Skip to comments.
New Revelations in Haditha Case -
SecDef Rumsfeld Set up Body to “Oversee”
EMAIL
| March 26,2008
| Thomas More Law Center
Posted on 03/26/2008 11:34:23 AM PDT by brityank
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-83 next last
Received this Email from Thomas More Law -- is there any doubt at the political machinations that are being done by both political parties any more?
1
posted on
03/26/2008 11:34:24 AM PDT
by
brityank
To: RedRover; jazusamo; xzins; Girlene; freema; darrylsharratt; Shelayne; Lancey Howard; lilycicero; ...
PING !
2
posted on
03/26/2008 11:34:58 AM PDT
by
brityank
(The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
To: brityank
3
posted on
03/26/2008 11:40:03 AM PDT
by
pissant
(THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
To: RedRover; Girlene; xzins; jazusamo; smoothsailing
An Undue Command Influence motion had already been filed on behalf of the combat Marines. I know that SSgt. Wunterich has (or is) filed, and is trying to get Murtha as a 'witness'. Have the other case litigants also filed or considered it?
4
posted on
03/26/2008 11:41:48 AM PDT
by
brityank
(The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
To: brityank
I have a file on this, although I don't have it handy. I'd thought that most of the charges were dismissed before prosecutions ever occurred?
I could be wrong about that, but if that's the case, I don't think the argument of over-agressive prosecution can hold up. That would indicate the extra bodies were assigned for oversight to make sure there weren't mistakes made.
5
posted on
03/26/2008 11:43:23 AM PDT
by
End Times Sentinel
(In Memory of my Dear Friend Henry Lee II)
To: pissant
I know your trepidation, as normally I too see the defense lawyers as just 'salting the field', but with the amount of information and detail developed from the Article 32s and testimony from other sources, I believe this to be factual.
Drop into Defend Our Marines ^ and see.
6
posted on
03/26/2008 11:46:11 AM PDT
by
brityank
(The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
To: Owl_Eagle
I'd thought that most of the charges were dismissed before prosecutions ever occurred? Check my link in #6.
Also:
The Secretary of Navy countermanded a determination by General James Mattis, USMC, ...
Mattis was following up and accepting the Investigating Officer's Recommendations, dropping or reducing charges as the testimony developed. He was replaced, and I believe some of the reason for that was the political involvement.
7
posted on
03/26/2008 11:51:34 AM PDT
by
brityank
(The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
To: brityank
Thanks very much for posting. Very interesting.
8
posted on
03/26/2008 11:54:51 AM PDT
by
PGalt
To: brityank
9
posted on
03/26/2008 12:01:32 PM PDT
by
kellynla
(Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
To: SandRat; freema; calcowgirl
10
posted on
03/26/2008 12:01:58 PM PDT
by
kellynla
(Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
To: brityank
The Thomas More Law Center now has this posted on their website as well.
http://www.thomasmore.org/qry/page.taf?id=63
I am deeply troubled by the fact that the desire to appease the liberal anti-war press and politicians has led to the prosecution of innocent Marines for purely political purposes. These prosecutions will become a scandal of historic proportions unless terminated by independently minded and virtuous military judges, commented Thompson.
This is beyond the pale. We've known all along that undue command influence was at work in these Haditha cases, but to learn that it is organised, deliberate, and reachs possibly to the door of the Oval office is mindboggling.
To: brityank
This is some pretty strong stuff, brit. Some of it we've been talking about for some time.
Revelations by top Marine Generals
Curious that they didn't name names of these Generals. Maybe it's to protect them if they're still active service but I'd think they'll have to name them eventually if this goes anywhere.
Gen Mattis decision was overridden by the Navy Secretary,
Winter's name or office has come up often in these cases, too often. He may be the head man but he shouldn't be directing the officers under him how the UCMJ should be applied.
Winter has to be the political influence in these cases, IMO. He's a snake and should be replaced.
12
posted on
03/26/2008 12:08:58 PM PDT
by
jazusamo
(DefendOurMarines.org | DefendOurTroops.org)
To: brityank
Well, this is certainly interesting. If this is true, the Thomas More Law Center needs these generals to get on record with these allegations. I am confused about Gen. Mattis recommendations being ignored. According to the article,
The Secretary of Navy countermanded a determination by General James Mattis, USMC, that Colonel Stephen Davis, USMC, LtCol Chessanis regimental commander, would receive a Non-Punitive Letter of Caution, which would not be part of his permanent record. Gen Mattis decision was overridden by the Navy Secretary, who ordered a Letter of Censure, a more severe punishment, which effectively ended this fine Marine officers career. As the consolidated convening authority in all the Haditha investigations, General Mattis decision, under normal circumstances, would be absolute and final.
IF that is true, why would Winters go above and beyond Gen. Mattis' recommendations? Here is how it was reported in the
New York Times at the time.
Navy Secretary Donald C. Winter issued letters of censure to Maj. Gen. Richard A. Huck, the commander of the Second Marine Division at the time; Col. R. Gary Sokoloski, who was the divisions lawyer and the chief of staff to General Huck; and Col. Stephen W. Davis, the commander of a regimental combat team that was in charge of the infantry battalion involved in the Haditha episode, on Nov. 19, 2005. ....
.....The letters of censure........were issued after senior generals determined that the three officers had not intended to cover up evidence or acted in a manner that warranted criminal charges under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Marine Corps said.
..........Letters of censure are issued almost always confidentially. The Marine Corpss decision to announce these censures reflects the enormous interest military leaders have in shaping the public perception that wrongdoing in Iraq, even by senior commanders, will be punished. .......
So that last paragraph does indicate how unusual it was to release these letters and that the military was trying to affect public perception. I don't know,,,,, we need more info. on record to add credence to these allegations. If true, it is VERY troubling.
13
posted on
03/26/2008 12:10:15 PM PDT
by
Girlene
To: brityank
Un - freaking - believable.
Somebody needs to sue somebody’s balls off.
I am livid beyond words.
To: brityank
The Thomas More Law Center is doing a great job for these Marines and it is obvious that an Undue Command Influence motion is necessary to preserve LTC Chesani’s rights. However, it is unlikely that the motion will make much of a difference at this stage of trial with it being more of a set-up motion for appeal, should that be necessary. True Command Influence is difficult to overcome at the initial trial court and is usually only remedied in the appeal process. Unfortunate but true.
15
posted on
03/26/2008 12:11:41 PM PDT
by
T-Bird45
(It feels like the seventies, and it shouldn't.)
To: smoothsailing
and reachs possibly to the door of the Oval office is mindboggling. You're right, Smooth. I've said for quite a while it's Winter but it could go to the Oval office because the Prez is the boss. I haven't wanted to believe that but it's becoming more clear that it could be.
16
posted on
03/26/2008 12:13:16 PM PDT
by
jazusamo
(DefendOurMarines.org | DefendOurTroops.org)
To: jazusamo
We both had the same thoughts about Winter, particularly the Winter-Murtha connection. But Rumsfeld? Man, I would never have believed it. There may be some alternative explanation for this. From the TMLC release, apparently they've got more facts yet to reveal.
To: brityank; RedRover; 4woodenboats; American Cabalist; AmericanYankee; amom; AndrewWalden; ...
Pinging the Haditha Marine list for RedRover, he may be tied up.
18
posted on
03/26/2008 12:24:31 PM PDT
by
jazusamo
(DefendOurMarines.org | DefendOurTroops.org)
To: jazusamo
If this is true I would be completely blown away that Rumsfeld is the one who endorsed it.
19
posted on
03/26/2008 12:30:48 PM PDT
by
rocksblues
(Tagline on hold)
To: jazusamo; smoothsailing
He may be the head man but he shouldn't be directing the officers under him how the UCMJ should be applied. Exactly. I saw vividly just how scummy the Republicans are over here in SE PA; Toomey and Weldon. Neither one got the support of the gang of miscreants that is infecting the core of the party; Weldon's discoveries in Able/Danger went to both sides in the Clinton/Bush cesspool.
20
posted on
03/26/2008 12:36:15 PM PDT
by
brityank
(The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-83 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson