Posted on 04/20/2007 3:22:48 AM PDT by RedRover
NORTH COUNTY -- Attorneys representing enlisted men accused of murder in the deaths of 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha in 2005 have asked the Marine Corps to grant immunity to an officer who was present that day and require that he testify at upcoming court proceedings, the North County Times has learned.
The officer, 1st Lt. William Kallop, was part of a reaction force that responded to the first reports of a firefight following a roadside bombing that destroyed a Humvee, killing a lance corporal and injuring another Marine. Kallop was there when members of a Camp Pendleton squad, led by Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, assaulted nearby homes following the bombing, resulting in the deaths of 19 civilians, including several women and children.
Wuterich and two other enlisted men face homicide charges as a result of their actions.
Kallop's specific actions and any orders he may have issued are under increasing scrutiny from the defense attorneys, according to several sources close to the case who spoke with the newspaper this week on the condition of anonymity.
The attorneys question why he wasn't charged with any wrongdoing, and at least two have asked the government to grant him immunity and mandate that he testify at upcoming court hearings for their clients, according to the sources.
Kallop's attorney, Richard McNeil, refused to comment when asked Thursday about the report.
Shortly after the incident in Haditha, Kallop nominated Wuterich for a medal, saying that he had effectively led a counterattack that resulted in the deaths of a large number of insurgents. Wuterich is charged with 13 counts of murder, two counts of soliciting another to commit murder and making a false official statement.
The Marines charged with the killing have directly or through their attorneys said that the civilian deaths were an unfortunate consequence of a legitimate response to being attacked. The men are all from Camp Pendleton's 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment.
In addition to the enlisted men, four officers were charged with dereliction of duty for allegedly failing to fully investigate and accurately report the events in Haditha that took place on Nov. 19, 2005.
Before the 19 people in the homes were killed, five Iraqi men were shot to death shortly after emerging from a car that drove up after the massive roadside bomb explosion claimed the life of Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas.
Kallop's specific role in the Haditha incident has not been made public, but The Washington Post reported in January that he directed the assault on the homes.
According to the Post story, Cpl. Hector Salinas reported seeing a man firing rifle shots at the Marines shortly after the bombing. Salinas has not been accused of any wrongdoing.
"Salinas then stated that he could see the enemy so Kallop told them to 'take the house,'" according to the Post story that quoted from a Naval Criminal Investigative Service report the newspaper had obtained. McNeil also refused to comment on the Post's account of his client's actions.
A Camp Pendleton spokesman refused to confirm that prosecutors have been asked to grant Kallop immunity.
"As this is an ongoing investigation, the government will not confirm the identity of potential witnesses or discuss the conditions under which they may appear," Lt. Col. Sean Gibson said.
On Tuesday, the Marine Corps disclosed that it had dropped five counts of unpremeditated murder and one count of making a false official statement against Sgt. Sanick P. Dela Cruz in the Haditha killings.
That move, reducing the number of enlisted defendants from four to three, came after the military's convening authority over the case, Lt. Gen. James Mattis, approved granting the sergeant immunity in exchange for his testimony. The decision was based, the Marine Corps said, on balancing what it said was Dela Cruz's "low level of culpability in the alleged crimes against the potential value of his testimony."
Military law experts said that it appears that Dela Cruz will be a key prosecution witness and that his testimony could make it harder for the accused to win acquittals.
The military's Haditha investigation as a criminal case began in March 2006 following a Time magazine report that quoted relatives of the Iraqis as claiming the Marines went on a rampage. The Marine Corps had initially said that the civilian deaths were the result of the roadside bomb.
The accused were charged on Dec. 21 and the now-seven defendants will appear before hearing officers later this year for court sessions that will help determine if their cases move ahead to court-martial.
Contact staff writer Mark Walker at (760) 740-3529 or mlwalker@nctimes.com.
Within minutes [of the IED blast] the force from Sparta Base arrived. It was a squad of about the same size as Wuterich's, led by the only officer present on Route Chestnut the entire morning, a young lieutenant named William Kallop. Like other lieutenants in Kilo Company, Kallop was junior in all but rank to the senior enlisted men, to whom he naturally deferred. He had a reputation of being a little soft, a little lost. He was the pleasant son of a wealthy New York family, who had joined the Marine Corps, it was believed in Kilo Company, to prove something to himself before returning to a life of comfort.
As a soldier he was said to be average. When the allegations against Kilo Company surfaced in the spring of 2006, his parents vigorously reacted. They hired a New York public-relations firm that specializes in legal cases, and then engaged a defense attorney who is a former Marine general and was once one of the top lawyers in the Corps. The implicit warning may have had some effect. While McConnell and Chessani were humiliated and relieved of their commands, and Wuterich was fingered in public, Kallop was left untouched, though technically upon his arrival at Route Chestnut on November 19 he had become the commander on the scene.
This man should testify.
OMG.....a rich white boy in the Marine Corps????? Damn him, he MUST be guilty as hell!!!!!
Meanwhile, it seems the Marine Corps found its Judas in Delacruz. Just throw a few pieces of silver his way and he will throw his fellow Marines overboard to save his own butt.
The military can be a springboard to a career in politics, doncha know.
Judge our soldiers fairly Heat of battle is a hard place to make life-or-death decisions
(http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/350248,CST-EDT-HUNT20.article)
April 20, 2007
STEVE HUNTLEY shuntley@suntimes.com
The news story sounded depressingly familiar: U.S. Marines had come under a bomb ambush, followed by a small-arms attack, and the Americans opened fire. Among the dead in the aftermath were civilians, including a child. Now, the troops find themselves facing accusations of excessive force.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq cough up these stories with some regularity. With possible charges looming or under orders from their superiors, the troops can’t say anything. The articles occasionally include a passing reference to the complexities of the environment these young warriors face. With the accused silent, the words of the accusers dominate news coverage, which leaves you with the lingering impression of guilty as charged.
The latest story, in the New York Times last weekend, described an incident in eastern Afghanistan last month. After the bomb ambush that wounded one American, gunfire by the Marines left 12 people dead, including an infant and three elderly men. The military is conducting a criminal investigation.
Another recent Times report told of “many thousands of claims submitted to the Army by Iraqi and Afghan civilians seeking payment for noncombat killings, injuries or property damage American forces inflicted on them or their relatives.” The Marines paid $38,000 after a 2005 incident in Haditha that killed two dozen Iraqis — children and elderly among them. The Marines suffered one dead and two wounded from a roadside bomb attack and came under gunfire from several locations, and the Americans responded. Three Marines are charged with unpremeditated murder; charges against a fourth were dropped when he agreed to testify against the others. Four officers are accused of covering up the incident. A Time..........
excerpt
Unless he's actually innocent and actually has something to say.
You weren't there, so you really shouldn't call Delacruz "Judas."
I don’t understand why Lt. Kallop would need to be given immunity. Can’t he be required to testify without it? Are attys afraid he will take the fifth or lie? Kallop’s order to take the house, if true, is key to the events that occurred in the first house. The second house deaths, as unfortunate as they were, were follow-on because of the assumption that the shooter(s) had escaped there. So yes his testimony is key.
Recognizing the enemy is a challenge, a potentially lethal challenge, and is a critical task that fills every minute of every hour of every day. A mistake can cost a soldier his life or the lives of his fellow troops or, yes, the lives of innocent civilians. For us thousands of miles away in the safety of our living rooms to second guess those decisions, made in a split second, is presumptuous, to say the least. And once soldiers have suffered casualties from a bomb blast and come under gunfire, how do you define "excessive force''?For someone never in the military, he gets it; hands down. Seems my four year old tagline is becoming more true day by day. To my sorrow!The Islamist fanatics who have declared war on the West know that if they suit up in uniforms and march to a traditional battlefield they surely will be whipped in short order by our troops. So they shun uniforms, attack from behind human shields, deliberately target civilians and melt back among noncombatants. Virtually every tactic they employ, starting with abandoning uniforms, violates the Geneva Conventions. In this chaotic, hellishly menacing environment, tragic mistakes are bound to happen. Remember that the next time you read about an allegation of excessive force.
That is simply not true. I have a piece in the works that I hope will help set the record straight. With luck, it'll be posted later today.
Sounds like the Me Lie angle isn’t working out for the Dems?? Maybe Murtha will take the stand??
Pray for W and Our Marines
Actually, while it would be a second-best outcome to “innocent” for all four, if they all got “immunity,” it would be certainly be acceptable. I assume immunity doesn’t involve anything other than an honorable discharge, should they choose it?
Here's what's important. The defense WANTS full and open testimony.
Those of us who believe the Marines will be exonerated only want a judgement based on the truth. Shouldn't be too much to ask for, should it?
There's nothing complicated - Delacruz has testimony the prosecution needs/wants, and they want it badly enough that they are willing to let him (who was at worst, a minor player anyway) skate. Prosecutors do this all the time.
I'll admit I don't really understand why the Corps said it had balanced culpability vs. value of testimony. But I wonder how much the statement, and the timing of the announcement, had to do with countering the North County Times article that said the case was falling apart.
More likely, he will testify to the material contained within the statements (and the defense will be able to cross-examine him based upon them). You don't usually testify about your own statement - it's hearsay.
the Corps said it had balanced culpability vs. value of testimony.
Because that's what all prosecutors do. Consider, for example, the US Attorneys Manual § 9-23.210
Section 6003(b) of Title 18, United States Code, authorizes a United States Attorney to request immunity when, in his/her judgment, the testimony or other information that is expected to be obtained from the witness "may be necessary to the public interest." Some of the factors that should be weighed in making this judgment include:I should imagine that the USMC JAG Corps does pretty much the same thing.1. The importance of the investigation or prosecution to effective enforcement of the criminal laws;These factors are not intended to be all-inclusive or to require a particular decision in a particular case. They are, however, representative of the kinds of factors that should be considered when deciding whether to seek immunity.
2. The value of the person's testimony or information to the investigation or prosecution;
3. The likelihood of prompt and full compliance with a compulsion order, and the effectiveness of available sanctions if there is no such compliance;
4. The person's relative culpability in connection with the offense or offenses being investigated or prosecuted, and his or her criminal history;
5. The possibility of successfully prosecuting the person prior to compelling his or her testimony;
6. The likelihood of adverse collateral consequences to the person if he or she testifies under a compulsion order.
Hope you’re right, but it doesn’t ever look good when one guy gets immunity to testify against others, because it means that he would implicate himself if he testified without it, and that what he has to say is more damaging to the others than it would be to himself.
Interesting that Lt. Kallop should come up now after very little has been said about him. It’s almost like he’s been hiding in plain sight with his expensive lawyer providing the comouflage.
I know it came out earlier that he was at the scene and was the ranking officer but don’t know if this info was included in the NCIS report that was leaked, do you know?
The report was also leaked to Vanity Fair. The article didn't say so, but quoted what Kallop and others had told investigators.
Salinas, allegedly, is the Marine who indicated Lt. Kallop had given the order to take the house. So if Salinas is going to testify that Kallop gave them the order, the defense needs Kallop to back this up. If he’s not going to be charged with any wrong doing, it makes absolute sense to grant him immunity to get to the truth.
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.