Replies

Nat Helms is the first reporter to follow up on alleged Haditha cover-up. Neither the Washington Post nor the New York Times did so despite reporting on the contents of the Bargewell Report.

Here's what was reported in the New York Times:

The Bargewell report, which was recently declassified, also established that junior officers, including a captain who issued a news release on the episode that blamed a roadside bomb planted by insurgents for most of the deaths, knew from the beginning that marines had killed the civilians, the lawyers said.

The captain, Jeffrey Pool, told Bargewell's investigators that he was given reports from battalion commanders that accurately described the marines' killing of civilians, said lawyers who read the report. But Pool said he issued a news release blaming the insurgents for the deaths because he believed that they were ultimately the result of the roadside bombing of the convoy that led the marines to strike back, the lawyers said.

"The way I saw it was this," Pool told two colonels questioning him, according to a lawyer who read the report. "A bomb blast went off, or was initiated, that is what started, that is the reason they're getting this, is a bomb blew up, killed people. We killed people back and that's the story."

Lawyers for the four officers charged with failing to properly investigate the civilian killings say the inaccurate news release created a false perception that the U.S. Marine Corps chain of command had covered up the killing of civilians.

"It was a colossal blunder," a lawyer involved in the case said. But the lawyer also said that Pool's thinking reflected that of his superiors, who believed that civilian casualties, though regrettable, were an inevitable part of the Iraq war.

"That's the rubric that the whole division was operating under," the lawyer said. The Bargewell report, he said, came to a similar conclusion. "It just was the culture of the marine corps," he said, paraphrasing the report, "to think that the Iraqis' story was propaganda, and didn't investigate."

Lawyers representing the four officers charged in the case - two captains, a first lieutenant and a lieutenant colonel who reported the civilian deaths immediately - said the Bargewell report showed that military prosecutors had charged their clients with failing to investigate but gave their superior officers, including Huck and Davis, a pass.

"It's understandable why they didn't go after the line officers," said Kevin McDermott, who represents Captain Lucas McConnell, the company commander who was not at the scene of the shootings in Haditha. "They would have had to throw Huck under the bus as well."

Yes, I remember the New York Times article. It seemed pretty simple to me at the time. Jeffrey Pool, the Press guy, was the one that changed the wording. There was no coverup from Chessani and below. If you wanted to call it a "cover-up" it was closer to Gen. Huck.

From Nat Helms article, Pool was never charged with any crime and has never testified at any of the proceedings.

I guess the prosecutors aren't trying to find the truth. Maybe the defense can call Pool? Oh, wait, was he one of the witnesses the prosecution denied them?

When 3/1 Operations Officer Maj. Samuel Carrasco saw the erroneous information he immediately informed RCT-2 staff officers it was inaccurate and asked for changes to be made. His request was disregarded by RCT-2 and 2nd Division. For awhile afterwards, however, the JEN notation (20-007) Chessani is now under investigation for not updating still showed the civilians were killed in the IED blast, the evidence shows.

So let me get this straight. The prosecution wants two more dereliction charges because Chessani forgot to update his notes. Never mind that his officers got on the phone and tried to get the info changed that was actually released to the public. They are trying to hang Chessani because his JEN notes (which nobody in the public saw) weren't updated. The Press guy who made things up, no problem. Chessani didn't correct unpublic notes - COVERUP!!!!

WHAT KIND OF COURT PROCESS IS THIS?

"The way I saw it was this," [Capt. Jeffrey] Pool told two colonels questioning him, according to a lawyer who read the report. "A bomb blast went off, or was initiated, that is what started, that is the reason they're getting this, is a bomb blew up, killed people. We killed people back and that's the story."

Why should this scenario be a surprise? After all:

We routinely charge tavern owners and barkeeps for drunks and their misdeeds under state "Dram Laws".
We routinely claim that automatic weapons, readily available to anyone at gun shows and pawn-brokers are the main reason for the increased homicide rates of our major cities.
We routinely blame the type of vehicle driven by a miscreant in the latest SUV 'accident'.
... ad infinitum absurdium.

Pool, JAG, and NCIS, have all learned well from our blameful society, where lawyers looking for deep pockets will readily make absurd claims to line their pockets and improve their stature in the community.

Outstanding work on getting all of this info out there, Red. I know that it won't make too big a splash in the Media as bad news and blood are all they care about. That's why I want to see Murtha beaten to a bloody pulp at High Noon in the Well of the House, then publicly taken out and shot as a traitor and terrorist sympathiser. Yeah. I know; getting him shot might be a small problem! ;^)