Posted on 04/22/2008 2:57:39 PM PDT by RedRover
Thanks. I didn’t know shooting instructors rated the campaign cover.
Yeah, you may have to ask some active duty guys about that.
A new one? Give a hint...Army or Marine.
When I went off the deep end I thought it would be a lonely place. Boy was I wrong. This case with Nazario leaves me WOW (with out words).
I get the same feeling reading the e-mail streams between Evan’s lawyers.
It’s out of Pendleton, but it may not go forward. Hope not, needless to say.
Speaking of Evan, I hear he’s made a friend in Ray. Hope that helps at least a little.
Let me:
I hear he’s made a friend with Ray.
Certainly, darling. I’m turning in. See you tomorrow!
“His next act, now, should be to introduce legislation to amend the law to exclude actions committed during combat or in a combat zone, from trial in Civilian courts. And to make all trials of former service members be conducted in Military Courts, not civilian courts. People can always be recalled to active duty for trial.”
And add, especially when an act was ordered over a communications device such as a radio.
This should never have gone to court. It should have been laughed out as soon as it was filed.
“No statute of limitations on murder. Any Iraq or Afghanistan vet could be charged anytime. At least one other case is brewing and charges may be coming soon.”
I’d hate to think about it but this could make asbestos litigation look like small potatoes to trial lawyers. I can just see them flocking to the middle east to recruit anyone claiming to be related to a departed terrorist. I hope this doesn’t turn into open season on GI’s, but it’s beginning to smell that way.
I'm going to stay optimistic about Nazario. The bad would be that he can't possibly get a jury of his peers unless they are all veterans.
The good (I think) is that the bar of evidence in a civilian court is much higher. Having a taped "confession" that someone else killed someone is one thing if you have something to collaborate it, like definitive forensics such as bullets that matched Nazario's weapon found during the autopsy on the BODY, intent, a NAME, none of which they have.
Perhaps someone should present to the court a tape of me confessing to the Coast Guard that Agent Fox killed and ate one of Greg Gutfield's houseboy's in a fit of rage for not being picked to be on his waterpolo team, and that during the melee I drank all of Greg's beer without asking, which is a crime.
A federal judge is deciding whether to keep or drop manslaughter charges against an Iraq war veteran.
The debate in Riverside federal court Monday afternoon raised international issues.
Jose Luis Nazario Jr. served as a Marine sergeant during Operation Phantom Fury in Fallujah, Iraq, in November 2004.
A former Riverside police officer, Nazario has pleaded not guilty to two charges of manslaughter in the deaths of two Iraqi detainees. He is being tried in federal court because he is no longer in the military.
Also, two other Marines have been charged in the deaths of two more Iraqis connected to the Nazario case.
According to court documents filed by the U.S. Attorney's Office, Nazario killed one detainee, ordered the two subordinates to kill two more and then shot the remaining detainee himself.
Attorneys for Nazario requested the case be dismissed, asserting that the law under which he was charged does not apply to combat -- and that it's not the job of the civilian courts and juries to examine combat actions.
Prosecutors said the killings violated the laws of war.
U.S. District Court Judge Stephen G. Larson debated with each side and said he probably would not rule until next week.
The case is scheduled for a jury trial on July 8.
The case centers on the 2000 Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act. The law is so recent that case law is almost non-existent.
Defense attorney Kevin McDermott said a jury of civilians would have greater difficulty understanding the rules of engagement and war.
"Do we have the fundamental fairness to go through this scenario for Sgt. Nazario to have the best possible process?" he asked.
Larson compared the case to how a civil jury learns about police rules of engagement for an excessive-force case. He then asked Assistant U.S. Attorney Jerry Behnke about future consequences of a civilian ruling, as excessive-force cases are designed to affect how a police department functions.
Behnke said the only question is whether Nazario committed a crime.
"It is not a tactical decision," Behnke said. "It is not a strategic decision."
He said the Jurisdiction Act was intended to make sure service members could be tried for crimes after they have left the military and prevent what he called an imbalance of justice.
"The message ... is that servicemen have to conduct themselves within the limit of the law," Behnke said.
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.