No Murder Charges Filed In Haditha Case

The Washington Post ^ | Jan 4, 2008 | Josh White

[RDTF]

In the WaPo today page A05

[StarCMC]

Nice way to bury it, huh?

[Red in Blue PA]

I am sure Brian William’s and Katie Couric will lead off the evening news with this/sarc

[weegee]

Add to this Ronnie Earle stepping down before bringing Tom Delay’s 3 year trial to a close.

Add to this more names being dropped from the Abramoff investiagtion.

Add to this....

The Left gets the job accomplished that they need with their show trials. It isn’t about conviction. It is about painting a “culture of corruption” among certain groups.

[StarCMC]

Courtesy ping... Bias by placement.

[RedRover]

Initially called a massacre...and later characterized as coldblooded murder...the case has turned not on an alleged rampage but on...how U.S. troops fight an insurgency in the midst of a population they seek to protect.

[LS]

This phrase is incomprehensible: will come to trial “for the killings . . . .” How can you have a trial about killings and not be a murder trial? Someone explane, please.

[Teacher317]

Manslaughter charges, maybe?

[LS]

Yeah, thought of that, but why didn’t they just say that? The way it’s worded is obtuse as hell.

[river rat]

"....to be arraigned on charges of voluntary manslaughter..."

Bull Squat!

These charges were trumped up to protect Congress Critter Murtha's career and personal wealth....

Voluntary Manslaughter is EXACTLY what one sends Marines into a troubled area to do.

IF any innocents were killed, it is the responsibility of the cowardly militant Islamists who choose to fight from behind women's skirts.

[jveritas]

Will traitor Murtha apologize for the troops?

[VRWCmember]

But, I thought John Murtha had already declared them guilty of cold-blooded murder.

[driftdiver]

This baffles me, how do you expect these soldiers to pick and choose who they should shoot in a firefight. Its not like they shot them for crossing the border while transporting drugs or something.

mind boggling

[Girlene]

Will traitor Murtha apologize for the troops?

No. Murtha doesn't particularly care what the troops think of him. The Haditha Marines were merely a means to an end in his political world.

But I found this amazing coming from the Washington Post:

Initially called a massacre by Iraqi residents of Haditha and later characterized as coldblooded murder by a U.S. congressman, the case has turned not on an alleged rampage but on a far more complex analysis of how U.S. troops fight an insurgency in the midst of a population they seek to protect.

Sounds like even Josh White, WaPo doesn't believe the most serious of charges of voluntary manslaugher against the squad leader, SSGT Frank Wuterich. The prosecutors are still trying to push the "rampage" angle with the manslaughter charges, but it seems to be coming down to an argument over Rules of Engagement in the public eye.

[Teacher317]

Don’t you just love journailism majors?

[Teacher317]

Don’t you just love journalism majors?

[lilycicero]

Sounds like even Josh White, WaPo doesn't believe the most serious of charges of voluntary manslaugher

I think Josh White is a waffle eater too.

[xzins]

Public attention to the Haditha case increased in the spring of 2006 when Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) said after briefings from military officials that the Marines had killed civilians "in cold blood."

The sheer number of articles, comments, and broadcasts that walk away from Murtha's statements convinced that he has said his information is directly from military officials is so near unanimous that it, too, has to be considered in any investigation of unlawful command influence.

There is no way to argue "he didn't really mean that," when countless, rational uninvolved reporters interpret Murtha's statements as clearly indicating that military officials had played a role behind the scenes. This isn't just "Hagee" the Commandant. This and other reports say "military officials." In other words it is plural. Multiple military officials from SOMEPLACE were attempting to influence the justice doled out to the Haditha defendants.

There is also always the recognition that Murtha's defense appropriations subcommittee puts him in a unique, powerful position in respect to the military.

Finally, the only argument the prosecution can make against Chessani is that he, personally, has by his failure to investigate these Haditha killings, made it impossible to get convictions that otherwise would have been gotten.

Just exactly HOW can they prove that they otherwise would have gotten convictions?

The Watt report indicates there was more than adequate attention paid to these killings after this day-long battle with insurgents who had hidden themselves behind women and children.

The pre-battle intelligence briefings (about insurgents, white cars, volatility of the area, etc) alone exhonerate every one of these Marines.

[Girlene]

The sheer number of articles, comments, and broadcasts that walk away from Murtha's statements convinced that he has said his information is directly from military officials is so near unanimous that it, too, has to be considered in any investigation of unlawful command influence.

Good point. Even the Washington Post notes the influence of Murtha and military officials' briefings as significant, at least in making the case publicly.

Finally, the only argument the prosecution can make against Chessani is that he, personally, has by his failure to investigate these Haditha killings, made it impossible to get convictions that otherwise would have been gotten.

And I think that's why the prosecution tried to throw the book at him.