Posted on 07/12/2007 6:30:18 PM PDT by RedRover
[Can't Remember Squat] ;^)
I won't believe it, either. This whole thing is a travesty.
This persecution of our young warriors trying to stay alive in the middle of a firefight is a blemish on our nation’s honor.
The commandment is simple: “Thou shalt not bear FALSE witness...”
The false witnesses will have to face God.
Amen, xzins, Amen!
Don’t we pay these people’s salaries? Can’t we, as taxpayers, demand an accounting? We should be able to receive a transparent explanation about how they conduct an investigation, with particular attention to the incredibly unreal inconsistencies and outright lies in this case. Personally, I don’t think my tax dollars are well spent.
Cindie
Excellent comments by everyone on this thread!!!
After reading the North County Times article, I can’t figure out why the IO, Ware, would recommend this process go forward. There is no forensic evidence. There are no ballistics. Tatum followed orders to clear the houses. The only witness who claims that Tatum murdered anyone isn’t even an American citizen and {according to the article} has his citizenship papers held by NCIS.
I believe LCpl Tatum. He did his job. He followed his ROE’s. He made sure his brothers came home alive, even Mendoza. The Investigating Officer, Lt. Col. Ware, appears to be quite adept at determining the facts of the case versus all the innuendos {and in this case even probably outright lies} I hope the defense pounded the info about Mendoza’s application being held up NCIS.
When this is over, I also hope Lt. Col. Ware reccommends that the people in charge of the NCIS investigation be thoroughly investigated for their role in this fiasco. It’s looking more and more like NCIS had no business bringing up charges, in fact may have been derelict in providing evidentiary findings from interrogations, among other things.
We’ve noted before that LtCol Piggot, the IO in the LT Phan hearing, was not assigned to any of the Haditha hearings. Seems that covering for NCIS is no longer in style. Now we just need SECNAVY Winter to read the writing on the wall.
A presentation in court yesterday involved a PowerPoint slide show on the rules of engagement that Marines saw before they left for Iraq. Two sample scenarios said Marines are justified in shooting if attacked with gunfire from a nearby house or if suspects try to run away after a roadside bomb blast, which is exactly what happened in Haditha, Marines say.
“What I’m hearing is a lot of 20-20 hindsight,” Ware said.
Post #162 & 166
We’ve been hearing that throughout this whole thing, every hearing so far. Glad to see he is hearing it, too.
There ya go. They were doing their job following the ROE. Period. End of story. Just like these Marines said in the very beginning. I believe them. Never had one doubt.
CAMP PENDLETON -- A local Marine admitted three times to investigators that he knew women and children were his targets when he pulled the trigger of his automatic rifle in a bedroom of an Iraqi home, a prosecutor argued Wednesday.
But attorneys for Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum say he didn't see exactly at whom he was shooting, that the room was dark, and that Tatum was properly following his combat training when he opened fire.
"You can't sit back in an air-conditioned room at Camp Pendleton and second guess these men. It's 20-20 hindsight," argued Jack Zimmermann, a Houston civilian attorney representing Tatum.
The women and very young children who died in that room were among the 24 Iraqis killed by Marines in the aftermath of a roadside bomb that killed a buddy in the village of Haditha.
On Wednesday, after a seven days of testimony, attorneys on both sides made closing arguments to a military officer who will evaluate the case and recommend to Lt. Gen. James Mattis whether Tatum should be sent to court-martial for murder and other charges.
Tatum and two other enlisted Marines -- Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich and Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt -- face homicide charges in what has become the largest prosecution of war crimes to come out of Iraq since the U.S. invaded the country in 2003.
Prosecutors contend that Camp Pendleton-based Marines raided four homes and killed Iraqis in retaliation for the death of Lance Cpl. Miguel "TJ" Terrazas and the wounding of two others in the convoy less than an hour after sunrise .
In his closing argument, Lt. Col. Paul Atterbury dismissed the contention that Tatum didn't know he was shooting at women and kids.
"Quite frankly, you don't need that much visibility to identify a group of children on a bed," prosecutor Atterbury said.
Tatum and his co-defendants maintain they were the target of enemy gunfire after the explosion and ran into the homes in pursuit of their attackers.
"The central issue here is lack of criminal intent," Zimmermann said.
Thanks for the ping, Red.
I’m thinking the IO is waaaaaaaay more intelligent than the prosecutor would like him to be.
The IO lost patience during the questioning and admonished the prosecutor for asking questions that were impossible for a witness to answer. "Stick to what is possible for him to know" he said (not a direct quote).
As you say, the IO won't be impressed by the prosecutor's knowledge of visibility conditions inside two houses in Haditha on the morning of Nov. 19 2005.
Hopefully, the NC Times will flesh out this report later today. I really want to hear what the IO said in closing.
A group of children on a bed could look like one big person under the covers.
Hearing wraps for Marine accused of killing women, children
CAMP PENDLETON -- The fate of a Camp Pendleton Marine who said he and squad mates stormed two Iraqi homes and opened fire on people who turned out to be civilians was put in the hands of a military hearing officer Wednesday.
Prosecutors in a base courtroom told the officer, similar to a judge, that Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum knew he was targeting women and children, and should be punished for his role in what has become the largest prosecution of war crimes to come out of Iraq since the U.S. invaded that country in 2003.
Tatum's attorneys argued his actions were proper battlefield decisions, that he was following his training -- and that he never knew women and very young children were at the other end of his gun.
"You can't sit back in an air-conditioned room at Camp Pendleton and second-guess these men. It's 20/20 hindsight," argued Jack Zimmermann, a Houston civilian attorney representing Tatum.
The women and children who died in that room were among the 24 Iraqis killed by Marines in the aftermath of a roadside bomb that killed a buddy in the village of Haditha. Tatum and two other enlisted Marines -- Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich and Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt -- face homicide charges in the Haditha incident.
On Wednesday, after seven days of testimony in Tatum's case, attorneys on both sides made closing arguments to a military officer who will evaluate the case and recommend to Lt. Gen. James Mattis whether Tatum should be sent to court-martial for murder and other charges.
Prosecutors contend that Camp Pendleton-based Marines raided four homes and killed Iraqis in retaliation for the death of Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas and the wounding of two others in the convoy less than an hour after sunrise.
The case may turn on the rules of when troops are allowed to shoot to kill.
The military officer overseeing the hearing, Lt. Col. Paul Ware, asked both sides to submit written arguments about the role of rules of engagement in Tatum's case. He will issue his recommendation sometime after that.
In his closing argument, Lt. Col. Paul Atterbury said Tatum went for his gun too quickly.
"In an effort to avoid unnecessary suffering of innocents, you are not permitted to go straight to deadly force," the military prosecutor said.
Atterbury dismissed the contention that Tatum didn't know he was shooting at women, at kids.
"Quite frankly, you don't need that much visibility to identify a group of children on a bed," Atterbury said.
Atterbury also pointed to statements that agents from the Naval Criminal Investigative Service say Tatum made, including three separate admissions that he knew he was shooting at children.
On Tuesday, Tatum told Ware in an unsworn statement that he never knew who his targets were.
Tatum and his co-defendants maintain they were the target of enemy gunfire after the explosion and ran into the homes in pursuit of their attackers.
"The central issue here is lack of criminal intent," defense attorney Zimmermann said.
He argued that it will be crucial to look at Tatum's point of view during the chaotic situation the day of the killings.
Tatum, he said, was told by senior Marines to attack the house, which had been declared hostile. He was also justified in joining Marines in pursuing someone spotted running toward a neighboring home, entering that home and shooting, Zimmerman said.
Marines are taught that they may use deadly force in such situations, he said.
Seems like a good sign to me as well. And if the case is judged on ROE, we win.
Obviously, the prosecution didn’t feel enough confidence in their case without cooking up a deal with Mendoza. So they don’t think they can win on an ROE basis alone.
We still don’t know if the IO is dismissing Mendoza’s testimony or not, however. I would hope so. But he may have heard all he needed to hear during the hearing so is not asking for further arguments about it.
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.