[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]

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.

[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.