Murtha Should Apologize to the Marines at Haditha

fred_smith · June 19, 2008, 3:45am

Haditha Justice
Marines vs. smears.

By Michelle Malkin

Yet another U.S. Marine, Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, had charges dropped Tuesday in the so-called Haditha massacre — bringing the total number of Marines who’ve been cleared or won case dismissals in the Iraq-war incident to seven. “Undue command influence” on the prosecution led to the outcome in Chessani’s case. Bottom line: That’s zero for seven for military prosecutors, with one trial left to go.

I repeat: Haditha prosecution goes 0-7. But you won’t see that headline in the same Armageddon-sized font the New York Times used repeatedly when the story first broke.
The Times, Rep. John Murtha (D., Pa.), and the rest of the antiwar drum-pounders who fueled the smear campaign against the troops two years ago should hang their hands in shame. They won’t, of course. Perpetuating the “cold-blooded Marines” narrative means never having to say you’re sorry.

It means never having to look Lt. Col. Chessani (charges dismissed), Lt. Andrew Grayson (acquitted), Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum (charges dismissed), Capt. Lucas McConnell (charges dismissed), Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt (charges dismissed), Sgt. Sanick Dela Cruz (charges dismissed), Sgt. Frank Wuterich (awaiting trial), and their families in the eyes and apologize for the preemptive character assassination they all faced at the hands of the hyperventilating, noose-hanging press.

Murtha and company applied Queen of Hearts (“Off with their heads!”) treatment to our own men and women in uniform while giving more benefit of the doubt to foreign terror suspects at Gitmo. It is worth recalling, because the press won’t do it for you, what they concluded about the now-crumbling Haditha case in the summer of 2006 before a single formal charge had been filed.

MSNBC hangman Keith Olbermann, who couldn’t wait to define the entire war in Iraq by a single moment about which he knew nothing, inveighed that the incident was “willful targeted brutality.” Due process? For convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, of course. For our military? Never mind.

Far-left The Nation magazine railed, “Enough details have emerged . . . to conclude that . . . members of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment perpetrated a massacre.” The publication also judged the event “a willful, targeted brutality designed to send a message to Iraqis.” Not content with hanging the troops, The Nation pinned blame on the president and a so-called “culture of impunity” that supposedly permeates the most accountable military in the world.

Singing the same tune as The Nation, the New York Times spilled a flood of front-page ink on the case and took things a step further in a lead editorial blaming not just President Bush, but also top Pentagon brass for the “nightmare” killings in Haditha. Times reporter Paul von Zielbauer filed over 30 stories on the case, which the paper wishfully called the “defining atrocity” of the Iraq war.

Hoping to facilitate a self-fulfilling prophecy, media tools around the world likened Haditha to the Vietnam War’s most infamous atrocity — from the Guardian (“My Lai on the Euphrates?”) to the London Telegraph (“Massacre in Iraq just like My Lai”) to the Los Angeles Times (“What happened at the Iraqi My Lai?”) to the New York Times’s Maureen Dowd (“My Lai acid flashback”) and the Associated Press, which reached into its photo archives to run a 1970 file photo of My Lai to illustrate a Haditha article.

And, of course, there’s the permanent stain left by the slanderous propaganda of Rep. Murtha — the stab in the Marines’ backs heard ‘round the world: “Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.”

Relatives of the Haditha Marines have called for Congress to censure Murtha, who cuts and runs to the nearest elevator when questioned about the Haditha dismissals. He and the Haditha smear merchants have skated while the men and their families suffered global whippings on the airwaves and eternal demonization in print. Whose “culture of impunity”?

article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZT … Q4MzNhM2Q=

cfimages · June 19, 2008, 4:23am

He can apologize as soon as the marines apologize to the families of the 7 children and 8 other civilians they killed.

fred_smith · June 19, 2008, 6:49am

They were not guilty of what they were accused of. Hurtha is in a position of great responsibility. We hear a lot about rights being lost under the Bush administration or Patriot Act. It is ironic that the real rights being lost are often the right to being treated as innocent until proven guilty and in this case, the liberal left and media are often engaging in witch trials.

Rascal · June 19, 2008, 6:51am

Shouldn’t that read “They were not found guilty of what they were accused of.”?

fred_smith · June 19, 2008, 7:18am

Fine I will give you that they were “found” not guilty, Rascal. But then, I would imagine that you will have to be a bit more objective by not allowing allegations of abuse and torture to be taken as proof of their occurrence. Again, this all comes back to standards. Do you have any objective ones? or do you just go on the attack when the US is involved and pooh pooh away any evidence whether resulting from court “findings” or not? Regardless, the findings are in and as Murtha is a member of Congress, one would expect that he would at the very minimum make an apology to those whose names he sullied. If he has the proof of their guilt, then let him come forward with it. That clearly is not the case so he should apologize or someone should sue him for defamation. How’d that meet with your “standards?”

cfimages · June 19, 2008, 7:32am

FS - Look at the testimony of Sgt. Sanick Dela Cruz - one of those who had the charges dismissed.

fred_smith · June 19, 2008, 7:34am

Look where? did you supply a link?
Fred

politbureau · June 19, 2008, 9:33am

These Marines apparently weren’t tried according to Guantanamo rules, which, as I understand them from news reports, are that if you think an accused is going to be found not guilty in a court of law then you avoid courtrooms like the plague.

It’s hard to keep up with exactly what our “legal standards” are these days in the sense of some universal body of principles. As far as I can tell, whatever real “principles” we have left any longer are completely relative to the situation and who the defendant is. In other words, our legal system is now the moral and intellectual equivalent of a two-dollar crack whore.

Hail Bush! Hail McCain! We want the payoff but don’t give us no pain!

Rascal · June 19, 2008, 9:34am

Predictable response, but having independent organisations / experts examine detainees and find physical proof of torture is beyond allegation, unless you can prove that their evidence is not valid.

cfimages · June 19, 2008, 10:11am

You’re the one making the claim. I’d have thought a bit of basic research by you first would have been in order.

Here’s a report a quick Google turns up. I don’t have the time or inclination to search for more.

guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/10/usa.iraq

fred_smith · June 21, 2008, 7:48am

Was I making a claim? You mean that seven of eight have either had their cases dismissed or been acquitted? Well, ain’t that true? Now, I suppose, the bar gets raised to criticizing our whole legal and military tribunal system which was fine before until after the verdicts were announced. Now, it is no longer to be accepted…

Well, thanks for that link. Shall we read it in its entirety together? Okay… Read on…

A US marine told a court yesterday that he had “pissed” on the head of one of 24 dead Iraqi civilians killed by his unit and watched a superior officer kill five Iraqis as they tried to surrender. Sergeant Sanick Dela Cruz made the admission at a pre-trial hearing ahead of a series of military trials over the killings and alleged cover-up at Haditha, 120 miles west of Baghdad, in November 2005. He said he knew urinating on the dead Iraqi was wrong but was enraged after one of his colleagues, Lance Corporal “TJ” Miguel Terrazas, had been torn apart by a roadside bomb. “I know it was a bad thing what I’ve done, but I done it because I was angry TJ was dead and I pissed on one Iraqi’s head,” Sgt Dela Cruz said.

The Haditha killings have prompted the biggest US criminal case involving civilian deaths in the Iraq conflict. A total of seven US marines face charges, including three marines who have been charged with murder.

Sgt Dela Cruz was initially charged with murder but the prosecution dropped all charges against him last month and he agreed to give evidence with immunity.

Yesterday, at a pre-trial hearing ahead of the trial of one of the accused, Sgt Dela Cruz gave evidence at a courtroom in Camp Pendleton, north of San Diego, California. He said he watched how his squad leader, Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich, shot five Iraqis who were trying to surrender and then told his men to lie about the killings. “They were just standing, looking around, had hands up,” Sgt Dela Cruz said. “Then I saw one of them drop in the middle. I didn’t know what was going on, sir. Looked to my left, saw Staff Sergeant Wuterich shooting.” The Iraqi civilians had been standing by a white car with their hands interlocked behind their heads when they were shot, Sgt Dela Cruz says. “He [St Sgt Wuterich] told me that if anybody asked, they were running away and the Iraqi army shot them,” Sgt Dela Cruz said. After the five men died, a team of marines led by St Sgt Wuterich allegedly attacked two houses with grenades and gunfire in an effort to find insurgents. The dead included women, children and the elderly.

The marines involved have said their response was a legitimate action because they were under attack.

St Sgt Wuterich is one of the three marines accused of murder. His lawyers contest Sgt Dela Cruz’s evidence and claim he has given investigators five different accounts of what happened. Defence lawyers say Sgt Dela Cruz has been forced to give evidence against members of his unit in exchange for his freedom.

Yesterday Sgt Dela Cruz was giving evidence ahead of the trial of Captain Randy Stone, a Marine lawyer. Cpt Stone is accused along with three other officers of dereliction of duty for failing to investigate the deaths. Capt Stone’s civilian attorney, Charles Gittins, contends Capt Stone, 34, did nothing wrong because he thought the killings were a legitimate outcome of combat. Mr Gittins said Capt Stone reported the incident up the chain of command and said he had been told not to investigate further. Yesterday’s hearing was part of what is known as an Article 32 investigation, the US military’s equivalent to a grand jury proceeding.

Major Thomas McCann, the investigating officer, will hear further evidence and recommend whether the charges should go to trial.

So, we have one person who gets immunity and has been pressured into making a deal who has changed his testimony five different times? I think I understand now why the charges have been dismissed. But given that you do not, we can come to only one conclusion: OUR rights and constitutions are being ripped apart by the evil Bush administration which intends to take over power forever, except of course when it leaves office as scheduled Jan. 20… er… yeah… so many things to keep an eye on… so many rights to be lost… such blatant barbarism, abuse and torture…so many willful killings… why the US is just as bad as Saddam. Why we thought we should invade Iraq has clearly been proved wrong right here and now. Sign me up as a convert to the Cause. Now, if only I could find the faith to believe in global warming and catastrophic climate change…

cfimages · June 21, 2008, 8:05am

No, we have the one person who still has charges pending against him saying that the key witness changed his story 5 times. Big difference.

Mother_Theresa · June 21, 2008, 9:31am

OJ got off too.

Should we apologize to him?

politbureau · June 23, 2008, 1:00am

I suppose it’s difficult to read clearly when you’re hyperventilating but there’s a significant difference between “is being sued” and “is considering suing.”

Here’s a prediction. None of the accused Marines will sue Murtha for libel or slander. Why not? Because Murtha’s defense attorneys would see to it that they’d have to face known insurgent propagandists like Iman Waleed in a court room:

Haditha victims’ kin outraged as Marines go free

“Iman Waleed recounts the killing of seven members of her family that occurred on Nov. 19, 2005, in Haditha, Iraq.”

cfimages · June 23, 2008, 1:14am

It is kind of hard to sue someone for calling you a cold-blooded killer when a 1 year old baby, 6 other children aged 14 or less, a 76 year old grandfather (shot 9 times) and his 66 year old wife as well as 15 other civilians were killed by those Marines.

They should face an Iraqi court.

fred_smith · June 23, 2008, 2:34am

Well, well, well…

We have gotten awfully far from the evil marines are guilty as sin to discussing why they (haha) do not have a case against Murtha…

So much for that slam dunk case…

slawa · August 28, 2024, 4:17am

Military did everything to hide the pictures marines did to document their massacre. Small children shot in the head from close range.
Many years later journalists finally were able to get them out trough lawsuits supported by surviving family members of the victims. It shows a glaring failure by American justice system to hold war criminals and murderers accountable.