Posted on 10/30/2007 2:54:17 PM PDT by RedRover
By all accounts, Colby Vokey is a model officer in the U.S. Marine Corps. He helped command an artillery unit in Kuwait during the Gulf War in 1991.
For the past four years, Vokey has served as chief of all the Corps' defense lawyers in the western United States — and he's played a key role in some of the military's most sensitive legal issues, including the murder investigation in Haditha, Iraq, and in the debate about detainees at the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay.
"Colby Vokey?" muses retired Col. Jane Siegel "Integrity almost seems like a word too small to describe him."
Says Lt. Col. Matthew Cord, "He's just one of the best."
So when Vokey announced recently that he wanted to leave the Corps, it said something troubling about the military system of justice that he's served for almost 20 years. Vokey charges that some commanders and officials in the Bush administration have abused the system of justice, and he's going to retire from the Corps May 1, 2008.
People who know him say that privately, Vokey has acknowledged he is "angry" and "bitter." Publicly, Vokey describes himself as "fed up. I think changes to the system are well-overdue," he told NPR. "And it's a little frustrating when you see problems are highlighted time and time and again."
Turning Points
So how did Vokey, who's stationed at Camp Pendleton in California, evolve from a gung-ho warrior — who helped command an artillery unit in Desert Storm — to a disillusioned officer?
Vokey says he can remember the exact moments that he decided to become a Marine, and then later, a Marine lawyer.
Just after he arrived as a freshman at Texas A&M, he met an officer in the Corps. "He was in his Marine uniform — the green trousers, the tan shirt, the ribbons, the rank, his hat," Vokey said. "Every time he made a movement it was sharp, it was crisp. You knew who was in charge. And it was him. He looked like he was one of the best. And I wanted to be one of the best."
Years later, after he had enlisted and fought in Desert Storm, Vokey got called to jury duty in a court-martial.
Vokey said it was a routine case against a Marine accused of writing bad checks. On the surface, he said, it resembled any trial in the civilian world -– there was a military judge, a military prosecutor, and a military defense lawyer, which the Corps always provides to defendants for free. But Vokey said when he and the other jurors began deliberating, he saw one of the biggest potential problems that can prevent service members from getting a fair trial: the senior officer on the jury tried to order everybody else how to decide the verdict.
"We walked into the deliberation room, closed the door, sat down and he said, 'All right, let's convict this guy. Let's get out of here'," Vokey said. "I said, 'Whoa, sir, I think we're supposed to talk about the evidence first.' And he said, 'Jesus Christ, you think this guy's not guilty?'"
Battles in the Courtroom
Vokey said that's when he decided to fight his battles in the courtroom -– to make sure that commanders never manipulate the system of justice.
Commanders have the power to do just that, if they wanted: The same commander who accuses a Marine of breaking the law might also pick the members of the jury, which will decide if the commander is right. And that same commander might supervise the lawyer who defends the Marine against his accusations.
But Vokey teaches his defense lawyers that they have to fight commanders with every legal weapon they've got, even if it makes commanders angry.
When he trains young Marine defense lawyers, he tells them "you have one loyalty, and that's to the client," Vokey said.
Top commanders said they appreciate and need courageous defense lawyers like Vokey.
"We are an American military," said Tom Hemingway, who retired earlier this year as Brigadier General and legal advisor at the Pentagon. "We're here to support American values, and one of the things that we have in our disciplinary system, as a requirement, is that the trial system be fair."
Hemingway said that if troops believed that commanders manipulate the system of justice, "it would destroy morale. You want people in an all-volunteer force to serve willingly," Hemingway said. "If they think the system is unfair, then they're not going to re-enlist."
Cases in Point
But Vokey says that is one reason he's feeling demoralized: he has fought cases in the past few years where officials have tried to sway the system.
For example, after officials filed criminal charges against eight Marines on the grounds that they were involved in massacring 24 unarmed civilians in Haditha, Iraq, the Corps assembled one of the biggest legal teams in recent history to prosecute the men. But Vokey says officials told him he had to use a much smaller team to defend them. "It made me very angry," Vokey says. "We didn't have the people and the tools that we needed to adequately defend these Marines. It really sends a message that the Marine Corp's trying to railroad these guys."
The prosecution argued that the Marines went on a senseless rampage; Vokey argued that the men fought against insurgents as they were trained to do, and when civilians tragically got caught in the way, officials decided to turn the troops into scapegoats.
After Vokey fought fellow officers over the issue, a key general gave him permission to organize a much bigger military defense team, which has persuaded military investigators to drop many of the original charges.
Vokey has also watched thousands of Marines come back to Camp Pendleton from the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some have developed post-traumatic stress disorder or other serious mental health problems, and then taken illegal drugs or refused to show up at the base. To punish them, commanders have kicked them out of the service, with few or no benefits.
Vokey says he agrees that commanders must punish soldiers who break the rules, or discipline would fall apart. But he says the system is too rigid and should blend discipline with compassion.
"What's upsetting is we've created the situation" by sending the Marines to war, Vokey said. "They fought for their country. And if we broke them, we should fix them."
Guantanamo Bay
The U.S. has imprisoned hundreds of "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo Bay, in a military legal system that Vokey denounces as "horrific." Vokey saw the system first-hand, when he agreed two years ago to defend a teenager there who had been charged with murdering a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan. Vokey said he knew the case would be difficult, but he discovered that the legal system at Guantanamo is a "sham."
Vokey said the military staff constantly harassed him and interfered with his defense work by making it difficult even to meet with his client or show his client the government's evidence against him. The teenager confessed to killing the soldier, but he told Vokey he confessed after being shackled for hours in excruciating positions and bombarded by screeching music and flashing lights.
FBI agents have reported seeing detainees treated in similar ways, and investigators at human rights groups have reported evidence suggesting that detainees are routinely abused.
Vokey calls the system "disgraceful."
"Anytime you want to subvert the rule of law to the power of a government, you've got a very bad thing brewing," Vokey told NPR. "As an officer in the Marine Corps I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. And now we are perpetrating something that if any other country in the world was doing, we would likely step in and stop it."
Hemingway, who until recently was the top lawyer advising U.S. officials on how to handle detainees at Guantanamo, dismisses those charges. Hemingway said he has asked the staff to investigate complaints by detainees, including Vokey's client, and "we have found absolutely nothing to substantiate that." He added, "I know of no one in uniform who signed up to embarrass the United States of America by running a system that doesn't meet what we consider to be appropriate standards."
Vokey, undeterred, said the legal system at Guantanamo has left him feeling "disgusted."
'A Chilling Message'
When asked to identify exactly which officials in the military and the Bush administration he believes have abused the system of justice, Vokey avoids giving an answer. When pressed, Vokey went to his bookshelf, pulled out the Manual for Courts-Martial, and read from Article 88: "'Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the president, vice president, Congress'" and a list of other officials, he said, "'shall be punished as a court martial may direct.'"
"I need to be careful," Vokey said.
Given that he speaks out like that, Vokey said he was not completely surprised when an official at USMC headquarters called him recently to her office in Washington, D.C. and fired him as chief of defense counsels in the western United States.
Officials at the Corps would not give NPR an interview, despite repeated requests.
But when former Marine Corps lawyers heard about Vokey's firing, they were incensed. Siegel said Vokey's firing sent a chilling message that some officials don't want military lawyers to defend the Constitution too vigorously.
"I believe that Colby Vokey was pulled out of his position because he's doing too good a job," Siegel said. "I think that the people in Washington D.C. don't like that."
After Siegel and other well-known lawyers wrote a blistering letter of protest about Vokey's firing and lobbied top commanders at Marine headquarters, officials backed down and reinstated him. But critics say the Corps is just doing damage control because officials know that Vokey is planning to leave on his own.
Was Savage criticizing the Marine Corps, or the civilians appointed or elected over them?
I'd sure be interested to know how the *rate* (i.e. per 10,000 troops in country) of prosecutions for acts against the local population, compare to say the end of WW-II, while fighting was still on going, or even during the "stalemate" part of the Korean war.
In war, stuff happens, mistakes, honest mistakes, are made. Much more so when the enemy wears no uniform and hides behind the civilian populace.
You are absolutely correct.
I was speaking of his remarks on GitMO, not his comments on the treatment of fellow Marines.
From my own experience I can tell you that it will be an extremely difficult task to find someone to replace Lt. Col. Vokey, if that is at all possible. Everyone should have the chance to be represented by such a knowledgeable and caring man.
?
Sounds like he and Hillery might get along just fine -
“The U.S. has imprisoned hundreds of “enemy combatants” at Guantanamo Bay, in a military legal system that Vokey denounces as “horrific.”
“But he says the system is too rigid and should blend discipline with compassion.”
“Vokey charges that some commanders and officials in the Bush administration have abused the system of justice”
“The prosecution argued that the Marines went on a senseless rampage”
And they would know all about that seeing how they mount them with such felicity. I guess they don’t want the MSM to outdo them.
With any luck he will choose to defend military personnel from a civilian practice, like James Culp has done.
There is such a thing as a Deputy Commander. Sometimes more than one. For example, III Corps has two Deputy CGs, one of those is a Cannuk on an exchange tour. Similarly 1st Cav, part of III Corps, also has a CG and two Deputy CGs.
A family friend was a deputy commander of a different Corps.
In this particular instance, I don't think the choice of words "helped command is too much of a distortion, although giving his actual position would have been more clear. Even the Command Sergeant Major is generally part of the Command Group, and could fairly to said to *help* command the outfit (boy does he/she ever.) We used different terms in the AF, but the Command Chief or Senior Enlisted Adviser was/is always a force to be reckoned with as well)
Yeah, the guy has been around for twenty years and only now, with the Bush Administration, does he have a problem. No sale.
First, this is not even close to true, and I have a few recent Supreme Court decisions that say otherwise. Second, I did not serve on active duty just so that this could even be true. We are a better country than that, but you know that since you acknowledge a requirement for due process - which universally means an "impartial" process whose judgments reasonable men would agree to be fair based on presentation of credible evidence and the rule of law.
One of the largest problems that we have had in the prosecution of Iraq has been the neo-cons from Cheney down running roughshod over the judgment of capable, experienced military commanders. It is they who lead to the rise of the insurgency by insisting we go to war with an inadequate force and inadequate plans to deal with the post-Sadam world that they wanted to create. History will not treat such names as Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, and Bremer, among others, kindly. A lot of good men have died as a result of their amatuerish meddling with professional soliders who did know better, and a lot of the "monday-morning" quarterbacking was from Army generals who had a much better understanding of what was about to come down when Sadam was gone than these men did. Rumsfeld, I think, did a great job on transformation, but he played fast and lose with the planning process as well.
USMC's loss.
Turda is trying to frame these guys, but the Truth keeps standing in the way.
Pray for W and Our Marines
>They are not the same as civilian juries, they have different duties, and different powers.<
I think the article was written for the viewing audience which is primarily civilians and therefore civilian terms were used.
Very interesting analysis. I think Lt Col Vokey probably received more heat from trying to defend the Haditha Marines than the Gitmo Bay detainees. But, that’s just me. I think the Marines will lose a very dedicated Marine lawyer if he decides to leave.
I indicated that we *could* just shoot them, after they got due process to determine if they were indeed illegal combatants. I did not advocate that. They know too much to waste 'em for one thing,. It would not serve our long term interests to do so indiscriminately. But I sure would feel better if the worst offenders had been more than just "detained". But we'd be within our treaty obligations to execute them after that initial due process.
BTW, I too served on active duty, in the reserves, in the guard and then in reserves again.
I also discounted *recent* court decisions in favor of older ones. It's so nice how settled law crumbles under political correctness and modern sensibilities. As I'm sure you know we executed 6 German saboteurs, with two their group of 8 having their death sentences commuted for cooperation, and two others of a "second wave" were sentenced to death but the sentences were commuted. Their crims? Violation of the Laws of War (unlawful belligerency) , the Articles of War (Now UCMJ) and conspiracy to commit those crimes. They never killed anyone, something that cannot be said for many of the current "detainees". The cases were tried by *secret* military tribunals, which were found constitutional by the Supreme Court in Ex parte Quirin The only real change in treaty obligations in the intervening years is the 1949 Geneva Convention, which still contains the unlawful combatant language.
By universal agreement and practice the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.
The 1949 Geneva convention extends POW protections to militias and other irregular forces. However they do have to meet certain conditions to obtain POW status as lawful combatants.
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Most of these folks have violated serveral of those condition, all in some cases, the last 3 in many cases, and at least b and d, in most others.
Does that mean it was incorrect, but accurate? I'd say it was "dumbed down", but in reality it's just wrong. Most of the people, even those who believe every word on NPR, are not that dumb. Except maybe the Hollyweird crowd who insist on portraying the proceedings of a Court Martial as if they were a civilian trial.
I'm shocked, shocked I say, at such questions about our esteemed MSM.(/sarc)
God bless LtCol Vokey for what he's done for the Haditha Marines, but the only reason his story made NPR is because he's critical of what's going on at Gitmo. NPR doesn't give a damn about Marines unless they are accused of atrocities. They are just thrilled to get a high level Marine to criticize the Corps on the record.
Bump and a ping
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.