Apology?

[Partha]

Sorry Klast. If you murder someone on my watch, yer probably gonna fry. Remember, I'm the death penalty advocate on the board, and I'm also a friendless sociopath on a webboard.

Better question is which of the many violent videogame killings I'll have levied on you. Right now, most popular with me is Pyro-style barbequing.

[Harlowe]

I'm not seeing where they were absolutely wrong, nor why any of them should be apologizing. Seems overly theatrical.

[Trollbait]

You should probably reread the thread from the beginning, Harlowe. Murtha is the one we are holding our breath for to see if he will ever apologize for laying a blnket statement of guilt regarding these marines on the House floor so that he could score political points.

For any public official to place a statement of guilt into the public record when the accused had not even been charged yet is irresponsible at best.

I bumped this thread because another Marine has been aquitted and I like to see a story through to its conclusion. Folks like Klast, however really don't care what the end result of the investigation or trials are. In their minds the seriousness of the allegations alway trump the preponderance of the evidence.

[Ddrak]

To parse the statement - which part of it do you disagree with?

The troops overreacted? In hindsight it's pretty clear that they did, though obviously soldiers don't have that benefit until after the fact.
They are under enormous pressure? I would imagine they are, though couldn't say for sure.
They killed Iraqi civilians? Absolutely - that's just a statement of fact.
The civilians were killed in "cold blood"? The alternative is that they were killed in the heat of passion and/or the soldiers lost control of their ability to reason.

Of any part of the statement, I think the real conclusion is that Murtha contradicted himself. You can't exactly overreact in cold blood, pretty much by definition.

Dd

[Trollbait]

Dont go all Rsakian on me, Dd.

I do not disagree with the semantics of the statement. I disagree with the intention behind the staement, which when coupled with statements made by Murtha both on the floor of the House and on talk shows, was clearly designed to score political points at the expense of servicemen.

[Klast Brell]

Was clearly designed to score political points at the expense of servicemen who kill dozens of unarmed civilians cowering in their homes.

[Trollbait]

servicemen who kill dozens of unarmed civilians cowering in their homes

I would love to see your proof of that.

As far as seeing this thing to its conclusion....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080617/us_ ... haditha_dc

Haditha charges dropped against top Marine officer

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A military judge on Tuesday dismissed the case against the highest-ranking U.S. Marine charged in the killing of 24 Iraqi civilians at Haditha, whittling down the list of those who must still face justice for the 2005 incident to just the accused ringleader.


Military Judge Col. Steven Folsom dropped all charges against Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, who was accused of violating a lawful order and dereliction of duty, at a hearing at the Camp Pendleton Marine base in Southern California.

Folsom's decision means that, out of eight Marines originally charged in December 2006, six have won dismissals of their charges and one has been cleared at court martial.

The accused ringleader, Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, still faces court martial. The proceedings against him, however, have been put on hold pending the appeal of a pretrial ruling.

Folsom threw out the charges against Chessani, a 44-year-old Colorado native, after finding that a four-star general who oversaw the case could have been influenced by an investigator who later became his adviser.

The judge ruled that military prosecutors could refile the case but it was not immediately clear if they would do so. The prosecution could also appeal his ruling.

Chessani's lawyer said the married father of six young children and his legal team were "cautiously optimistic" that his two-year legal battle was behind him and that he could retire.

"We hope its over. We believe it should be over," attorney Brain Rooney said.

Chessani was the highest-ranking officer accused of wrongdoing in the shootings at Haditha, which were first reported in Time magazine and portrayed by Iraqi witnesses as a "massacre" of unarmed civilians.

The witnesses claimed angry Marines killed the two dozen men, women and children out of revenge after a popular comrade, Lance Cpl. Miguel "TJ" Terrazas, died in a roadside bombing.

The reports brought international condemnation on U.S. troops in Iraq and famously inspired Rep. John Murtha, a Democrat from Pennsylvania and critic of the war, to charge that the Marines had killed the civilians "in cold blood."

Defense attorneys said the civilians died during a pitched battle with insurgents in and around Haditha that followed the death of Terrazas.

Rooney said that the fact that seven of the eight Marines had been cleared or no longer faced charges proved that the events at Haditha were "not the massacre that Time magazine and John Murtha made it out to be."

"We've had to go through a two-year process to prove what we knew from the beginning," he said. "You need to trust what your battlefield commanders are telling you and give them the benefit of the doubt."

[Partha]

I believe in the era of Rose Bird, conservatives would have called that 'throwing out cases on a technicality' and would have resorted to watching Dirty Harry until their nerves calmed.

[Klast Brell]

So Embar. Are you saying the civilians did not die? Are you saying that we did not kill them?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Why are you looking for my opinion on that? I haven't been involved in this thread. Did you mean Jecks?

[Klast Brell]

Aw crap. I'm really sorry.
For some reason I have this brain fart when it comes to the two of you. I always mix you up.

[Trollbait]

So, Klast, you have evidence that supports that all of these civilians died as a result of direct fire by American forces and not insurgent crossfire?

[Klast Brell]

I'll take dodging the question for 300 Alex

[Ddrak]

So, Klast, you have evidence that supports that all of these civilians died as a result of direct fire by American forces and not insurgent crossfire?

Wait - that's a double assumption there. First that there even was "crossfire" and second that it was "insurgents". I don't believe any of these cases have actually touched on what actually happened yet, have they?

If the last guy gets off on a technicality (which is entirely probably) then all I can say is that justice was not served. Six people on trial, a bunch of dead Iraqi civilians and they can't even figure out if they were shot by M-16s or AK-47s, let alone whether there were a bunch of AK-47 rounds being shot towards the US troops? Seriously...

Dd

[Trollbait]

There is only one assumption.

It is the assumption that the Marines and the investigator who initially recommended dropping charges on the first 5 Marines are telling the truth.

Klast and his ilk have their own assumption.

It is the assumption that the Iraqis living in Haditha are telling the truth.

I don't see him being called out on his assumption and I will take believing the Marines version over the Iraqis all day long until I see hard evidence that they slaughtered them.

If there was such hard evidence you would see 6 Marines in prison by now.

While there are inconsistencies in the Marines story of the incident there are equally troubling differences in the stories told by the civilians.

Klast, I answered your question. I doubt that 2 seperate squads of Marines went on a house to house rampage killing men women and children. You are assuming a fundemental breakdown in discipline, control, and duty by not just a few raw young privates but of career NCO's. Not damn likely.

Is it possible that in the heat of battle and the fog of war some civillians got killed by stray bullets. Absolutely. Hence the phrase "collateral damage".

As far as justice not being served, Ddrak? When there is not enough evidence to convict or a defendants rights are violated and the charges are dropped or dismissed then justice is absolutely served. You can't advocate due process for Gitmo detainees and then deny it to our servicemen.

[Klast Brell]

Not damn likely.

My Lai was not damn likely either. And those soldiers were cleared of charges as well.
These guys are being charged with dereliction of duty and disobeying a lawful order. Shit If I run you over with my car and only get charged with inattentive driving, I'm sure I could put up a good defense that I was in total control of the vehicle. That does not exactly pull the bumper out of your ass. And clearing these soldiers of charges does not pull the bullets out of children's heads.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/17/world ... ref=slogin
The wounds of the dead Iraqis, as seen in photographs and viewed by the morgue director, were not consistent with attacks by fragmentation grenades and indiscriminate rifle fire, Colonel Watt found. The civilian survivors said the victims were shot at close range, some while trying to protect their children or praying for their lives. The death certificates Colonel Watt examined were chillingly succinct: well-aimed shots to the head and chest.

I guess they were not derelict in their duties when they shot them. And they were not disobeying a lawful order when they lied and said the civilians had been killed by a bomb.
Sergeant Dela Cruz was cleared of charges. He received immunity from prosecution in exchange for testimony. What was his testimony? That they killed unarmed men who were trying to surrender and pissed on their bodies.
They are all getting off on technicalities. What does Murtha have to apologize for again?

[Ddrak]

There is only one assumption.

It is the assumption that the Marines and the investigator who initially recommended dropping charges on the first 5 Marines are telling the truth.

When it disagrees with the physical evidence (that the Iraqis were deliberately shot at close range) then it's a bad assumption. When you start making shit up about civilians being killed by "insurgent crossfire" when the physical evidence indicates nothing of the sort then you're definitely grasping at straws.

Klast and his ilk have their own assumption.

It is the assumption that the Iraqis living in Haditha are telling the truth.

Sorry, but it's not as us-and-them as that. Some people are making that assumption. Others are saying different things. Casting that "troops or Iraqis" net out is just an blatant attempt to polarize a case where there's definitely more than two simple positions.

If there was such hard evidence you would see 6 Marines in prison by now.

Show me where any of the trials have touched on the physical evidence of who killed who? In fact, show me where the trials were even *for* that and not about chain of command. I think you're misunderstanding the nature of the trials.

As far as justice not being served, Ddrak? When there is not enough evidence to convict or a defendants rights are violated and the charges are dropped or dismissed then justice is absolutely served. You can't advocate due process for Gitmo detainees and then deny it to our servicemen.

I'm not. There's not even a parallel (unless I missed these troops putting forward a habaes claim or being imprisoned without charges).

Justice would be served much better without lawyers being involved and specific charges before anyone goes to the more important question of figuring out what really did happen. They're addressing questions of law before they go into questions of fact. I don't actually give a shit about prosecuting individual soldiers and I think the whole idea of doing it in lieu of trying to find out what really happened doesn't help either side much.

Find out what happened first and do it outside a courtroom.

Dd

[Trollbait]

In fact, show me where the trials were even *for* that and not about chain of command. I think you're misunderstanding the nature of the trials.

No. I am not.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12342625/

CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. - Eight Marines were charged Thursday in the killings of 24 Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha last year.

Four Marines were charged with murder in the biggest U.S. criminal case involving civilian deaths to arise from the war in Iraq.

The other four charged were officers who were not there but were accused of failures in investigating and reporting the deaths, the Marine Corps said.

When it disagrees with the physical evidence (that the Iraqis were deliberately shot at close range)

See this is why I try to keep people updated on the case. You read old articles or new ones that regurgitate old and innacurate information and don't see what has come out since.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/57349

But in a painstaking, 37-page report written earlier this month and obtained by NEWSWEEK, Ware tells the military lawyers their case is weak: "The evidence is contradictory, the forensic analysis is limited and almost all the witnesses have an obvious bias or prejudice."

The Haditha case seems to be unraveling. Already, all charges have been dropped against two of the shooters. Marine Gen. James Mattis announced last week that a third Marine, Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum, would face a court-martial for involuntary manslaughter, far less than the original murder indictment. And Ware has recommended a similar reduction in charges against Wuterich. (In a separate proceeding, a lieutenant colonel will be court-martialed for failing to accurately report and investigate the killings.) Until not too long ago, the case had the aura of an unambiguous revenge massacre: after losing a buddy in an IED attack, the Marines killed five unarmed men who pulled over and stood outside their car. Then the Marines moved from one home to the next believing they were under fire, and killed men, women and children.

But the sinister reality of insurgents' hiding among civilians in Iraq has complicated the case. And even in conventional wars, battle-zone murder charges can be hard to prove. Investigators did not start gathering evidence until months later, when Time Magazine published an account of the killings. By then, forensic and ballistic evidence was scant and autopsies weren't feasible; Iraqi families refused to let the military exhume the victims' bodies. Prosecutors were left to rely largely on the statements of the Marines. Earlier this year they gave immunity to two of the shooters in exchange for their testimony. But Ware suggests in his report that prosecutors immunized the wrong guys. Both witnesses, he writes, "have very low credibility," and he believes their accounts will not hold up in a cross-examination.

There was no chain of evidence. There was no physical examination of the bodies by investigators. Even eye witnesses who claim to have stood side by side contradict key and memorable parts of the issue such as some witnesses saying aircraft bombed the homes and other saying that the Marines dragged people into the street and executed them. Kinda hard to mistake one for the other isn't it?

Sergeant Dela Cruz was cleared of charges. He received immunity from prosecution in exchange for testimony. What was his testimony? That they killed unarmed men who were trying to surrender and pissed on their bodies.
They are all getting off on technicalities.

You are such an idiot. Are you really going to base your entire argument on De La Cruz?

The lead investigator has stated that the two witnesses are simply not credible.

One of them, Sgt. Sanick Dela Cruz, told investigators under oath last year he opened fire on the five Iraqi men after the IED attack because they started fleeing. But he changed his story after getting immunity, testifying in a pretrial hearing in August that the men had not run and that Wuterich had done the shooting. Dela Cruz told the court he'd fired only at their dead bodies. Though Wuterich himself admitted to shooting the men in a "60 Minutes" interview earlier this year, conflicts in the sum total of testimony led Ware to recommend dropping the murder charge. As for Lance Cpl. Humberto Mendoza, the other witness, Ware describes his testimony as a "desperate attempt to cover up lies with more lies." (Ware declined to comment, but a lawyer close to the Haditha case confirmed his report's authenticity. Dela Cruz's lawyer declined to comment; Mendoza's attorney could not be reached.)

My Lai, indeed.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Ok....

Waited a bit for this, but now I'm weighing in.

Klast and Dd.. did you view the PBS (yes, PBS) Frontline investigation into this incident? And did you listen to the PBS interview of the guy who put the Frontline production together? If you did, you'd see that an independent (sort-of-left-leaning-independent-with-no-love-for-the-current-administration-type-independent) news organization has said that their investigative results didn't support the Iraqi version. If you review the PBS segment, you'll see the investigators view the incident largely as Jecks has portrayed it... troops under deadly fire, reacting to what and where they thought the fire was coming from, clearing the buildings where they thought the fire originated from (as per their training, btw), all in the heat of battle, in a very dynamic tactical theater.

I can tell neither of you have been fired upon. Neither of you have had the distinct experience of believing that someone was trying to kill you...you... a very personal you. The perception of the passage of time is different for an individual when that happens. Time both shortens and lengthens. And please don't ask me how I know, because I won't, and can't, go into it. Ask the acknowledged soldiers on this board who have faced enemy fire (and I don't mean just in the field of battle, I mean directed enemy fire, directed at your position)

Haditha was a tragedy. One of the numerous tragedies that happen when groups of people try to kill other groups of people. The Marines firing the guns were young... do you really think they all got together and decided to off some innocent Iraqis just for kicks? Is that what you think of this group? Because that's what you're implying.

[Ddrak]

Jecks,

Murder in a military court is not the same charge as murder in a civilian court. That's why I'm saying it's a misrepresentation of what they're on trial for. Last I looked, following a lawful order to kill a civilian that you believe is hostile isn't murder, hence the focus on the chain of command and not the actions.

I don't even know why I have to remind YOU (of all people) of that.

The available forensic evidence indicated that the rooms weren't cleared by grenades. I'm sure you're aware that tossing grenades into a room and spraying it with M16 fire makes them look just a little bit different to targetted fire.

There was no chain of evidence. There was no physical examination of the bodies by investigators. Even eye witnesses who claim to have stood side by side contradict key and memorable parts of the issue such as some witnesses saying aircraft bombed the homes and other saying that the Marines dragged people into the street and executed them. Kinda hard to mistake one for the other isn't it?

Bingo - which is why you should probably read my entire post before responding to little bits of it. You know, especially the bit at the end where I say that using a court to find facts is rather stupid?


@Embar

PBS is hardly a good source. I'm far more inclined to listen to Ware's report than any random underpaid wannabe journalism from PBS. What's your point anyway? If you're trying to argue with me then it means you believe that they shouldn't find out what happened before going to court. Is that REALLY your position? Perhaps you should read a little more before spouting off?

As for "zomg soldiers in battle" - you're full of shit. As I said before, if you can't handle being a soldier and following the RoE no matter what tactical situation you're in, then you shouldn't be in that position and if you break the RoE then you should be held on charges no matter how beautifully time shortens and lengthens or whether you can post about it on some random web board. If your country puts soldiers into a position where the RoE makes no sense then the country is at fault and I don't and never have blamed the individuals for trying to make the best of the bad situation. As I very clearly said - charging individual soldiers before you have a clear idea of what happened is stupid, so I really have no clue why you're disagreeing with me.

And I'll definitely ask for both your and Jecks' apology for directly stating that I was blaming individuals for deliberately killing innocent Iraqis because I don't and have never done such a thing. Seeing you're both so gung-ho on demanding apologies from others, let's see how well you can do the same.

Dd