Jul 11 08:25 AM US/Eastern
By THOMAS WATKINS
Associated Press Writer
SAN DIEGO (AP) - The government's case against a Marine accused of fatally shooting Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha lacks sufficient evidence to go to a court-martial and should be dropped, a hearing officer determined.
The murder charges were brought against Lance Cpl. Justin L. Sharratt for killing three Iraqi brothers in November 2005.
The hearing officer, Lt. Col. Paul Ware, wrote in a report released by the defense Tuesday that those charges were based on unreliable witness accounts, insupportable forensic evidence and questionable legal theories. He also wrote that the case could have dangerous consequences on the battlefield, where soldiers might hesitate during critical moments when facing an enemy.
"The government version is unsupported by independent evidence," Ware wrote in the 18-page report. "To believe the government version of facts is to disregard clear and convincing evidence to the contrary."
Prosecutors allege Sharratt and other members of his battalion carried out a revenge-motivated assault on Iraqi civilians that left 24 dead after a roadside bomb killed a fellow Marine nearby.
Sharratt contends the Iraqi men he confronted were insurgents and at least one was holding an AK-47 rifle when he fired at them.
In addition to Sharratt, two other enlisted men are charged with murder and four officers are accused of failing to investigate the incident—the largest single Iraqi civilian death case of the war. Sharratt's case is the first among the three charged with murder to go to a hearing known as an Article 32 investigation, the military equivalent of a grand jury.
"Whether this was a brave act of combat against the enemy or tragedy of misperception born out of conducting combat with an enemy that hides among innocents, Lance Corporal Sharratt's actions were in accord with the rules of engagement and use of force," Ware wrote.
He said further prosecution of Sharratt could set a "dangerous precedent that ... may encourage others to bear false witness against Marines as a tactic to erode public support of the Marine Corps and its mission in Iraq."
"Even more dangerous is the potential that a Marine may hesitate at the critical moment when facing the enemy," he said.
The recommendation to drop the murder charge is nonbinding. A final decision about whether Sharratt should stand trial will be made by Lt. Gen. James Mattis, the commanding general overseeing the case.
Prosecutors at Sharratt's preliminary hearing introduced several accounts from Iraqis that said Sharratt had separated four men from a group of women and children and ordered them into a house. There, prosecutors said, he shot three of them and when he ran out of bullets the squad leader Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich allegedly shot the fourth.
Ware deemed the witness accounts and testimony given by other Marines unreliable.
At home in Canonsburg, Pa., Sharratt's family said the news was huge.
"That report is a declaration of Justin's innocence," said Sharratt's mother, Theresa. "This is very, very good news."
Defense attorneys James Culp and Gary Myers said in a statement that the report "reflected the value of the calm of a courtroom and the adversarial process."
This is the second time an investigating officer has recommended charges not continue to trial in connection wit the Haditha killings. In the case of Marine lawyer Capt. Randy W. Stone, the investigating officer recommended Stone's dereliction of duty charge be dealt with administratively.
In light of the above does anyone think Murtha will apologize for the following comment?
Mr. Murtha said, "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."
Another article with a little better distinction between the Sharrett case and all the incidents that day.
Ware recommended dismissing all charges against Sharratt and said that he should be given immunity to testify in other cases arising out of the events in Haditha on Nov. 19.
This indicates to me that there may be merit to the other shooting cases - the roadside and the other home.
They are shooting anyone who twitches in their line of sight. Cold blood. Hot blood.
Does it matter?
"A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not." - Ronald Reagan 1987
If this is true, then what happened to the officer?
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant
"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.
There will be several officers that are charged administratively (read Article 15) for failing to investigate or report the incident in accordance with policy.
You really, really need a girlfriend.....preferably one who is unable to have children......you have a dangerous level of dork and should not be allowed to breed....
Trollbait wrote:First off, what do you mean "If this is true?"
Secondly, to which officer are you referring?
There will be several officers that are charged administratively (read Article 15) for failing to investigate or report the incident in accordance with policy.
I'm saying 'if this is true' because the reviewing person could be wrong.
The officer is question is the one alleged to have killed the fourth person in your article.
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant
"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.
For those of you who have not been in a combat situation , or in the military for that matter , should not speak as you know what goes on in the field.
As for me if there is any solid proof an i mean hard core ilrefutable proof that illegal killing's took place , then yes they should be tried for it.
as a former marine 79 to 85 , beruit 83 an grenada oct 83 , i do know what can happen on the field of combat.
i lost alot of brothers in beruit in 83 i shipped out 3 months before that happened.
did i want someone to pay for those deaths yes , but we did not go killing civilians.
foeham wrote:For those of you who have not been in a combat situation , or in the military for that matter , should not speak as you know what goes on in the field.
Nobody gives a shit about knowing "what goes on". All that matters is if "what goes on" is against the law or not. People have the right to comment on whatever the fuck they want whether they are qualified or not.
I'll refrain from abusing people who have never been involved in a hiring process for a large company from saying whether you should or shouldn't do a credit check too. ;)
foeham wrote:did i want someone to pay for those deaths yes , but we did not go killing civilians.
Bingo - spoken like a true soldier. The only people you want to pay are the ones responsible, and only within your ROE.
Lopezromo said a procedure called "dead-checking" was routine. If Marines entered a house where a man was wounded, instead of checking to see whether he needed medical aid, they shot him to make sure he was dead, he testified.
"If somebody is worth shooting once, they're worth shooting twice," he said.
"A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not." - Ronald Reagan 1987
A court martial on Wednesday acquitted a US Marine for his role in the deaths of 24 civilians in Haditha in Iraq in 2005, the sixth man to be exonerated in the affair, a military official said.
Lieutenant Andrew Grayson, 27, was declared "not guilty on all charges" by a jury, said a spokesman for the Camp Pendleton military base in southern California where the hearing started on May 28.
Grayson had been charged with making false statements and attempting to fraudulently separate from the Marine Corps. He was also charged with obstruction of justice, but the military judge dismissed this charge Tuesday.
He was the first Marine to stand trial in connection with the killings of 24 men, women and children in Haditha, the most serious war crime allegations leveled at US forces since the 2003 invasion to topple Saddam Hussein.
On November 19, 2005, a US soldier on patrol was killed by a roadside bomb in the village of Haditha, 260 kilometers (160 miles) west of Baghdad.
Defense lawyers claim insurgents hidden in nearby houses subsequently opened fire on the soldiers, forcing them to respond.
But prosecutors say there were no insurgents, alleging that the soldiers opened fire unprovoked in revenge for their colleague's death.
In a three-hour shooting spree, they say, the soldiers shot five passengers of an approaching taxi and killed 10 women and children at point blank range, among others.
The Marines said in a press release issued immediately after the killings that 15 Iraqis had been killed by the roadside bomb that claimed the life of Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas.
A subsequent investigation by Time magazine showed that most of the dead were killed as Marines swept through three houses near the bombing, prompting a wide-ranging internal investigation.
Eight military personnel were originally charged over the incident -- four soldiers faced murder charges and four officers, including Grayson, were accused of covering up and failing to properly investigate the killings.
However, since charges were first announced in December 2006, prosecutors have struggled to make the allegations stick.
Six have now had charges against them dropped, while charges of murder against squad leader Frank Wuterich were changed to the lesser offense of manslaughter.
Wuterich faces trial later this year, along with Colonel Jeffrey Chessani, the highest ranking officer accused over the incident who has been charged with dereliction of duty and violation of a lawful order.
Wuterich told a preliminary hearing at Camp Pendleton last September that he would "always mourn the unfortunate deaths of the innocent Iraqis who were killed during our response to that attack."
But he said: "Based on the information I had at the time, based on the situation, I made the best decision I could have."
The silence from the Murtha wing is deafening.......
The article is just a wee bit of an exaggeration. Charges being dropped is not "exoneration", which makes this the first marine to actually be tried and acquitted. I haven't seen any report as to what the actual reasons for acquittal were - lack of evidence or actual refutation of the prosecution's claims either, which does make a big difference as to the character of the event (though obviously not the proven guilt of the marines in question).
Did we really need to resurrect the whole "zomg Murtha is evil and I'll paint everyone left of Stalin with the same brush" thread though? I hardly think asking people to come forward on every thread they may have been overzealous on is particularly reasonable.
Wrong about what? The article states that the soldiers killed a bunch of unarmed civilians and were then protected from the consequences.
Maybe if I blow your head off I can have Partha as my prosecutor. I'm sure he will be impartial when he drops the charges.
"A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not." - Ronald Reagan 1987
