Article

2007-04-25 Iraq

Bombshell Cripples Case Against Haditha Marines

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2007-04-25 16:49|| || Front Page|| [8 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Figured as much.

Posted by exJAG 2007-04-25 17:15|| 2007-04-25 17:15|| Front Page Top

#2 Those familiar with his testimony, which included masses of classified material, insist that the narratives of the day's events disclosed by NewsMax.com in a long series of stories about Haditha were accurate presentations of the true facts and a total repudiation of all the slanderous material leaked by the Pentagon to the media.

What is the Pentagon doing about this "leak"? A full-scale witch hunt had better be going on.

the facts of what happened early that November morning clearly show that the incident was part of a planned ambush by insurgent forces, that the civilians tragically killed in the were used as human shields by the insurgents ...

... His testimony shows the complexity of the attack this day, the callousness of the terrorists toward the local civilians, whom they use to their advantage

Furthermore, if for once our Marines were finally shooting through human shields to nail their terrorist attackers then they should be given medals for combat valor. The stress that they must experience in doing so must be appalling.

The more often that human shields end up dead, the less likely they will be to volunteer in the future. Terrorists who are willing to use human shields represent the most vile and dangerous sort of combatants. Their elimination even at the cost of civilian lives must remain a top priority.

It must be understood that deterring civilian cooperation with the terrorists at every turn is absolutely imperative. Shooting through human shields, strafing car swarms and capping children who go out to collect weapons and ammunition at firefight scenes are all important measures to discourage civilian cooperation.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-04-25 17:22|| 2007-04-25 17:22|| Front Page Top

#3 Question for exJAG and other mil/ex-mil types here: let's say the case collapses and the prosecution (or the judge) brings the proceedings to an end without any convictions.

As I understand it, the defendants could still be punished by an administrative hearing or mechanism. Is that correct?

I'm looking for knowledge here. Thanks.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2007-04-25 17:49|| 2007-04-25 17:49|| Front Page Top

#4 TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 47 > SUBCHAPTER XI > § 938

§ 938. Art. 138. Complaints of wrongs

Any member of the armed forces who believes himself wronged by his commanding officer, and who, upon due application to that commanding officer, is refused redress, may complain to any superior commissioned officer, who shall forward the complaint to the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the officer against whom it is made. The officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction shall examine into the complaint and take proper measures for redressing the wrong complained of; and he shall, as soon as possible, send to the Secretary concerned a true statement of that complaint, with the proceedings had thereon.

- It's only just begun. Can you say Nifong'd boys and girls.

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-04-25 18:32|| 2007-04-25 18:32|| Front Page Top

#5 This is another case of somebody covering something up. Whoever was holding this needs to swing.
What say you, Murtha? Murtha, Hello?

Posted by USN. Ret. 2007-04-25 18:37|| 2007-04-25 18:37|| Front Page Top

#6 More to the point, is there any penalty attached to prosecuting a case known to be unfounded, leaking false or slanted information to the press, or otherwise acting dishonourably in a case where not only the defendents' standing as members of the military, but their very lives could be forfeit if found guilty?

Posted by trailing wife 2007-04-25 18:44|| 2007-04-25 18:44|| Front Page Top

#7 D'you suppose the Marines that were charged, and those who were slandered by accusations in the media will get any apology upon being exhonerated, from the likes of Murtha, from the MSM and from turds like Sy Hersh who were willing to fling around charges of war crimes and atrocities?

Nah, I don't think so, either.

Posted by Sgt. Mom 2007-04-25 18:45|| www.ncobrief.com]">[www.ncobrief.com] 2007-04-25 18:45|| Front Page Top

#8 This brings to mind the story about a month or so ago, where the Marine Special Operations Command detachment was supposedly "thrown out" of Afghanistan by the Army General in charge. Is that another false accusation? Has anyone heard any more about that story?
This account is somewhat unclear. There seem to be two issues. One is the leaking of false and negative stories by the pentagon. The other is whether the prosecution knew of this exculpatory evidence early on. In regular crimial prosecutions, witholding exculpatory evidence from the defense is called "Brady Error" for Brady v. Maryland. I am sure there is a comparable UCMJ provision. I am sure ex-jag would know. Regardless, the whole thing stinks to high heaven.

Posted by Sgt. D.T. 2007-04-25 19:12|| 2007-04-25 19:12|| Front Page Top

#9 What is a BIACH here is those Marines can't clear their names, because the MSM will ignore this. I was skeptical given the length of time involved in the action. It's one thing to go nuts and kill a bunch of people quickly, it's an entirely diffirent matter to kill a bunch of people of a period of hours. Some people at JAG and the Pentagon need to be taken to the woodshed for leaking and carrying forward this HIGhly volitile case. Their actions have brought shame on the DOD, the USMC and the U.S. SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!

Posted by Cyber Sarge 2007-04-25 19:23|| 2007-04-25 19:23|| Front Page Top

#10 Did the prosecution pull a Nifong here?

Posted by Jise Snoluper9807 2007-04-25 19:38|| 2007-04-25 19:38|| Front Page Top

#11 ex-JAG, where are ye? Come help us.

Nifong, indeed. Is there evidence of prosecutorial misconduct here, and if so does the military have a mechanism to deal with it?

The leaking is (in the new, post-9/11 sense) unbelievable (and precisely what Nifong was engaged in - correct? I confess I didn't read 2 sentences about the Duke lacrosse case as it developed). Then there's Fitzgerald's bizarre press conference (not to mention closing argument) in the Libby trial.

I ain't no trial attorney, but it seems there's an epidemic of prosecutorial misbehavior lately. Or it's just in high-profile cases, where people supporting or fighting the war are the targets (uh, Duke case excepted, of course). Instapundit had some intriguing links I didn't fully pursue yesterday about serious problems with all sorts of prosecution shenanigans nation-wide, including bogus "expert" witnesses and of course bad cops who made s**t up. Every system, no matter how well safeguarded (and our is so well equipped in that regard that it is famously at a disadvantage against wrong-doers), still depends in the end on the integrity of key individuals. Rather shocking what we're seeing that department lately ....

Posted by Verlaine 2007-04-25 20:36|| 2007-04-25 20:36|| Front Page Top

#12 Art. 77. Principals

Any person punishable under this chapter who (1) commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission; or (2) causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him would be punishable by this chapter; is a principal.

Art. 78. Accessory after the fact

Any person subject to this chapter who, knowing that an offense punishable by this chapter has been committed, receives, comforts, or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial, or punishment shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Art. 98. Noncompliance with procedural rules

Any person subject to this chapter who (1) is responsible for unnecessary delay in the disposition of any case of a person accused of an offense under this chapter; or (2) knowingly and intentionally fails to enforce or comply with any provision of this chapter regulating the proceedings before, during, or after trial of an accused; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Art. 107. False official statements

Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent to deceive, signs any false record, return, regulation, order, or other official document, knowing it to be false, or makes any other false official statement knowing it to be false, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Art. 108. Military property of United StatesLoss, damage, destruction, or wrongful disposition

Any person subject to this chapter who, without proper authority (1) sells or otherwise disposes of; (2) willfully or through neglect damages, destroys, or loses; or (3) willfully or through neglect suffers to be lost, damaged, destroyed, sold, or wrongfully disposed of; any military property of the United States, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Art. 133. Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman

Any commissioned officer, cadet, or midshipman who is convicted of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

And of course the ever present catchall

Art. 134. General article

Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-04-25 20:52|| 2007-04-25 20:52|| Front Page Top

#13 'Don't know about the main case, but - having myself serveed as an Article 32 hearing officer - the Article 32 hearing (roughly equivalent to civilian Grand Jury hearing) is not conducted by the prosecution - it is conducted in the name of the Courts Martial convening authority, by a regular military officer (not JAG or TDS). It is not intended to determine guilt or innocence, but to determine three things:

1. Is there evidence that a crime may have been committed?
2. If so, does it appear that the Courts Martial convening authority has jurisdiction over this crime, and its key actors?
3. If so, is there evidence linking the accused in some way to the crime?

A key role of the Article 32 officer is accomplishing "discovery" for the alleged crime. All evidence that will be used by the prosecution in the Courts Martial hearing must be revealed to the Article 32 hearing officer, and he is responsible for making sure that such evidence has also been provided to the defense.

Within the context of the case, the Article 32 hearing officer carries the authority of the General officer convening authority. If the Article 32 hearing officer becomes aware that the prosecution has concealed crucial evidence from the defense (and from the Hearing Officer), the Artcle 32 hearing officer may recommend dismissal of the case.

If awareness of the withheld evidence becomes know to the defense only after the Aricle 32 hearing officer has recommended that the case go to trial, the defense attorney can request that the case be thrown out due to non-disclosure of such evidence during "discovery".

I would assume that the Article 32 hearing officer is about to reommend dismissal of the Haditha case due to deliberate withholding of crucial evidence by the prosecution, during the discovery phase of the Article 32 hearing. Either that, or he my review the evidence, and determine that the preponderance of evidence suggests that no crime has been committed.

The prosecution probably screwed up - and this one is over.

I don't know if it is still true, but in my day, I think it was required that before a JAG officer served as a member of the Trioal Defense Servuce (TDS), they had to first serve a tour as a JAG prosecutor - and only the best prosecutors were considered to later work for TDS. Frankly, the TDS people always seemed to me to be more competent than the prosecutors.

Posted by Lone Ranger 2007-04-25 21:06|| 2007-04-25 21:06|| Front Page Top

#14 Just checked CNN.com and USATODAY.com (8:20 PM PST) and not a word about this. MODS: is this worthy of being carried over for add'l comments tomorrow?

Posted by USN, ret. 2007-04-25 23:22|| 2007-04-25 23:22|| Front Page Top

23:39 JosephMendiola
23:31 DMFD
23:29 JosephMendiola
23:26 DMFD
23:25 JosephMendiola
23:24 DMFD
23:24 ryuge
23:22 USN, ret.
23:22 Zenster
23:19 DMFD
23:13 CrazyFool
23:11 Zenster
22:59 JosephMendiola
22:59 USN, ret.
22:54 JosephMendiola
22:47 ryuge
22:44 Anguper Hupomosing9418
22:36 JosephMendiola
22:30 Zenster
22:25 JosephMendiola
22:23 JosephMendiola
22:22 JosephMendiola
22:22 JosephMendiola
22:14 Flagum Gonque3645