Manslaughter case against Marine sniper under way [Sgt John Winnick]

North County Times ^ | July 1, 2008 | MARK WALKER

[4woodenboats]

I don't know, xzins. The prosecution already scored an "own goal" with this witness, having proved true his warning.

Lt. Corabi could be a red hot, chainsaw wielding nightmare for the prosecution should he go public with his assessment.

You'd know about what they might try later on, but for now, the only smart thing the prosecution can do is run like hell from this one.

Or maybe they'll keep going, and this cluster!!!k will finally blow up on them, big time.

[jazusamo]

Here's the only thing he quotes Capt. Jeffrey King as saying, Red and there's not much of anything different in the updated piece.

"What I'm most concerned with is what those guys saw out there," King said at one point during Tuesday's court session.

MILITARY: Sniper's actions defended during hearing

Sounds like Capt. King is wanting the right info. From what's been explained on what they saw so far I believe it sounds good for Sgt. Winnick.

[Lancey Howard]

Motives in killing of Iraqi civilians traded at Article 32 hearing

I know this is the Democrat press and everything, but do these writers have to be so brazen in their lying? "Iraqi civilians"? Is it not established for certain that the casualties were Syrian?

[Lancey Howard]

THIS is an interesting paragraph from tonight's update in the North County Times. (At least, I hadn't seen this before):

The manslaughter charges against Winnick allege that he killed two men from the truck. Those men were later identified as Syrians. The assault charges allege that he ordered his men to fire at the other two men whose nationalities have not been confirmed.

They know the two dead guys were Syrians but the nationality of the two survivors has "not been confirmed"??
Oh, okay....

[RedRover]

Thanks, jaz! Sounds promising. Fingers crossed!

[RedRover]

NCIS strikes again.

[RedRover]

And speaking of NCIS, there was a bit of information in an AP ARTICLE:

Lt Corabi testified that investigators did not examine the truck but said investigators later told him the victims were not building a roadside bomb.

Well, alrighty then.

[RedRover]

And speaking of NCIS, there was a bit of information in an AP ARTICLE:

Lt Corabi testified that investigators did not examine the truck but said investigators later told him the victims were not building a roadside bomb.

Well, alrighty then.

[RedRover]

Day Two starts this morning. It’s expected to wrap up today.

[Girlene]

Lt Corabi testified that investigators did not examine the truck but said investigators later told him the victims were not building a roadside bomb.

Yes, I noticed that, Red. You'd think someone would have examined it before determining the Syrians weren't up to anything.

[tatsinfla]

because some young hotshot prosecutor wants to try and make a name for himself.

[xzins]

The truck they fired on disappeared from the intersection a couple of days after the shooting and was never fully searched, Wazenkewitz said.

How in the world can anyone claim there was no intent to either plant an IED or practice planting IEDs when no one ever searched the truck?

This is pure witchhunt.

I think the prosectors in this one should be charged with presenting frivolous accusations.

A trained squad that's allowed to engage on their own observations. They see something. It appears at the time to be IED activity, and in retrospect it still seems to be IED activity. They had dead SYRIANS, and the have other participants who've fled but have no nationality. And now we know that they didn't even search the truck.

I don't see how there's any way these guys get convicted.

Again, they should be reimbursed all expenses, incidentals, and the government should have to pay punitive damages.

And whoever the brain was who decided to prosecute this should be charged with frivolous prosecution. That would be the beginnings of counter-balancing this new JAG ROE: "Prosecute at all costs!"

[RedRover]

Same investigative pattern as in the Sharratt case and others I’m sure.

All Middle Easterners are considered innocent and no further investigation is needed.

[RedRover]

If so, his name’s going to be mud by the time this is over.

[tatsinfla]

one would hope but even in the everyday world you have people being prosecuted for petty crimes that should really fly under the radar with nothing more than a fine. but again you have the young hotshots that what to build thier reputation at the expense of those that can’t afford to defend themselves. its not like back in the day when you got caught with some pot and you paid a small fine for a misdemeanor.

[RedRover]

Agreed, but this is a military case and everyone involved (including the prosecutor) is a Marine.

The Corps leadership must understand that “Semper Fidelis” is being replaced with “We Eat Our Young” in the minds of riflemen. Unless the leadership is willing to put a stop to this, the Marine Corps will go the way of other great institutions that only exist in memory.

[tatsinfla]

even the young military prosecutors are looking to build a rep for when they enter the civilan world. but i agree with you 100%. it has gotten out of hand. if this kind of actions keep up who in thier right mind will volunteer for the service.

[brityank]

OK; I'm going to go out on a limb here, and base my question on the stated facts from Sgt. Winnick and his Team and immediate Command as being true with no shades of grey.

Sgt. Winnick and his team have all had their judgment and status not just questioned by competent authority, but twisted and maligned by those who have no standing in their command even though they may work for the same branch, although several other branches also come into play. Once Winnick is fully cleared (which I expect him to be) can he and his team counter-sue and bring full charges all the way up through his chain of command? As Red and others know, I spent time in the USNavy, so I have a little (dangerous - I know) knowledge of the UCMJ as it applies from there.

If I were on a detail directed by my CoM, part of the Deck Division, and given a countermanding order from someone outside of my CoM the expectation is that I will make a decision whether to follow that countermanding order based on the immediate situation and foreseeable results. I take the chance of being hauled up on charges, but can force the issue by request for CM after the fact and prefer my own charges at that time.

Not the same; but I'm repairing a gun director in a lull in the battle, and some other officer tells me to drop what I'm doing to help others load ammo. No ammo, the gun and my director are useless; the director not fixed makes the gun useless so ammo won't help. Didn't happen, but was an exercise my Division Officer took us through, among others.

In the "Comment Section" this morning I found the following ( I reformatted it ) from one of the more persistent posters there, AWcryingoutloud:

From a military site:
"ROE must evolve with mission requirements and be tailored to mission realities.
ROE should be a flexible instrument best designed to support the mission through various operational phases and SHOULD REFLECT CHANGES IN THE THREAT."
Are the investigators and prosecutors not aware of this?

"ROE are defined as "directives issued by competent military authority which delineate the circumstances and limitations under which United States forces will initiate and/or continue combat engagement with other forces encountered."
"ROE differ in wartime to REFLECT THE INCREASED JUSTIFICATION FOR USING FORCE."

The Army Lawyer, November 2000:
"Therefore, jurisdiction-specific standards on the use of force should comply with the law to the maximum extent practicable WITHOUT FORFEITING THE INHERENT RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE.

In any area where the military conducts activity, the law of the local jurisdiction ordinarily applies. The Force Standing ROE and Rules of Deadly [Force] merely establish policy; they do not supersede law. Nonetheless, they imperil the liberty of military personnel by authorizing force that does not comply with the law, exposing them to criminal liability and severe penalties. Consequently, legal review procedures should determine the legal basis for the use of force, compare the law to the military rules,AND MODIFY THE RULES ACCORDINGLY.

Alternatively, if the rules do not incorporate the law, then U.S. policy should articulate the fact that CERTAIN U.S.INTERESTS OUTWEIGH THE RISKS OF VIOLATING THE LAW. More importantly, THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SHOULD INFORM MILITARY PERSONNEL OF THE PERSONAL CRIMINAL LIABILITY RISKS IMPOSED ON THEM BY A POLICY THAT DOES NOT FOLLOW THE LAW."
This was written 8 years ago and yet the military, to this day, chooses to create war criminals of decent Marines like Sgt. Winnick and others. The military has no right to accuse men like Winnick, Chessani, Wuterich, Hutchins, and many others of committing war crimes. Murtha and those who have leaked unauthorized information for the past two years "should" be held accountable and Senior military leaders should be held accountable for writing rules of war and persecuting those who believe they're following them. When they make an honest decision or judgment call, they make them as they see them at the time. They have every right to do so. It does not warrant criminal scrutiny by anyone, military or civilian.

(My highlight at the bottom.)
To my mind, there are no "rules" of war -- you are involved at war because the "rules" failed, and you either win or lose that war. Once the war is concluded and one side wrests victory, then the "rules" can be brought back into play.

[RedRover]

Very interesting points, brit. ROE seems like the world's biggest load of nonsense. If Day One of the Winnick hearing established anything, it's that NO ONE knew could say what the ROE was.

Sgt Winnink had been told the Marine Corps eats its young. He knew what happened to SSgt Wuterich. He knew he could be second-guessed and prosecuted...But he still decided the threat was so great he should pull the trigger.

The burden is on the prosecution to prove that Sgt Winnick knew the ROE and that he violated it. They've failed to prove either one.

[brityank]

If Day One of the Winnick hearing established anything, it's that NO ONE knew could say what the ROE was.

Seems from the info gleaned from Hamdaniyah, Haditha, Iskandaryah, et al; the ROE gets decided AFTER the action on the ground.

Something else I noted from my post above:

In any area where the military conducts activity, the law of the local jurisdiction ordinarily applies.

That is just plain wrong. Under US Command, US law should apply, unless and until the Local Government can take effective charge and we withdraw. Can you imagine the scenario of charging a troop with rape, then having to get two or more Eyewitnesses that the rape did occur? I believe that is the standard under Sharia "justice", and is proof that it is not justice as we know it or will accept. Also in their system, a 'Muslim' carries more veracity than any outsider.

More proof that we need to disband, defund, and deport the UN and its insidious rules and ministrations such as the World Court, as I'm certain that is where this trash is coming from.