[RedRover]

Hey, jaz! I peeked and saw your ping but couldn’t reply. (Especially because I was in the hot seat trying to explain how I’d get another ten million in revenue next year). I’m outside grabbing a sandwich and cigarette but will have a bew grapic soon!

[jazusamo]

I figured you were peeking, Red. LOL!

No rush on the graphic, everyone knows what happened without it.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

looking thru my list of Blogs ...found this note from HotAir...which says there is LOTS going on.,...

Surprise: Charges dismissed against top-ranking Haditha Marine

*****************************EXCERPT***********************

posted at 2:13 pm on June 17, 2008 by Allahpundit

Some bloggers are claiming this means Chessani’s been cleared. Not so. It might actually be more significant than that.

***************************snip************************

The charges can be refiled but Marine central command is barred from further participation. To be clear: This doesn’t (necessarily) mean there’s insufficient evidence against Chessani to proceed, it means someone overstepped their bounds. What does that mean in this case, you ask? Read this AP story from two weeks ago. I don’t know the vagaries of military justice but it sounds like there’s supposed to be a wall of separation between the people investigating the incident and Gen. Mattis, who’s responsible for deciding whether to bring charges or not. Presumably that’s so Mattis can make up his mind based purely on the evidence and not the opinions of the investigators themselves. Did he?

*****************************snip***********************

*************************************************

I guess Folsom didn’t believe his testimony because today’s ruling appears to have been based on a presumption of “unlawful command influence” stemming from the Mattis/Ewers relationship. Any military readers willing and able to help clarify here? I could understand if Ewers was the higher ranking officer and was accused of pressuring Mattis to bring charges, an extreme danger in a case as politicized as that, but what exactly is the worry here about influence? Is it simply that, by having Mattis’s ear, Ewers may have introduced his lowly colonel’s opinion on the merits of the case into the charging process?

[brityank]

Glad to see you paying attention; well done, FRiend.

The NCTimes has updated their story:

The decision to drop the charges was based on unlawful influence by Marine brass in deciding to charge Chessani in December 2006, a military judge ruled Tuesday morning.

The watershed ruling was a major blow to the government, which has now seen seven of the eight men it charged with criminal wrongdoing exonerated.

Prosecutors have three days to appeal the ruling. If they don't, the judge, Col. Steven Folsom, ordered that a new investigation be conducted. If the charges are refiled, he said, they must be approved by a senior Marine officer who has had no association with the case.

Chessani showed no immediate reaction when Folsom announced his ruling. The judge said the case had been "tainted" by the appearance of unlawful command influence since a key prosecution witness, Col. John Ewers, also served as the legal adviser to the Marine general who approved charging Chessani.

"Unlawful command influence is the mortal enemy of military justice," Folsom said during the one-hour court session in which he announced his ruling. "The appearance of unlawful command influence is as devastating as actual manipulation of a trial."

Folsom ruled the government had failed to meet its burden of showing that the case wasn't improperly influenced.

A dismissal was necessary, Folsom said, to maintain public confidence in the military justice system.

I'll be surprised if the prosecution does not refile, though I don't see how they can meet the burden that hangs like a wet, smelly, blanket at every turn.