Posted on 10/19/2007 6:51:06 PM PDT by RedRover
Camp Pendleton, California – U.S. Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey R. Chessani and Lance Corporal Stephen B. Tatum will face general courts-martial for their roles in a controversial firefight following an al Qaeda-led insurgent ambush in Haditha, Iraq almost three years ago in which 24 Iraqi citizens died.
Also on trial is whether combatants caught in a no-quarter duel can be successfully prosecuted for the life or death decisions they make in the white-hot crucible of combat.
The decision to bring the two Marines to courts-martial was made by Lieutenant General James N. Mattis, the convening authority in the case and its final arbiter. He upheld the recommendation of the investigating officer in Chessani’s case to charge him with dereliction of duty and violation of a lawful order. Mattis overrode the decision of the investigating officer in Tatum’s case to dismiss all the charges – including multiple counts of unpremeditated murder - against the veteran enlisted Marine.
Instead, Mattis referred charges against Tatum for involuntary manslaughter, reckless endangerment and aggravated assault. He dismissed charges of murder and negligent homicide against the survivor of the horrific “Hell House” fight at Fallujah, Iraq in November 2004.
The general’s decision brought an immediate reaction from the defense lawyers.
“Referring this case to trial imperils every young Marine and soldier who faces a split second decision in combat,” according to a statement from veteran Marines Jack Zimmerman and Kyle R. Sampson, the Houston, Texas attorneys who represent Tatum. Zimmerman, a former infantryman, was decorated for valor twice while serving in Vietnam.
Chessani, a career Marine infantryman, is the former commanding officer of 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines. Chessani is charged with dereliction of duty and violation of a lawful order for failing to accurately report and investigate the incident.
His battalion was attacked in a coordinated al Qaeda-led “complex ambush” on December 19, 2005, the Marine Corps says. During the engagement one Marine was killed and 11 others were wounded. According to intelligence information gleaned from Iraqi informants and captured insurgents the insurgent’s plan was to attack the battalion in several locations simultaneously to cause maximum carnage among Iraqi civilians.
Chessani’s attorneys at the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan, said they are particularly disappointed with the decision to bring their client to trial because of the “chilling effect” the case has on the military’s sacrosanct chain of command.
Attorney Brian Rooney, himself a Marine combat veteran and one of the attorneys representing Chessani said second-guessing the actions of combatants is tantamount to the Soviet “commissar” theory of command. During the Communist era of the former Soviet Union political officers called commissars could countermand the orders of combat leaders in the name of political expediency.
“You might as well have a political officer in every battalion to make sure every order is politically correct,” Rooney said.
Both Marines had been in combat in Iraq in al Anbar Province during two deployments when the Haditha incident occurred. The incident began when a squad from Kilo Company, 3/1 was ambushed December 19, 2005 on a road at the outskirts of Haditha. In the ensuing day-long fight 24 Iraqi citizens were killed in the cross-fire between insurgents and counter-attacking Marines.
Three months later the attack was brought to light in a series of inaccurate and highly inflammatory reports initiated by a March 6, 2006 article in Time Magazine by reporter Tim McGirk. His report and those that followed claimed the Marines had killed the Iraqis in cold-blood in retaliation for the death of Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas. The story was picked up by Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha, who went on international television to claim the Marines had killed the Iraqis for revenge.
The furor generated by the reports and Murtha’s outlandish rhetoric sparked two separate investigations of the battalion’s actions. Last December those investigations resulted in the charging of eight Marines with murder, assault, and dereliction of duty for allegedly covering up the crimes. Subsequently four of those Marines were exonerated.
During the summer-long Article 32 investigatory hearings at Camp Pendleton the hearing officers charged with looking into the matter determined no murders had been committed.
So far Chessani and Tatum are the only 3/1 Marine ordered to courts-martial in the incident. Three other Marines, including Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich, the squad leader of the ambushed squad, still face the possibility of general court-martial.
Wuterich is waiting to discover whether he will be charged with 17 counts of unpremeditated murder and uttering a false statement. Lt. Col. Paul Ware, the investigating officer in his case, recommended that the murder charges be reduced to seven counts of negligent homicide. Mattis can accept the investigating officer’s recommendations, ignore them, or charge him with other offenses.
One source close to the investigation said Friday afternoon that Wuterich is expected to learn his fate sometime next week. In addition, a junior officer, Lieutenant Andrew Grayson, must still undergo ab Article 32 investigation to determine whether there is enough evidence to bring them to trial for dereliction of duty.
Despite Mattis’ decision to bring the two Marines to trial their lawyers remain confident they will be exonerated.
“We are very disappointed that the Commanding General did not follow the recommendation to withdraw and dismiss all charges made by the experienced trial judge who heard all the evidence during the Article 32 Investigation,” Tatum’s attorneys said. “However, Lance Corporal Tatum did not commit any crime, and we will take the fight to the courtroom. We will vigorously challenge the government's case, and nothing will be left undone in defense of this fine young Marine.
“We remain convinced that the military justice system eventually will reach the right result,” they concluded.
Rooney offered similar sentiments.
“We expect that Lieutenant Colonel Chessani will be fully exonerated when this goes to trial. While we are disappointed with the decision we look forward to going to court-martial to show that no stone was left unturned and nothing was swept under the rug in an effort to discover the truth of what happened at Haditha,” Rooney said.
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.
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
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.
I am there.
OK....I didn’t even get past the first answer. You know where my mind went with the spelling!
BTW...WOW! You work hard.
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?
Maybe Girlene could turn it into an interpretative dance and come over and perform it on your lawn.
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.)
“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?
“...Rooney said he ended up being a great witness for the defense ...”
Uh-huh. And how’d that work out for them?
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. “...
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.
I always said I love your mind ; )
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.
Excellent, Red. I’ll have to check it out. Thanks!
Kinda the bottom line, isn't it?
“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 ? )
Lord, love a duck! This just floors me! In the hell-hole that was Fallujah for goodness sake!
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.