Propaganda Fear Cited in Account of Iraqi Killings [Haditha]

New York Times ^ | May 6, 2007 | PAUL von ZIELBAUER

[RedRover]

To read the entire article, without giving the Slimes a website hit, go to Defend Our Marines: Propaganda Fear Cited in Account of Iraqi Killings

By the way, the first Article 32 in the Haditha case will be on May 8th. Get the lowdown at this thread: Haditha Article 32: Capt. Randy W. Stone

[RedRover]

Ping!

[WOSG]

“The documents also show that derailing enemy propaganda was important to senior Marine commander”

Times, purveyors of liberal propoganda on a daily basis, state this as if it is somehow surprising or shocking.

[jazusamo]

If you would like to help with the civilian lawyer’s legal fees for the
Haditha Marines you can do so by going to these sites.

Defend Our Marines

Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt

SSgt. Frank Wuterich

Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani

Marine Defense Fund

[Paperdoll]

It is obvious that this was a set up from the very beginning. The insurgents were embedded in the civiliian’s house, inviting, no doubt provoking, what happened. Likely with accusations to make against our Marines in mind. Outrageous that this country recognized those accusations!

[RedRover]

Times reporter Paul von Zielbauer finds it all verrrrry suspicious…

[RedRover]

And lest anyone need to be reminded, there was reason for the military to think Tim McGirk of Time magazine was in sympathy with our enemy. He’s the same weasel who went to enjoy Thanksgiving with the Taliban after 9-11 and reported that they were “just folks”.

Tim McGirk with the Taliban, November 2001.

[Girlene]

Wow. This is Verrrry suspicious and interesting. From the article,....

Captain Stone, 34, of Dunkirk, Md., is accused of failing to investigate reports of the civilian deaths. In an interview that repeated similar frustrations voiced by lawyers for other accused officers, Captain Stone said he did not investigate the killings because his superiors told him not to.

“The regimental judge advocate informed me that we don’t do investigations for ‘troops in contact’ situations,” said Captain Stone, referring to the regiment’s lawyer, Maj. Carroll Connelly. Troops in contact is military language for combat against enemy fighters.

“That’s my understanding of what higher wanted,” Captain Stone said, referring to his superior officers, “and that’s why there was no investigation.”

“I don’t think I did anything wrong,” he went on. But he added, “There is a certain level of disappointment that the Marine Corps decided that, in the entire chain of command, that I am the one who should be held accountable.”

Major Connelly, who was not charged with any crime, has been granted immunity to testify at the coming hearings, said Captain Stone’s civilian lawyer, Charles W. Gittins.

[freeandfreezing]

Of course the NY Times seems to think that our military shouldn’t use propaganda as a technique to defeat the enemy, and that there is something wrong with our military leaders putting out information which is calculated to damage the enemy. What a bunch of fools.

No doubt the NY Times staff thinks every thing the terrorists say is true...

[freeandfreezing]

Major Connelly, who was not charged with any crime, has been granted immunity...

It figures, he's a lawyer after all. No doubt his pals took care of him.

[Eagles6]

"they dismissed Mr. McGirk’s inquiries because they saw him as a naïve sympathetic conduit for the mayor of Haditha, whom the Marines believed to be an insurgent."

There, I fixed it.

[Girlene]

Good point. But Capt. Stone is a lawyer, as well, just not as high up. From the article, again....

The documents and interviews produced in the Bargewell investigation indicate that investigators had suspected possible wrongdoing, at least initially, at even higher levels.

“As you go up the chain of command, the question always becomes, ‘Where do you stop?’ ” said John D. Hutson, a former Navy judge advocate general, now the dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center in New Hampshire. “You have to be reasonably certain that you’ll get a conviction.”

I guess they stopped at Chessani. Interesting, though that Gen. Huck is testifying for the defense. Good for him.

[RedRover]

It’s not clear to me where these quotes by Capt. Stone originated. Are they what the captain told investigators or from some other source? I can’t make it out. Can you?

Also, if you’ll allow me to speculate...

This article isn’t unfavorable to Capt. Stone, but it is unfavorable to the Corps. One can wonder if all the leaks in the Haditha case are coming from people who want to hurt the accused—or the Corps itself.

[RedRover]

Your version is much more accurate!

[Girlene]

LEAKERS, Unlimited.

The documents, including a report by Army Maj. Gen. Eldon A. Bargewell, copies of e-mail messages among Marine officers in Haditha and sworn statements from several ranking officers,....The documents were provided to The New York Times by people familiar with the investigation only on condition that they not be identified.

It sounds like these quotes came from leaked investigative notes. I, also, wonder the reasons for the leaks. Hurt the accused, aid the prosecution, hurt the Corps, or shift the blame from others higher up in the Marines at the time. Could be a combination since there seem to be so many leaks.

[RedRover]

I read somewhere (please don’t ask me for a link because I can’t remember where!) that Gen. Huck’s retirement has been held up until the Haditha matter is put to rest.

[RedRover]

Frankly, it’s not impossible that the defense attorneys could be leaking (fighting fire with fire).

But it could also be the same “senior defense officials” who are out to settle some kind of score with the Corps.

[Lancey Howard]

Ironically, once the cat was out of the bag that the civilians were not killed the way the initial report stated, the revised propaganda apparently called for mollifying the Haditha locals by railroading the Marines who were there.

One propaganda effort has simply replaced the other.
And a bunch of good Marines are caught in the middle.
What a friggin disgrace.

[smoothsailing]

Recently unclassified documents suggest that senior officers viewed the killings of 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha in late 2005 as a potential public relations problem that could fuel insurgent propaganda against the American military

Man, I am getting so damned tired of seeing killing of 24 Iraqi civilians stated as fact.

[freeandfreezing]

General Huck, who is expected to testify at the accused officers’ hearings, told investigators he did not recall orders, called commanders critical information requirements that required him to alert his superiors and investigate the circumstances of any attack that killed at least three times as many civilians as American forces.

If the NY Times is correct about that rule, General Huck is probably as rightly frustrated as anyone would be when you have to fight a war with rules as arbitrary as those. I wonder if they run those investigations in the Air Force?

I guess he is supposed to run the calculation for every firefight, IED explosion, etc. And if the US casualties happen to be low enough then he investigates. Imagine if this attack had been more of a success for the enemy - then he wouldn't have to investigate. Sounds totally backwards to me. I would think he should investigate what went wrong when there are a lot of US casualties, not the opposite!

The proper test for assessing whether an attack led to excessive civilian casualties can't be just a numerical ratio, but depends on the overall circumstances, but even if it was, the ratio should be enemy combatants killed to civilian casualties.

The General should have 100% of his attention on winning, not following bureaucratic rules that look like they were drafted by some guy at a the SEC or IRS, or Congress.