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.
Here is Lt Gen James N Mattis official biography from the USMC
” http://www.usmc.mil/genbios2.nsf/0/35E4CF7347323B108525680800620EED?opendocument “
ps: hard to believe he ordered the Court Martial trials to proceed...The original Indictment cited here on FR a couple of nights ago is very long, very detailed, and has conflicting testimony..I would hope that Gen. Mattis’ only reason for ordering the Trials to continue is to play it by the book and have a military Courts Martial Board convene to review the case, then he will review the results of that Boards’ rulings. If he is a fair man and above political pressure, hopefully he will do the right thing.
I know, Lancey, those same thoughts have crossed my mind. I just hope we're both wrong. Hopefully, we're missing something, damn.
Tomorrow there be more dragons.
"I'll be on WRKO's Pundit Review Radio Sunday at 7pm (680am if you're in the area or you can get it through internet streaming) participating in the first interview CPL Justin Sharatt has given about the [Haditha] incident. We've spoken to Justin's father Darrell a couple of times, but this will be the first time Justin has spoken out (and if I'm not mistaken he's out of the Marine Corps now). It should be an interesting show. The irony of all this is Sharatt's comgressional Rep is the one and only JOHN MURTHA. (!!!)"
No. A Court Martial is simply a trial. It is a military (martial) trial court. Therefore, they call it a court martial.
These Marines have had their pre-trial hearing (Art 32), and now they are going to their actual trial.
This is, nonetheless, a sad thing. There is nothing irrational in the belief that it is being done for political reasons. The command influence in this case has made it impossible ever to believe that these Marines have done anything wrong.
Thank you for the ping, g’nad.
Please ping me to this story?
Chessani said he never ordered a formal investigation because he believed the deaths resulted from lawful combat.
And Tatum did what he was trained to do.
I predict that Chessani & Tatum will both be exonerated just like all the rest.
“America is not at war. The Marine Corps is at war; America is at the mall.”
Semper Fi,
Kelly
Thank you, g’nad. Please tell the lieutenant colonel that the entire country has not gone crazy, that we believe in him, will pray for him, and will support him to the end.
I'll post the WRKO interview as well (unless someone else bets me to it, which they're welcome to do!)
I wonder if Murtha had kept his mouth shut if that wouldn't have been the case.
And I wonder if these court martials are a way of letting a powerful Democrat save face.
All those videos on the net of AC-130’s taking out crowds of people, F-16’s taking out crowds of people, houses with women and children...how come those PILOTS aren’t charged with murdering innocents but these Marines who get shot in the face entering buildings do??
You have our prayers, Mom. We need to revive our fund-raising efforts as well. I know it must feel like the world has crash-landed on your heads. I hope we can lift at least some of that weight.
Since Tatum is being charged with involuntary manslaughter, how much you want to bet that Mattis recommends involuntary manslaughter for Wuterich instead of negligent homicide?
So far, at least, no one has been charged with what Murtha said happened: cold-blooded murder.
I think you’re right—unless Mattis does what the prosecution wants and goes for murder charges. In way, that would be much easier for the defense.
I don’t know, Chick. I was surprised Mattis recommended this go forward to trial. But I was really surprised that he upped the charges to involuntary manslaughter vs. what was recommended for Wuterich (negligent homicide).
I think Tatum’s original charges were for two murders in house #2 and four “unlawfully killed” from house 1. I’m not sure if he was also charged with “assault” on the two children that survived house 1. Red, correct me if I’m wrong here.
So are the two murders reduced to involuntary manslaughter, the “unlawfully killed” charges reduced to reckless endangerment, and the aggravated assault for the two surviving children? The press release doesn’t spell it out.
Yeah, exactly so.
I believe it is because of a contextual difference.
One is the nameless, faceless, impersonal war machine grinding bodies under its wheels. The way it is presented makes it much easier to ignore, less comprehensible. A group endeavor.
The other is personal, it has a name, a face, and is presented as cold and calculated, individual.
In a society raised on television, etc., where murder gets lots of air time, it is more comprehensible, more easily digested.
And don’t you want your thinking done for you?
Whoever controls the media, controls the mind.
Charge I: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 118 (Unpremeditated murder) (Maximum punishment: such punishment other than death as a court-martial may direct. [Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for life])
Specification 1: did murder Noor Salim Rasif.
Specification 2: did murder Zainab Unes Salim.
Charge II: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 134 (Negligent Homicide) (Maximum punishment: Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 3 years)
Specification 1: did unlawfully kill Abdul Hameed Husin Ali.
Specification 2: did unlawfully kill Guhid Abdalhamid Hasan.
Specification 3: did unlawfully kill Asmaa Salman Rasif, also known as Asamaa Salman Rasif.
Specification 4: did unlawfully kill Abdullah Waleed Abdul Hameed, also known as Abdullah Waleed Abdul.
Charge III: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 128 (Assault) (Maximum punishment: Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 8 years)
Specification: did commit an assault upon Eman Waleed Al Hameed and Abid Al Rahman Waleed Al Hameed.
“The captions are not up to date.”
You’re right - Just how do you label someone who cut a deal to tell the truth in exchange for immunity “cleared” ?
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.