What do you think? I did a new graphic...
If you like this idea, I think you could save this graphic as the old one and it would magically take its place on earlier posts.
Posted on 10/19/2007 6:51:06 PM PDT by RedRover
You can take your nasty crap and shove it, RS.
“...how come those PILOTS aren’t charged with murdering innocents but these Marines who get shot in the face entering buildings do??”
Simple, the weapons we provide for them are simply not selective enough for them to be able to make that kind of differentiation. If the bombs DID have a “don’t kill women and children” settings, and the airman did NOT use it, they may very well be up for negligent manslaughter.
But you knew that ...
Why would anyone need to make a deal to tell the truth?
It was not a plea deal because Dela Cruz did not admit guilt.
Gen Mattis has said there was not sufficient evidence to charge Dela Cruz and so charges were dropped.
You can speculate that Gen Mattis is lying, that charges were dropped against Dela Cruz in exchange for him to change his testimony again. But I’d rather deal with the facts as I find them. Speculation without proof doesn’t get us anywhere.
“Why would anyone need to make a deal to tell the truth?
It was not a plea deal because Dela Cruz did not admit guilt.”
Maybe I have it wrong, but I believe that DeLaCruz was telling a different story before he got immunity.
If you are given immunity and you refuse to testify, or are found to be lying your immunity goes away, so the deal is - tell the truth this time and we will not come after you.
” You can speculate that Gen Mattis is lying, that charges were dropped against Dela Cruz in exchange for him to change his testimony again.”
That’s not what I said - I never mentioned charges and did not make that speculation.
The “deal” that DeLaCruz certainly knows is “tell the truth and we will not come after you for anything you might have done as more facts become known”. His story DID change.
“Gen Mattis has said there was not sufficient evidence to charge Dela Cruz and so charges were dropped.”
Your statement here is a contradiction -
Either there was not sufficient evidence to charge him in the first place or he WAS charged and further evidence showed they should be dropped.
If it did happen the way you present it ( the dropping of charges that were never charged ), it simply adds to the puzzle of this case.
Dela Cruz’s lawyer said he never changed his statements. Another attorney said he changed his statements five times.
Do both lawyers have reason to misrepresent the facts? Yes. Which, if either, is telling the truth? We won’t know until we get our hands on all the documents.
For now, I would go with the IO’s reports. He found Dela Cruz’s testimony worthless in any event.
“He found Dela Cruz’s testimony worthless in any event.”
Which makes granting him immunity all the more curious, does it not ?
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
I signed off yesterday after the incredible Rush auction, feeling pretty great about this week, sign on today to see this!
I am stunned.
How does one come up with “involuntary manslaughter” in a war setting anyhow?
I think I’m going to cry.
Adding to the puzzle of the case seems to be unavoidable until we have, and can check, all the facts.
Until a case goes to court martial, the investigation is ongoing. It is only with the commencement of a court martial that the accused is actually officially charged.
Charges can be changed (as in the Tatum case) or dropped entirely (as in the McConnell case) without explanation by the convening authority. One could raise the same questions about accusations being dismissed against Capt McConnell as about Dela Cruz. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), Gen Mattis does not hold press conferences.
Regarding Dela Cruz, charges were brought in Dec 06 and dismissed in April 07. I sought comment from Dela Cruz's attorneys and wrote a resulting piece here.
There was no deal, no pretrial arrangement of any kind for testimony, sources close to Sergeant Dela Cruz’s defense told me.
Lieutenant General James Mattis ordered Sergeant Dela Cruz to cooperate and testify eleven days before the charges against Sergeant Dela Cruz were dropped.
General Mattis had come to the conclusion that, on balance, the charges against Sgt. Dela Cruz should not go forward. Still, Sergeant Dela Cruz was a witness and...he will be required to testify truthfully. It would be incredible if he wasn’t.
That's the official Marine Corps version. One is welcome to challenge it, but there just aren't enough facts at hand yet to do so persuasively.
My understanding is that it is unusual for the IO recommendations to be ignored.
Any have any idea on how often that happens?
Truer words have n'er been spoken, RS.
In each of the IO reports, he puzzled over the grants as well. Why Mendoza? Why not grant Salinas immunity or charge him?
For ease of reference, here are links to pdfs for each of the IO reports in the enlisted men's hearings: SSgt Frank Wuterich, LCpl Tatum, and LCpl Sharratt.
The answer to your question.
http://appropriations.house.gov/Subcommittees/sub_def.shtml
Yep Murtha is the chairman of the defense appropriations committee.
1. ALL multi star generals are political animals.
2. Murtha has just been sued over this case and will need to testify in court about it.
3. Murtha REALLY needs at least a trial or two out of this or he may end up on the loosing side of a lawsuit.
4. Mattis just got his 4th star.
You do the math.
What I think will happen here is that Mattis will make sure to acquit these marines. But needed/wanted to get Murtha off the hook.
Just my thought.
I don’t have statistics, but it must be very rare. For one thing, there’s something like a 95% conviction rate from Article 32s through to courts-martial.
It’s rare for an IO to recommend dropping charges, and it’s rare for a convening authority to recommend any thing other than a court martial. I know that LCpl Tatum’s attorney believed from the beginning that there would be court martial, that it wouldn’t end at an Article 32.
The only flaw is that Gen Mattis will soon be out of the picture. With his fourth star, he is flying the Pendleton coop and turning it all over to LtGen-nominee Samuel Helland (who, like Mattis, is also subject to political confirmation).
What do you think? I did a new graphic...
If you like this idea, I think you could save this graphic as the old one and it would magically take its place on earlier posts.
Personal opinion, FWIW -- add the four "Cleared" below, to show all of those initially charged.
That looks good to me, Red. It might be good to focus on the remaining ones and may even satisfy the two nitpickers out of the hundreds to view these threads.
FReepmail incoming.
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.