We already know that someone tampered with the surveillance video to eliminate the film of terrorist shooting at these Marines then ducking into the homes to escape. I’m sorry if innocents were killed, but this is war and that sometimes happens. I do not believe that these Marines went into those homes planning to kill innocents, they went in chasing the b**tards that were trying to kill them.

And Murtha, you can kiss my @ss….you slug!!

“Semper Fidelis”

I agree with that in principle. Unfortunately, as we saw with Scooter Libby, sometimes that doesn’t bring justice after all.

I’m sure his sympathy is with the Marines, but he’s not about to step into the middle of an investigation, even for this. Besides, his ace in the hole is the power to pardon.

Romeo13 on March 29, 2008 at 10:19 PM

Well I was referring to the lawyers. Like myself, where I have been in the Navy for 9 years as a line officer, now I am getting ready to join the JAG Corps, those types.

However in the Navy, all prelim investigations are first conducted by an IO who is a line type. I am not sure about the Army.

The “immunity” against self-incrimination is a standard practice in cases such as this.
logis on March 29, 2008 at 10:46 PM

Civilian law? Yes…. Military law, no…

I’ve been involved in a few cases in Military law, and NEVER did I see “immunity” granted. It may happen, but at a FAR less rate than it does in civilian law.

Allah, you should change “to” into “will” in the headline. Or at least insert a comma between “immunity” and “to”. It seems misleading otherwise.
The Apologist on March 29, 2008 at 9:49 PM

Tatum clearly stated that he has no intention of testifying specifically against Wuterich.

The “immunity” against self-incrimination is a standard practice in cases such as this. The headline can’t be fixed with that word in it. It is as informative to this story as the word “asshole” would be. Technically that wouldn’t be a lie; I’m sure that Cpl. Tatum possesses one of those. But the ONLY reason to allude to that fact in the headline would be as an implied pejorative.

…And I’m afraid that swapping prepositions or adding a comma here or there couldn’t do anything to change that.

Squid Shark on March 29, 2008 at 6:56 PM

really? Proof? or a citiation from a third party?

Cause this is NOT what I hear from my boys…. the ones I led… and are still in the Sandbox…

Currently EVERY fire incident that has any casulties, freindly or enemy, has an ouside investigation by “outside” entitys… by legal types… not line officers.

no opposition (thus, APPROVAL)

That is addle-brained mush.

You’re suggesting that the President of the United States should insert himself into an investigation or trial?! On what grounds and under what authority would he do that?

The comment threads here keep getting stupider and stupider every time registration is opened.

Allah, you should change “to” into “will” in the headline. Or at least insert a comma between “immunity” and “to”. It seems misleading otherwise.

Dumb damned plan.

Be on our guys’ side until the war is won.

Then they can examine any reports of infractions.

The enemy will only use this infighting to weaken your resolve if you reveal these sordid messes in the middle of the battle.

No government was ever foolish enough to allow this kind of self-evisceration before.

(Or dumb enough to permit a war zone to be flooded with unrestricted, uploadable cameras/videos – a clear loss of security and a gross intelligence failure in the making.)

But we live in foolish times.

(As the quiet defunding of the sky marshalls led to 9/11.)

I hope the trial absolves the accused.

make check payable to Newsmax and send to

Newsmax
Attn: Haditha Hero’s Fund
PO Box 20989
West Palm Beach FL 33416

https://www.newsmaxstore.com/contribute/haditha/

AprilOrit on March 29, 2008 at 4:42 PM

Out of line with the mad Marine remarks. He has claimed innocence and is going to stand trial. We know what he’s accussed of, we know everyone but him has been exonerated with the exception of a co-defendent given immunity so he can’t plead the 5th. And now after this fiasco, this is the last man standing. If you believe in trends, the trend is so far, those Marines responded in accordance their training and the ROE in Iraq. It was just a tragedy that insurgents were hiding behind the Iraqi civilians.

I say we let the jury hear the evidence and let them decide as to guilt or innocence.

Romeo13 on March 29, 2008 at 5:33 PM

I dont know about the Army but the Navy and the Marine Corps have made a big push in the last 15 years to populate the JAG corps with line types. And most lawyers in those sevices have been over in the sandbox these days.

The only people that know if something went wrong are the soldiers involved.
If the ROE says that when you are attacked, that you cannot destroy the people that are attacking you, then whoever made up the ROE should be tried under the UCMJ. In every war civilians are killed and especially in a war where the enemy hides behind civilians. If the civilians are allowing the enemy to attack us from their homes, then they are fair game.

Merovign on March 29, 2008 at 5:16 PM

I am sure something went wrong and they want to nail the main player.

Squid Shark on March 29, 2008 at 5:18 PM

I think you are right, but not, perhaps, in the way you intended: Something did go wrong — Military prosecutors went after a group of Marines who did not deserve to be charged.

And, yes: I do believe they, as you suggest, want to nail the “main player” (even if he is not guilty) in order to save face. There are three men left: LtCol Chessani, a Lieutenant, and the senior NCO on the scene, Wuterich. Any of these three would likely suffice as a sacrificial lamb.

Again: In my book, this is a show trial.

Note: The Thomas More Law Center is defending LtCol Chessani.

Here is another piece on the process that led to the dropping of charges against of one of the accused Haditha Marines:
Haditha Investigator Urges Dropping of Marine’s Case

In my view, there is something wrong with President Bush’s character

You don’t say. He considers conservatives racist because they believe in national sovereignty.

That is my experience also.

Ok then please enlighten me as to what the hell is this all about

Squid Shark on March 29, 2008 at 5:30 PM

Read AP’s links at the top and go where they send you. It doesn’t involve rape. More like ROE issues.

Ok then please enlighten me as to what the hell is this all about

Squid Shark on March 29, 2008 at 5:30 PM

Its about civilian casulties that happened during a house cleaning… and whether it was justified under the ROE.

Jack Murtha called them “murderers” which led to this circus.

Some of those “pansy lawyers” are combat vets too. Many members of the JAG corp are vets of the line service as well. In fact, most chosen to do ROE cases like this one are line vets.

Squid Shark on March 29, 2008 at 5:17 PM

Really? then things have certainly changed from when I was in, but then I’ve been retired for about 10 years.

The two ROE JAG investigations I was involved in (1983, 1991), the JAG officers were not Line Officers, they were lawyers who were staff… none of em knew which end of a gun the bullet came out of.