Haditha Article 32: Capt. Randy W. Stone

Defend Our Marines ^ | May 4, 2007 | David Allender

[smoothsailing]

You Got It!!!!!!!!!

[RedRover]

Awwwww!!! You shouldn’t have!

[jazusamo]

LOL!

If you add Smooth’s mud flaps you’ll have firepower from four of Yosemite Sam’s six-guns which is probably more firepower than a 120mm cannon anyway and you’ll still have the fuzzy dice. Go for it!

[smoothsailing]

No problem. Just sorry the Mud Flap Girls were sold out.

[RedRover]

Now, smooth, you know how Justa feels about pictures of herself on the Internet!

[smoothsailing]

SHHHH!!!! Don't tell her! :)

[Girlene]

I’m glad you guys are having fun with mud flaps on this thread. :-)

I find it interesting that the prosecution is trying the lawyer first. His charges are that he did not fully investigate or report a possible violation of war. Wouldn’t it be necessary to establish whether a “possible violation of war” occurred with the 3 accused Marines who are charged with unpremeditated murder, first? IOW, if the three Marines are found innocent of their charges, there is no possible violation of war. Thus, there is no case against Capt. Stone.

BTW, here’s a link that defines Article 92 in the UCMJ http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm92.htm

[jazusamo]

WOW!!

Justa never told me that was her silouette on all those mud flaps on semi’s. :-)

[Just A Nobody]

Youse guys are always good for a laugh! {{{{{jaz,Red,smooth}}}}}

[RedRover]

[RedRover]

Justa, here's a photo of jaz, smooth, and me...

[smoothsailing]

LOL!!!

[freema]

I had given that some thought, too, girl.

But I thunk about it. And I reasoned and came to the conclusion that the logic behind it was sound.

There coulda/mighta been, maybe was, what if there is, a crime that should been investigated so the plan is to investigate why every grain of sand wasn’t turned over in the middle of a battlefield full of nothing but innocent civilians as to why the aforementioned alleged by the enemy crime was obviously covered up.

Now, if I could make sense of that, let’s move on to find out what’s taking this process so long?

[Girlene]

LOL. What you say!

Yet, it would make jes’ a lil’ mo sense if the prosecution established that a possible crime existed before they tried to convict the officers for not investigating that “possible crime”. Maybe that’s thinking outside the box?

[Girlene]

As reported in the MarineCorps Times http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/05/marine_haditha_hearing_070504/

....Stone, of Dunkirk, Md., was the battalion’s lawyer. Gittins [Stone's lawyer] said he wants to show that Marines at every step of the chain of command were aware of the 24 civilian deaths, so any decision not to launch an investigation was shared.

According to court documents, Huck was briefed on the killings Nov. 22 and they did not seem suspicious. Huck told investigators that “no bells and whistles went off.”

Gittins said this illustrates the feeling among officers at the time, that based on information from the enlisted men, the killings were the result of a “troops in contact” engagement and officers acted appropriately in reporting events.....

[RedRover]

Big story in the Times. Haven't read it all yet: Propaganda Fear Cited in Account of Iraqi Killings. Will post within the hour.

[Roadrunner52]

Did you find it? I have it, but it is from NY Times dated for tomorrow. Need the link?

[RedRover]

It’s now posted here.

[Roadrunner52]

Thanks. Please note that the article is dated for tomorrow the 6th. Today is the 5th.

Good night.

[RedRover]

The article is dated correctly in the post.