Posted on 06/03/2006 9:37:49 AM PDT by smoothsailing
Innocent Until Proven Guilty...Unless You're A Marine
By Frank Salvato
June 2, 2006
The US judicial system operates on the premise that when a crime has been committed the accused stands innocent until proven guilty. It's one of the things unique to the American system of justice that makes ours one of the best in the world. But over the past two decades opportunists have taken to trying court cases in the media. In the court of public opinion the rules of judicial "fair play" are not honored and rumor and innuendo stand as acceptable forms of evidence. If you're a Marine serving in Haditha, Iraq, you know what I mean better than most.
Last November in Haditha, a terrorist stronghold in Iraq's volatile Anbar Province, twenty-four people were killed. In a country experiencing the final stages of its liberation from a tyrannical and genocidal regime, there will be casualties of war. And when that country is also valiantly defending itself against the barbaric insanity of insurgent terrorists who place their belief in radical Islam above the right of the newly freed people to govern themselves without outside interference, there will be casualties of war who are innocents. These are ugly truths but truths nevertheless.
What makes the Haditha incident extraordinary is that those who did the alleged killing were reported to have been members of Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, First Marines, who had moments before been attacked by terrorists using an IED that left one Marine dead.
Also making this incident significant are the unverified, unconfirmed mainstream media accounts of a bloody campaign of revenge waged by these Marines against twenty-four Iraqi men, women and children.
As is the standard operating procedure in the face of such allegations, Naval and Marine Corps investigators have opened an investigation into the incident. Reports have three Marine officers relieved of duty and one enlisted man detained pending charges.
While the action taken so far and the word "investigation" may appear to be benign, I can assure you; to the Marines standing accused the investigation is anything but benign. Those who stand accused by these unverified and unconfirmed reports of murder stand to lose their careers, their freedom and essentially, their lives.
What we don't know about the incident in Haditha, are all of the actualities, circumstances, specifics and actions that took place. Because the mainstream media reports of the Marines' actions are "unverified" and "unconfirmed" they hold about as much weight as Newsweek's report of Korans being flushed down toilets at Guantanamo Bay's terrorist detention facility and the "incriminating" memo manufactured by Dan Rather and Mary Mapes designed to topple a presidency. The accusations warrant investigation but they do not justify infringement on the "innocent until proven guilty" aspect of our legal system.
To anyone with a modicum of common sense, with any respect for the US legal system -- be it civilian or military, the appropriate action would be to wait for all the facts to be discovered before forming an opinion. Logic mandates that before a credible, soundly based conclusion can be made, the investigation into the facts of the matter must be concluded. Anyone who refuses to wait for the investigation to conclude, including elected officials, political strategists, anti-war activists and those in the mainstream media, are nothing more than knee-jerk reactionaries more interested in furthering their careers and their causes than getting to the truth.
Recently, US Rep. John Murtha, a rabid anti-war activist dressed up in an elected officials clothing, said of the alleged incident, "They've been there too long. We have to bring them home before they kill more babies." He also used the statement "in cold blood," referring to the unverified and unconfirmed actions attributed to our Marines by members of the media. His rhetoric conjures up memories of the ragged anti-war protesters of the Vietnam Era who would spit on returning military personnel calling them "baby killers."
Maureen Dowd, queen knee-jerk and media maven of the activist "progressive" left, recently referred to the unverified and unconfirmed reports of our Marines killing civilians as a "My Lai acid flashback" (I suppose she would know about such things). Her words confirm yet again that the anti-war activist left would like to see the United States do the same thing we did in Vietnam; achieve "peace with honor" so that after we leave millions can be slaughtered at the hands of totalitarians, this time religious fanatics whose quest is to dominate the world, not just the region.
It is all the rage to say that we support our troops. Many adorn their vehicles with magnetic ribbons that declare their support while others wear hats, shirts and pins that declare the same. There is a faction that declares their support for our troops while condemning the war, interesting as it is for one to be able to claim support for our troops when one is against their mission. And many go the extra mile to write letters and send care packages to let our men and women in uniform know that there are people back home who are supporting them, praying for them and missing them.
But, if we really want to support our troops, if we really want them to understand the commitment we have made to them in their service to our country, then we should reserve judgment of those soldiers from Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, First Marines until the investigation is finished and all the evidence and information surrounding the Haditha incident is in.
Further, we should demand that everyone else do the same.
Those who don't reserve judgment of these soldiers until the facts are in; who choose to deem them guilty until proven innocent, are simply placing their agendas and their biases above the process of gleaning the truth out of chaos. They never gave a damn about our troops in the first place.
-----------
Frank Salvato is the managing editor for The New Media Journal.us.
This writer gets it.
Murtha bump
Unless You're A Marine
That says it all.
bttt
Murtha actually said THIS? If so, may he never, ever show his face at Walter Reed again.
Salvato's website was banned from Google "news" by "the Google Team" for "hate-speech" because he dared to pointed out the connection between muslims and terrorism.
I hope these men have good lawyers.
I agree. Watched the M Group last night and Tony Blankley
was the only even attmepting to be patriotic and just.
That old wannabe President -who served with Nixon raised
the issue of Pinkville.And spoke of the Marines as "family"
and basically agreed with the other know-nothings that this
is the greatest media circus since 'Nam.Only Hannity and
Savage on the Radidio seem to present a more realistic view.
Loved hearing Mr.North expose the Human Rights clown on
Hannity. WASN"T THERE in Iraq... do believe the Marines deserve full benefit of doubt until a Military court of their peers sorts out what happened.
Logic? Oh yes, I remember that word. It used to be taught, venerated and applied by intelligent and honest people before it was supplanted by the advent of political correctness. In today's America, "logic" can only be found in a dictionary or a software program because political correctness and logic cannot co-exist. It's one or the other, and PC was crowned King.
Pray for the scapegoated Marines, that's where real power lies anyway, in God. And donate to their legal defense fund if anyone chooses to form one for them. Maybe a talented FReeper could even start national protests if these brave American warriors are charged with a crime.
Thanks for posting, it's a great article and right on the money.
Several days ago someone made a post (don't remember who or I'd ping them) and said only the government was required to give the presumption of innocence to the accused and not the people. I've been thinking about that statement a lot. I guess it shows how far someone will go to justify their remarks about something as serious as is the case of this event.
If only the government has to give the presumption of innocence, where are they going to find a panel of jurors should the accused go to trial? I hope that person reads this thread.
Please put me on your ping list for this topic (Haditha/Murtha).
As for lawyers, I read where Paul Hackett speaks for one or more of those involved. He was a Marine Major reservist who served in Iraq, came home to Ohio to run for Congress against Jean Schmidt, almost beat her on a war hero plank, but he is intensely anti-war and anti-Bush. He then tried for Senate against Sherrod Brown but Howard Dean and DNC stabbed him in the back (as a loose cannon) so that Brown could run against Dewine unobstructed. Hackett most recently sued the VA for disclosure of Social Security numbers and other confidential info on many Vets due to a lost or stolen lap top. Hackett is therefore a bit of a gadfly, and may or may not be a good advocate for the Marines of Kilo Company. I have an uneasy feeling that he may allow his political goals to compete with their best interests and/or he may use his position to bash the WOT effort. OTOH he could be just what those Marines need: someone to really "support" them. We'll have to see.
GREAT article. Bump this one to the top. And pray for justice for the Marines.
These alleged crimes and the defendants are under the Uniform Code of Military Justice...it is far and away different the the "U.S. judicial system" the author refers to and DOES NOT include some of the Constitutional guarantees that the average citizen enjoys.
While I agree with your "gadfly" characterization, Hackett's "antiwar" cred and media darling status may make him just the squeaking wheel to get the grease for his clients in this case. IIRC, he's already slammed Jihadi Jack Murtha for his "rush to pre-judgment".
In what way does the UCMJ differ regarding the presumption of innocence?
I agree that Hackett has the fire and cajones to really defend these guys if he wants to. I have been watching this closely and did not see him slam Murtha (which he and others should). I think Murtha is a bit of an untouchable. Hopefully his opponent Diana Irey will gain enough support to take him off stride.
The differences between the UCMJ and the laws ordinary citizens live under aren't just limited to this single area...they are vast in many cases.
I just viewed the video, and it sure doesn't pass the smell test.
BTW, the constant airing of these allegations and videos are doing inestimable damage to the United States, and to the Iraqi people's hopes for the future. Where is the "sensitivity" that the Drive-By Media showed about the Mohammad cartoons?
Folks can be restricted to base, or given other assignments anyway. This incident is being treated as if it might conclude with Articles 32 and courts martial. The presumption of innocence holds.
They can be placed directly into a military detention facility on pretrial confinement. The UCMJ reiterates the principle of innocent till proven guilty, while giving the military the power to treat you as guilty in regards to pretrial proceedings.
The only diffence is that there's no bail in the military. You're not free to do as you please anyway.
Pure unadulterated B.S. There no crime here. This is Al Qeda/Saddam Goon Propaganda. Pure "Jenin Massacre" style propaganda like the Palas accused the Israelis of in the 1990s that turned out to be pure garbage. Either collateral damage, OR a Terrorist stated Atrociety set up for the Marines to take the fall. The Marines are innocent of anything but being in a war zone. I have rarely been this angry. These guys walk. No Justice/No Peace.
That occurred to me too.
There is a major difference in that you can be locked away until your trial without the sake of a real indictment or hearing...simply on an accusation (charge) of a crime. You can be treated as guilty until proven innocent.
You had to throw those last two words in there.
The only difference is the time between the initial lockup and the hearing. The indictment process is not needed in the military, there are other protections agsinst abuse which amount to command review.
And that time difference, when you are treated as guilty without benefit of hearing or indictment, can be very considerable.
I just wanted to point out that while I agree with the direction of this article, the author starts it out speaking about our judicial system, when in fact these Marines aren't under it nor do they enjoy all the Constitutional guarantees that any other citizen has in such matters.
It can, but remember you can indict a salami sandwhich and their's no command review of the jury.
You can eat a salami sandwich, you can lock up a member of the military for an extended period pending their "trial" based on an accusation only.
I am glad though that they do appear to be crossing all the t's and dotting all the i's.
The judicial system is required to presume innocence. If you can't do that, you can't be a juror. No one else has that requirement -- citizens, the media and even politicians are free to reach conclusions from whatever evidence is available to them.
Was Scott Petersen widely presumed innocent? Michael Jackson? OJ Simpson? Gary Condit? A lot of threads on FR wouldn't be here if folks weren't reaching firm conclusions about the guilt of Bill and Hillary Clinton absent any judicial finding.
Let's face it -- in politics, the "presumption of innocence" is only invoked by people who hope the charges aren't true.
[...]
Maybe a talented FReeper could even start national protests if these brave American warriors are charged with a crime.
Do you not see the logical inconsistency in that? You can't reach a sound conclusion until the investigation has run its course, but you want to see protests if charges are brought.
Lawyers?
Perhaps you should change your sign on to Voice of Error. It would be more accurate and honest given your posting history.
Let's face it. You merely want to believe the accusations and are screaming down anyone who points out the absurdity of your position. Spare us the pseudo intellectual posturing as if you had given even the slightest bit of thought to your position.
You simply don't want to hear the truth. I find it hysterically funny that the same people who spent the 1990s screaming for a "Presumption of Innocence" every time a Clintonite was indited, NOW want to arrogantly lecture everyone else merely because of their desperation to embrace Guilt by Accusation.
Curious, why are you so desperate to validate the Propaganda of the Terrorists and Hate American Always Leftist? Could it be because you want this accusation to be true to some how emotionally validate your personal political position on Iraq?. It doesn't you know. What did or did not happen at Hadiath in no way has any bearing on the legitimacy of the Iraq Liberation. That is as absurd argument as claiming cars should be outlawed because some criminal activity is perpetrated on roads. Complete nonsense.
Watch this video. This was produced by CNN by the "Iraqi Civil Rights Group" the source of these accusations. HERE is your "proof". If you can "presume guilt" after watching this bit of propaganda, you have NO intellectual honesty at all and are merely parroting the talking points you WANT to believe are true.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/31/haditha/index.html
Video on lower right hand side of the screen. Called "Haditha Uncovered. Go watch it.
Perhaps someone can explain to me the logical and factual flaws in the "Iraqi Civilian Right Groups" "story. How can these facts be logically reconciled with what the Iraqis, and some supposed Freepers, are accusing the Marines of doing?
To Quote the original Time story:
"According to published reports, a number of Marines from the storied 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines, 1st Marine Division are accused killing more than 20 Iraqi civilians in retaliation for the death of one of their comrades by a roadside bomb in November, 2005."
Okie, 20 Dead Civilians. Which we are told were all shot thus supposedly proving "the Marines falsified the original report". So what could just be an honest mistake between a Marine's assumption on the spot of cause of death in his After Action Report (We didn't fire up the building, they were dead, must of been the bomb shrapnel) with a medical examiners report filed after a autopsies is NOW claimed by the accusers as"proof" that the "Marines Lied".
Ok so the accusation is they were all shot to death at short range in a building that had not been penetrated by any rounds from outside. No bullet holes in the building, must mean it was not Collateral Damage but a deliberate act is the accusers claims. In other words the accusers claim the Marines shot to death the Iraqis inside the building as a deliberate act not an accident of war. In fact, Some are running around claiming a shrapnel wound is so obviously different that a Combat Infantry Marine would know the difference between the two. Leave aside the obviously question why would Infantry Marine would be examining the wounds of dead Civilians, lets assume, that is correct.
Ok, then how come the "survivors" as interviewed for CNN by the "Iraqi Civil Rights group" are making such obviously absurd claims on the video?
"They burned the room with my father in it then threw a bomb"? Neat trick that. How they "Burn the room"? We don't use flame throwers. "Threw a bomb" but the accusers are telling us it all gun shot wounds. "a Bomb" inflict shrapnel wounds.
Notice also the mannerism of the "children survivors". Having come thru what would of been the most terrifying event of their lives and being forced to talk about it again, yet the kids show no hesitation or emotion. Just a dull recital of supposed "Facts" as if they were reciting a story as an memorization assignment in School. Very strange that. Absolutely no real emotion, just a breathless recital of "Facts" Then when done speaking look over to the person standing to the right of the camera (You can see his shadow behind the kids). Sure looks like kids looking at a teacher to see how they did in reciting their "lesson"
Then there is the part where the "Iraqi Civil Rights Group" filming the kids told the Iraqi boy to "show his wounds". It must not of occurred to the "Iraqi Civil Rights Group" making the video to consider the Iraqi boy's supposed "wound". Apparently no one bothered to think about where he was "shot". The supposed "wound" supposedly inflicted by US Marines at point blank range, (as claimed by the "Iraqi Civil Rights Group)" is directly over his spine. Yet when told he got up and turned around for the camera to "Show his wounds"?
If he HAD been shot there, he would be crippled for life, his spine severed just below the neck. So all this is being based on the claims of an "Iraqi Civil Rights Group" which are demonstrated to be lying. Since they lied about this, what ELSE might they have lied about? So maybe some one can explain these inconsistencies in the "witnesses" testimony? Some "Americans", especially in the Junk Media, maybe want to rethink their rush to judgment on these Marines
I have to agree with you on that. However, should the presumption of innocence stop with just the judicial system? The President and top military officers are required to not make comments about guilt or innocence for fear of tainting a case.
Should that requirement also extend to the legislative branch of government? Murtha is the ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee. That committee is closely tied to our military.
While not legally required to hold his opinion on the guilt or innocence of these Marines, it seems Murtha should at least remain silent for the responsibilities he holds on that committee.
As I've said before, it's really pitiful that terrorists being held in Gitmo and elsewhere receive more benefit of doubt and assumption of innocence from the left than do our troops.
I've never heard Murtha or Durbin refer to terrorists as cold blooded murderers, yet the words easily roll off their lips when talking about our troops.
How un-American can they be?
I believe it was a post of yours I read recently read about the uproar Murtha's comments have caused Indonesians to fall into. If so, is the problem continuing?
No one in the chain of command can talk about what happened there, until after the investigation is done and even then what they can say will be limited.
Until then the Media will have a field day convicting this Marines in the press.
I wish I could remember where I read it, but the explanation that made me wonder is that the anti-American terrorists have decided that accusing American military of atrocities is a valuable tool. The accusations will be widely reported, and will fuel anti-American sentiment in Europe, the US and the Muslim world.
By the time the American gov't finishes investigation, the damage will have been done.
That could be the explanation for Haditha, and if so, it's a clear win for the terrorists. And shame on the useful idiots who were quick to pronounce guilt.
Even if this story turns out to be true, the terrorists have a lethal weapon that they didn't need to have. We'll hear more reports now.
Those who don't reserve judgment of these soldiers until the facts are in; who choose to deem them guilty until proven innocent, are simply placing their agendas and their biases above the process of gleaning the truth out of chaos. They never gave a damn about our troops in the first place.
D**m right!
Let's face it. You merely want to believe the accusations and are screaming down anyone who points out the absurdity of your position.
Curious. Where have I stated my position, let alone shouted anyone down?
To clarify my position, I don't want to believe the accusations, but it doesn't look good. That's the strongest statement I'll make -- it doesn't look good -- because all the facts aren't in.
The evidence available is serious enough that the Pentagon, not I, is investigating and considering bringing charges. I'm reserving judgment until the investigation is completed.
The point of my post is that the people who are dead-set certain that no crime was committed are making a snap judgment just as they accuse others of doing.
You simply don't want to hear the truth.
I want to hear the FACTS, not the revealed "truth" as interpreted by John Murtha, or by you. The only way to get closer to the facts is to investigate.
What did or did not happen at Hadiath in no way has any bearing on the legitimacy of the Iraq Liberation.
Who said that it did? You're using my post on a fairly narrow point to tee off on the whole opposition to the war, and using me as a proxy for a lot of positions I haven't expressed and don't hold.
Watch this video.
I've seen it. It was clearly produced by a group with an anti-American agenda, and clearly cannot be taken at face value. I have to assume it is not the only available evidence, because the military -- I repeat, the U.S. military, not an Iraqi human rights group, not the UN, not Moveon.org -- found the evidence sufficient to follow up and to detain Marines at least until the investigation is completed.
If you can "presume guilt" after watching this bit of propaganda
I am not presuming guilt, and have not. But when a responsible agency is convinced enough to make arrests, it's more than a wild rumor. The accusations may be true or may be false, but can't be blithely dismissed just because the defendant happens to be someone you're predisposed to like (and also can't be taken as gospel because the defendant is someone you're predisposed to dislike).
Ok, then how come the "survivors" as interviewed for CNN by the "Iraqi Civil Rights group" are making such obviously absurd claims on the video?
Call me a stickler, but I'd rather base my conclusions on what happened on the findings of the actual forensic experts involved in the investigation rather than a bunch of wool-gathering by amateurs on an Internet message board. You raise valid questions, with emphasis on the word questions -- not answers.
One of the first things I got into on the Internet was urban legends and conspiracy theories. I was never an adherent of conspiracy theories, but they fascinated me.
All of the Kennedy assassination theories, all of the 9/11 theories about how a missile must have hit the Pentagon because an airliner couldn't have, are based on leaps in logic, faulty premise, and "common sense" scientific conclusions that aren't scientific.
In your analysis of the CNN video, you reach conclusions based on your interpretation of US military tactics, combat medicine, human physiology, child psychology, and probably some other fields I missed. What are your credentials in those fields? Have you interviewed the witnesses yourself or seen the raw tape without English translation?
I hope you'll forgive me if I wait for the actual experts who have weighed all the evidence to chime in.
I have seen(within the past two-hours)a story on"Newsmax"concerning a 12 years old girl who was wounded by the Marines.Apparently,she knew of the impending attack on The Marine Convoy!I also heard that the IED in question couldn't have been detonated remotely.I'm thinking that whoever detonated this IED was seen by The Marines running away and into a house.This puts a new"wrinkle"on things!!
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.