Marine Requests Congressional Censure of John Murtha

[carpro]

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200707/NAT20070713b.html

Marine's Parents Want Murtha Censured for Haditha Remarks
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
July 13, 2007

EXCERPT

(CNSNews.com) - The parents of a U.S. Marine accused of killing three Iraqis execution-style in Haditha in late 2005 said Thursday they would ask Congress to censure Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) for saying that the Marines "overreacted" during the incident and killed civilians "in cold blood."

"It's too late for an apology," Darryl Sharratt of Canonsburg, Pa., told Cybercast News Service after the hearing officer in the case, Lt. Col. Paul Ware, released an 18-page report recommending that all charges against Sharratt's son, Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt, be dismissed because his actions "were in accord with the rules of engagement and use of force."

Sharratt said that he, his wife Theresa and other supporters of their 22-year-old son were planning to visit Martha's office, and "we're going to ask for more than an apology."

"We need this man censured by our Congress," he said, because "he denied my son -- and the other Marines involved -- their constitutional rights to a fair trial and a presumption of innocence."

 

[Analgesic]

Is a member of congress legally required to presume someone to be innocent?

 

[Rufus_1611]

Is a member of congress legally required to presume someone to be innocent?

When presiding over a trial, such as impeachment, I would presume that they would be. However, a congress member can say anything he wants but according to the Constitution the body of congress can discipline for whatever cause they see fit.

"Article I, Section 5, of the United States Constitution provides that "Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member." (Source: http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Expulsion_Censure.htm)

If the congressional body finds that this congressman was out of order in his statements about a U.S. soldier and accused him improperly (as it appears is the case), it is certainly within the congress' rights to censure him for that behavior. 'Tis a good rule of thumb for all people, including congressmen, to withhold judgment until the facts of matters have revealed themselves.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Rufus, Aren't you the same one who was arguing that a judge who made a comment at a luncheon (about a case that was not before him) was guilty of violating the constitutional right of innocent until proven guilty?

 

[Rufus_1611]

Rufus, Aren't you the same one who was arguing that a judge who made a comment at a luncheon (about a case that was not before him) was guilty of violating the constitutional right of innocent until proven guilty?

The judge was not guilty of a crime. My argument was that the judge's world view ran contrary to Constitutional principles. The same thing holds true for this congressman. Both the judge and the congressman are free to hold these views. The congress has the right to censure a congressman for whatever they desire as the Constitution provides for this. The judge's statements are not criminal unto themselves and I would not propose any action short of folks reminding him about the Constitution he swore to defend. However, once he makes decisions that run contrary to the Constitution, then the Congress has the duty to impeach him.

 

[LadyEagle]

They may have duties and responsibilities, but most of the people on Capitol Hill are arrogant jerks and wind bags who think they are little gods and can do no wrong. Stern measures should be taken for defaming our soldiers in public and before the world. But I will be surprised if anything is done of a disciplinary nature, especially since Democrats are in the majority.

 

[carpro]

Is a member of congress legally required to presume someone to be innocent?

He is morally and ethically required to not make any statement nor take any action that could prejudice the public and the courts against any man or woman serving in combat under difficult conditions.

If nothing else, just plain simple good judgement requires that he be circumspect about running his mouth in a negative way concerning the conduct of our troops.

 

[Analgesic]

When presiding over a trial, such as impeachment, I would presume that they would be. However, a congress member can say anything he wants but according to the Constitution the body of congress can discipline for whatever cause they see fit.



If the congressional body finds that this congressman was out of order in his statements about a U.S. soldier and accused him improperly (as it appears is the case), it is certainly within the congress' rights to censure him for that behavior. 'Tis a good rule of thumb for all people, including congressmen, to withhold judgment until the facts of matters have revealed themselves.

Thanks. And yes, he certainly should have been more thoughtful.

He is morally and ethically required to not make any statement nor take any action that could prejudice the public and the courts against any man or woman serving in combat under difficult conditions.

If nothing else, just plain simple good judgement requires that he be circumspect about running his mouth in a negative way concerning the conduct of our troops.

I don't see what the person's occupation has to do with it. It's either morally wrong to potentially prejudice the public and/or courts, or it's not.

 

[carpro]

I don't see what the person's occupation has to do with it. It's either morally wrong to potentially prejudice the public and/or courts, or it's not.

Surely you can see the difference between the effect it has when you or I make prejudicial statements and when a former Marine Congressman, after claiming he had reviewed the evidence, declares currently serving Marines guilty of cold blooded murder.

Who's going to pay any attention to you or me?

 

[pinoybaptist]

I would send Murtha a package of duct tape for his mouth.

 

[Analgesic]

Surely you can see the difference between the effect it has when you or I make prejudicial statements and when a former Marine Congressman, after claiming he had reviewed the evidence, declares currently serving Marines guilty of cold blooded murder.

Who's going to pay any attention to you or me?

Sorry for being unclear. Clearly there is a very significant difference between the opinions of you and I and those of an elected official. I was referring to the occupation of the Marine.

If an elected official has a duty not to unduly influence the public presumption of innocence (which I've yet to decide if I agree with), then clearly it applies to this case. If, however, no such general duty exists, then I see no real basis for insisting on the existence of such a duty in the specific context of members of the military.

 

[Rufus_1611]

I would send Murtha a package of duct tape for his mouth.

He should already have duct tape if he followed Homeland Security protocols for protecting himself. He should have some plastic sheeting you can encourage him to wrap somewhere as well.

 

[carpro]

Sorry for being unclear. Clearly there is a very significant difference between the opinions of you and I and those of an elected official. I was referring to the occupation of the Marine.

If an elected official has a duty not to unduly influence the public presumption of innocence (which I've yet to decide if I agree with), then clearly it applies to this case. If, however, no such general duty exists, then I see no real basis for insisting on the existence of such a duty in the specific context of members of the military.

Sorry I misunderstood you, but I will still maintain that special consideration should be given to those who have their lives on the line in the service of their country.

 

[Analgesic]

Sorry I misunderstood you, but I will still maintain that special consideration should be given to those who have their lives on the line in the service of their country.

No worries, but I'm wondering how you defend such special consideration on a moral basis.

 

[carpro]

No worries, but I'm wondering how you defend such special consideration on a moral basis.

It's not hard for me at all. However...

I see your point but it's not likely that Congressmen will even comment on cases that are not directly connected to partisan politics. He condemned these Marines to make a partisan political point.

He was out of bounds. In lieu of an apology, maybe he can tell them where to go to get their good name back after he slandered them for political gain.

 

[JustChristian]

When presiding over a trial, such as impeachment, I would presume that they would be. However, a congress member can say anything he wants but according to the Constitution the body of congress can discipline for whatever cause they see fit.



If the congressional body finds that this congressman was out of order in his statements about a U.S. soldier and accused him improperly (as it appears is the case), it is certainly within the congress' rights to censure him for that behavior. 'Tis a good rule of thumb for all people, including congressmen, to withhold judgment until the facts of matters have revealed themselves.

The way I read this article, this marine is accused of a war crime. Why do you say he's obviously innocent. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until after the trial but I can't really say based on what I've read whether he is innocent or guilty.

 

[carpro]

The way I read this article, this marine is accused of a war crime. Why do you say he's obviously innocent. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until after the trial but I can't really say based on what I've read whether he is innocent or guilty.

That's the point.

If Gen. Mattis agrees with the investigating officer, there will be no trial.

Reason: Not enough evidence.

Except for Murtha.

 

[Analgesic]

It's not hard for me at all. However...

I see your point but it's not likely that Congressmen will even comment on cases that are not directly connected to partisan politics. He condemned these Marines to make a partisan political point.

He was out of bounds. In lieu of an apology, maybe he can tell them where to go to get their good name back after he slandered them for political gain.

Sure he did, but almost everything politicians do is to make a partisan political point. Now, I absolutely agree with you that this is utterly deplorable, but if you start demanding a censure on that basis congress isn't going to have the time to do anything else.

 

[hillclimber1]

I hope the people of Penn. vote this embarrassment out. But.........

 

[carpro]

Sure he did, but almost everything politicians do is to make a partisan political point. Now, I absolutely agree with you that this is utterly deplorable, but if you start demanding a censure on that basis congress isn't going to have the time to do anything else.

They have already decided not to legislate but investigate for the next two years. They have time to squeeze it in without interfering with their investigations.

There won't be too many censures. Only a few members of Congress are guilty of slandering our troops for political gain.