Posted on 05/13/2007 5:20:37 AM PDT by RedRover
CAMP PENDLETON -- If the slaying of two dozen civilians 18 months ago in Haditha was a war crime, as prosecutors assert, not a single Marine commander seems to have considered that possibility until questions were raised by a journalist two months after the event.
Testimony heard over the last five days at Camp Pendleton made it clear that officers from the rank of captain to general accepted the initial reports of what occurred -- that the deaths were nothing more than what the military calls "collateral damage."
Word throughout the chain of command was that even though the dead included two women and five children slain inside their homes, the "NKIAs" as the Marines call noncombatants killed in action, were victims of crossfire and nothing more.
That theme was heard from numerous officers who testified last week during a hearing for Capt. Randy Stone, the battalion's legal adviser and one of four officers charged with dereliction of duty for failing to investigate the deaths. Three enlisted men face murder charges.
The hearing to determine if Stone faces court-martial continued in a daylong session Saturday with a top Marine legal officer saying he accepted the initial account despite the high number of civilian deaths and went on about the business of the war.
"In this case, it appeared the noncombatants were killed because of the IED and a subsequent ambush, and I saw no reason to investigate that, "said Lt. Col. Kent Keith, who was the staff judge advocate for the 2nd Marine Division in Iraq when the killings occurred. "It's not a violation if there is incidental loss of life. There isn't an automatic law-of-war violation if you have collateral damage,"
Insurgents among the dead
What is known throughout the world as "the Haditha incident" emerged as a flash point in the U.S. involvement in Iraq because of contentions that a squad of Camp Pendleton Marines went on a rampage after a roadside bombing the morning of Nov. 19, 2005, killed a lance corporal and injured two other Marines.
The Marine Corps released a statement soon afterward saying that 15 civilians died in the bombing and that eight insurgents died in a resulting firefight.
But months later the Marine Corps would say 24 townspeople died, including five men who were shot at gunpoint while standing with their hands raised in surrender, according to Sgt. Sanick Dela Cruz, one of the men who participated in the shooting, testified Wednesday.
The 19 people killed in the homes died when troops from the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment were ordered by platoon commander Lt. William Kallop to conduct a "clearing operation." The order was based on a report that insurgents were using the structures as cover for a small-arms attack.
Despite not clearly knowing who may have been behind the doors, the Marines went from house to house, tossing a grenade into each room they encountered and following up with automatic weapons fire.
According to intelligence reports that the Marine Corps has never released, several of the people inside were insurgents, as were some of the men from the car, Stone's attorney Charles Gittins said outside of court Saturday.
A Marine Corps spokesman, Lt. Col. Sean Gibson, later said he could not comment on any classified material that may give a full accounting of the number of dead determined to be insurgents.
When the service filed charges Dec. 21, its written statement referred to the dead only as "24 Iraqi civilians."
The Marines paid more than $40,000 in restitution to survivors of 15 victims killed in two of the houses after determining those people had no hostile intent.
Relatives of four men killed in a third house got no payment because those men were believed to be insurgents, Marine Maj. Dana Hyatt testified Saturday.
Hyatt also said no payments were made to relatives of the five men killed as they were held at gunpoint when they emerged from a car minutes after the bombing. No money went to their survivors because of a never-verified report that the car contained weapons indicating those men were insurgents.
Another general to testify?
One of the more dramatic moments of the hearing came Thursday when former 2nd Marine Division Maj. Gen. Richard Huck testified under oath via a video link with the Pentagon, where he is now assigned.
Huck testified for two hours, explaining why he relied on the first reports coming up from Haditha as to why he didn't believe the incident needed investigation.
Stone's attorney Charles Gittins has asserted Huck should have been charged with dereliction of duty but wasn't because, he said, the Marine Corps didn't "have the stomach" to accuse a general.
Huck's testimony was beamed into a conference room at the I Marine Expeditionary Force headquarters that includes clocks on the wall showing the current time in Iraq and around the world.
The general said it wasn't until questions were raised in January 2006 by a Time magazine reporter that he had any inkling the killings may have violated the rules of engagement. Huck said he was angered when he learned his staff knew of the allegations two weeks before it was brought to his attention by one of his bosses, Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli.
"What am I, the last guy in this outfit to find out about this?" Huck said he asked his staff.
Huck told Chiarelli he still believed from everything he was being told that the civilians were killed in the course of a legitimate combat action. That changed the next day, when on Feb. 13, 2006, Chiarelli told him there would be a formal investigation.
Huck might not be the only general heard from during the prosecutions.
Chessani's attorneys want Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq at the time, to testify during the hearing for their client, scheduled to begin at Camp Pendleton on May 30.
"If General Casey knew what General Huck knew, we need to hear about that," Chessani attorney Brian Rooney said Saturday.
The attorneys have a meeting set for Tuesday with prosecutors to discuss whether Casey will be called.
Chessani didn't order a probe, Rooney said, because "you don't go after Marines after a combat action assuming they are criminals."
Paying for deaths, damages
A Marine officer, who inspected the two homes 10 days after the killings, testified Saturday that he saw body parts, bloody mattresses, shell casings and an unexploded grenade.
"It was the most blood I had ever seen," said Maj. Dana Hyatt, who testified under a grant of immunity.
Hyatt was the 3rd Battalion's officer in charge of making what would end up at $38,000 in payments to families of 15 survivors.
On the day he inspected the homes, Hyatt said, he asked one of the men who took part in the assault, Cpl. Hector Salinas, what had happened.
"He mentioned that he thought they heard rounds being chambered in the first house and that's why they threw a grenade in there," Dana said. "In the second house, they thought there were insurgents in there."
Hyatt also approved paying $3,000 to the owners of the homes for structural damage.
'He was the tripwire'
Former Marine Corps attorney Gary Solis, now a professor of military law at Georgetown University, said that from his understanding of the testimony, what's been heard can be viewed in a couple of ways.
"When women and children are involved, that should have been a point of all-stop," Solis said Saturday during a telephone interview. "Whenever you have that many noncombatant deaths, it should have prompted questions."
Stone, as the battalion's legal adviser, could be viewed as a kind of first-responder with the obligation to advise his commanders that an investigation should take place.
"The man on the scene was Captain Stone -- he was the tripwire to alert people that an investigation may be necessary," Solis said.
But Stone's defense that senior officers, including Huck and the battalion commander at the time, Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, didn't seem to think any investigation was necessary may be the tipping point for whether the charges against him stand.
The testimony of Sgt. Dela Cruz, who along with Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich shot the five men who emerged from a car that drove up immediately after the bombing, could be very harmful for Wuterich, Solis said.
"His testimony is obviously very damaging, but what will be critical is the assessment of members of his testimony," Solis said, referring to a military jury that would hear the case against Wuterich if it reaches trial. "But on its face, the testimony is damning and could be fatal to Sergeant Wuterich."
Murder charges against Dela Cruz were dropped last month in exchange for his testimony.
Solis also said that hearing numerous senior officers say they didn't question the deaths is disturbing.
"That this number of noncombatants can be killed and not raise an eyebrow speaks volumes about our war."
What's next
The hearing drew widespread media interest, including a correspondent from Germany's Der Spiegel weekly magazine and reporters from The New York Times, Washington Post, Reuters and The Associated Press.
When the testimony ends, Maj. Thomas McCann will write a report to Camp Pendleton's Lt. Gen. James Mattis stating whether he believes Stone should be sent on to court-martial.
If Mattis decides the testimony shows Stone failed to carry out his duties, the 34-year-old Maryland native will be tried at Camp Pendleton and could face two years behind bars and a dismissal from the service if convicted and given the maximum sentence.
Hearings for the other officers, Chessani and 1st Lt. Andrew Grayson and Capt. Lucas McConell, take place later this summer. Hearings for the men charged with murder -- Wuterich and Lance Cpls. Justin Sharratt and Stephen Tatum will play out in the coming weeks.
These charges are a stain on the honor of the military. Thousands of innocent French were killed by Allied GI’s in WWII. Not one of those men were brought up on murder charges, regardless of the circumstances. If anyone should share a cell, it is Donald Rumsfeld and the Joint Chiefs. Their treatment of our fighting men as criminals is a new and disgraceful turn in the history of this nation.
Wonder where I've read that before? Think people have been reading some FR threads. ;)
Wow is right. This is major.
Gen. Mattis may decide that the nature of this case require court martials to get everything on the record. None of this is news to him, of course.
What’s particularly upsetting and alarming is that DoD officials have been leaking to the press ever since Murtha gave his cold-blooded-killers press conference.
And not one word from DoD leadership condemning the leaks.
Chessani’s lawyer wants Gen. Casey to testify during his hearing. Wonder how high up Gen. Mattis will let this go.
Does it seem odd to you that 10 days after the Iraqi’s were killed, that the houses had not been cleaned up? And who were the owners of those homes if the occupants were killed? Think the local lawyer, Rsayef, got his cut of that money since he claimed to be related to everyone deemed to be civilian casualties at the time?
The eight insurgents, according to Charles Gittins, were identified by human and electronic intelligence.
Excellent news! I believe Capt. Dinsmore also testified to that. Even if it doesn't keep the Marines from going to courts-martial, I would think this would be devastating evidence against the prosecution for a military panel to hear in a courts-martial.
I presume reasonable doubt is the standard in the military as it is in civilian trials.
Solis also said that hearing numerous senior officers say they didn’t question the deaths is disturbing.
“That this number of noncombatants can be killed and not raise an eyebrow speaks volumes about our war.”
********
I am so sick of hearing this. What about the number of noncombatants killed by terrorists in Iraq on a daily basis?
Why didn’t anyone of the other media outlets report what Dinsmore testified to? The UAV video testimony completely changes the tone of his testimony and goes a heckuva long way to confirm what we have all believed.
Red - the comments about the men in the white car having weapons goes along with my questions about the photo...
bookmark
review
Thanks for posting. We pray for these Marines every day.
Everything that has seemed so obvious from the start;
That the response was not only due to an IED, but to the ambush
That there were so many women & children in one of the homes in the ambush zone = human shields
That clearly there must have been terrorists amongst those women and children, as the trigger man had warned them to hold their ears
That there was something very fishy about a car driving up to the site of an IED bombing, during a firefight, and "surrendering" - now it turns out they had weapons.
That there must have been terorists amongst the other "civilians" in the other houses - you don't call in airstrikes just because someone "thought they heard a click from an AK47", which has been the extent of any enemy action presented by the press. Every other reference to the ambush has been carefully plucked out of the story by our treasonous media, even though they clearly know better - they have the whole 10,000 page report!
I don't know which to do 1st, cheer or puke.
In all wars prior to Korea, wars were not micromanaged by Congress, nor by an nonsovereign, or world entity. As Congress was infiltrated by DINOs and RINOs, Congressional edicts strengthened until today Congress is in charge of the war in Iraq. IT IS LONG PAST TIME FOR A GOOD HOUSE CLEANING! No subsequent President can preside effectively with an heavily unAmerican Congress!
From the local to the state to the Federal levels, the litmus test for legislators must be include a pro-American allegiance to ensure the sovereignty and strength of the U.S.A..
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.