Two Haditha Marines Face General Courts-Martial [LtCol Chessani and LCpl Tatum]

Defend Our Marines ^ | October 19, 2007 | Nathaniel R. Helms

[freema]

Scumbuckets, they are. Lots of folks were making cracks about how the bombers from WW I & II would have been charged based on the horsepatootie in these cases. Lo, and behold. Whatdayawannabet there’s a big steenkin’ investigation into this incident.

[ProudMommaof MP]

I have been embroiled in a debate with another person in another forum on the Haditha events and the Marines who have been charged. It has been an ongoing debate for months. He is reveling in this news of Tatum and Chessani facing court martial.
I posted the following in that forum:

I understand, rbs’er. Clearly, you want our troops to hesitate, for a split second that could get them killed. How many have already been killed for that moment’s necessitation as they look at this case and wonder what will happen to them if they shoot? Because for one brief second it crossed their minds that they may be held accountable for killing an innocent among insurgents?

Do not give me the usual spiel about “None would be killed if we were not there”. That is not real, that is not the reality of the situation. Clearly, even if it were announced today that they were all coming home, (and oh how I wish that were true) it would take months (if not years) to extract all the troops and equipment, they would still have to face an enemy that blends in with the population of Iraqi.

So what will come of trying these Marines? Even if not one of them is found guilty at court martial, what will it teach the troops? Hesitate? Ask for insurgents ID? What?

How many troops will die in Iraq because this has taught them to hesitate a moment too long? How many, rbs’er? You do not know, because you do not care. They are just mere obstacles to your bleating of “Bubble Boy”, “Shrub”, “Dubya”....blah blah blah.
They will just add to the height of your soap box as you use the body count of troops to stand on for your opposition to the war.

It is not enough for you that these Marines have already said they will have to live daily with the repercussions of realizing they killed a child who was among the insurgents...long before the Marines arrived. Though out Haditha, the insurgents terrorized the citizens. All that does not matter to you, you play semantics: “no insurgents in the houses”. Educate yourself on the day to day life of the people of Haditha. How they are terrified of the day ALL US Marines leave Haditha, and the insurgents/AL Qaeda takes over, and the real killings begin anew.

How many troops will die today in Iraq, because they hesitated a moment too long? Do you even care?

http://forums.fingerlakes1.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=665553&page=0&fpart=2

[RedRover]

I just posted testimony from the LCpl Sharratt Article 32 by LtCol David Bolgiano over at Defend Our Marines.

It's too long to post as a thread (it's like reading a pamphlet) but you might be interested in taking a peek (it gets better as it goes along).

Essentially, the lieutenant colonel is an expert on the lawful use of force in combat and he testified for the defense.

[lilycicero]

I am there.

[lilycicero]

OK....I didn’t even get past the first answer. You know where my mind went with the spelling!

BTW...WOW! You work hard.

[Girlene]

Question, Red. Just getting into this testimony. Lt. Col. Bolgiano mentions working with Colonel Hays Parks. I’m assuming this is the same guy who testified in Chessani’s hearing. Did Parks testify for the prosecution?

[RedRover]

Maybe Girlene could turn it into an interpretative dance and come over and perform it on your lawn.

[RedRover]

Yes, Hays was a prosecution witness but Rooney said he ended up being a great witness for the defense (I forget why he said that. It was on our “live chat” with Brian Rooney thread.)

[Girlene]

“Maybe Girlene could turn it into an interpretative dance and come over and perform it on your lawn.”

I just started reading it. We’ll see when I’m finished (but not on the lawn, too cold). What do you have for refreshments?

[Girlene]

“...Rooney said he ended up being a great witness for the defense ...”

Uh-huh. And how’d that work out for them?

[Girlene]

Whoops, also meant to ping you to post 149, lily. I’m liking this Lt Col. Bolgiano. RS, here’s some interesting info on PID (see Red’s link to Bolgiano’s testimony upthread).

“...To understand rules of engagement, sometimes these terms get mixed up. And the first one that gets mixed up that I see all the time is the concept of PID.

“PID” is a term under the rules of engagement matrices as they flow down from the Chairman’s rules through the classified and unclassified ROE that has everything to do with identifying a declared hostile. And without getting into any classified aspects of the current ROE, suffice it to say that in previous conflicts, our National Command Authority has designated certain forces as declared hostile which we can kill on sight. That is the legal authority.”...

“.... But in theater, most of our responses now, because our enemies are not wearing Al-Qaeda T-shirts, it is very difficult to get PID on a declared hostile. Absent national level assets that may triangulate them electronically or otherwise, we are forced to respond to demonstrated hostile intent or hostile acts. “...

[freema]

From Red’s link at Post #142... Squares with actions in Hamdania, damnit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now, briefly, I don’t presume to lecture on the law; but I think it is important to understand the over arching guidance that comes down from on high. And the overarching guidance emanates from understanding rules of engagement accompanying the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Instruction 3121.01B. The relevant portions here is it sets forth in its unclassified version a number of things.

First of all, the unit commanders at all levels will ensure that the individuals within their respective units are trained on when and how to use force in self-defense. That is an important mandate. That is not an option. It comes down right from on high. The problem is that against a declared hostile, there is confusion as we talk about these rights and responsibilities under ROE.

To understand rules of engagement, sometimes these terms get mixed up. And the first one that gets mixed up that I see all the time is the concept of PID.

“PID” is a term under the rules of engagement matrices as they flow down from the Chairman’s rules through the classified and unclassified ROE that has everything to do with identifying a declared hostile. And without getting into any classified aspects of the current ROE, suffice it to say that in previous conflicts, our National Command Authority has designated certain forces as declared hostile which we can kill on sight. That is the legal authority.

When you think about it, that is an awesome, awesome responsibility and authority to give to a young Marine. But we do it. In other words, if a young Marine or higher level command can positively identify – and that’s a little misleading in itself, because PID really means reasonable certainty. If a command can gain PID on a target, they can engage them where they sleep, where they are doing whatever. You don’t have to wake them up to make it a fair fight. So that’s where PID has relevance. You want to make sure you are targeting the right folks.

[Girlene]

Hey, freema, we must be reading the same stuff at the same time! Lol. I like this one,

" I saw in the training material that was provided to this Battalion before they went over, and it begs the question that Hays Parks, in this Proceedings article, How do you use minimum deadly force? It is an impossible concept, nor is it legally required. You use the amount of force that is reasonable to make the threat go away. That is one of the problems out there.

[freema]

I always said I love your mind ; )

[freema]

I’ve tried to read the rest of it. Unfortunately, I’m breathing hard and that’s not because I think it’s sexy. There are a whole bunch of words there that lay out, in excruciating detail what we’ve all said in just a few words.

Kill or be killed.

While I very much appreciate the efforts, and apparently agree (can’t say for sure because I’m too mad to read it all) who in the hell has time to take it apart like that NOW, or ON THE MFING BATTLEFIELD. Not me, not boots on the ground. Scholars and lawyers, that’s who.

If the women and children weren’t part of the solution, they were part of the problem. I am so sorry for their death, if they were indeed innocent. I am so over women not bearing any responsibility for what happens to themselves or their children.

You know, I met a bunch of ‘old’ girlfriends after 9/11, asked them if they’d found themselves on Flight 93, would they fight back. Without hesitation answered in the affirmative. IF these Iraqi women weren’t part of the solution, their counterparts in country got a rude awakening...who loves ya baby. If they were part of the problem...adios to them and the ass they rode in on.

[Shelayne]

Excellent, Red. I’ll have to check it out. Thanks!

[Girlene]

I hear you, freema. I still feel very sorry for women and children and men in Iraq who get killed/maimed in a situation not of their making. But, I want our Marines and Soldiers to come home alive. I'm kind of biased, they come first to me. This is quite interesting...

"Q. Very well. In a circumstance where we have a young Marine facing small-arms fire coming from a house like house one or house two, if these Marines had reported that there was small-arms fire coming from those houses and called in air support and a 500-pound bomb had been dropped on house one or house two and women and children had been killed, after a detached assessment was made, in your professional judgment, and based upon your demonstrated expertise, what result?"

A. Solatia payments.

Q. But no murder charges?

A. No. And that's the very interesting thing. Even under the ROE construct, if you have troops in contact and a close air support mission is flown in support of those troops in contact, one does not even need to do a CDE methodology."

[Shelayne]

Kill or be killed.

Kinda the bottom line, isn't it?

[RS]

“How do you use minimum deadly force? It is an impossible concept, nor is it legally required. “

?? It has to do with colateral damage - otherwise we would simply be nuking anyone we don’t like.

( and yes, I understand that there are those here that would like that ... but wouldn’t it put all the Marines on unemployment ? )

[Shelayne]

There was a misguided message to Marines at Fallujah in April 2004. At that very time, special mission unit snipers were engaging bad guys who were self-designating as hostiles because they were scurrying from building to building with AK-47's and RPG's. And the special mission unit snippers were engaging them. And somebody told the Marines -- and I am still drilling to find out where this guidance came from, because I have spoken to the Commander and it didn't come from him. But somebody told the Marines, don't fire at these people unless they point or fire their weapon systems at you. As we will see a little further on, I will demonstrate why that is misguided and entirely legally and tactically unnecessary for someone to point or fire a weapon system at you before you would be authorized to engage.

Lord, love a duck! This just floors me! In the hell-hole that was Fallujah for goodness sake!