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 Chessanis case to charge him with dereliction of duty and violation of a lawful order. Mattis overrode the decision of the investigating officer in Tatums 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 generals 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 insurgents plan was to attack the battalion in several locations simultaneously to cause maximum carnage among Iraqi civilians.
Chessanis 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 militarys 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 Murthas outlandish rhetoric sparked two separate investigations of the battalions 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 officers 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, Tatums 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.
You can take your nasty crap and shove it, RS.
“...how come those PILOTS arent 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 Cruzs 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 Cruzs 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 wasnt.
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.