Marine Sues Murtha

Why should he have? This fuss is because he has criticized Bush's handling of the invasion, not because he commented on a situation under investigation.

Yeah, 'cause the Republicans all refused to comment on Clinton when he was under investigation...

 

Of course, didn't most people think those who accused Clinton of dishonesty in Whitewater, as being unfair?

Turns out they were completely wrong. Clinton not only wasn't guilty of anything, he was one of the investors who was swindled.

So naming someone and declaring them guilty is wrong unless you have very good evidence. They fact that the suspects lied about two critical issues in the case is pretty damning.

The Iraqis who died were inside houses, and were shot with rifles after the bomb went off. No sane person is going to believe that the suspects were just confused about how they died.

Likewise, no sane person is going to buy the idea that they had a firefight with people firing from those houses, when there are no bulletholes in the exterior.

And how do you get "confused" about something like that?

 

Galatian I hate it when you might be right.

But if these guys did this, then what you said about kerry was true - there are more like him.

That is scary. One of him was bad enough.

 

Daisy

He had a perfectly legal method of doing what he did. As a former Marine - he INTENTIONALLY went around the legal method and called the actions of his fellow Marines into disgrace.

Daisy, Marines do not normally do that. Maybe he was tired, confused, senile - but he made a BIG mistake. He can use his power in a congressional investigation. He knew that going to the press would force the command to charge* the kids. He knows that. That is just wrong!

This fuss is because he abused his position. Maybe in your mind, you are bothered by his criticizing the President of the USA. But, in my mind - he disgraced the NCO Corps. He jeopardized the professionalism of my Corps. I was and I am proud that I served. And every time I saw a sniveling politician do something like this, I saw it ruin careers.

IMHO

* Actually he knowingly forced an article 32 investigation (civilian grand jury). With the pressure coming from a congressman - the likelihood that the soldiers would be charged would probably be greater.

 

Daisy

You really need to meet my friend. He is an NCO and he recruits for the US Marines. I know he is my friend, because he is an NCO. He will gladly help you out with the paper work - and you can quit before 4 months without a problem - just in case you don't want to go to Iraq.

But, you need to understand just how sick what murtha did was.

 

Wrong. Kerry was talking about burning huts and shooting livestock in VC-controlled areas. Things DOD ordered, but later considered to be violations of international law. If you believe Kerry intentionally shot unarmed civilians, I'd have to see the evidence for that.

 

Galatian

I do not know what Kerry was 'talking about' I just know what he said:

Our laws would not have punished him for burning huts or killing cows. Maybe that is what he was 'talking about', but the audio sure doesn't sound like it. It sounds like a confession.

Maybe he was dramatizing for effect?

Maybe he was suffering from PTSD (post traumatic stress) and really was delusional or something during the interview?

Maybe he really thought that what he said sounded like an admission to killing cows and not people?

But, what his daughter recounted was evil. Maybe she was dramatic and delusional as well.

 

Galatian

If they did this, it sounds like what Kerry was talking about (admitted to?). Those crimes are punishable - and must be punished IMHO. Yes, we do 'burn' our soldiers. And I regret the need to sacrifice the futures of some few soldiers that break down under the high stress of combat. The part of combat that is sometimes evil, I can agree with kerry - just don't run with that. What he told his daughters turns my stomach.

But, we a free and democratic people need to prevent unnecessary slaughter especially of civilians.

 

What he did - release a press statement - was perfectly legal.

The press already had the story. The press not only had the story, but had been running the story for months.

The incident took place Nov 19, 2005. On the 20th, the military released an incorrect version of what happened and Taher Thabet shot a video of the houses and the bodies at the morgue. He gave a copy of that video to a reporter for Time magazine, Tim McGirk in Jan 2006.

McGirk gave a copy of the video as well as witness statements to the military in Feb 2006 and a preliminary investigation is started and concludes that the civilians had been shot not blown up. A more thorough investigation is begun.

In Mar 2006, a military criminal investigation is started and CNN is the first to report on it. Time magazine then runs a detailed story. The military opens a second investigation.

In April 2006, CNN plays the video. In April & May, more stories - with still photos - are run & aired.

Finally, in mid-May, Murtha makes a statement using the incident to criticize Bush.

Source: American Journalism Review's Timeline: by Lori Robertson: July 2006 (linkie)

That obviously is not the case as the story had been out for a while.

No, I'm not bothered but that is one of the reasons the RRW attack dogs have been sicced on him.

I didn't see any sniveling - from him. The story had already been out in print, photos & video. It was not a secret by that time.

The investigations were started well before he said anything. I believe you are wrong about this.

 

Actually, they would. Such conduct, DOD says, is contrary to the laws of war, with exceptions.

I see. He didn't say what it was, so it must have been murdering civilians.

Good thinking.

 

Thanks Bro!

I really don't know how his daughters sleep. His old bedtime stories make me cringe.

That's why you won't find a transcript of his daughters discussing his stories from the last election - but, if you do let me know you found one.

 

The Naval Criminal Investigative Service yesterday issued a preliminary report that said there was enough evidence against Wuterich and other Marines in his platoon to support filing criminal charges.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_464567.html

 

StraightAndNarrow

You are doing great! Thanks for letting us know that this NCO is being run in the ground.

The article 32 hearing determines whether to recommend charges or not - not the NCIS - does look good on TV. But leaking that report to the press would normally be against UCMJ.

Unless maybe they have made an exception in this case because of the congressman's pressure.

I pray that they did not do it. But, it doesn't sound good for them.

 

Right. You ignored the larger part of the post, refused to answer the question I posed, skipped over the points I made, focused on one sentence and pretended that that was the entirety? I can't help wondering if that is entirely honest.

Which is dodgier, publishing the timeline of the Haditha contraversy or refusing to acknowledge it?

Sure, responding to a statement made by you is "changing the subject". You mock my bringing in a contrast because you know I'm right about that.

You're describing yourself and your own tactics as demonstrated by that very post. My Irony Meter is being severely taxed by your post.

Pretend all you like that Murtha is responsible, um, for what? Causing the public to consider the soldiers guilty of murder? First, you haven't shown that the "public" has condemned them as murderers. Second, the "public" has little to do with charges being brought, trials being held or putting them in prison without charges or trials; that is ridiculous hyperbole. Third, at least two investigations, one of them criminal, had already begun well before Murtha said anything. Fourth, which do you think has a greater influence, Murtha's statement on May 17th or CNN's running the Haditha video and Time & other newssources publishing the photos with commentary that it could not have happened like the military said it had? Or the hate-radio folks constant harping on Murtha's statement. Seriously, I doubt many people would have known or remembered that he'd said anything if it weren't for the distortions and attacks on him, sanctimoniously pretending to defend the soldiers, from the rabid right-wingers such as yourself. For people like you, it is all about attacking Murtha who criticized Bush's disastrous handling of the Mid-East.

 

Murtha, a Marine and a veteran who served honorably, was no doubt incensed by a few who disgraced the Corps. That's understandable. No one in his right mind thinks that the court-martial officers (if a couirt-martial convenes) are going to be swayed by Murtha's comments. There have been much stronger comments both for and against these guys, in the press and on hate radio.

 

I am flabbergasted that there are those who cannot believe there could be bad apples in the ranks. Why wouldn't there be? Isn't the military a cross section of the U.S. population? Just as there are bad cops, there are also renegade marines. We should not give them a pass just because they are marines. Their guilty or innocence will be determined by trial (if charges are brought to bear), just like anyone else.