Posted on 07/01/2008 1:16:51 PM PDT by RedRover
CAMP PENDLETON -- A Marine sniper charged with two counts of manslaughter and two counts of assault in the shooting of four Syrians last year had the authority to shoot suspected insurgents if he deemed they posed a threat, his platoon commander testified Tuesday morning.
Lt. Dominic Corabi, commander of a scout sniper platoon from Camp Pendleton's 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, said Sgt. John "Johnny" Winnick II had that authority when he led a six-man surveillance team on a mission near Lake Tharthar in the Anbar province of Iraq on June 17.
Winnick, 24, a San Diego native and 2002 graduate of Del Mar's Winston High School, is the subject of an investigative hearing taking place at the base to determine if the charges against him should stand.
"They were told to be prepared to engage targets of opportunity," Corabi testified, adding members of sniper teams were routinely taught that a surveillance mission can quickly transition to combat.
Winnick's sniper team was watching a mosque and abandoned store for possible insurgent activity when a series of vehicles stopped at an intersection with men emerging and appearing to plant a roadside bomb, team member Sgt. Alexander Wazenkewitz testified.
Shortly after those vehicles departed, an 18-wheel truck drove up and stopped near the same spot with the driver getting out, crawling under the truck and removing a black bag, Wazenkewitz said. Three other men then climbed out of the cab, he said.
"It looked the guy was laying down an IED," Wazenkewitz said. "It was definitely a threat."
At that point, Wazenkewitz said Winnick fired a shot from his sniper rifle at the truck driver and directed the five men he was leading to "suppress the vehicle," meaning they were to fire at the other men and at the truck to disable it.
Under questioning from Winnick's attorney Gary Myers, Wazenkewitz said he believed what the squad did that day was within the military's rules of engagement.
"If you think the guy is a threat and should be shot, you do it," he said.
Wazenkewitz called Winnick, whose parents and family members sat in the gallery watching the hearing unfold in a small base courtroom, a "great teacher and leader."
The incident took place as the unit was about a month into an Iraqi assignment. It was the squad's first engagement.
Wazenkewitz also testified that Marines had been told the insurgency was moving away from regular explosives to construct roadside bombs and was beginning to use the more portable and less detectable compounds such as ammonium nitrate. The truck they fired on disappeared from the intersection within hours of the shooting and was never searched, Wazenkewitz said.
Capt. Jeffrey King is presiding over the hearing as the investigative officer. When it concludes, he will write a recommendation stating whether he believes there is sufficient evidence to warrant Winnick face trial by court-martial.
The manslaughter charges against him allege that he killed one of the Syrians and killed or directed fire that killed a second man. The assault charges allege he ordered his men to fire at the other two, committing all the acts in violation of the rules of engagement.
Winnick was on his fourth combat assignment when the incident took place.
Winnick's case is the fourth involving local Marines accused of unlawful civilian killings in Iraq. He is expected to make an unsworn statement, meaning whatever he says is not subject to cross-examination by prosecutors.
If ordered to trial and convicted, Winnick could be sentenced to as much as 40 years in prison and a dishonorable discharge.
That is a sad article, girl. The Co Cdr briefed his men that “the Marine Corps eats its young.” The Lt said he tried to get clarification, because of Haditha, but no one knew or would tell what the proper info was.
The Sgt was told there were bomb planting suspects. He’d seen it before and been awarded for it. He sees it again, opens fire, and then CHARGES the site with his squad. (That above all else proves he was not just shooting people for the heck of it.)
Officers show up to inspect the site and find no bomb.
But, 2 of the dead engaged in this bomb-planting like activity were SYRIANS and not Iraqis.
I’d say that the squad and Winnick had tumbled on a dry run training exercise.
Be that as it may, Sgt Winnick did not violate his orders, his ROE, or his oath.
NO WAY this young man should be in jail for 40 years.
And kudos to his Lt for refusing to give him a bad evaluation. Also, contempt for the officers who ordered the Lt to do so.
It seems after officers determined no IED had been planted, Winnick was relieved of duty, but his platoon commander refused to give him a negative evaluation even though he was ordered to.
Seems the platoon commander. Lt. Dominic Corabi, was trying to be realistic with his Marines telling them to be careful, but when push came to shove, he stood up for them.
That’s exactly what it looks like to me, Girl. Lt. Dominic Corabi is a stand up guy as far as I’m concerned.
Haditha'd, like Nifonged is now a verb.
Planted or not --- doesn't matter.
His stated ROE in his "Force Protection" role -- authorized him to "shoot suspected insurgents if he deemed they posed a threat"...
End of story...
The Marine Corps had ALREADY trained and vetted this young man as a Sniper, with the decision or life or death in HIS hands.
At worse - if they disagree with his judgement, then assign him a different MOS, but you don't try him for murder..
This is bullshit.
It is a sad article. From the AP article (which we can’t post), the area was known for frequent roadside bomb attacks. The truck stopped at the same spot where just days earlier two people had been seen scooping out the area. The radio communications guy, Cpl. Alexander Wazenkewitz, indicated they used force because they felt threatened. He said he didn’t want to die.....that’s why they did it.
Does it get much simpler than that? Sgt. Winnick II had previously been given a meritorious promotion for killing an insurgent planting a roadside bomb. If this one had panned out the same, he’d probably have been given another. Since it wasn’t what he thought it was, he deserves 40 years?
You’ve got to wonder why any Marine lawyer looking at the facts of this case would ever recommend charges that would total 40 years.
At worst, this is a battlefield mistake.
There is no doubt that a sniper team in the field MUST consider itself in contact with the enemy.
Nifonged means to be falsely accused in order to advance someone’s career.
Hadithad means to be falsely charged by Monday morning quarterbacks in CYA mode.
Moral of the Story: Next time, call in an airstrike. You get them all & who's to say if they were/weren't insurgents when they're just a greasey spot along an empty stretch of desert road.
I could try it on your cute little Beretta.
That is just stunning. I am still trying to sort through the implications of a company commander making that statement to men facing combat situations.
I got a phone call from an Vietnam War Marine who read that quote and is so angry he's spitting nails.
First, he sounds like an honest Company Commander. As of late, it is true that “the Marine Corps eats its young.”
Second, that comment being in print will get him hauled before some flag officer, either overtly or covertly, and he’ll be taught the finer points of a political Marine Corps....”keep your mouth shut, Captain, if you value your career.” (And secretly, that flag will tell the field grade to zero this guy out on his next eval. And that will happen, because this is the group whose officers decided to press this issue in the first place.)
These stories are coming now from all over. We must fear for the Marine Corps.
I know I’ve read someplace that the major foreign Al-Qaeda players were Saudi, Jordanian, and Syrian. The Syrians also facilitate the Iranians in Lebanon via the Hezbollah connection.
Neither makes 2 Syrians practicing clandestine bomb placement seem like a positive thing.
Winnick was right. Take ‘em out.
G’Night, Red. If it comes out before long I’ll post it here in part.
Thanks, jaz! I’ll probably be getting up at four in the morning or so. You know how us oldtimers get.
I have a question.. in Haditha it all started with a media story and then Marine Corps reacting to that story.
In this case we don't seem to have this catalyst (unless I missed it, I admit I have been out of circulation for awhile).
So the question that is running through my head right now is
WHY?
The best hypothesis I’ve heard is that the JAGs want to push the issue of ROE to get a bright, red line to use as precedent. Word is that battalion legal officers are as confused as everyone else. And they could be found derelict of duty like Capt Stone in the Haditha case.
Don’t know if that explanation holds water. But I haven’t heard any other that comes close to making any sense of this.
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.