Hearing officer: Evidence does not support murder case [LCpl. Justin Sharratt - Haditha Marine]

North County Times ^ | June 15, 2007 | Mark Walker

[2111USMC]

Lol!

[jazusamo]

and not just talking about "support for the troops."

I've got no dog in this fight, jude but you're out of line with freema, she's lived the Corps her whole life.

[freema]

I have a dog in this fight.
Every Marine on this forum HAS a dog in this fight, WAS a dog in this fight, or IS a dog in this fight.

How dare you call us a bunch of idealogues hiding behind keyboards.

What are you doing?

[stylin19a]

hey....I thought you were outta here ?

[M1911A1]

I think it’s possible to see the merit in a proper and prompt investigation without slandering the Corps. I don’t think this investigation can fairly be described as proper or prompt. I’m not sure what would work better, but a peer review by other combatant officers outside of the chain of command ought to be a start.

It’s a fine line that’s undefined, IMHO. You can’t give carte blanche to combat troops to do anything they want unless you are willing to go to the end of that moral road, but trying to view an action through the eyes of an combatant in a stateside courtroom is impossible. The chances of a rag like Time magazine getting it right are even slimmer.

There are a few Lee Harvey Oswalds and Clayton Lonetrees in any outfit as big as the Corps, and they are not excluded from combat positions or offices in the JAG.

There has to be a way to investigate our own, and sometimes the testimony of civilians, friendly or not, has to be considered.

That said, I think the price for providing false or misleading testimony, hiding evidence or prosecutorial incompetence should be higher than it seems to be now. The same goes for printing “news” stories that aren’t supported by facts, or political grandstanding.

There are constitutional issues here, and part of the problem is the lack of a declaration of war, I think.

I admire your fire, and I’m damn glad that it looks like the Haditha charges are as bogus as I thought they were. There are going to be times when Marines do the wrong thing, and they should be dealt with, but there has to be a better way to do it.

[freema]

It's a razor thin line.

Interviewing civilians is difficult at best when one must can not distinguish civilians in a battle. Exhausting all the avenues to determine a true civilian who could speak to the defense would be next to nil. It would also require that person to be removed from their homeland and placed in protective custody.

http://www.reflector.com/local/content/news/stories/2007/06/14/alshibli.html

Evidence in the Pendleton 8 cases was flawed and those Marines had no way out save copping a plea, when they'd saved countless lives. Before that, Ilario Pantano fought like a mad dog to be cleared. I do truly believe those who tried to take down Pantano, thought that Huck and Mattis, players on Pantano's behalf, still need to be taught a lesson.

When charges are bogus, cooked, or doctored, the Marine left to pick up the tab already paid his dues.

I would hazard a guess this country will not ever again issue a declaration of war, thanks to the left.

One thing's for sure, this here's another nice mess we've gotten into, Ollie. ; )

[xzins]

As much as I detest what Mike Nifong did to the Duke lacrosse players, their case should not have near the headlines that the Haditha case should be generating.

The reason Haditha is in a news backwater is twofold, I think:

1. The liberal media doesn’t want the truth to injure their liberal accusers, Murtha and the like.

2. They don’t have the guts to go to the streets in Iraq and investigate. Our Marines had to be on those streets, but the Greta Van’s of the world need comfy hotels, safe travel near nice restaurants, and friendly sheeple who won’t put a bullet between their eyes just for being an American.

[RedRover]

Agreed! The only real coverage the hearings are getting is in the San Diego area. And this case is of paramount importance to the conduct of the war on terror. Plus, it’s great fun to follow (as long as it keeps going this well!)

[yojoe]

LtGen Mattis can take the advise of the 32 investigating officer, either to bring charges or not. Also, LtGen Mattis can bring charges even if the 32 investigating officer recommends charges not be brought. That is the main difference between an Art. 32 investigation and an grand jury, the 32 is not binding.

yojoe

http://hlime.wordpress.com/2007/06/18/haditha-update-sharratt-32-prosecution-without-a-theory/