Posted on 05/04/2007 3:52:05 PM PDT by RedRover
New York Times ^ | May 6, 2007 | PAUL von ZIELBAUER
Maybe that’s thinking outside the box?
Could be. But they did all their thinking inside the box. A CONEX box.
Have you heard if any reporting will come out on the hearing during the day today?
There may be a preliminary report at noon recess. The NC Times has a habit of posting stories and then changing them with updates. I keep hitting the “refresh” button on their website, waiting for some word.
Thanks, Red. I should have realized if there was any it would come from Walker.
I hoped we might have a more direct source, but no dice. I don’t think Camp Pen recognizes bloggers as legitimate Gentlemen of the Press (lol!).
By: TERI FIGUEROA - Staff Writer
NORTH COUNTY -- Long after the trials, anyone in the military convicted of committing an offense on a U.S. base or a war crime in a combat theater such as Iraq or Afghanistan can seek clemency or early parole.
Success could mean reduced prison time.
Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, any soldier, sailor, airman or Marine prosecuted by the armed services and sentenced to a year or more has their case automatically reviewed.
The first stop is the Court of Criminal Appeals, which reviews a case for legal error. That review is automatic, and the court has the power to shorten prison terms.
After that, the convicted person could ask a higher body known as the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces for a review. Similar to state and federal Supreme Courts, that body can decline to conduct a review.
And while a case wends through those steps, it can also head down a path that can lead to early parole or clemency.
Presidential pardons and commutations of a sentence are also an option in military and civilian cases, but they aren't automatic, and they are rare. According to the Justice Department's Web site, commutation of sentence is "an extraordinary remedy that is rarely granted."
The Web site doesn't give information on the number of sentences commuted by President Bush; the most recent statistics come from cases under President Clinton.
During Clinton's time in office, he received 5,488 applications asking for commuted sentences. He granted them in 61 cases.
Mattis' role
The first chance a convicted Marine has at clemency lies with a decision from what the military calls the convening authority -- the officer who decided that the case should head to trial in the first place.
In the high-profile case of eight Camp Pendleton troops charged with playing a role in the kidnapping and shooting death of a retired Iraqi policeman in Hamdania in April 2006, five have pleaded guilty and received sentences ranging from 12 months to eight years.
The three remaining defendants, a Marine sergeant and two corporals, are headed to trial this summer. Each could be sentenced to life in prison if convicted of murder.
Another case drawing international headlines involves another group of Camp Pendleton Marines accused in the deaths in Haditha of two dozen Iraqis in November 2005. A third case that is now developing are accusations that members of a Marine Corps special operations unit based at North Carolina's Camp Lejeune unnecessarily killed 10 Afghan civilians last month in the wake of coming under attack.
Pretrial proceedings in the Haditha case start today for Capt. Randy W. Stone, one of the officers accused of failing to accurately investigate and report what occurred. If convicted and sentenced to the maximum, Stone would face two years in custody.
As commander of all Marine Corps forces in the Middle East, Camp Pendleton's Lt. Gen. James Mattis is the convening authority for the men accused in the Hamdania and Haditha cases.
It was Mattis who approved the five plea deals in the Hamdania case, and by doing so has already agreed on the sentences the men should serve. But after the deal is complete and the guilty plea entered, the convicted men get another chance to ask Mattis for leniency.
Carlsbad attorney David Brahms, a former Marine general representing Lance Cpl. Rob Pennington in the Hamdania case, said it makes sense for Mattis to be the first to consider a sentence reduction.
"This general knows this case, he has insight, he's been living with this case since last April," Brahms said last week. "You can make arguments (about the case), and he will understand. He may not agree, but he has insight."
Pennington pleaded guilty in February to kidnapping and conspiracy to kidnap and kill Hashim Ibrahim Awad. The eight-year sentence he received is the longest handed down in the Hamdania case. Pennington also received a dishonorable discharge.
His case is among those headed to Mattis for a formal review.
The appeal route
After Mattis makes his decision on whether to lighten punishment, the case moves through the appellate process.
In an appeal, a panel of three military judges with the Navy/Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals reviews the case, taking into account the entire record of the trial.
They can also ask attorneys for additional information, but the court primarily relies on a review of the official record.
The appeals process, which includes a hunt for legal errors in the case, could lead to a reduction in the sentence.
The higher courts in the military process each have the power to reduce the sentence. The judges also can restore any pay forfeiture or lessen any reduction in rank levied as a punishment.
Eugene Fidell, who teaches at American University's Washington College of Law and specializes in military law, said last week that a defendant can ask the appeals courts to reduce the sentence by simply contending it was excessive.
My Lai massacre
Among the better-known cases of a sentence reduction granted by the convening authority is that of U.S. Army Lt. William Calley, who was convicted by a jury and sentenced to life in prison for his role in the deaths of hundreds of civilians in the Vietnam War's My Lai massacre.
President Richard Nixon granted Calley house arrest while his case was on appeal.
The convening authority in Calley's case reduced his sentence to 20 years, and later, the Secretary of the Navy granted Calley some measure of clemency, cutting Calley's sentence to 10 years.
Calley was paroled after serving 3 1/2 years of house arrest.
Gary Solis, a former Marine Corps attorney who now teaches military law at Georgetown University and penned the Marine Corps' official history of military justice in the Vietnam War, said Marines convicted of war crimes in Vietnam wound up serving far less time than they were originally sentenced.
Of the 27 Marines convicted of unlawfully killing Vietnamese civilians during the course of the war, 15 received life sentences. Three others got sentences of more than 20 years, and two were sentenced to 10 years in prison.
But the longest sentence served was 12 years and one month, by Marine Pfc. John Potter, according to Solis' research.
Potter was sentenced to life in prison for five counts of murder, rape and attempted rape. The Criminal Court of Appeals approved Potter's life sentence, and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces denied Potter's request that they review his case. But the Naval Clemency and Parole Board cut the sentence.
Sgt. Ronald Vogel, who was a co-defendant with Potter, was sentenced to 50 years. The court of appeals cut it to 35 years, Solis said, and later the punishment was further reduced to 10 years.
Finally, the clemency board cut Vogel's sentence to eight years -- which meant that Vogel would be freed because he'd already served nine years.
Clemency 'a gift'
While the appeals process seeks out legal errors in the cases, the clemency and parole board can look at any factors it deems appropriate.
The mission of the Naval Clemency and Parole Board -- which reviews cases for prisoners in the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard -- is to deny, grant or recommend clemency or parole.
The board cannot change the underlying conviction. In some cases, including those of high media or congressional interest, the board makes a recommendation to the secretary of the Navy, who makes the final decision.
"Clemency is a gift," Solis said during a telephone interview last week. "It is a matter of grace, as it were. Nobody has to give you clemency, including the clemency and parole board."
Solis said "you never know" what factors the board will take into account.
"They can consider your birth sign if they want to," he said.
Northern Virginia-based attorney Phil Cave served on the clemency board in the 1990s and now he sometimes defends clients in front of the board.
Cave said that about 5 percent of the defendants whose cases he reviewed as a board member were granted some form of clemency.
"It might be reducing (a sentence of) two years down to 18 months," Cave said. "Typically, it's rewarding people who went above and beyond. Essentially, it's looking for a person who recognizes they have done something wrong and is trying to correct it."
Cave, a former Navy attorney who retired as a commander, said that the "real issue" for most of the cases that come before the board is not clemency, but parole. In deciding parole, the board looks at "salient factors," he said, including the inmate's behavior while in custody and any pursuit of education or self-improvement while behind bars.
And a big factor, Cave said, is the inmate's admitting responsibility for the crime that resulted in their incarceration.
Contact staff writer Teri Figueroa at (760) 631-6624 or tfigueroa@nctimes.com.
Ping to this update and the article above.
Officer testifies Marines did nothing wrong at Haditha
By MARK WALKER -— Staff Writer
CAMP PENDLETON —— A platoon commander in Haditha who ordered Marines to “clear” four houses he believed insurgents were using as a base of attack testified Tuesday that the assault was entirely within the rules of engagement.
The testimony from Marine Lt. William Kallop came as the first case in the prosecution of seven Camp Pendleton Marines charged with criminal wrongdoing in the notorious incident in which two dozen Iraqi civilians were killed got under way in a base courtroom.
Kallop was called as a witness for Capt. Randy W. Stone, who is charged with dereliction of duty for not fully investigating the incident that generated a worldwide condemnation when it came to light.
Stone’s’ attorney Charles Gittins asked Kallop what the Marines did wrong that day.
“Nothing,” Kallop said, adding he did not believe the incident required anything more than a standard “after-action” review by commanders.
Scheduled to head back to Iraq on Wednesday and granted immunity for his testimony, Kallop said he conducted a brief inspection of the homes following the assault and said it appeared that about 15 Iraqis had been killed.
He said he directed Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich and his men to attack the houses after a Marine reported seeing a suspected insurgent near one and believing the small arms fire was being directed from inside the residences. The action followed a roadside bombing that killed a lance corporal and injured another Marine.
“I essentially told them to try and bust them out —— find the (bomb) triggerman, find the insurgents,” Kallop testified.
Wuterich later told him the men used grenades to clear rooms and then followed up with small arms fire.
When it was all over, no weapons were found inside the homes and none of the slain were later determined to be insurgents. The men did find passports and other material in one home that they believed were left behind by attackers.
Kallop said the troops were surprised when they didn’t find any insurgent bodies or weapons. He also testified that Cpl. Hector Salinas told him he was certain he had heard AK-47 gunfire coming from one of the homes.
“Cpl. Salinas looked just as shocked as I was,” Kallop said of what they saw in the homes following the assault. Several women and children died in the attack.
Stone’s attorneys are trying to convince a hearing officer that their client did nothing improper in his role as the legal officer for the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment in Iraq at the time. The 34-year-old Maryland native was not present where the killings occurred but was responsible for conducting an initial review.
Kallop was the first officer to arrive after the roadside bomb destroyed a Humvee and killed Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas.
Kallop said Wuterich told him that in addition to the people killed inside the homes, five men were shot and killed after they emerged from a car that drove up moments after the bombing and refused orders to stop running.
Stone was accompanied into the courtroom by his wife and parents, who sat directly behind him during the proceedings presided over by Maj. Thomas McCann, a legal affairs officer at Miramar Marine Corps Air Station. At the conclusion of the government and defense testimony, McCann will write a report stating whether he believes Stone should be court-martialed.
The prosecution has given McCann 120 exhibits to consider, and more than 20 witnesses are expected to testify, including Maj. Gen. Huck, the former commander of the 2nd Marine Division who was in charge of the Marines in Haditha when the incident took place on Nov. 19, 2005.
Huck will testify later this week via video hookup from the Pentagon where he is now working. One of his top aides in Haditha, Col. R. Gary Sokoloski, has invoked his 5th Amendment privilege and is refusing to testify. Sokoloski is a lawyer who served as Huck’s chief of staff at the time of the killings.
Outside of court, Gittins told reporters that Stone had no obligation to order an investigation.
“My client didn’t have any duty to do so,” Gittins said. “He would have, but he wasn’t ordered to.”
Gittins said Kallop was responsible for telling Marine commanders what had taken place. From there, it was up to higher-ranking officers than Stone to decide if a probe was warranted.
“Kallop was the first officer on the scene and he set the scene for the reporting that took place that day,” Gittins said.
Stone is one of four officers accused of dereliction of duty. Wuterich and two lance corporals face homicide charges for the civilian deaths. The pretrial hearings for those men take place it the coming weeks.
Stone’s hearing is expected to last through Friday.
Contact staff writer Mark Walker at (760) 740-3529 or mlwalker@nctimes.com.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/05/08/news/top_stories/12_11_025_7_07.txt
I’ve grown verrrrrrry weary of this whole case.
Dismiss the charges and order the Marines back to their units.
gezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
Semper Fi,
Kelly
Apparently it’s not important enough to even keep witness stateside. Some are readying to deploy. But it’s worth a lifetime to the accused. I never.
Lt Kallop had to get off a ship and come back to Sandy Eggo. The 3/1 is currently on a float, destination Iraq for their third tour.
So what are they gonna do if the others who are deploying need to testify again. Sending these men to the front knowing they can expect this horseshit to continue is bullshit.
They won’t call anyone back to testify. Least not in the Article 32s. The recorded depositions will have to do.
Well, there better not be any jihadis pulled from their missions to testify.
I could either laugh or cry over that one, ma, so I’ll just sit and stare at the screen.
I’ll just kick the dog. No, wait. I love my dog.
Round-up of media coverage
* Marine commander appears in court, AP via The Guardian (UK)
* Officer Says Civilian Toll in Haditha Was a Shock
* Platoon CO grilled about Haditha response, Marine Corps Times
* Military opens hearings on Haditha killings, NPR Morning Edition
Officer testifies Marines did nothing wrong at Haditha, North County Times
Commander defends response to Haditha killings, AP
U.S. officer ordered Haditha move after Marine died, Reuters via ABC
Whoops. The second from the top in the post above, “Officer Says Civilian Toll in Haditha Was a Shock”, is from the New York Times.
Thanks for adding the source of that one. Won’t waste time and emotion reading it! Thanks for the continued updates!
My pleasure, Justa
Aren’t you supposed to be on vacation or something? ;)
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.