Where is the ACLU?

[Controlled Chaos]

The parents of some of the soldiers have websites up here, here, and here.

 

American troops in shackles

Jun 14, 2006

by Michelle Malkin ( bio | archive | contact )

 

Did you know there are seven young Marines and a Navy corpsman sitting in a military brig right now in leg and wrist shackles -- despite the fact that they've not been charged with any crime?

The men are in solitary confinement, locked in 8'x8' cells at San Diego's Camp Pendleton, as investigators probe an April 26 incident involving the 3rd Battalion, 5th Regiment, 1st Marine Division. They are behind bars 23 hours a day; family members can only see them through inch-thick Plexiglas. Military blabbermouths have told the press that the service members are suspected of kidnapping and shooting a man in the Iraqi town of Hamdaniya. The Iraqi man's family reportedly came forward seeking payment for his death as media hysteria set in over the separate alleged atrocity in Haditha.

 

These men -- our men -- may be innocent. They may be guilty. Charges may or may not be filed this week. But this much is certain: The media leaks and the Murtha-fication of the case are already taking a heavy toll on the troops and their families. The headlines have already convicted them: "Iraqi's Slaying Planned By Marines, Official Says." "Marines Planned to Kill Iraqi Civilian, Then Planted Evidence."

 

The national media ignored a protest by supporters outside Camp Pendleton over the weekend. "I want the Marines to know that they are not forgotten, that people are out here thinking of them," said one attendee. The father of one of the men in custody, Pfc. John J. Jodka, worried: "It appears to me that this is the reaction of some senior people to show 'We're in charge; we're cleaning up our act.'"

 

 

Not a peep heard yet from the American Civil Liberties Union. The website of the self-anointed crusaders for individual rights contains hundreds of articles on the rights of al Qaeda suspects and an indignant press release on the suicides of Guantanamo Bay detainees. But no mention of the Camp Pendleton Eight. For their part, human rights groups were too busy shedding tears for the Gitmo terrorist suicide squad and lionizing them as "heroes" in the words of William Goodman of the Center for Constitutional Rights. Editorial cartoonists have been preoccupied desecrating the Marine Corps logo and tarring troops as baby-killers.

 

A clarion voice stepped into the fray this week to push back against the global rush to judgment against our troops. Ilario Pantano, a Desert Storm vet-turned-Wall Street banker and new media entrepreneur-turned-reenlisted Marine from Hell's Kitchen, launched his gripping book "Warlord: No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy" this week, which recounts his harrowing ordeal as a Marine smeared and cleared. Last spring, he faced the death penalty for defending himself and his men in the heat of battle and killing two Iraqi insurgents. He was accused then, as Marines are being accused now, of wantonly executing Iraqis to send a message. His family and friends' defense of Pantano was met, as those of Marines are being met now, with incredulity or apathy.

 

There were no pleas to withhold judgment against Pantano from the New York Times then. No Oprah sit-downs now with the wives and children of accused troops.

 

As an agitated, condescending Ann Curry of NBC's "Today Show" tried to paint Pantano Monday as a callous thug, he replied with quiet dignity: "I don't think it's helpful to national security to have this kind of self-flagellation before the facts are actually disclosed."

 

Innocent until proven guilty? Justice for all? Benefit of the doubt? These are apparently foreign concepts when it comes to Americans in uniform being held on American soil. Perhaps if our troops proclaimed themselves "conscientious objectors" and converted to Islam, they might start getting some sympathy.

[Balta1701]

Just out of curiosity, isnt' there a specific time window when even civilian authorities can hold a prisoner for either questionning or as a material witness/suspect while an investigation is under way?

[Controlled Chaos]

Just out of curiosity, isnt' there a specific time window when even civilian authorities can hold a prisoner for either questionning or as a material witness/suspect while an investigation is under way?

 

I'm not sure, but someone here will post it...

 

Either way these guys are behind bars 23 hours a day; family members can only see them through inch-thick Plexiglas?? Only the worst of the very worst criminals get treated like that and that's AFTER they are found guilty.

[kapkomet]

The rabid dogs (aka ultra-libs) have almost completed their 'quest'... first, get Congress pissy and torn apart. Second, get GWB's poll #'s down. And if none of that works to get us out of Iraq, start pissing all over the soldiers. Nice.

[Balta1701]

The rabid dogs (aka ultra-libs) have almost completed their 'quest'... first, get Congress pissy and torn apart. Second, get GWB's poll #'s down. And if none of that works to get us out of Iraq, start pissing all over the soldiers. Nice.

So, your suggestion is to ignore any allegation of illegal action on the part of our troops because it might hurt pro-war opinion?

[jasonxctf]

The rabid dogs (aka ultra-libs) have almost completed their 'quest'... first, get Congress pissy and torn apart. Second, get GWB's poll #'s down. And if none of that works to get us out of Iraq, start pissing all over the soldiers. Nice.

 

 

:headshake

[kapkomet]

So, your suggestion is to ignore any allegation of illegal action on the part of our troops because it might hurt pro-war opinion?

Yup. That's right. I'm about to become Neo-Kapfacist. /trumpets blaring

 

NEO-KAP IS HERE!!!!!!!!!!!

[Soxbadger]

UCMJ (United States Code of Military Justice) governs.

 

Unlike prisoners of war, or people captured by the US military, soldiers voluntarily agreed to enter the service, and knew that when they commit a crime during their service, they are subject to UCMJ rules.

 

Here are the UCMJ rules: http://www.army.mil/references/UCMJ/#SUBCH...AND%20RESTRAINT

 

807. ART. 7. APPREHENSION

(a) Apprehension is the taking of a person into custody.

(B) Any person authorized under regulations governing the armed forces to apprehend persons subject to this chapter or to trial thereunder may do so upon reasonable belief that an offense has been committed and that the person apprehended committed it.

© Commissioned officers, warrant officers, petty officers, and noncommissioned officers have authority to quell quarrels, frays and disorders among persons subject to this chapter who take part therein.

 

809. ART. 9. IMPOSITION OF RESTRAINT

(a) Arrest is the restraint of a person by an order, not imposed as a punishment for an offense, directing him to remain within certain specified limits. Confinement is the physical restraint of a person.

(B) An enlisted member may be ordered into arrest or confinement by any commissioned officer by an order, oral or written, delivered in person or through other persons subject to this chapter. A commanding officer may authorize warrant officers, petty officers, or noncommissioned officers to order enlisted members of his command or subject to his authority into arrest or confinement.

©A commissioned officer, a warrant officer, or a civilian subject to this chapter or to trial thereunder may be ordered into arrest or confinement only by a commanding officer to whose authority he is subject, by an order, oral or written, delivered in person or by another commissioned officer. The authority to order such persons into arrest or confinement may not be delegated.

(d) No person may be ordered into arrest or confinement except for probable cause.

(e) Nothing in this article limits the authority of person s authorized to apprehend offenders to secure the custody of an alleged offender until proper authority may be notified.

 

According to the UCMJ, soldiers may be held on probable cause. There is no provision regarding being charged before being detained.

 

If the detainment became excessive, you may be able to have a due process claim. But at this point you are looking at 2 months of detainment, and the govt has made it clear what they believe the soldiers are guilty of: kidnapping and murder.

 

My personal opinion is that if you weigh out all the factors: 1) need for govt secrecy as this is a pending investigation and ramifications could put troops in Iraq at great risk, 2) the crime potentially being charged is one of the worst, 3) the deprivation so far has been minimal, that a court would not do anything.

 

I would like to say though that I have very limited knowledge of the UCMJ, it just is not something you learn about unless you are involved with the military.

Edited June 15, 2006 by Soxbadger

[Controlled Chaos]

Way beyond “usual combat”

Jun 14, 2006

by Jeff Emanuel ( bio | archive )

 

The events of November 19 in the terrorist stronghold of Haditha, Iraq have been rehashed ad nauseum in print, on television, and on radio since TIME magazine "broke" the story four months after its occurrence. What is clear is this: 24 Iraqis (of whom at least 15 appear to have been civilians) were killed by U.S. Marines after one of their own was "split in two," as a member of the patrol soberly put it, by an Improvised Explosive Device (IED), or roadside bomb.

 

Less certain is whether some of the deaths were a result of the IED and others occurred during a firefight with insurgents (which recordings of radio traffic appear to support), or if the Marines simply, as anti-war Congressman John Murtha asserted, "murdered" the whole group "in cold blood."

 

With the exception of Murtha, a Vietnam veteran who has apparently gone off the deep end in his quest to ensure the defeat of the America he served, the charge to convict these Marines in the court of the media and public opinion has by and large been led by people who have never experienced anything even vaguely resembling a "combat situation." The stressful and dynamic nature of combat—bullets flying, bombs exploding, and soldiers’ lives literally in each other’s hands—is so far removed from what the average American, who is used to being stressed by school, family and the slightest changes in schedule, is used to that it is almost utterly and completely incomprehensible.

 

Barring the ability to empathize with the stresses of a combat situation, Americans must attempt to understand that what our troops are facing in Iraq goes far beyond what could be called "usual combat." No longer are our soldiers fighting a uniformed enemy, all of whom answer to a unified higher command, and all of whom have a similar or identical objective in mind.

 

Instead, they are fighting enemies that dress like civilians, use churches and schools as a base of operations and, as soon as the opportunity presents itself, grab the nearest woman or child from behind which to attack. Today’s enemies are just as happy to see their own countrymen killed as Americans. They willingly—even purposely—bomb their own churches and schools, and will gladly use and sacrifice any person available to help achieve their various goals.

 

The recent history of Haditha and its surrounding area bears this out. In the spring of 2003, Special Operations forces secured Haditha Dam, a giant complex on the Euphrates River, which, had it been successfully demolished by Saddam’s forces, would have cut power to a large portion of west-central Iraq and unleashed devastating flooding on downriver cities. After being successfully defended against a five-day mortar and artillery barrage from the town, the dam was used as a checkpoint from which to deny terrorists the ability to freely travel east into more populous central Iraq. In one particular incident, a car stopped at the checkpoint and a pregnant woman got out. As the Army Ranger captain in charge approached her she, in a trembling voice, asked him for some water. He complied and as he neared her car with a canteen the vehicle exploded. He and another Ranger were killed instantly; a third suffered such serious burns that he died shortly after—all because of their willingness to aid, rather than harm, a civilian woman (an innocent who quite likely had no desire to be used either as a suicide bomber or a "martyr").

 

Even while facing an enemy that has no qualms about staging such episodes, America and her military have been constantly striving to elevate and redefine war itself in recent years. Every soldier undergoes annual training on the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) to ensure that war crimes of any magnitude do not occur, and even more legal and sensitivity training appears to be in line for the troops after this recent incident. Rather than area bombing, as was done during World War II and in the Linebacker operations of Vietnam, today’s air-to-ground operations are so precise that, with the assistance of Air Force tactical air controllers on the ground marking targets and providing target coordinates to planes, our bombs can not only hit a designated building but can be put into a specified window. Most of all—and make no mistake about this—America does not target civilians. All too many of our brave soldiers have died precisely because when the enemy was shooting from within a school or from behind women and children they did not accept the so-called "collateral damage" that would have resulted from firing through the innocents to kill the terrorists.

 

Take CNN’s Arwa Damon's account for example:

 

 

I went on countless operations in 2005 up and down the Euphrates River Valley [with the Marines patrolling in the Haditha area.] I was pinned on rooftops with them…for hours taking incoming fire, and I've seen them not fire a shot back because they did not have positive identification on a target. I saw their horror when they thought that they finally had identified their target, fired a tank round that went through a wall and into a house filled with civilians. They then rushed to help the wounded—remarkably no one was killed.

 

I was with [the Marines] … as they went house to house in an area where insurgents would booby-trap doors, or lie in wait behind closed doors with an AK-47, basically on suicide missions, just waiting for the Marines to come through and open fire. There were civilians in the city as well, and the Marines were always keenly aware of that fact. How they didn't fire at shadows, not knowing what was waiting in each house, I don't know. But they didn't.

 

This report is representative of the day-to-day operations of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines on the ground in Iraq and elsewhere. In spite of what many anti-war and anti-American activists claim, our troops are among the most humane in the world and are fighting in this and other wars not for love of killing but because of a belief in the greater cause of freedom, and in America.

 

However, with its constant opposition to the war effort, the media appear to have seized on this as—finally!—the "war crime" they have been waiting so long for. It is a direct result of this that the story broken by TIME magazine, which has been getting poked fuller and fuller of holes in recent days as the media have backed away from several details of the original account, seemed at the time to be, as Clarice Feldman said in the American Thinker , "a story too good to be checked."

 

Americans and others can rest assured on one front: the Navy is meticulously investigating the incident. TIME magazine reported that Haditha residents have been “gratified by [the] thoroughness” of the investigation. If there was wrongdoing, and if it was covered up, all of those responsible will be appropriately punished. The U.S. Military severely punishes those guilty of wrongdoing; for evidence, refer to Abu Ghraib, a media-inflated scandal and an incident to which Haditha has been compared. One of the two soldiers portrayed in the majority of the Abu Ghraib photographs received ten years in jail; the other received three. Given that level of sentencing for an incident which, though hateful and malicious, did not result in civilian deaths, it is a no-brainer that these Marines, should they be guilty of the cold-blooded murder of innocents, will receive every bit of what they deserve, if not more, at the hands of the military.

 

The investigations into last November in Haditha will be completed and whatever guilty parties there may be (if any) will be brought to justice. Until then, it should not be too much to ask that our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines—who have sacrificed their time, their comfort and even their lives and limbs for our safety, for our right to live free and for our ability to be stressed over our ordinary lives—be given the slightest benefit of the doubt.

 

 

Setting the record straight on Haditha

Jun 12, 2006

by Mary Katharine Ham ( bio | archive | contact )

 

When I worked at a newspaper, my fellow reporters and I made mistakes.

Sometimes those mistakes were on the front page of the paper; sometimes tucked away on B7 between the obits and the county's largest legume. Sometimes they were mispelled names and misplaced box scores; sometimes misused facts and mishandled reputations.

 

But no matter the nature of the mistake-- its size or its import-- the correction always went in the same place. Second page of the A section, bottom right-hand corner. It was policy, and the policy had the unfortunate consequence of usually making the correction of a mistake less prominent than the mistake itself.

 

Such is the nature of news coverage on all levels, and one of the most valuable contributions the new media and blogs can make to that news coverage is to highlight corrections that would otherwise be overlooked in their little corner of A2.

 

 

A couple of weeks ago, spurred by Congressman John Murtha's assertion that Marines in Haditha had killed civilians "in cold blood," the media promptly rushed to judgement, topping every story with Murtha's cold-blooded soundbite. When word leaked from Pentagon sources that there might be murder charges in the case, the media ran with the "maybe murder" story.

 

Because no one had yet been charged, and no one was leaking the Marines' side of the story, many became concerned that the slanted coverage might affect the fair treatment and presumption of innocence to which American servicemen are entitled. One of those people was Brig. Gen. David M. Brahms, a former Marine lawyer who the Washington Post quoted out of context in its eagerness to get an Abu Ghraib reference into the story.

 

This week, the media is backing off of its original tone, and it's time to highlight corrections so they don't end up being relegated to the back of the paper and the back of people's minds. So, I give you the Top 3 things to remember about Haditha that the press would like you to forget.

 

1. Oops, Time After Time

 

In the first media report on a "possible massacre" at Haditha, back in March, Time magazine reported that "a day after the incident, a Haditha journalism student videotaped the scene at the local morgue and at the homes where the killings had occurred. The video was obtained by the Hammurabi Human Rights Group, which cooperates with the internationally respected Human Rights Watch, and has been shared with TIME."

 

Because the incident was under investigation and no one could comment on it, Time used that videotape to bolster the accusations of civilian massacre. Now, buried at the bottom of page four of that article is this correction:

 

In the original version of this story, TIME reported that "a day after the incident, a Haditha journalism student videotaped the scene at the local morgue and at the homes where the killings had occurred. The video was obtained by the Hammurabi Human Rights Group, which cooperates with the internationally respected Human Rights Watch, and has been shared with TIME." In fact, Human Rights Watch has no ties or association with the Hammurabi Human Rights Group. TIME regrets the error.

 

Without the connection to "internationally respected Human Rights Watch," the origin of the video and the motives of the journalist involved become much more questionable.

 

But that's not the only piece of photographic evidence called into question by Time corrections.

 

In a subsequent Time story , we have this correction:

 

In the original version of this story, TIME reported that "one of the most damning pieces of evidence investigators have in their possession, John Sifton of Human Rights Watch told Time's Tim McGirk, is a photo, taken by a Marine with his cell phone that shows Iraqis kneeling — and thus posing no threat — before they were shot."

 

While Sifton did tell TIME that there was photographic evidence, taken by Marines, he had only heard about the specific content of the photos from reports done by NBC, and had no firsthand knowledge. TIME regrets the error.

 

Well, I would hope they regret that one. When a major national news magazine claims there is specific photographic evidence of American Marines killing civilians while they were praying and it ends up being wrong, that correction should be as prominent as possible, especially when those Marines have not yet been charged or faced trial.

 

Over at Sweetness and Light, a blogger takes a look at Time's young journalist source and finds that the journalist was not exactly the green go-getter Time had described.

 

Why start a human rights group if you want to remain anonymous? And why did Time pretend their source was young? Why did they pretend he had no involvement with Hammurabi? (When in fact he is its founder.)

 

But that is just the start of the many questionable aspects of Thabit's accounts.

 

Bear in mind that this "budding journalism student" waited until the next day to videotape this alleged atrocity, which supposedly happened on his very doorstep.

 

Note that this same "budding journalism student" and self-proclaimed human rights watcher did not bother to turn over his video to a media outlet or a real human rights group from November 2005 until March 2006. A four month delay.

 

That's how eager they were to make sure such a crime is never again

repeated.

 

2. Context Come Lately

 

There was more going on in Haditha that day than just the IED explosion that killed Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas and apparently sparked the fighting that left so many dead.

 

Capt. James Kimber offers his story:

 

But that day, at about the same time, Iraqi insurgents attacked all three Marine companies patrolling in the Haditha area--one of them commanded by Kimber. He said he could hear over his radio the shots being fired during a running gun battle in Haditha.

 

"They weren't just Marine weapons. You can tell from the sound," he said...

 

Kimber's recollections provide a valuable backdrop to the events last November, a period during which Marine units were encouraged to escalate their use of force in dealing with insurgents, according to a Marine colonel with knowledge of operations in that area.

 

A source I've talked to, who is involved in the potential defense cases for these Marines, said that the IED that took Terrazas' life was just the beginning of a coordinated insurgent attack on four Marine squads they knew would respond to the first IED attack. The cluster of attacks ended up hampering relief efforts and injuring about a dozen Marines.

 

As the situation developed, the Marines at the initial ambush site were isolated for a period of time in this hostile city and they had every right to fear for their lives. A group of about 15-20 foreign fighters were believed to be in Haditha that day, supplemented by local insurgents. Knowing that 6 Marines had been surrounded and killed in Haditha before help could reach them just three months before, the isolated Marines had to fear the worst as they responded to the first attack.

 

Haditha was a hotbed of insurgency in November of last year. It's important to remember the frequency and intensity of attacks these Marines were facing. There's also another side to the story, and the accused are beginning to tell it through their lawyers:

 

A sergeant who led a squad of Marines during the incident in Haditha, Iraq, that left as many as 24 civilians dead said his unit did not intentionally target any civilians, followed military rules of engagement and never tried to cover up the shootings, his attorney said.

 

Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, 26, told his attorney that several civilians were killed Nov. 19 when his squad went after insurgents who were firing at them from inside a house. The Marine said there was no vengeful massacre, but he described a house-to-house hunt that went tragically awry in the middle of a chaotic battlefield.

 

3. The Nature of the Enemy

 

Something terrible happened in Haditha. The day ended with one Marine and 15 Iraqi civilians dead. But we don't know how it happened or what the reasons were.

 

What we do know is that it is the exception to the rule to find American Marines wantonly murdering civilians. It is rather the rule, however, for insurgents to put those same civilians-- women and

children-- in harm's way.

 

That is what Terrazas' father says happened that day in Haditha:

 

Exactly what happened that day remains unclear. Miguel Terrazas' father, Martin, said the Marines his son fought with told him that after the car bomb exploded the Marines took a defensive position around his son's battered vehicle. Insurgents immediately started shooting from nearby buildings, and the insurgents were using women and children as human shields, Martin said he was told.

 

The Marines shot back because "it was going to be them or" the insurgents, Martin said of what his son's fellow Marines briefly described to him.

 

It wouldn't be the first time terrorists have shown such disgusting disregard for the lives of children.

 

We do not know what happened in Haditha on November 19, 2005. When two military investigations and any trials that result are complete, it will become more clear. If Marines are guilty of atrocities, they will be punished severely.

 

In the meantime, rely on alternative media and bloggers like Mudville Gazette , Sweetness and Light , California Conservative , and this bunch of informed milbloggers to keep level heads about the accusations.

 

The mainstream media spent a couple of weeks throwing around the "cold blood" and "maybe murder" stories. Now that they're backtracking, it's our job to make sure new corrections and less damning facts don't get lost in the corner of page two.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

If the government has evidence, bring them to trial and go forward with the damn thing. Same for all the 'preventative detentions' we've got all over the place with suspected terrorists that we haven't charged with any crime.

 

The government figures that they've gotten away with the doctrine of preventative detention before, why not use it now as well since the majority hasn't really raised a peep condemning the doctrine.

[NorthSideSox72]

Just out of curiosity, isnt' there a specific time window when even civilian authorities can hold a prisoner for either questionning or as a material witness/suspect while an investigation is under way?

These are not civilian authorities. So reference the UCMJ as cited by Badger.

 

But in case you were curious... as far as I was taught and guided by the handbook, civilian authorities (aka the police) cannot hold anyone for "questioning or as a material witness" without their consent, unless there is an immediate threat to public safety. Now, you can serve warrants to material witnesses, but you can only jail them if they evade the order. Kind of like contempt of court, or obstruction. But barring that, as far as I know, the type of custody you are referring to (civilian, police custody against a person's express will) is only legal if a direct danger to someone's safety is involved.