Posted on 07/11/2006 9:41:24 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
A summary of a report said to fault the way Marine Corps brass responded upon learning 24 Iraqi civilians were killed by a Camp Pendleton unit should be released this week, a military spokesman said Monday.
Meanwhile, an attorney for that unit's leader said he doesn't believe there is enough evidence to file criminal charges against the men responsible for the Nov. 19 shootings in the city of Haditha.
"I know too much about what happened that day (in Haditha) to think that any of these kids are going to be placed in pretrial confinement," said Kevin McDermott, an attorney hired by the company commander, Capt. Lucas McConnell.
McConnell was not present when the incident took place and has said through his attorney that he informed his superiors that there was a high number of civilian casualties in Haditha immediately after learning of the shootings.
The summary is being vetted by legal affairs officers for the Marine Corps at U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Fla., Lt. Col. Sean Gibson said in a written response to an inquiry from the North County Times.
The report is a synopsis of a more than 3,000-page document prepared by Army Maj. Gen. Eldon Bargewell and forwarded to Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli in Iraq last month.
Late last week, Chiarelli sent the document and his recommendations to Gen. George Casey, commander of Multi-National Forces, Iraq.
Published reports over the last few days say the document faults Marine commanders handling the first reports of the deaths in Haditha last November. It also is said to take issue with the chain of command's handling of instructions in dealings with Iraqi civilians.
While critical of the way commanders handled the reporting, Bargewell's investigation reportedly did not find evidence of an attempted coverup by high-ranking Marine officers.
The Naval Criminal Investigative Service is continuing a separate probe into what happened in Haditha following a roadside bombing that killed one of the men from the unit under investigation, Kilo Company from the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment based at Camp Pendleton.
None of the men under scrutiny have been jailed or face any restrictions. The unit was attached to the II Marine Expeditionary Force based at Camp Lejeune, N.C., when the incident took place.
McDermott said Monday that if criminal allegations are brought, as many as 25 Marines could face charges between the Haditha incident and the unrelated alleged murder of a civilian in Hamdania, Iraq, by seven Camp Pendleton Marines and a sailor.
But he said he does not expect any charges to be filed in the Haditha incident. The attorney pointed to the lack of forensics ---- the military has not yet been able to get approval to exhume the bodies of the victims ---- as well as the credibility of the evidence and the sources who first complained of the shootings.
McDermott said he expects officers with the 2nd Marine Division at Camp Lejeune will face disciplinary action.
"I can't imagine the (Bargewell) report being extremely negative about a coverup at the company level," McDermott said in a telephone interview from Orange County.
Like McConnell, a 1997 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, some of the other men who were in Haditha have hired civilian defense attorneys. McDermott said he is helping some with that process, adding that a large firm in Washington, D.C., has offered help.
With congressional hearings into alleged Iraq war atrocities looming, the Marine Corps last week directed all its commanders to make certain they preserve all documents and e-mails related to the Haditha investigation and the alleged premeditated kidnapping and murder of an Iraqi in the village of Hamdania on April 26.
In the April incident, seven Marines and a Navy corpsman from Camp Pendleton's 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment are in the base brig awaiting pretrial hearings after being charged last month with murder, kidnapping and related offenses.
McDermott said he does not think any of the Haditha troops will find themselves in the brig.
The document directive issued last week by the Marine Corps said all commanders "should take appropriate measures to retain and preserve documents and e-mails related to the incidents, their planning, execution and subsequent reporting."
McDermott said he and other defense attorneys wonder why such a directive wasn't issued weeks ago.
In Washington, Josh Holly, spokesman for the House Armed Services Committee chaired by U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-El Cajon, said Monday that a hearing on alleged war crimes and how they are being investigated will probably take place before that panel the last week of this month.
U.S. Sen. John Warner, R-Virginia, plans a similar hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
BTTT!
The MSM was so desperate for another My Lai massacre, they would sell their grandmothers to the glue factory to publish the propaganda served up courtesy of Al Queda and Sunni Jihadists.
Pissant: If it can be demonstrated that they lied and were negligent, they should be able to sue them out of existence.
I think it will be easy to demonstrate that. I will GLADLY donate to their lawyer fees!!!
Jazusamo: I don't know about the legal aspects but it seems logical to me that they could do that, especially if Murtha had any malice.
IF....."killing innocent civilians in cold blood."
"These kind of things have to be brought out immediately," he told "This Week," "because if the Marines got away with it, other Marines might think it's okay."
Yeah, must be brought out immediately, by his decision to accuse, try, convict and execute them in the court of public opinion, LONG BEFORE an investigation was complete, let alone released, before one indictment, before one arrest, before a trial had even been mentioned.
LONG BEFORE an investigation was complete
That sounds like an awful good point to me in establishing malice. Plus it seems as soon as he got his supposed briefing from DOD he couldn't wait to get on national TV and shoot his mouth off about it. The thing I question about that is his reasoning for doing it? What possible purpose did it serve except his own political gain?
I think we all KNOW his reason for doing it. Now I want to see him HANG for his treason!
Neither one can be trusted.
Okay...from what I read...there will be no charges against the Marines that supposedly did this..
Therefore...WTH is Hunter and John Warner doing having hearings about it???
These guys are going to be "found guilty" even without a "TRIAL"...it will be "guilt by Cong. hearing"...since when do we have that in our legal system??>?
Since JOHN Warner said so, that's when! Didn't you get the memo?
What is it with all these "JOHNS" lately? I say flush the whole lot of them!!!
kerry-edwards-murtha-warner-meInsane.......
"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged."
-Abraham Lincoln-
Wouldn't it be NICE if just ONE Senator, and ONE representative would just stand up in their respective chambers and quote that Abraham Lincoln quote???
That SHOULD be all it takes.
I didn't read it that way, Tx. I believe this was more an "investigation of procedure" to see if there was a coverup. Of course, there must be something to coverup.
I believe the NCIS is handing the actual investigation into the allegations by the twit in Iraq who got the MSM and Jack Murtha to prematurely evacuate their brains.
Therefore, do NOT expect to see it any time soon.
Thanks for the ping.
Thanks for the ping.
Okay, I reread it...and I agree to a point..
It did mention that the NCIS investigation regarding what if anything, the Marines did wrong on that day..
However, most of the article seemed to lean towards the lack of evidence and such, and makes it sound like there will not be charges..
Later in the article, regarding the hearings, though..it did mention the actions of the Marines would be included, not just the possibility of a cover-up.
SOOOOOO..these guys haven't been indicted, yet their "guilt" or innocence will be tried in a Congessional hearing, AND in the court of public opinion.
THAT is what I am angry about at this time..although, having just typed all of that...if I were a defense attorney..THAT would be the fodder for me to call for charges to be dropped..(I am not a lawyer, so I am probably dreaming.lol).
I agree with you. As far as vetting any real facts, I'm keeping in mind that most of the talk about lack of evidence was the defense attorney and the ever illustrious, illusionary 'military spokesman'. It's really hard to draw a conclusion from yet another poorly articulated article.
I can certainly understand that in order for the US to retain credibility someone needs to address a run of charges against the military in some form or fashion. But I'm totally at a loss to understand why it would be done this way, and why the House Committee?
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.