Posted on 06/10/2006 7:14:36 PM PDT by saquin
A sergeant who led a squad of Marines during the incident in Haditha, Iraq, that left as many as 24 civilians dead said his unit did not intentionally target any civilians, followed military rules of engagement and never tried to cover up the shootings, his lawyer said.
Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, 26, told his attorney that several civilians were killed Nov. 19 when his squad went after insurgents who were firing at them from inside a house.
[...]
A corporal with the unit leaned over to Wuterich and said he saw the shots coming from a specific house, and after a discussion with the platoon leader, they decided to clear the house, according to Wuterich's account.
"There's a threat, and they went to eliminate the threat," Puckett said.
[...]
Although it was almost immediately apparent to the Marines that the people dead in the room were men, women and children -- most likely civilians -- they also noticed a back door ajar and believed that insurgents had slipped through to a house nearby, Puckett said.
[...]
At one point, they saw a man in all-black clothing running from one of the houses they had searched. The Marines killed him, Puckett said.
They then noticed another man in all black scurrying between two houses across the street. When they went to investigate, the Marines found a courtyard filled with women and children and asked where the man was, Puckett said.
When the civilians pointed to a third house, the Marines attempted to enter and found a man with an AK-47 inside, flanked by three other men; the first Marine to enter tried to fire his weapon, but it jammed, Puckett said. The Marines then killed those four men.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I believe & support our troops. I urge you all to start calling your congressmen, senators, and members of the Armed Services Committee. And don't leave out the President and VP on Monday. These troops are being treatd worse than our enemies!
Guess the high level Pentagon officials Murtha talked to were out of the loop on this one.
Wrong. They are entitled to the legal presumption of innocence, but not a prejudice of such.
Would you be open to the prosecution's proof that these Marines committed the atrocities alleged? If not, you would be bounced from a civilian jury (and, I presume, a military court martial). I've seen a juror bounced because, among other things, she was (visibly) rooting for the defense.
There would be little discernible difference to an untrained villager. And the only accounts so far are from untrained villagers....
In a war-zone like Iraq, there is no such thing as an "untrained villager."
Lets keep one thing in mind. IF they were here they would target our women and children. Of course they'd probably rape them first along with our pets.
Did anyone from these houses come out to warn the marines there was an IED? No, then they chose their side and their side lost.
If a prospective jurer asked by an enquiring attorney for the defense, "Do you think Chaplain X is innocent?" and the prosp. jurer said, "No.", then that jurer is tainted at the outset.
No, phone the President and VP, the Armed Services Committee members, yur congressman and senator. DEMAND our men be unshackled and treated as innocent UNTIL the trial is over. Don't forget to ask why in hell OUR OWN TROOPS are not believed when the enemy makes an accusation. Say you are ashamed of the treatment our American heros are receiving. AFTERWARDS call Murtha's office and let them know how despicable a person he is. BTTT
Absolutely there is. Determining type of round and angle of entry is not for amateurs. It is a science. Without the equipment, angles, castings, etc., it is impossible to determine.
Wrong.
Jurors are instructed not to come to a conclusion until all the facts are in. The only acceptable answers is some variation of "I don't know." Not "Yes," and not "no." A juror who prejudges guilt or innocence before all the proof is in - either way - will be bounced.
Time to turn in, Jude. Check with you tomorrow.
The UCMJ says, "presumed innocent." Are they speaking of real "innocence" or are they speaking of fake innocence? (Seriously....tomorrow. :>)
Who said anything abut bullet trajectories? You've watched too much CSI.
Even the most untrained villager would know the difference between cross-fire entering a house and Marines going door-to-door, lining up people, and shooting them. For starters, in cross-fire, the Marines are much less likely to be entering into people's homes.
I pray the truth will exonerate our brave Marines.
Thanks for the ping!
Did you hear that Murtha would like to be House Speaker?
Now that prospect should motivate Pubbies and Vets to vote!
That needed a bump to the top.
The presumption of innocence means that if the prosecution's evidence doesn't prove every element of the crime, then they're acquitted. The presumption is rebuttable by the prosecution - and jurors are expected to keep an open mind to the prosecution's evidence.
Oh yeah. They're getting an ear full from me. Of course, McCain's scanner will pick up the word Marine in my letter and I'll get a letter back thanking me for wanting to help save Flipper and his fellow dolphins from extinction. It's happened to me before.
WINNER! I agree. However, marines have become the plaything of the media and politicians. They are in jail, relieved of command, careers and lives ruined. Innocent they may be, but who will restore their reputations, give them back their honor?
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.