Posted on 12/21/2006 11:03:18 AM PST by areafiftyone
CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. - A Marine Corps squad leader was charged Thursday with 13 murder counts stemming from the killings of 24 civilians in the Iraqi town of Haditha last year, his attorney said.
Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich was charged with 12 counts of murdering individuals and one count of murdering six people by ordering Marines under his charge to "shoot first and ask questions later" when they entered a house, according to charging sheets released by defense attorney Neal Puckett.
As many as eight Marines could be charged in the case, the biggest U.S. criminal case to emerge from the war in Iraq in terms of people killed.
The deaths occurred on Nov. 19, 2005.
Lawyers for two Marines already have said they expect their clients will be charged and it’s believed up to six others could join them.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Hope the jon carry thing works out ;)
Ha! SPEAKING of jon carry.....you may recall he "visited" Walter Reed before he departed for Iraq and visits with our enemies in the ME.
Wellllll.....he was booed when he tried to address a group of our troops. Then he went visiting a certain area. When he arrived our troops turned around and walked out!
The idiot approached one of our heroes with his hand extended to shake hands. Our beloved hero looked at him and said I am NOT shaking your hand and I have nothing to say to you, nor do I care to hear anything you have to say.
With that, the hero proceeded to gather his stuff to leave.
That stupid, ignorant, moron carry put his hand on the hero's shoulder.....
Our hero turned and looked at jon and said.....and YOU don't EVER want to put your hands on me!
BWAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAA!!!
Ya gotta love our troops!!!!! ;*)
God Bless them all!!!
Just an FYI. I had a bathing suit like that, once upon a time. No picture though. No one could hold a camera.
Good piece. Now we can rest assured the Dems will find it necessary to increase funding for our military... to include combat court reporters.
Good morning all. It's almost Christmas Eve in Cambodia.
Ping to Post #462 (we always open one present on Christmas Eve)
Since then, no Constitutionally sanctioned adjudicating authority has found that the basis for his appeals has any merit.
Thus your view is equally without merit.
Patrons and employees of VFW Post 7041in Vista reacted to the U.S. Marine Corps' decision to charge eight Marines in the killings of 24 Iraqi civilians last year during a sweep through the city of Haditha after a Marine was killed by a roadside bomb. Four of the Marines face murder charges.
-- "I don't think they should be tried. They went over there and served their country, and those goddamned people over there ---- are they being tried? I think it's a crime." ---- Noe Falcon, U.S. Marine Corps, retired, of Oceanside.
-- "The only ones who know what happened are those boys. The government has to find out what happened, what caused it, what led up to it." ---- Nancy Rivera, U.S. Navy veteran, of Vista.
-- "They train these people for a mission and then put them in a situation that's not the mission. Police are trained to use restraint. Marines are trained that if you draw fire, you return fire. These boys did what they were trained to do." ---- Will Gibbons, U.S. Navy, retired, of Vista.
-- "As a soldier, if somebody shoots at you or lobs a grenade at you, you're supposed to shoot back. If it moves, you kill it." ---- Howard Wooten, U.S. Navy, retired, of Oceanside.
Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani was the commanding officer of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment at the time of the Haditha incident and is the highest-ranking officer to have charges filed against him.
The 42-year-old veteran Marine has been charged with failing to accurately report and investigate a suspected violation of the law of war. If convicted of that charge, he could face a maximum of two years' confinement, dismissal from the Marines and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.
He also is charged with two counts of dereliction of duty for the same alleged offenses. Each of those counts carries a maximum penalty of six months' confinement, dismissal from the Marines and forfeiture of all pay and allowances.
Chessani told investigators earlier this year that he did not initiate an inquiry into the deaths of Iraqi civilians because he did not consider the deaths unusual.
He made a sworn statement to investigators in March in which he said, "I thought it was very sad, very unfortunate, but at the time, I did not suspect any wrongdoing from my Marines."
In April, Chessani ---- who grew up in northwest Colorado ---- was relieved of his command, along with the Kilo Company's commander, Capt. Lucas McConnell of Napa. At the time, a Marine Corps spokesman told reporters that the two men had been relieved of duty, "due to lack of confidence in their leadership abilities stemming from their performance during a recent deployment to Iraq."
Before being relieved of duty, Chessani appeared to be on a solid career path. He was reportedly involved in helping to plan the 2004 assault on Fallujah.
He also served in the first Iraqi war in 1991. He received his first command position at an Albany, N.Y., recruiting station and later attended the Command and Staff College in Quantico, Va., where he earned a master's degree in military studies.
He was promoted to lieutenant colonel in 2004 and assigned to the post of operations officer for the 1st Marines in Iraq.
His first combat command came in May 2005, when he took over the base's 3rd Battalion.
Chessani majored in meteorology at the University of Northern Colorado and received his Marine Corps commission in 1988.
The Denver Post has reported that during the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989, he captured several of former President Manuel Noriega's top officers.
Minor correction made.
So did we! Glad you liked it!
NORTH COUNTY ---- Hard evidence, not arguments over the fog of war, will decide the fates of eight Marines facing charges as a result of the killing of 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha, according to military justice experts.
The prosecution must be able to conclusively state "what happened, why did they do what they did, why did they use force and did they believe they were being engaged," said Col. Dave Wallace, who teaches law of war at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.
On Thursday, the Marine Corps charged four enlisted men in the deaths that took place in Haditha over the course of several hours on Nov. 19, 2005. Also charged were four officers, who are accused of dereliction of duty and related offenses for allegedly failing to properly investigate and report on what happened.
The enlisted men were among a group of 13 in a convoy of Marines rolling through Haditha when a massive bomb embedded in the roadway ripped through one of the vehicles, killing a lance corporal and injuring two others.
The charges filed Thursday represent the largest criminal case in terms of victims as well as the highest number of officers to be accused of committing a crime for their actions in Iraq.
The initial news release from the military, sent out the day after the incident, stated that the blast killed 15 Iraqi civilians, and that U.S. and Iraqi troops killed eight insurgents in the ensuing firefight.
Four months later, a Time magazine story questioning the official version of the deaths touched off an investigation into what really happened in the Anbar province city in western Iraq.
"We now know with certainty the press release was incorrect," Marine Col. Stewart Navarre said Thursday when the charges were announced at Camp Pendleton. "None of the civilians were killed by the IED explosion."
The men, all from Pendleton's Kilo Company attached to the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, have maintained in statements through their attorneys that when they opened fire, they were acting within the military's rules of engagement.
While the civilian deaths were unfortunate, they've said, the men contend they were following the rules of engagement in a search for combatants they believed responsible for the bombing and small-arms fire aimed at the troops.
West Point professor Wallace said the nine-month investigation into the incident "speaks to how thoroughly they looked at it" before opting to bring charges.
"There was no rush to judgment," Wallace said. "It was very thorough and methodical."
Proving murder
Kathleen Duignan, executive director of the Institute of Military Justice in Washington and a former military prosecutor, said a key question is whether the homicides were unintentional, and whether the officers covered up the junior Marines' actions "because they were criminal or at least potentially embarrassing."
The four enlisted men are charged with unpremeditated murder, which roughly equates to second-degree murder in civilian courts.
In proving that a death rises to the level of unpremeditated murder, the prosecution must show that the death resulted from an intentional act and that the defendant had a wanton disregard for human life. Prosecutors also must prove that the accused knew that death or great bodily harm was a probable consequence of their actions.
One interesting piece of the case, Duignan said, is that even though all four of the accused enlisted men were charged with unpremeditated murder, one of them, Lance Cpl. Stephen B. Tatum, was also charged with one count of negligent homicide.
A murder charge requires the prosecution prove a defendant intended to bring harm; negligent homicide is essentially the absence of care when committing an act.
"Negligent homicide allows for situations when the intent is unclear, like if somebody is firing in the general direction" of the victim, Duignan said.
Intent to bring harm is not at issue for that charge, she said.
The system and what's next
In some respects, the military's system of justice works like that of the civilian world. If the charges are serious ---- as they are in this case ---- the case is likely to end up in trial. The prosecution must prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, and the verdict can be appealed.
In the military's criminal justice system, a military commander referred to as the convening authority decides whether charges should be brought.
That authority in this case is Lt. Gen. James Mattis, commanding general of the I Marine Expeditionary force and the general with overall command responsibility for Marines in Iraq.
Gary Solis, a former staff judge advocate at Camp Pendleton who now teaches military law at Georgetown University, said the charges announced Thursday appear very aggressive.
"They say that the Marine Corps takes very seriously its obligation to conduct itself in accordance with the law," he said during a telephone interview.
The fact that a lieutenant colonel and a captain who served as the battalion's legal officer are among the accused underscores the seriousness of the case and the message it sends to the officer corps, Solis said.
"It's also the first time in the history of our nation that a staff judge advocate, the man responsible for ensuring conformance with the law, has been charged with crime related to his work," he said.
Solis said he expected the troops accused in the shooting deaths of the Iraqi civilians would face manslaughter and not murder charges.
"I was very surprised by the aggressive nature of that charge," he said, adding that that will be much harder to prove than manslaughter.
Clock is ticking
Now that the charges have been filed, the clock is ticking on the judicial process. Barring any requests for delays by the defense, the government has 120 days to start court-martial proceedings against the men if Mattis deems a court-martial is the proper course to follow.
The public's first look at the government's case could come in pretrial court sessions known as Article 32 hearings, which are the rough equivalent of a preliminary hearing in civilian courts.
After those hearings, Mattis will receive a recommendation on whether the cases should be sent to military trials, known as courts-martial, or to administrative hearings, which are less serious and do not result in jail time. He also will have the option at that point of dismissing or altering the charges.
Duignan said that even if the officers aren't sent to courts-martial, an administrative punishment of the four officers would be "career-ending."
The likelihood that any of the men will plead guilty to a lesser offense in exchange for lighter sentences will depend on the strength of the evidence. If it's strong, defense attorneys may be inclined to negotiate, she said.
Attorneys for some of the men have indicated they plan to fight the charges all the way.
Plea bargains have played a significant role in an unrelated case involving eight members of another Camp Pendleton unit accused of kidnapping and murdering an Iraqi police officer in April. Despite initial vows to fight the charges all the way, four of the defendants in that case have pleaded guilty to lesser offenses than they were charged with and are serving terms ranging from 12 to 21 months.
Complicating matters for prosecutors in the Haditha case is that U.S. officials have not been able to obtain permission from the relatives of the slain to exhume their bodies and conduct forensic autopsies.
"The lack of a body will make it difficult to prove the cause of death," Solis said.
But forensics are not invariably required in the prosecution, said Jeffrey C. Good, president-elect of the Judge Advocates Association, a national organization of active-duty and retired military lawyers.
"It just depends on the specific facts of the case," he said. "The exact details of the entrance and exit wounds (help), but there is no requirement that the government produce forensics in every case."
Lt. Col. Daren Margolin, a legal affairs officer at Camp Pendleton, said that plea agreements can be broached by either side. The prosecution may propose one if the government believes it is in its best interest to resolve a case, and the defense will often do so if it appears the accused is headed for conviction and a better deal can be had by pleading guilty to a lesser offense.
The Article 32 hearings in the Haditha case are not expected to begin for at least two months and will take place in courtrooms at Camp Pendleton with the proceedings broadcast to a media center established by the base to accommodate reporters covering the case.
Contact staff writer Teri Figueroa at (760) 631-6624 or tfigueroa@nctimes.com. Contact staff writer Mark Walker at (760) 740-3529 or mwalker@nctimes.com.
Tough charges against eight Marines in civilian killings in Iraq should herald a new era of stern justice
The multiple charges of murder and dereliction of duty levied last week against eight Marines accused of killing two dozen Iraqi civilians last year is a welcome sign of the U.S. military's growing seriousness about how it investigates and prosecutes atrocities.
It's true that the case was not probed right after it happened 13 months ago.
Yet the notably harsh charges - dereliction of duty and investigative failures against four officers, including a lieutenant colonel - show that the probe, once started, was intent on peeling away the full layers of complicity in this terrible case.
That's good, because U.S. military justice has been too slow to assert itself with the vigor and reach necessary to reassure both Americans and Iraqis that U.S. crimes against Iraqis will be pursued and punished.
Three and a half years into the war, too few of those responsible for the base torments, deaths and other crimes against Iraqis faced more than modest punishments. Some civilian contractors implicated in the deaths and abuse at Abu Ghraib were never even prosecuted. Higher-ups who authorized interrogation techniques that smacked of torture never were charged. And tens of thousands of Iraqis have cycled through American-run detention centers where conditions - according to the recent testimony of one U.S. contractor caught up in the Kafkaesque maw of peremptory investigations and lengthy detention without clear charges - are patently inhumane.
All of these things undermine faith in American justice, and themselves become a force for radicalism and anti-Americanism.
And that's too bad.
For Iraq is a war where the bad guys wear civilian clothes and hide among civilians, making it almost impossible to know who the enemy is until he attacks. Yet despite this moral ambiguity, only an infinitesimal fraction of the hundreds of thousands of American military personnel who've served in Iraq are suspected of any wrongdoing.
At the same time, U.S. military personnel who think it part of the buddy system in war to cover up or downplay atrocities instead do harm to their peers and their nation's cause.
Luckily, the very fact of prosecutions such as Haditha indicate that, in the end, men and women of good conscience find their moral voice and come forward.
Certainly, some lower-level officers and non-commissioned officers in the Haditha case were too ready to suspend disbelief and whitewash facts. Command confusion and possible cover-ups delayed an investigation for months.
The Marines' high-level probe didn't start until after a Time magazine reporter began asking questions.
In the meantime, the Marine non-commissioned officer now implicated in 18 of the deaths, and charged in 13 of them, was suggested for an achievement medal for valor for his actions that day.
The Marines charged in Haditha say the deaths were an unfortunate byproduct of the sort of combat U.S. soldiers and Marines see every day in Iraq. U.S. military personnel are blown up on the roads, fired on from homes - and then face the impossible chore of having to separate foe from friend inside dark houses.
Indeed, the Haditha Marines are accused only of unpremeditated murder, so they will not face the death penalty. Nonetheless, the wording of the charges indicate prosecutors do not accept a "fog of war" version of events.
Other recent military prosecutions also have sketched a tougher line on such crimes - including the 90-year prison sentence handed down last month for a U.S. soldier who agreed to testify against his comrades and admitted his part in the gang rape and murder of a teen-age Iraqi girl. Her family was killed, too, to cover up the crime.
The answer to Iraqi doubts and questions can only be such justice, more justice and more timely justice. And a far more intensive effort to charge - or release - the Iraqis who continue to languish in U.S. detention. That includes Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein, arrested nine months ago, who has yet to be charged with a single crime.
Marine Corps charges send a message
Four Marine Corps enlisted men have been charged with murder and four officers with dereliction of duty in the killing of 24 Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha. Convictions could bring sentences ranging from six months to life in prison. How this process unfolds is important both as a matter of justice and as a demonstration that the U.S. military can judge accused criminals without regard to their nationality or that of their victims.
The allegations in the case are stark: While on patrol in the Euphrates Valley northwest of Baghdad on Nov. 19, 2005, members of Company K, Third Battalion, First Marine Regiment, encountered several unarmed Iraqi men. Details about the exact sequence of events are not clear, but in the end, the Marines had killed 24 people, including six children, in several attacks on a car and three nearby houses. Hours earlier, a fellow Marine had been killed by a roadside bomb in an area of heavy Sunni insurgent activity.
Legal experts say the gravity of the charges bespeaks an unusually aggressive approach by prosecutors. Gary Solis, who teaches the law of war at Georgetown University and at West Point, said, "The Marine Corps is sending a message to commanders ... that they better pay close attention to the activities of their subordinates."
Among the officers charged was the battalion commander, a lieutenant colonel. None of the officers was at the scene. They are accused of failing to fully investigate and report the incident.
Sending a message to commanders is appropriate, especially in light of several killings of Iraqi civilians by U.S. troops and the lenient punishments meted out in some cases. One Marine lance corporal, for example, was given 21 months after pleading guilty to killing an unarmed Iraqi civilian and placing a weapon next to the body to make it appear the victim was an insurgent.
What's more important than sending a message, however, is that justice be done and is seen to be done. If the charges are proved, a harsh penalty would be in order. But whatever the ultimate verdict, it should reflect the willingness of the U.S. military to judge its members based on what they did, why they did it and whether the circumstances in any way justified it. That's a tough challenge but one that must be met, for the sake of those who died, for those on trial and for the integrity of this country in meting out impartial justice.
Whoops! Link above is incorrect. Should be...
http://www.sacbee.com/110/v-print/story/97111.html
CAMP PENDLETON ---- The charges filed Thursday against eight Marines in the shooting deaths of 24 civilians in Haditha probably won't have much effect on troop morale, U.S. policy or public opinion toward the military, according to defense and military analysts.
John Pike, a leading defense analyst who founded the group Globalsecurity.org, said that despite the alleged crimes in Haditha and other instances of criminal acts by U.S. troops in Iraq, he doesn't sense that most Americans have negative attitudes toward service members.
"The U.S. military continues to be a very highly esteemed institution, among the highest ranked in America," Pike said in a telephone interview. "Some people will say American troops are just a bunch of trigger-happy cowboys with no regard for life. But in the U.S., those people would be in the distinct minority."
Retired U.S. Army Gen. William Nash said he doesn't think the charges will worsen the already negative public opinion toward the war.
"I think the American public is sophisticated enough to understand the difference between things associated with misdeeds and the overall policy of the war," said Nash, a senior fellow with Washington-based Council on Foreign Relations.
However, "I suppose (people) are pleased that these Marines will face a proper court," he said.
Pike said the incidents at Haditha and at Hamdania, where a squad allegedly kidnapped and murdered an unarmed civilian, appear to be isolated cases. That tells him that combat stress levels for troops on their third or fourth assignments in Iraq are manageable, he said.
"Whatever loss of will has taken place in Washington has not occurred among the troops," Pike said.
As much as some people try to compare the conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan to Vietnam, Pike said he doesn't see the kind of combat stress that occurred in Vietnam leading to repeated instances of civilian abuse, rampant drug use and the refusal by some troops to go into battle.
By historical standards, Iraq and Afghanistan pale in comparison to other major conflicts, Pike said.
"It's just not that bad," he said. "A hundred killed in action in Iraq is a bad month. In Vietnam, it would have been a good week and in World War II, at times, a good day."
Retired Gen. Nash said the legal system is now properly addressing the Haditha killings.
"I am not worried about the American military ---- when justice is being served, we all win," he said.
The fact that many of the Marines at Haditha were on their second or third deployments and had seen many of their buddies killed or injured by an enemy who doesn't wear a uniform and easily mixes in with the civilian population may have contributed to what happened.
"Shame on us for putting them in that predicament," Nash said.
But while troops can be pushed to the breaking point, "it does not justify in any way criminal acts or the cover-up of criminal acts," he said.
Scott Silliman, executive director of Duke University Center for Law, Ethics and National Security, said he believes the Marine Corps will react in two ways. Some will say the alleged misconduct is an aberration while others will point to the fog of war.
The latter group, he said, will reason: "We are in a very difficult war, being asked to make decisions in a very fluid battlefield environment, and you just can't apply the same legal rules on what is right or wrong that you did in World War II ---- you have to cut us some slack."
National Institute of Military Justice President Eugene Fidell said the charges are "both a blessing and a curse."
The charges also show the military is willing to take appropriate action.
"No military unit is perfect, just as no human being is perfect," he said. "The point is to ensure that through training, discipline and sanctions, misconduct is kept to an absolute minimum."
Haditha and other criminal cases have contributed to a growing level of discomfort for many Americans about the continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq, he said.
"But do I think the (Haditha) case will prove a tipping point? No," he said.
People should be careful about jumping to conclusions and news coverage should be cautious and responsible, he said, adding he does not expect troops to start second-guessing themselves.
"GIs are capable of distinguishing between times when pulling the trigger is appropriate and when (it's) not," Fidell said.
Ivan Eland, a senior fellow with a think tank known as the Independent Institute in Oakland, said the charges will not have an effect on the larger U.S. policy in Iraq, and that most Americans may be only "dimly aware" of the Haditha case.
"The public is fed up with Iraq, period," Eland said. The Haditha charges, he said, are "just one more day of bad news."
U.S. forces are immune from prosecution in Iraqi courts, but Eland said the prosecutions will be watched by Iraqis.
"Anything short of a full prosecution will be looked upon by the Arabic world as (the United States) saying that we have to charge them with something but not go all out," Eland said. "That's how it is perceived there."
"In the Arab world, they won't be satisfied until they are convicted."
I bet the sand was particularly hot that day!
I ought to be able to do a summary ping later today. I'm still way behind in wading through all the e-mail, Freepmails, and info found on Google searches. But slowly, catching up!
If the evidence supports the charges and specifications, it seems to me that a finding of guilty cannot be avoided. The sentencing phase, however, is where matters in extenuation/mitigation play out. And the "fog-of-war" and similar issues, IMHO, is the Defense's opportunity to seek a less than maximum punishment.
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.