/Unavailable for comment.
//You can't handle the truth.
| Submit your comments on this article |
| Fifth Column |
| WaPo find Marine who sez Hadithia was 'Routine' |
| 2006-08-19 |
| The Marine officer who commanded the battalion involved in the Haditha killings last November did not consider the deaths of 24 Iraqis, many of them women and children, unusual and did not initiate an inquiry, according to a sworn statement he gave to military investigators in March. "I thought it was very sad, very unfortunate, but at the time, I did not suspect any wrongdoing from my Marines," Lt. Col. Jeffrey R. Chessani, commander of the 3rd Battalion of the 1st Marines, said in the statement. "I did not have any reason to believe that this was anything other than combat action," he added. Chessani's statement, provided to The Washington Post by a person sympathetic to the enlisted Marines involved in the case, helps explain why there was no investigation of the incident at the time, despite the large number of civilian deaths, and why it took several months for the U.S. military chain of command to react to the event. Sounds fair |
| Posted by:Bobby |
| #8 /Unavailable for comment. //You can't handle the truth. |
| Posted by: Mizzou Mafia 2006-08-19 23:10 |
| #7 Here's the link to Patterico's Pontifacations that I screwed up in post #5 |
| Posted by: GK 2006-08-19 21:39 |
| #6 Agree, Bama Marine, agreed. The MSM is trying to fit the real story to its presupposed narrative again. So much for the presumption of innocence, justice, and an actual verdict. This may be the most sleazy aspect of the MSM, condemning those who protect them and their freedom to print rights. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2006-08-19 18:48 |
| #5 WaPO repeats Murtha's lie: It became more controversial in May when Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), who had been briefed by top Marine officers, said at a news conference that what happened in Haditha was "much worse than reported in Time magazine" and that Marines had "killed innocent civilians in cold blood." Murtha HAD NOT been briefed when he made those accusations. HREF='http://patterico.com/2006/08/17/5015/hagees-office-responds/'>Patterico investigated and found: ...Hagee first briefed Murtha on Haditha on May 24 — a solid week after May 17, when Murtha first accused Marines of killing civilians “in cold blood.” No mention by WAPO that Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich is suing Jack Murtha for defamation. |
| Posted by: GK 2006-08-19 17:48 |
| #4 Evidence presented after the fact with intent to incriminate doesn't make that evidence "tainted" or "inadmissable." Anyone who has ever tried a case knows that all the prosecution's evidence is presented after the fact. It is all presented with the intent to incriminate. That is what the prosecution does. The term "tainted" deals with the "fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine" on Fourth Amendment issues. |
| Posted by: Sgt. D.T. 2006-08-19 14:28 |
| #3 Yeah, but all the WaPo readers understand that, right Moose? And the Lawyer who asked, "Did it occur to you that you needed to do an investigation simply so you could go to the locals and say, 'This was righteous'? . . . And be confident that you were speaking with certainty?" -- Obviously he knows that, but it doesn't sound good to the WaPo guy. I suppose he has three tours of combat duty - like Tom Cruise in "A Few Good Men". |
| Posted by: Bobby 2006-08-19 14:23 |
| #2 Their best defense is "fog of battle", that demands strong forensic evidence of wrongdoing for a conviction. In this case, evidence presented after the fact with clear intention to incriminate makes it inadmissable--it is tainted. This means that NCIS forensic materials are the only substantative evidence. Given the haste of the engagement, as one of a series of engagements, along with no on scene military condemnation, there is nothing to justify any further investigation. The only other factor would be the death, immediately beforehand of a member of their unit. But while this may go to motive, by itself it means little without objective corroboration. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-08-19 12:43 |
| #1 I served with Chessani. He is a fine officer and I think the Marines involved did their job in accordance with the ROE. Until the Marines are convicted by a jury of their PEERS, I won't believe otherwise. |
| Posted by: Bama Marine 2006-08-19 12:04 |