Hearing set for lieutenant colonel charged in Haditha case [first Article 32 in two weeks!]

North County Times ^ | March 6, 2007 | Mark Walker

[RedRover]

This Article 32 will set the tone for the seven that will follow in the spring and early summer.

Join the Haditha Marine Ping List to hear the latest, as it happens.

[RedRover]

Related thread from earlier today: Case against Marine blamed on Murtha politics [Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani / Haditha]

[RedRover]

Ping!

[jude24]

Rooney and Robert Muise from the Thomas Moore Law Center in Ann Arbor, a nonprofit group that works on anti-abortion causes and defends Christians accused of wrongdoing, will represent the 42-year-old Chessani along with appointed military attorneys Lt. Col. Jon Shelburne and Capt. Jeffery King.

That's not a good thing. They would not be on my list if I needed a lawyer. Their history in the Dover Intelligent Design case showed me that they are afflicted with ideological blindness.

[PhilDragoo]

Yes and these are "civilians" because. . .they weren't in uniform, because the enemy said they were civilians, because the peace Democrats and fifth-column media want power and prefer America be defeated.

If the president wonders where his popularity went he might examine why he has hamstrung our fighters with Alice In Wonderland ROEs and allows them to be targets in the current Salem abomination.

Keeping score, we have these Marines, the Border Patrol agents and Libby sacrificed to the enemy while Sandy Berger, al-Sadr, William Jefferson et al are free to golf with O.J.

[lilycicero]

Mail RR.

[RedRover]

Thomas More Law Center, FYI, ping.

[RedRover]

Asked and answered, O Queen of My Heart.

[pissant]

I hope his lawyers pound these bastard prosecuters in the teeth.

[lilycicero]

I hope your wife isn't a lurker. She might clothes-line you when you get home for saying such sweet nothings too all your FRushes. :)

[RedRover]

Sounds like a heck of a team. Pretty incredible that Rooney was with Chessani in Fallujah in '04.

[RedRover]

Thomas More Law Center, FYI, ping.

[jude24]

The problem is that the Thomas More Law Center are True Believers. True Believers are dangerous as lawyers, because they can be blind to the weaknesses in their case.

If I were indicted on a serious crime, I would not solicit an attorney from the Thomas More Law Center, or any other political organization. Instead, I'd ask the lawyers I know to recommend who they would ask to defend them.

[Girlene]

It seems like a natural fit to me. No. 1 it's pro bono, No. 2 one of the lawyers served with Lt. Col. Chessani in the battle for Fallujah.

If you read the related article in post 2, they lay out their reasoning for taking this case.

....""The outcome of this case is vital to the security of our nation and to the military personnel we place in harm's way," Thompson said. "As tragic as these civilian deaths are, it's essential that we not shackle our combat commanders' ability to make decisions by placing them in fear of criminal prosecution every time there are civilian casualties as a result of combat action."....

They blast not only Times and the terrorists, but really take on Murtha.

And further comment on their reasoning.....

...""Terrorists routinely use mosques, schools, hospitals, and civilian homes from which to launch attacks and hide," said Rooney. "We have always taught Marines to be aggressive and encouraged this aggression in order to help them survive and accomplish their mission."

"Through our defense of Lt. Col. Chessani, Marines on the ground will be assured that their valiant combat actions will not be turned into political fodder and talking points for politicians seeking headlines," said Muise."....

That sounds like some good broadbased reasoning/idealogy to defend the Lt. Col. (at least to me).

[jude24]

That sounds like some good broadbased reasoning/idealogy to defend the Lt. Col. (at least to me).

That's exactly the problem. Ideology rarely plays well in the courtroom - especially not in the military courtroom. If your play is jury nullification, you will not get it in a military tribunal.

The better approach would be to find a retired JAG - someone who left for better pastures (e.g. an in-house counsel gig), and hire him to represent you. That way, you get someone who knows military law inside and out, but isn't blinded to the realities of your case by ideology.

Your milage may vary, of course. This is the tack I'd take.

[RedRover]

Frankly, jude, I was pushing David Sheldon (Lt. Phan's attorney in the Hamdania-related case) to take the lieutenant colonel's case. We will see.

I was a little surprised that the prosecution is starting with the highest rank. In the Hamdania and Iron Triangles, the lowest rank went first. Do you know if there's a standard?

[jude24]

I was pushing David Sheldon (Lt. Phan's attorney in the Hamdania-related case) to take the lieutenant colonel's case.

He's probably got his hands full.

In the Hamdania and Iron Triangles, the lowest rank went first. Do you know if there's a standard?

Not that I am aware of. But, I know only enough to be dangerous....

[RedRover]

But, I know only enough to be dangerous....

Ditto! ;)

[Girlene]

Do you think there are many Marines who don't realize how this case has affected the ROE's currently being used in Iraq? Do you think there are many Marines who respect Murtha and don't realize his political impact on having these charges filed? And I don't mean just active duty types; even those stationed back at Camp Pendleton get the stories.

The actual facts relevant to the case are the top layer of defense, but these "ideologies" form the background that a panel of peers will be using in their judgement.

What should a defense lawyer base the case on?

[jude24]

The actual facts relevant to the case are the top layer of defense, but these "ideologies" form the background that a panel of peers will be using in their judgement.

Appealing to those ideologies is grounds for an instant mistrial. The message a verdict may send is not an appropriate consideration.