How many times have you had homosexual sensitivity training? It’s an annual requirement in the AF.

Never.

And as far as military justice goes, the prevailing thinking is guilty until proven innocent (in A LOT of cases) – especilly in high profile cases which pols glom on to.

Maybe at the Article 15 level–but there’s a reason contested cases result far more often in acquittals or watered down convictions than in the civilian world…

The military justice syustem is usually more interested in CYA, than the individual member (again, not in ALL cases, but quite a few).

Sure, tell that to the next E7 that gets his misconduct shoved under the rug with a reprimand while the E2 gets slammed…

These guys were charged, relieved of duty and (I think) imprisoned (pre-trial confinement) before the evidence was even collected.

Well no, charging doesn’t (and can’t) happen without evidence being present to support the charge. It’s a fairly low burden to charge and the investigation is RARELY complete when large cases are preferred.

As for being relieved of duty–yeah, that’s sometimes required. Example: do you want a drill sergeant who is accused of beating the crap out of a trainee to stay out there on the trail pending his trial? I hope not.

As for pre-trial confinement–some cases warrant it, some do not. But it doesn’t happen without a review by a neutral and detached officer and then a military magistrate.

JAG’s dont bring charges, Article 32 panels and Court Martial Convening Authorities do.

Technically anybody subject to the UCMJ can be an accuser. Following the swearing under oath to the charged offense, the accused’s immediate commander causes him to be informed of the charges and then forwards that charge with recommendations as to disposition up the chain of command.

There’s no actual trial or until it’s referred by the Convening Authority though.

Squid Shark on June 5, 2008 at 10:57 AM

Unless the authority to dispose of the offenses had been withheld to the GCMCA, he would not have seen it until after the Article 32.

It doesn’t go before him for referral until after the pretrial investigation (which is where the bulk of prosecutions stopped)

Yeah we’re getting off topic a bit…sorry.

The M68 close combat optic doesn’t have any magnification – it is simply a electronic red dot sight. The M68 is used by quite a few personnel. There are others out there, like the ACOG which have some magnification though “scope” would be the wrong terminology – I know pickin fly poop out of pepper, but hey.

thirteen28 on June 5, 2008 at 1:29 PM

Amen on the Nifong comment!

major john on June 5, 2008 at 10:42 AM

The courts martial of snipers over the use of weapons as “bait” springs to mind.

The least our servicemen should be able to expect is to not be Nifonged for doing that which they are trained to do.

thirteen28 on June 5, 2008 at 1:29 PM

Amen! Also our border patrol agents but that’s getting off topic.

Clarification: Most of those “scopes” on the rifles aren’t scopes, they are electronic red dot sights. Telescopic “scopes” are of limited value, except in certain conditions/situations – street fighting ain’t one of them.

catmman on June 5, 2008 at 11:06 AM

At risk of veering off topic: many of those red dot sights include some degree of magnification, like the ACOG. If you’re hitting targets at 100yds, I bet they help quite a bit.

Murtha is being sued for his comments but how do you punish the media?

highhopes on June 5, 2008 at 1:02 PM

I’m referring to punishment of those in the military itself that are responsible for trying to railroad these Marines, be it JAGs, their commanders, whoever.

We already know the media is a disgrace, but they are outside the jurisdiction of the UCMJ. Those who are under its jurisdiction and who abused their authority on its behalf to try to imprison these Marines on such thin evidence (if it can even be called evidence) need to be called to account.

If we are going to hold our soldiers, sailors, and Marines in the field to account when they screw up, we should do no less for those who prosecute them without evidence of a crime.

The least our servicemen should be able to expect is to not be Nifonged for doing that which they are trained to do.

There has never been any real evidence against these Marines. The whole reason was for politics.

At the time of this incident, Iraq was going roughly. It was post Abu Ghraib. Pols like Murtha were screaming bloody murder demanding the DoD “do something”. They did and have ruined the lives of the Maruines in the process.

For what? Investigators looked and looked and looked and turned over billions of rocks to hamstring these guys – and came up with zilch.

And no one in the CoC did anything to put a stop to it. I can only speculate as to why they didn’t put a stop to it, but CYA is at the top of that list.

In my 21 years of service, I have seen plenty of examples of senior leaders delegating blame or cooking it up just to save their own A. There are very few times I have seen senior leaders resign or take responsibility themselves.

Of course in this case we have eight Marines who did what they were trained to do – and were left out to dry by their CoC.

In this case in particular, though pols like Murtha were leading the charge, the DoD is responsible for dragging these guys through the mud. It doesn’t take 2-3 or more years to find evidence of a crime, especially one as heinous as this was supposed to be. It was a phishing expedition plain and simple.

And highhopes, perhaps my condemnation of the “system” was a bit extreme as a generalization, but the system has failed enough to call it into question particularly in high profile cases.

So where do these Marines go to get their name and reputation back now? IMHO, the reporter who broke this story and asswipe Murtha should be tasked to rectify that.

Thanks for the correction. Regardless, whoever is guilty of attempting the railroad these Marines should be punished for doing so.

thirteen28 on June 5, 2008 at 12:39 PM

Murtha is being sued for his comments but how do you punish the media?

one could say that the Abu Ghraib stupidity made Murtha’s hysteria surrounding the Haditha investigation possible, and his statements palatable?

I don’t think it would have mattered. Murtha had an agenda of discrediting the troops so that he could say that the administration was failing the military. Haditha is just one example of many where Murtha has made irresponsible statements.

In contrast, Abu Grahib was an example of the military eventually doing the right thing. That MP company was out of control (as witnessed by that photo of rat-face-girl and her boyfriend giving the thumbs up sign behind a pile of naked rear ends). The leadership up to a one-star general initially tried to minimize the problem until the press got those photos. In the end, the general lost her star and was forced to retire, the perpetrators were given their day in court, and Abu Grahib was turned over to the Iraqi government.

JAG’s dont bring charges, Article 32 panels and Court Martial Convening Authorities do.

Squid Shark on June 5, 2008 at 11:50 AM

Thanks for the correction. Regardless, whoever is guilty of attempting the railroad these Marines should be punished for doing so.

Caution should always give our men and women in uniform the benefit of a BIG doubt when confronting an enemy that knows how to use psyops and a compliant media to slander and impugn the actions of our troops.

The military (and civilian) leadership is at fault for over-reacting to the accusations and for giving them global weight- which is ALWAYS used against us and our soldiers and Marines by our enemies.

Murtha and his ilk should be drummed out of office for piling on to the hysteria, in utter ignorance of any facts, and harming our national interest and smearing the men and women who serve us for mere political gain.

First collect the all the information on the event, then make judgments.

Instead, presumed guilty was the mantra.

And the jiahdists laughed at our folly.

one could say that the Abu Ghraib stupidity made Murtha’s hysteria surrounding the Haditha investigation possible, and his statements palatable?

motrin time

Face it, most of what the military does in war is horrible.. and if looked at from a Civilian viewpoint, would not be tolerated in society. But in war? its what you needs to do to win, and standard.

Now, put this information before the public, with elected officials who can scream about it for political aims, and you have a REAL problem, because even well meaning elected officials will have to answer the allegations.

As we have civilian control of the military in this country, that “pressure” gets sent down the Chain of Command from the Political Appointees on the Joint Chiefs, down to the indidvidual commanders…

Historicly, it is a GENERAL who must courtmartial his subordinates, and thus would be the buffer between outside civilian pressure, and the realities needed for military action… but somehow in the last couple of generations this changed.

IMO it all boils down to the court cases after My Lai massacre in Viet Nam, where the Chain of Command was not held accountable for command decisions, but the individual soldier was. It distorted the historic Command Power vs. Responsibility link.

thirteen28 on June 5, 2008 at 11:25 AM

JAG’s dont bring charges, Article 32 panels and Court Martial Convening Authorities do.

highhopes on June 5, 2008 at 11:10 AM

OMG, we just agreed on something

*pigs flying by*

Tom

byteshredder on June 5, 2008 at 11:31 AM

Murtha’s from Pennsylvania and, yes, there is a special Hell just waiting for the fat old ex-Marine bastard.

Fishoutofwater on June 5, 2008 at 11:23 AM

Yes JAIL TIME! You brush off some really serious infractions as “ill advised actions” and I’m not talking about the interrogation techniques.