From left: Attorney Dan Conway, attorney Jim Culp, and Sgt.Vela's father, Curtis Carnahan
Posted on 07/02/2008 2:26:25 PM PDT by RedRover
A Marine sniper charged with two counts of manslaughter in the shooting deaths of two men he suspected of planting a roadside bomb in Iraq said Wednesday that he was doing his best to protect his troops.
"I did this action in defense of my Marines," Sgt. John "Johnny" Winnick II said at the conclusion of an investigative hearing that will help determine if the charges against him stand.
Winnick, 24, a veteran of four Iraq deployments, said he decided to shoot when he suspected the men were about to place a bomb near an intersection about a mile from a Marine outpost in the Anbar province.
Winnick said he had seen too many Marines killed and injured by roadside bombs and acted to protect his fellow service members.
"I didn't want them to end up like other Marines I have seen," the 2002 graduate of Del Mar's Winston High School said in a clear, calm voice.
Winnick faces as much as 40 years in prison if tried and convicted of the two counts of manslaughter, assault and failure to follow the military's rules of engagement.
Winnick headed a sniper team that was watching an intersection near an outpost on June 17, an area that had been his with two roadside bomb attacks. As he and his five men watched, two vehicles stopped and the men inside appeared to be preparing the surface of the roadway for a bomb, according to testimony during the two-day hearing.
A short time after those vehicles departed, an 18-wheel semi-truck stopped in the same spot. The driver got out, according to testimony, crawled under the truck and appeared to be preparing to place a jug on the roadway. At that point, Winnick fired at the man, killing him. His men also began firing at the truck and three other men who emerged from its two-seat cab.
As Winnick and another Marine from his squad ran up to the truck, a second man who had been shot was crawling toward a cell phone, prompting Winnick to fatally wound him with a shotgun blast, according to the undisputed testimony.
The two other men were evacuated by U.S. forces and treated for their wounds.
A subsequent search of the truck that appeared to be carrying soft drinks did not turn up any weapons or any bomb-making material. Testimony showed that the truck disappeared from the site within a day and was never fully searched.
Winnick was subsequently accused of failing to adhere to the military's rules of engagement when he decided to open fire.
Much of the hearing focused on confusion about those rules with Winnick's platoon commander, Lt. Dominic Corabi, testifying Monday that about a general confusion over their meaning.
Capt. Oliver Dreger, the intelligence officer for Camp Pendleton's 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment that included Winnick's platoon, testified Wednesday that the failure to secure the truck for a full-scale search left a hole in the investigation.
"It would have been nice to know precisely what was in the back of that truck," Dreger said.
Dreger said roadside bombs in the area were considered a "significant threat" and that the types of jugs Winnick reported seeing were increasingly being employed by insurgents to transport chemical compounds for roadside bombs.
But Dreger also testified under questioning from the prosecutor, Capt. Nicholas Gannon, that he was disappointed in Winnick's decision to shoot rather than call for help.
"I would have preferred he call the (quick reaction force) as it didn't appear to be an immediate threat," he said.
The Marine officer presiding over the hearing, Capt. Jeffrey King, asked Dreger of his overall view of Winnick's actions.
"I think he was acting honestly out there and trying to do the right thing," Dreger responded.
King will write a report to Lt. Gen. Samuel Helland, head of Marine Corps forces in the Middle East and the convening authority over the case, stating whether he believes there is sufficient evidence to warrant ordering Winnick to court-martial. King has the option of also stating whether he believes the evidence would likely result in a conviction if the case went to trial.
During his unsworn statement Wednesday morning, Winnick said he appreciated the legal review the shootings are undergoing.
"I understand it has to go forward in the name of justice, but sir, I am eager to get back in the fight and serve my country," he said.
No one is disputing what happened on the day of the shootings. The only thing at issue, they agreed, is whether Winnick's actions constituted a crime or was a lawful response to a perceived threat.
Given Evan’s case, I don’t blame you for getting excited.
This is another sniper hung out to dry by cowardly commanders.
BTW, how’d you spell those words again. :>)
Pardon me, but if I'm not mistaken, this is the same freaken billet as jackfatassmurtha in his legendary capacity to Vietman circa 1967.
You’re right, Ma. Murthawi was the intelligence officer for the 1st Marine Regiment in Nam and was a major. I wonder if he also didn’t back up his Marines.
If you can show me evidence that Bush has made comments supporting (or saying that the military will work it out) the Haditha Marines or the sniper, I will gladly rescind my statement.
If he did, it would be command influence.
I know that. But I don’t hear him say that. I don’t hear him say that the matter should be handled by the military when many of these soldiers are hung in the media. He doesn’t come out against that and say we should wait till the process plays out. At least I don’t hear that from him and it’s demoralizing.
You know why they probably left the truck in place and didn't search it except where they could see through windows?
Because they were afraid it could be cell-phone detonated while the soldiers were inside it. In other words, they BELIEVED Winnick. (And then they charged him.)
So they probably put in a call to EOD (or whatever Marines call EOD) and waited far away. And then the truck was removed.
It's hard to believe they didn't put a guard on it.
I realize that, but he lets the media say allegations as facts. “Marines murder civilians”. He should be telling them to let the process play out and at least give the benefit of the doubt to the soldiers risking their lives.
I think I remember being told once that any comment whatsoever on a case by the president is considered to be undue command influence.
For him to say about a particular case: “you must presume innocence” can be interpreted as him saying that the guys are innocent.
His choices are silence or dismissal.
Isn’t it a tad coincidental?
When it comes to murthawi I don’t give him the benefit of the doubt on anything and I don’t know anything about Capt. Dreger except the little from this case.
It CAN influence, but to presume innocence is not a radical concept and I don’t thing for him to say that, it “endorses” innocence, it just says they are innocent until proven guilty.
I think that you’re wrong on this one.
Everyone always reads into things said by the president.
From left: Attorney Dan Conway, attorney Jim Culp, and Sgt.Vela's father, Curtis Carnahan
Great Picture!
Wish there had been another—of a celebration. That case was just heartbreaking for everyone involved (everyone in a white hat, that is).
In this case, I would say that he over-reacted, sent a clear message to be on the side of guilt with these Marines, and therefore, engaged in UCI.
Capt. Dreger http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20070606-9999-7m6chessani.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/06/world/fg-haditha6
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1849577/posts
Dude is all up in it, jaz.
That’s a good question about who advised LtGen Helland. As far as I know, it’d have been Riggs. I believe Ewers is on to higher things.
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.