I believe it was the Andersonville prison camp trial, after the Civil War, that established a soldier’s obligation to disobey unlawful orders.
This trial seems to seeking similar earth-shaking precedents.
The prosecution is arguing that: 1) Any soldier or Marine has the obligation to demand an investigation into any civilian death even when his superiors do not agree. 2) Urgent combat operations are no excuse for holding an investigation, even if it means withdrawing an entire unit from combat for interrogation.
The truly scary thing to me is our enemy in the WOT now knows how to remove troops from the field.
Is that what Murtha and his co-horts are truly after? Seems they would do anything to end the WOT.
Your theory carries even more weight with the release of the “Pentagon Survey” that most soldiers would not report another soldier for killing a civilian (I think I’m paraphrasing the report correctly). Remember Lt. Watada is using the “disobeying an illegal order” excuse.
I’m seeing an even more disturbing pattern here and more evidence that the Haditha investigation is simply one step in a multi-prong approach to cutting /running.
Yes, the precident that could be set with these hearings is quite disturbing. I think some of this rhetoric in the Napa Valley Register is to counter the defense tactics being used by Charles Gittins for his client. The defense attorney essentially is saying his client investigated, reported up the chain of command, was told no further investigation was needed. He followed those orders. The prosecution is saying no matter what your command says, you may need to ignore them. You may be charged if it becomes a political problem, the higher-ups may not. It’s a bunch of hooey, as far as I’m concerned.