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.
Huh? Some guy had Osama bin Laden in the sights of his UAV, but decided to call the slow reaction team at HQs to get permission. Six years, a trillion dollars and 3,000 dead American heroes later and we still don't have Osama. I am as critical of the strategic direction of this war as anyone on this forum, but that is about getting the strategy right. Once you decide to have a war and bring in marines, folks are going to get hurt. If you don't like it then don't have a war. And if you want to have able bodied fighting men for the next war, don't prosecute the guys who you told to go fight this war for fighting a war.
Like I said, this administration made its choice when it decided to have this war. Anyone who thinks Bush is such a wonderful guy needs to think about this and Haditha and things like that. Bush and his good 'ol boys and gals cannot have it both ways. If you don't like people getting hurt because of snap decisions in the heat of battle, don't have the battle. Iraq was a war at a time and place of Bushes choosing. No one forced it on him. He didn't have to have it.
And there is no wonder some poor boot on the ground is confused about the ROEs. This whole administration has twisted itself in a pretzel over trying to figure out what the ROEs are. The rule seems to be not to shoot bad guys who might not be bad guys but they are looking like bad guys.
Nice try, but you ARE talking to me, so please... :-)
softer side of Girlene
Red's been on a Clint Eastwood kick and for some reason now when I hear the whip crack in 'High Plains Drifter' it is accompanied by a man screaming "Girlene". How exciting is THAT?
Okay, enough kidding around. I want to end this post with this thought, maybe you are already familiar with it:
Thorough investigation, my nether anatomy. If the President and commander in chief did not have someone of senior rank over in Iraq as his personal representative, an honest competent straight shooter to keep an eye on things and report directly back, someone who could get the straight scoop after a helicopter ride and a few personal interviews with the folks running the thing, then Bush has no idea what the words Commander in Chief mean, or smart and competent either (think Harriet Miers). But this is so typical. We can thank god that we have Gates and Petraeus, but remember folks, Gates is a Bush1 man. Bush2 had to run through all of his good 'ol boys first. Sounds like there are still a bunch of them around though.
Nice post Andy, I really agree 100% with you.
So this administration prosecutes him. How can anyone defend this president after this and Haditha.
That was post #82, BTW
I think that you will find that the political appointees in the Pentagon who have been doing this lack any of the choicer parts, brains or ba?!s, that you would want to stick in said grinder.
I just want it to be an object lesson anyway. So arms and legs will do just fine.
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.