Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Haditha Article 32: Capt. Randy W. Stone
Defend Our Marines ^ | May 4, 2007 | David Allender

Posted on 05/04/2007 3:52:05 PM PDT by RedRover

Hearing fact sheet

The accused: Capt. Stone was the staff legal officer for the 3rd Battalion, 1st Regiment when the incident occurred. Stone, who completed his officer training course in August 2003, was on his first tour in Iraq at the time of the Haditha incident. He is a 34-year-old Maryland native, currently assigned to legislative affairs duties. Capt. Stone is facing up to two years in prison and dismissal from the service if ordered to trial, convicted and sentenced to the maximum punishment.

Preferred Charges and Specifications:

Charge: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 92

Specification 1 (Violation of a lawful order): wrongfully failed to ensure accurate reporting and a thorough investigation into a possible, suspected, or alleged violation of the law of war by Marines from his Battalion. (Maximum punishment dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years).
Specification 2 (Dereliction): negligently failed to ensure that this possible, suspected, or alleged violation of the law of war was accurately reported to higher headquarters.
Specification 3 (Dereliction): negligently failed to ensure that a thorough investigation was initiated into this possible, suspected, or alleged violation of the law of war. (Maximum punishment: [willful] Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months [through neglect or culpable inefficiency] Dismissal, forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 3 months, and confinement for 3 months).

Investigating officer: Maj. Thomas McCann

Convening authority: Lt. Gen. James Mattis, commanding general for the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force and Marine Forces Central Commander for Afghanistan, Iraq and Africa.

Expected duration of the hearing: At least four days.

Unprecedented prosecution: The charges against Capt. Stone represent the first time a legal officer has been accused of a crime arising out of his handling of a battlefield report.

In Capt. Stone's defense: Lead civilian attorney, Charles Gittins, says, "General Huck did not believe there should have been an investigation, nor did the staff judge advocate for the regiment. My client was the lowest-level guy and he reported everything that he had been told. There was no requirement that he should have done more. I don't think the people who made the charging decision thought it through -- it seems like they just threw everything at a dartboard."

Expected witnesses: Maj. Gen. Richard Huck (former commanding general of the 2nd Marine Division based at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, who at the time of the incident, was in charge of troops in Haditha ), "two other Marine officers who were in Iraq when the killings took place" (according to the North County Times), Sgt. Sanick Dela Cruz.

What's crucial: Maj. Gen. Huck's testimony could clear Capt. Stone. (As a side note, it's very rare for a general to testify for either side in a court case. Naturally, the investigating officer will give a great deal of weight to his testimony.)

Also at stake: Three other officers are facing charges similar to those of Capt. Stone: Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, Capt. Lucas McConnell and 1st Lt. Andrew Grayson. The result of Capt. Stone's hearing will impact the other three officers, as well as the three enlisted Marines (Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich and  Lance Cpls. Justin Sharratt and Stephen Tatum). All the accused are from Camp Pendleton's 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment.

Information drawn from various articles in the North County Times


TOPICS: Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: defendourmarines; haditha; iraq
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 221-226 next last
To: RedRover
Thanks RedRover

Notice how NCT is the only one to mention that there was small arms fire coming from those houses.

The Slimes is...predictably treacherous, the Marine Corps Times claims that Kallop never asks Wuterich any questions, when obviously he did, and refers to the small arms fire in the third person, that is someone told Kallop that "who earlier had reported taking enemy fire"........They're making this whole thing sound like it was over in seconds, that the only actions, the only shots fired after the bomb killed Terraza, were by Wuterich and a handful of other crazed and out of control marines while peaceful citizens, stacked up like sardines(17 in one house!!), sipped their tea and waited to be slaughtered.

Red, where's that article that actually describes the battle that ensued? If I remember correctly, it was substantial.

121 posted on 05/09/2007 9:08:45 AM PDT by 4woodenboats (Bush owns the war on terror, but the Dems/Media want to own another 'Nam style loss)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: 4woodenboats

There have been a few accounts. You’re right. Remember that Lt. Kallop is only testifying to what he saw personally. And it’s not clear from the quotes whether he’s only referring to the first two houses or all three. Marine IOs were all over Haditha that day so Lt. Kallop is just setting the stage.


122 posted on 05/09/2007 10:03:40 AM PDT by RedRover (Defend Our Marines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: RedRover

Yeah, but thought I’d stop by and see what you were up to! ;*)


123 posted on 05/09/2007 10:26:03 AM PDT by Just A Nobody (PISSANT for President '08 - NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: RedRover

Here’s another for your roundup of articles Marine Officer: Haditha Killings Lawful from NBC SanDiego.com

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/13279850/detail.html

Pretty much the same, with a little more from Kallop and Gittins, the atty. Any news from the hearing today?


124 posted on 05/09/2007 10:38:35 AM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Girlene
There's at least one story there I hadn't read, Girlene.

The one from the Terraza family.

125 posted on 05/09/2007 11:52:53 AM PDT by 4woodenboats (Bush owns the war on terror, but the Dems/Media want to own another 'Nam style loss)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: 4woodenboats; RedRover

Redrover, here’s the latest from NBC Sandiego, “Sergeant: Calls For Haditha Investigation Ignored”
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/13287223/detail.html?dl=headlineclick

4WB - here’s an old article about Marine Terrazas’ family.
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/10636883/detail.html


126 posted on 05/09/2007 12:13:52 PM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: RedRover

Woops, also forgot the latest from North County Times - “Marine 1st sergeant says he pressed for Haditha probe”
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/05/09/news/top_stories/8_58_865_9_07.txt


127 posted on 05/09/2007 12:19:42 PM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Girlene

That’s the one I just read, thanks.


128 posted on 05/09/2007 12:19:57 PM PDT by 4woodenboats (Bush owns the war on terror, but the Dems/Media want to own another 'Nam style loss)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Girlene; jazusamo; freema; 4woodenboats; smoothsailing; All
Hot off the press!

Marine sergeant says call for Haditha investigation was ignored

By THOMAS WATKINS, The Associated Press

CAMP PENDLETON

A Marine sergeant testified Wednesday that he repeatedly told higher-ups that the November 2005 killings of 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha warranted an investigation but he was told not to worry about it.

"Knowing what happened on Nov. 19, I knew something had to be done with an investigation," said 1st Sergeant Albert Espinosa, who maintained casualty reports for Kilo Company at the time of the killings.

Espinosa testified on the second day of a preliminary hearing for Capt. Randy W. Stone, a Marine lawyer from Dunkirk, Md. Stone is accused along with three officers of dereliction of duty for failing to investigate the deaths.

Espinosa said in the days after the killings, he told Stone and the company's commander, Capt. Lucas McConnell, that an investigation should be launched into the deaths.

"They said don't worry about it, battalion will handle it," he said. "It wasn't the answer I was looking for."

Espinosa also testified that log books from Nov. 19 were incomplete or missing.

The hearing is part of an Article 32 investigation, the military's equivalent to a grand jury proceeding. Maj. Thomas McCann, the investigating officer, will hear evidence and recommend whether the charges should go to trial in the biggest U.S. criminal case involving civilian deaths in the Iraq war.

A platoon commander testified Tuesday that he was shocked civilians had died but he defended the move as a legitimate combat operation.

"There's a difference between killing and murder," Marine 1st Lt. William Kallop told a military hearing Tuesday. "At the time, I think they had a good understanding of the rules of engagement."

Kallop was the first officer at the scene of the roadside bomb blast that killed one Marine and injured two others.

He was called to the stand by Stone's civilian attorney, Charles Gittins, who hoped the commander's testimony would show that Stone, 34, did nothing wrong because he thought the killings were a legitimate outcome of combat. Gittins noted that Stone reported the incident up the chain of command and said he had been told not to investigate further.

Recalling the aftermath of the killings, Kallop said he went to inspect one of several cleared houses. Instead of finding dead insurgents, he found body parts, an injured boy and a dead Iraqi man.

"The only thing I thought, sir, was what the crap?" Kallop said. "Where are the bad guys? Why aren't any insurgents here?"

Kallop said a Marine who had helped clear the house looked "just as shocked."

Three enlisted Marines are charged with unpremeditated murder in the case. They deny any wrongdoing, saying they responded properly to a perceived threat.

Under questioning from prosecutor Lt. Col. Sean Sullivan, Kallop said Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, a squad leader, reported to him after the houses were cleared but did not mention that many civilians were killed.

After Kallop saw the bodies himself, he did not question Wuterich about the deaths.

"You didn't even have one question that maybe the rules of engagement, it wasn't applied?" asked Sullivan.

"No, sir," Kallop replied.

Wuterich is charged with unpremeditated murder in 18 of the Iraqi deaths. Prosecutors have given several other Marines immunity in return for their testimony.

Gittins said he expects to call 25 witnesses, including a two-star general, over the next few days.

129 posted on 05/09/2007 12:20:01 PM PDT by RedRover (Defend Our Marines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Girlene
Thanks, Girl! Eager to get to the defense witnesses!

BTW, I'm also putting links to articles over here. Click on the link at "Go to more news."

130 posted on 05/09/2007 12:33:12 PM PDT by RedRover (Defend Our Marines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Girlene; 4woodenboats; jazusamo; lilycicero

According to reports, Sgt. Dela Cruz will testify later today.

That’ll be very interesting as Dela Cruz will reappear in the enlisted men’s hearings.

Wish this was on C-Span. I feel like a guy during the Civil War, waiting at the telegram office for news....


131 posted on 05/09/2007 1:11:42 PM PDT by RedRover (Defend Our Marines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Girlene
I like this in the NC Times article...

Under questioning by Stone's attorney Charles Gittins, Espinosa said he was unaware of what reports were being filed at the battalion level.

Gittins also said a regimental commander had determined that the civilians deaths were "collateral damage" and that no investigation was necessary. The defense attorney's statement made in the course of questioning Espinosa went unchallenged by prosecutors.

132 posted on 05/09/2007 1:31:58 PM PDT by RedRover (Defend Our Marines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: RedRover

Thanks for the Civil War visual...are you all ponied up?

Can’t wait for your next gram.


133 posted on 05/09/2007 1:35:34 PM PDT by lilycicero (SSgt Wuterich and his squad don't make deals!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: lilycicero

134 posted on 05/09/2007 1:57:49 PM PDT by RedRover (Defend Our Marines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: RedRover

Of course.


135 posted on 05/09/2007 2:07:06 PM PDT by lilycicero (SSgt Wuterich and his squad don't make deals!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: lilycicero
Doe-dee-doe-dee-doe...


136 posted on 05/09/2007 2:14:09 PM PDT by RedRover (Defend Our Marines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: RedRover

That was right on cue! Nice.


137 posted on 05/09/2007 2:34:47 PM PDT by 4woodenboats (Bush owns the war on terror, but the Dems/Media want to own another 'Nam style loss)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: 4woodenboats

Trying to keep lily amused is just about a full-time job.


138 posted on 05/09/2007 3:36:08 PM PDT by RedRover (Defend Our Marines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: 4woodenboats; lilycicero; RedRover
So this 1st Sgt. Albert Espinosa thought an investigation should have been done because he was involved with an investigation in 2003 when a 12 year old Iraqi girl was killed. His experience was such, that when one civilian was killed, an investigation happened. I assume the platoon members would have a hodge-podge of backgrounds - various time frames in Iraq, various regions, various experiences. I'm also assuming he was called by the prosecution.

From the article, Gittins also said a regimental commander had determined that the civilians deaths were "collateral damage" and that no investigation was necessary. The defense attorney's statement.... went unchallenged by prosecutors.

This would have been a reference to Huck's assistant, regimental commander Col. R. Gary Sokoloski, who allegedely approved the rewording of the incident for the press release, and has now refused to testify.
139 posted on 05/09/2007 3:56:31 PM PDT by Girlene
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: RedRover; lilycicero

LMAO! You know trying to keep ALL of us amused is a full-time job, Red.


140 posted on 05/09/2007 4:17:37 PM PDT by freema (Marine FRiend, 1stCuz2xRemoved, Mom, Aunt, Sister, Friend, Wife, Daughter, Niece)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 221-226 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson