.
You are missing something quite fundamental.
I think these interrogation tactics are somewhat coercive. In my post #34 ....”By the 1950s, confessions were considered involuntary not only if police beat the suspect, but also if they held a suspect for an unnecessarily extended period of time, deprived him of sleep, food, water or bathroom facilities, promised some benefit if the suspect confessed or threatened some harm if he didn’t.”....
The having to go to the bathroom in a bottle is just simply demeaning - not necessary.
The only reason this incident on Nov. 19, 2005 was reexamined was the inflammatory statements by stringers and our own media. The case has been discussed in the media for the last year, usually in terms negative to the Marines. Murtha had a lot of influence in getting this conversation going. These Marines could use some sympathy, which translates into donations for their defense. They are at a HUGE disadvantage monetarily compared to the millions that have been spent to try to prosecute them.
One of the things I remember from the Duke La Crosse rape accusations was one of the men discussing how this case would have gone down for someone who didn’t have the financial backing that his family was able to provide. The federal govt has even more finanacial ability to pay for trips to Iraq, forensics, you name it. The price tag of this prosecution has be quite large. So, if the defense includes some pro bono PR, I say use what works. Let’s hope it also translates into some donations for these Marines’ defense.
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.