Murtha Sued

It seems that at least two Marines are planning on suing John "I Was A Marine" Murtha over his public comments on the Haditha Incident once they are fully exonerated. From the first link:

Well, the Marine Corps investigator has now dropped all charges against 3 of the 8 accused Marines in the case, and only one Marine still stands accused of crimes at the scene. The others are charged with various after-the-fact issues that arose from investigations of Haditha, not the events themselves. Murtha’s aim, of course, in accusing the Marines of murder “in cold blood” was to pin the blame on Bush. But in the process of blaming Bush, he slandered those Marines.

One of those Marines, Col. Jeffrey Chessani, plans to sue Murtha once he’s exonerated.

I guess Murtha didn't follow events in Durham, North Carolina over the past year and a half.

The evidence is that the Marines were doing their job as trained and within the limits of the rules of engagement.

Based on that reasoning, the case against Wuterich is likely to fall apart too. He is the last Marine against whom charges from that night remain. If the charges against him fall, game over. Jack Murtha will have slandered Marines who acted according to their training during the course of ongoing combat.

Although Murtha is not a prosecutor he has certainly engaged in Nifongery. i.e. adverse pre-trial publicity on the part of a government agent, with reckless disregard for the facts.

The Marines may just have a case.

H/T Instapundit

Cross Posted at Classical Values and at The Astute Bloggers

The Honor Of The Marines Is At Stake

I have been having a discussion with Allen about the Haditha case.

Allen directs me to something he said at the Belmont Club. Let me quote a bit.

Indeed, from the polling, the United States military is the single, sole, and only institutional or professional entity in which the American public vests its unwavering confidence.

Therefore, the vociferous argument made by you and others, claiming that the Haditha Marines are being “set-up” or “sacrificed” by the military for political purposes, undermines confidence in the single institution in which the public places its trust.

The outrageous claims made by you and others, based on hearsay, innuendo, and blog and media opinion pieces, are NOT helping the Haditha Marines or (more importantly) the United States.

To which I replied:

The trust in the military is earned.

It is earned by the military correcting errors.

To think that the military does not respond to political pressure is to live in a fantasy world. If we can have a Nifong in North Carolina we can have one in the Marines.

Your argument reminds me of the Dreyfuss case where it was often argued that guilt or innocence was irrelevant. The honor of the army was at stake.

I don't buy it.

BTW this is a blog. I deal in hearsay and innuendo. Plus the occasional fact when I can find it. I have sources I link to. You can come to your own conclusions. Sometimes I'm right. Sometimes my connection with reality is tennuous at best. This is entertainment. If you actually learn something useful it is a side benefit. However, it looks to me like the prosecution of the Haditha Marines (as far as it has gone) is a political hit job to quiet the opposition (Time Magazine, John Murtha, et. al.). I thought that when the story first hit the blogs. I'm more convinced now.

John Murtha is no Marine. He forgot the Marine motto. Semper Fidelis.

Haditha Bombshell - Intel Evidence

New evidence continues to surface in the Haditha case that shows the Marines didn't do it.

Convincing evidence that corroborates NewsMax.com's accounts of the Haditha insurgent ambush has compelled the prosecution to take extraordinary steps to bolster their crumbling case.

The stunning announcement that all charges are being dropped against Sgt. Sanick P. Dela Cruz, formerly accused of murder in the Haditha incident where 24 Iraqis were killed during an insurgent ambush against the Marines, is indication that the prosecutors have a very weak case against all the defendants, lawyers for the some of the accused say.

There is more evidence of weakness in the case.

The announcement of the deal with Dela Cruz is further evidence that the cases against the Kilo Company Marines and several of their superior officers are in deep trouble. It comes on the heels of postponements of Article 32 hearings slated for Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, the battalion commander and two of the enlisted men charged with murdering civilians in Haditha on Nov. 19, 2005.

Now here is the bombshell:

In a nutshell, the case exploded when an intelligence officer dropped a bombshell on prosecutors during a pre-hearing interview when he revealed the existence of exculpatory evidence that appears to have been obtained by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) and withheld from the prosecutors.

This officer, described by senior Marine Corps superiors as one of the best and most dedicated intelligence officers in the entire Marine Corps, was in possession of evidence which provided a minute-by-minute narrative of the entire day's action — material which he had amassed while monitoring the day's action in his capacity as the battalion's intelligence officer. That material, he says, was also in the hands of the NCIS.

Much of that evidence remains classified, but it includes videos of the entire day's action, including airstrikes against insurgent safe houses. Also included was all of the radio traffic describing the ongoing action between the men on the ground and battalion headquarters, and proof that the Marines were aware that the insurgents conducting the ambush of the Kilo Company troops were videotaping the action — the same video that after editing ended up in the hands of a gullible anti-war correspondent for Time magazine.

When asked by the prosecution team to give his copies of the evidence to the prosecution, he told NewsMax.com that he was reluctant to do so, fearing it would again be suppressed or misused, but later relented when ordered by his commanding general to do so.

Confronted by the massive mounds of evidence that Marine Corps sources tell NewsMax proves conclusively that the cases against the Haditha Marines are baseless, the prosecutors were forced to postpone the Article 31 against Lt. Col. Chessani and two of the enlisted men in an attempt to regroup.

By granting immunity to the officer on the scene of the house-clearing effort, the prosecution, lawyers say, has further weakened its case.

It is looking more and more like there was no case to begin with. Just some allegations and a movie by our enemies. With Time Magazine taking the side of our enemies.

It is looking more and more like the Haditha Massacre will be put in the same category as the Duke Rape Hoax. Prosecutorial overstretch.

Robert Muise, the Thomas More Law Center attorney who questioned the officer, told NewsMax in a statement, "The intelligence officer is a crucial witness in this case. During his testimony, he effectively described the enemy situation prior to, during, and after the November 19 terrorist attack, providing the necessary context for the decisions that were made as a result. His testimony shows the complexity of the attack this day, the callousness of the terrorists toward the local civilians, whom they use to their advantage, and the error of viewing this incident in a vacuum.

"The officer also showed how the insurgents used allegations of wrongdoing by Marines as propaganda to support their cause. In fact, another witness, who was the assistant intelligence officer during the attack and is now the current intelligence officer for the battalion, testified that since the Haditha incident received so much negative attention, terrorist propaganda alleging law of war violations against American servicemen in Iraq has ‘ballooned.'"

So this case is what many had suspected all along. A propaganda effort by our enemy to smear American soldiers. And of course our media lapped it up uncritically. Who's side are they on anyway?

And what about old Stinking Jack Murtha who pressed the Marine Corps to investigate by saying that some of the Marines involved that day were cold blooded killers. Murtha, who used to be a Marine, is a disgrace to the Corps.

Haditha Roundup.

NCIS Misconduct Alleged in Haditha Probe

Curt at Flopping Aces has an excellent overview that is linkage rich.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Iran Has Murtha's Number

Iran is calling for a timetable for US pull out from Iraq.

At a news conference after the meeting, Araghchi restated Tehran's demands for a clear timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces, which he insisted had made Iraq a magnet for extremists from across the Muslim world.

Hmmmmm. A magnet for extremists. So where will the extremists head if they are no longer attracted to Iraq? Afghanistan maybe?

Or perhaps they will ethnically cleanse Iraq and then head for Afghanistan.

Well Murtha should be proud. He has at least one important member of the international community on his side. I'm sure he finds that comforting.

Murtha Has A Plan

Murtha has a plan for American defeat in Iraq. MoveCongress.Org says John Murtha will speak to them about removing support for our troops and thus ending the War in Iraq. Evidently they would prefer genocide followed by a full scale Middle East War. MoveCongress has spoken and here are their words.

The Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense has begun consideration of the president’s $93 billion supplemental appropriations request for Iraq. Action on the request will be the first opportunity for the new Congress to exercise its “power-of-the-purse” over the Iraq war.

Chairman Murtha will describe his strategy for not only limiting the deployment of troops to Iraq but undermining other aspects of the president’s foreign and national security policy. Chairman Murtha discusses these steps in a videotaped conversation with former Congressman Tom Andrews (D-ME), the National Director of the Win Without War coalition, sponsor of MoveCongress.org.

Join us here tomorrow for this exclusive interview.

The bolding was by me. Also note that the offending sentence can no longer be found at MoveCongress. I wonder why? Well, it is a big web with eyes and ears everywhere.

Why do I feel this is 1936 all over again?

And now, on March 7, 1936, while France had only a caretaker government, Hitler, not fearing the League being used against him, sent troops into the Rhineland. According to the Versailles and Locarno treaties the Rhineland was to remain demilitarized. The move defied these agreements but was popular in Germany - an issue of national sovereignty - the Rhineland being a part of Germany. But Hitler's generals were concerned. Germany's army was still not ready for combat. Hitler had assured his generals that they could withdraw at the first sign of a counter move by France's army, but he had taken measure of the pacifism in France and Britain and was confident that France and Britain would do nothing. His move into the Rhineland caused a sensation and the world waited to see what France and Britain would do.

Bolding again mine.

The UN is corrupt and will do nothing. The enemies of liberty advance with the help of our anti-war folks. Did some one say 1936?

Churchill, in the House of Commons, declared the remilitarization of the Rhineland to be a triumph for Hitler. He spoke of the danger to parliamentary nations from heavily armed dictatorships. He complained that Britain was confronting dictators "without weapons or military force" and that the spirit of British people was being tamed and cowed "with peace films, anti-recruiting propaganda and resistance to defense measures."
Fear of the Left in France

In May, 1936, elections in France brought to power a new coalition government, called the "Popular Front" - a coalition that included Communists - who were responding to the Soviet Union's new policy of allowing alliances with anti-fascists. After only a few days in office, France's new government announced its intentions to improve working conditions - which, along with wages in France, lagged behind other advanced industrialized nations. Labor leaders were emboldened by the Popular Front's victory. They were impatient and wanted to demonstrate their power, so they sent their workers out on strike, aggravating everyone but labor and the Left.

The head of the new government was Leon Blum, the leader of France's Socialist Party. Rightists in France wondered whether Hitler conquering France would be any worse than the Left in power in France, Rightists knowing that Hitler would suppress the Left. The expressions "better Hitler than Blum" and "better Hitler than Stalin" were heard.

What good are weapons and military force if you can't use them? Churchill was of course in great dismay over the British situation in 1936. Had he been in America today he would have been livid.

Churchill did have one nice thing to say about America. "Americans can always be depended upon to do the right thing --- after they have tried everything else."

He was right, but it is going to cost us. Dearly.

You can hear what John Murtha has to say at Google Video.

Mark Levin has an excellent rant on Murtha [audio].

Murtha has me frosted. So I'm adding a bit more on this crook.

The Washington Times calls the Murtha plan a plan for defeat.

In the wake of September 11, McGovernism -- that is, the reflexive opposition to the use of force by the United States against foreign enemies that has dogged the Democratic Party since Richard Nixon's time -- became more of a liability than ever. At least, it appeared that way judging from the 2002 and 2004 election results. But in last year's congressional elections, the Democrats came up with a shrewd, cynical new P.R. strategy that has until now served them well: saying lots of nice things about American soldiers fighting in Iraq while simultaneously advancing resolutions that denigrate their mission. But the decision to effectively cut off funds by micromanaging their use -- rather than by doing so directly -- may also be unconstitutional.

When the House votes today on the resolution denouncing Mr. Bush's plans for additional troops to combat al Qaeda and other terrorist groups in Iraq, members should be under no illusions about what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic Party leadership are trying to do: to make it impossible for American troops to properly do their job in Iraq.

The battle going on in Iraq is still in doubt. It may be in doubt for a number of years. Insurgencies are not defeated over night.

Sweetness and Ligght has some good quotes:

By Richard Cowan and David Alexander

WASHINGTON, Feb 15 (Reuters) - U.S. Rep. John Murtha, a leading congressional opponent of the war in Iraq, on Thursday said his plans for placing conditions on how President George W. Bush can spend $93.4 billion in new combat funds would effectively stop an American troop buildup.

"They won’t be able to continue. They won’t be able to do the deployment. They won’t have the equipment, they don’t have the training and they won’t be able to do the work. There’s no question in my mind," the Pennsylvania Democrat said.

Lovely. If our troops need help the cavalry will not be on the way.

Murtha says he was once a Marine. I'll agree with that. He is a Marine no longer.

"We’re trying to force a redeployment not by taking money away, by redirecting money," Murtha said, adding he wants U.S. funds to be slanted more toward diplomacy and Iraq reconstruction…

Now why would John "I coulda been a crook" Murtha want to redirect the money? His brother is a defence lobbyist. Perhaps he will have some say in how these redirected funds will be spent. Ya think?

Further reasearch shows Murtha's Military Medals may have been unearned.

"Of course Congressman Saylor wanted to help if he could, but there was nothing in the service record to indicate the wounds were of any severity and the documents specifically indicated that next of kin was not notified in either instance," Fox told the Herald-Standard in 1996. "We were amazed that Mr. Murtha was asking for Purple Hearts for superficial lacerations," he added.

I guess Murtha belongs to the John Kerry squad of war heros.

The Captain's Quarters has some thoughts on Murtha's slow bleed of American troops.

H/T Instapundit

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Noble Deed

The American Thinker has published an anonymous letter from Kuwait. The author points out the failure of oil socialism in Kuwait. He (?) also points out what a noble deed Americans did liberating Kuwait in 1991 and Iraq in 2003.

But the most important point I want to make is this: America did a wonderful, a noble deed, laugh if you will at this language. Americans were attacked. And they liberated the Iraqi people, who played a large part in attacking them. If you don’t believe the Iraqis had WMDs, a nuclear program and had a close working relationship with Al Qaeda, I’ve got some beachfront property in Arizona, I’d like to sell you. The evidence is there. People refuse to access it, read it and acknowledge it. But it’s there. I am constantly amazed at the denail of this evidence. But I suppose we see what we want to see. Those who were in Kuwait during the occupation witnessed the brutality. Do you know what it is like to live in fear? Lving next door to a brutal dictator makes these connections seem more plausible.

I was in Kuwait as soon as you could go back after the liberation. As an American I was shocked when I heard Kuwaiti students say they rented the American army…and since they had paid, what need had they to feel grateful to Americans? I was saddened to learn that this is a typical attitude. The outpouring of genuine gratutide and friendship after the Gulf War was very brief and I can’t understand why except I know that Kuwaitis wanted to remain a part of the Gulf Arab “family.” Or later to read of a “sheika” (princess) complaining about the inconvenience of having American troops in Kuwait…it made it difficult for her to get to her grandmother’s chalet (beach house). (The American presence here is almost invisible. Troops are hidden away.)

After the Iraq war, I read the blogs, and sure enough I found Iraqis sneering (as Kuwaitis had) “oh, we would have overthrown Saddam if we had enough time”. Now this is what the Arabs call a “mentality”-it’s a way of thinking. To counter-act that mentaility our troops and contract workers have worked hardunder the leadership and policy of George W. Bush-to turn that victim and blame mentaility into a take-responsibility mentality. To make people see that taking responsbility gets results. If we had done as the writer of the articler suggested and made a client state, we would have seething resentment, anger and victim mentality and another problem to solve down the road. It might have looked something like the Palestinian “state”. A stubborn refusal to cooperate, a fatalistic victim outlook.

I do believe Bush has done about as well as could be expected given what he has to work with.

It will be interesting to see if the Democrats can do any better. If not look for a Republican landslide in '08.

None the less anon is bitter:

But the real reason Republicans lost is Americans still believe they are invincible and the threat isn’t real. The war is “over there”. Terrorists are like pesky mosquitos. It’s not close to home. Except for a brief period when one of those airplane bomb scares almost happens. Americans have invented the technology that can destroy them but they don’t realize it. It’s like 9-11 never happened.

I hope the American soldiers go home right away. I don’t want to see them die for nothing anymore since the terrorists are right that we aren’t long term strategists like they are. I can’t believe that Americans would elect Democrats when the terrorists said before the election that’s what the wanted.-when the terrorists said Americans won’t staywe know they won’t stay-just wait, you’ll see. When the President of Iran congratulated the Democrats on their victory because now the problem will be resolved. Please let me know what answer the Democrats are giving to that endorsement. Particularly John Murtha. I really would be interested if you featured that as one of the little items on your home page: John Murtha’s reply to the terrorists. How are Dems responding to the happiness of terrorists? How is withdrawing from Iraq not in algnment with terrorist objectives?

We win wars spectacularly and then snatch defeat from the jaws of victory because of a lack of patience, fortitude. and knowledge. It’s deja vu al over again—just like the Gulf War.

Actually it got started in Korea and reached its peak in Vietnam.

Man it is just like the 60s all over again. The music is mostly the same and I do not party quite as hardy and I have switched sides (cut and run is no longer music to my ears), but otherwise as a famous yogi once said and repeated by anon above "It’s deja vu all over again."

Unlawful Command Influence

Rep. Jack Murtha may be in deep do do over his Haditha comments. A story in the Washington Times gives the details:

A criminal defense attorney for a Marine under investigation in the Haditha killings says he will call a senior Democratic congressman as a trial witness, if his client is charged, to find out who told the lawmaker that U.S. troops are guilty of cold-blooded murder.

Attorney Neal A. Puckett told The Washington Times that Gen. Michael Hagee, the Marine commandant, briefed Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, on the Nov. 19 killings of 24 Iraqis in the town north of Baghdad. Mr. Murtha later told reporters that the Marines were guilty of killing the civilians in "cold blood." Mr. Murtha said he based his statement on Marine commanders, whom he did not identify.

Mr. Puckett said such public comments from a congressman via senior Marines amount to "unlawful command influence." He said potential Marine jurors could be biased by the knowledge that their commandant, the Corps' top officer, thinks the Haditha Marines are guilty.

"Congressman Murtha will be one of the first witnesses I call to the witness stand," Mr. Puckett said yesterday.

Unlawful Command Influence under the Uniform Code of Military Justice means poisoning the jury pool. It is a rule meant to prevent the hierarchical nature of the military from influencing the outcome of a military trial.

Not only that, it appears that veterans are rising up to defeat Murtha. He is being opposed by Diana Irey in the November elections. She is supported by Vets for Irey. This will get ugly.

Hat tip: Instapundit.

Update: 16 June '06 1618z
Sweetness & Light has a nice bit about how the lawyers are getting on the Haditha case.

Update: 16 June '06 1746z

I expound a bit on military justice at Sweetness & Light. Here is what I had to say:

Basically because the military is a strict hierarchy, the chain of command is supposed to stay out of all judicial matters not involving non-judicial punishment. And even those are subject to review. Once a command unduly puts its fingers on the scales of justice the prosecution is over. No matter which side the command put the pressure on. It is also a very big black mark on an officer’s career.

Update: 18 June '06 0905z

The Squiggler has more on the anti-Murtha campaign. Curiouser & Curiouser focuses on the Irey campaign.

Update: 10 Sept '06 0704z
Irey for Congress www site.

Technorati:

Murtha, Jack Murtha, Pennsylvanian, Irey, Diana Irey, Veterans for Irey, Unlawful Command Influence, Haditha, Marines, US Marines, Lawyers, Military Law, UCMJ, Uniform Code of Military Justice, NJP, Non Judicial Punishment