Posted on 05/04/2007 3:52:05 PM PDT by RedRover
Hearing fact sheet
The accused: Capt. Stone was the staff legal officer for the 3rd Battalion, 1st Regiment when the incident occurred. Stone, who completed his officer training course in August 2003, was on his first tour in Iraq at the time of the Haditha incident. He is a 34-year-old Maryland native, currently assigned to legislative affairs duties. Capt. Stone is facing up to two years in prison and dismissal from the service if ordered to trial, convicted and sentenced to the maximum punishment.
Preferred Charges and Specifications:
Charge: Violation of the UCMJ, Article 92
Specification 1 (Violation of a lawful order): wrongfully failed to ensure accurate reporting and a thorough investigation into a possible, suspected, or alleged violation of the law of war by Marines from his Battalion. (Maximum punishment dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years).
Specification 2 (Dereliction): negligently failed to ensure that this possible, suspected, or alleged violation of the law of war was accurately reported to higher headquarters.
Specification 3 (Dereliction): negligently failed to ensure that a thorough investigation was initiated into this possible, suspected, or alleged violation of the law of war. (Maximum punishment: [willful] Dismissal, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 6 months [through neglect or culpable inefficiency] Dismissal, forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month for 3 months, and confinement for 3 months).
Investigating officer: Maj. Thomas McCann
Convening authority: Lt. Gen. James Mattis, commanding general for the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force and Marine Forces Central Commander for Afghanistan, Iraq and Africa.
Expected duration of the hearing: At least four days.
Unprecedented prosecution: The charges against Capt. Stone represent the first time a legal officer has been accused of a crime arising out of his handling of a battlefield report.
In Capt. Stone's defense: Lead civilian attorney, Charles Gittins, says, "General Huck did not believe there should have been an investigation, nor did the staff judge advocate for the regiment. My client was the lowest-level guy and he reported everything that he had been told. There was no requirement that he should have done more. I don't think the people who made the charging decision thought it through -- it seems like they just threw everything at a dartboard."
Expected witnesses: Maj. Gen. Richard Huck (former commanding general of the 2nd Marine Division based at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, who at the time of the incident, was in charge of troops in Haditha ), "two other Marine officers who were in Iraq when the killings took place" (according to the North County Times), Sgt. Sanick Dela Cruz.
What's crucial: Maj. Gen. Huck's testimony could clear Capt. Stone. (As a side note, it's very rare for a general to testify for either side in a court case. Naturally, the investigating officer will give a great deal of weight to his testimony.)
Also at stake: Three other officers are facing charges similar to those of Capt. Stone: Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, Capt. Lucas McConnell and 1st Lt. Andrew Grayson. The result of Capt. Stone's hearing will impact the other three officers, as well as the three enlisted Marines (Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich and Lance Cpls. Justin Sharratt and Stephen Tatum). All the accused are from Camp Pendleton's 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment.
Information drawn from various articles in the North County Times
Awwwww!!! You shouldn’t have!
LOL!
If you add Smooth’s mud flaps you’ll have firepower from four of Yosemite Sam’s six-guns which is probably more firepower than a 120mm cannon anyway and you’ll still have the fuzzy dice. Go for it!
Now, smooth, you know how Justa feels about pictures of herself on the Internet!
I’m glad you guys are having fun with mud flaps on this thread. :-)
I find it interesting that the prosecution is trying the lawyer first. His charges are that he did not fully investigate or report a possible violation of war. Wouldn’t it be necessary to establish whether a “possible violation of war” occurred with the 3 accused Marines who are charged with unpremeditated murder, first? IOW, if the three Marines are found innocent of their charges, there is no possible violation of war. Thus, there is no case against Capt. Stone.
BTW, here’s a link that defines Article 92 in the UCMJ http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm92.htm
WOW!!
Justa never told me that was her silouette on all those mud flaps on semi’s. :-)
Youse guys are always good for a laugh! {{{{{jaz,Red,smooth}}}}}
I had given that some thought, too, girl.
But I thunk about it. And I reasoned and came to the conclusion that the logic behind it was sound.
There coulda/mighta been, maybe was, what if there is, a crime that should been investigated so the plan is to investigate why every grain of sand wasn’t turned over in the middle of a battlefield full of nothing but innocent civilians as to why the aforementioned alleged by the enemy crime was obviously covered up.
Now, if I could make sense of that, let’s move on to find out what’s taking this process so long?
LOL. What you say!
Yet, it would make jes’ a lil’ mo sense if the prosecution established that a possible crime existed before they tried to convict the officers for not investigating that “possible crime”. Maybe that’s thinking outside the box?
Did you find it? I have it, but it is from NY Times dated for tomorrow. Need the link?
Thanks. Please note that the article is dated for tomorrow the 6th. Today is the 5th.
Good night.
The article is dated correctly in the post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.