Posted on 06/13/2007 2:03:03 PM PDT by RedRover
SAN DIEGO (AP) - A Camp Pendleton Marine accused of failing to investigate the murder of 24 Iraqis might not be eligible for prosecution.
The attorney representing First Lieutenant Andrew Grayson says Marines must be on active duty to be prosecuted under military law.
However, Grayson was discharged on June first, according to papers obtained by the Associated Press.
Twenty-six year-old Grayson is 1 of 7 Marines facing charges for the killing of men, women, and children in the Iraqi town of Haditha.
A squad of enlisted Marines executed the civilians after a bomb struck their truck convoy in 2005.
Grayson faces charges of obstructing justice, making a false official statement, and dereliction of duty for not investigating the incident.
He was to attend a preliminary hearing Monday at Camp Pendleton, where an officer will recommend whether Grayson should stand trial, but his attorney has now advised him not to appear.
The Marine Corps disputes that Grayson has been deactivated and declined to explain why he had received discharge papers.
Nice to know the Associated Press is being objective. Tried and convicted in the press before the trial even begins.
Basically, the military court may not have jurisdiction over Lt. Grayson since he is no longer an active-duty officer. IIRC, there was another kid in one of the alleged Massacres who is facing Federal charges, rather than military tribunal charges, for just the same reason.
I compare the haditha case to the Scooter Libby trial.
Its of no worth, but they are determined to find a scapegoat.
Muck like the My Lai trial when they scapegoated Lt William Calley.
Bump
Nice to know the Associated Press is being objective. Tried and convicted in the press before the trial even begins.
As the legal term is "murdered" not "executed", I'd say AP is being charitable.
HUH?? Looks like al-murthawi has talked to and convinced AP that these Marines are guilty.
Nothing like fair and well informed reporting, what a bunch of maroons!
That's the Army guy in the rape, murder incident that was discharged because of some kind of psych disorder before charges were brought by the Army.
Since nothing has been established in court, I’d say the AP has an agenda.
How ‘bout you, Ozboy? What’s your agenda? Or are you just an irresponsible fool?
Calley was guilty and deserved to hang for his crimes, instead he got a couple of years of house arrest and a pardon. Putting this Marine in his company gives Calley a legitimacy he doesn’t deserve and until there is a court-martial, undeservedly tarnishes the Marine Lt. by association.
Maybe you could fill us in, OBOY. Do you have a crystal ball, have you been talking to Tim McGirk or john murtha or are you just shooting your mouth off?
If you don’t have anything informed to say or anything to support these Marines until they’ve had their day in court, why don’t you GET LOST and STAY LOST.
Hard to imagine these charges getting flipped to a civ court. Wonder if we'll be having another "congratulations" thread before long?
If he was separated from active duty but still has a Reserves obligation, whether active or inactive like we enlisted personnel back in the old Navy (60’s), he would still be subject to the UCMJ.
However, it’s quite possible that officer ranks do not have a Reserve obligation.
Nonetheless, sounds like AP has “executed” their orders from Murtha and Co.
I tend to agree with you, Red. I find it hard to believe they’d prosecute these charges in a civ court, especially after the recommendation for Capt. Stone was no court-martial. Here’s hoping!
There are civilian analogs to all three charges. It's conceivable that, if the US Attorneys really wanted to, they could bring a Federal prosecution against him.
I just don't have the time to do legal research these days...
Interesting. Well, we’ll see.
Again, it seems odd for this to just spring up out of nowhere. More than a few people will be mighty embarrassed if Lt Grayson walks without a hearing.
It's good trial strategy.
A good defense lawyer waits for jeopardy to attach before bringing defenses like lack of personal or subject matter jurisdiction, speedy trial, or statute of limitations. It's tough to be the defendant waiting for trial under such circumstances (especially with the drive-by media feeding frenzy).
This, incidentally, is why I find the quiet, under-the-radar approach of these attorneys preferable to the endless press-releases released by, say, the Thomas More Law Center. It works better.
Marine may not be eligible for Haditha prosecution [Lt. Andrew Grayson] AP
Gang, any active duty might want to download this file in case a know it all glory hound jag decides they want to play. This is war.
What do you make of this report, Survivor? Do you think Lt Grayson could be outside UCMJ jurisdiction?
I’m thinking it boils down to how “out” is he?
obligation, reserve, fleet reserve, etc, and maybe other technicalities.....we debated this aplenty re kerry and his phantom date of discharge and possible Courts Martial....But I’m guessing that in this case the Lt’s lawyer knows the details of what he’s talking about, where we don’t....
(d)
(1) A member of a reserve component who is not on active
duty and who is made the subject of proceedings under section 81
(article 15) or section 830 (article 30) with respect to an offense
against this chapter may be ordered to active duty involuntarily
for the purpose of
(A) investigation under section 832 of this title (article 32);
(B) trial by court-martial; or
(C) nonjudicial punishment under section 815 of this title
(article 15).
(2) A member of a reserve component may not be ordered to
active duty under paragraph (1) except with respect to an offense
committed while the member was
(A) on active duty; or
(B) on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of
the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National
Guard of the United States only when in Federal service.
(3) Authority to order a member to active duty under paragraph
(1) shall be exercised under regulations prescribed by the
President.
(4) A member may be ordered to active duty under paragraph
(1) only by a person empowered to convene general courts-martial
in a regular component of the armed forces.
(5) A member ordered to active duty under paragraph (1),
unless the order to active duty was approved by the Secretary
concerned, may not
(A) be sentenced to confinement; or
(B) be required to serve a punishment consisting of any
restriction on liberty during a period other than a period of inactive-
duty training or active duty (other than active duty ordered
under paragraph (l)).
(e) The provisions of this section are subject to section 876(d)(2)
of this title (article 76b(d)(2).
Can you tell me WHY if he was to be discharged in June of 2006 and the charges were offical in Dec 2006 he isn't getting the same deal as Lt Grayson? Is it because the pot got stirred in May 2006 and they said "HALT".
LOL. Wouldn’t this be funny if a military paperwork snaffu prevented the prosecution from their preliminary hearing for Grayson. Let them prove he hasn’t been discharged. Let them advise a civilian court to take the case. Let them do the work to come after a discharged man. Wonder how long Casas has been holding his cards close to his vest on this trick? Cha-Ching. (For you lily, B’DonkeDonk :-) )
Thats your opinion, you are entitled. Over 30 people including calley’s Captain were involved in the massacre. Only Calley was charged. Calley was convicted and given Life imprisonment, he served 3 and 1/2 years and was set free.
The Army had their scape goat and 3 and a half years later after it all died down they turned him loose.
Calley may have been a poor leader, but he was used to quiet a public outcryand he was certainly not solely guilty.
Only Calley was charged.
Should read only Calley was convicted.
Sad isn’t it. How this all is playing out. All because of a bunch of people who most likely where part of the insurgency that some on our side(?) felt must be appeased.
I also wonder why? Frank was put on “legal” hold - why wasn’t Grayson? You bring up a very good question, I’ve got no good answer!
Semper Fi Mom,
Well I guess we could put on our NCIS hats and make up an answer, it seems like the hot new trend.
Thank you for responding and we (freepers) think of you and the other Marine families everyday!
My dad had a saying...and there wasn’t much respect in his delivery when it was uttered:
It’s not who you know,
it’s who you blow.
That’s quite the truism at times.
Not necessarily this time, mind you, but sometimes there are circumstances of privilege that occur...just because someone CAN help. And sometimes, it’s just an act of God.
Is that a Super Cuts saying? Cut, blow and style for $14.95?
Hey now, missy!
Associated Press, June 14, 2007
A Marine lieutenant from Springboro accused of failing to investigate the killings of 24 civilians in Iraq was discharged from active duty, meaning he can't be prosecuted under military law, his attorney said Wednesday.
But the Marines insisted he remains on active duty. First Lt. Andrew Grayson, 26, left active duty June 1 but must remain a reservist until 2011, according to signed discharge papers provided by attorney Joseph Casas.
Grayson might not attend his preliminary hearing next week, Casas said.
The Marine Corps said Grayson is still on active duty. Casas advised his client not to attend next Monday's preliminary hearing at Camp Pendleton, at which an officer will recommend whether he should stand trial.
A squad of enlisted Marines killed two dozen men, women and children Nov. 19, 2005 after a bomb struck a convoy in the Iraqi town of Haditha. Grayson is charged with dereliction of duty for failing to investigate the killings, making a false official statement and obstructing justice. Three enlisted Marines are charged with murder, and four officers are accused of failing to investigate the killings.
Hey missy? I am the clean cut one around this joint.
IN ERROR???
“Whoopsie” doesn’t cover it.
Guess Monday’s hearing will be pretty interesting.
This is what I was looking for and it holds no clues.
Thanks for looking. I can’t understand it.
I couldn’t find this story by using his name on the defend page, so I am sure you did.
I should fire myself. I missed posting this story on Defend Our Marines. It came out in the middle of the Sharratt hearing and I guess I was distracted.
Really? I thought it was just listed under another title with the legal teams on DOM.
Does this mean I get a raise????
Yes, as of the new year, I am raising your base pay by .05%! Congratulations, shippy. Stick with me ‘cause you’re going places!
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.