Posted on 01/07/2008 5:12:40 PM PST by Dubya
For the first time in more than 50 years, the Marine Corps launched a special tribunal Monday to publicly investigate allegations a newly formed special forces unit killed as many as 19 Afghan civilians in March after their convoy was rammed by a car bomb.
Many details - including the exact number of civilians killed and injured - remain in dispute, despite the attention the case has garnered in Afghanistan and inside the military. That makes the rarely used "court of inquiry" an ideal venue for a public inquest, said former military attorney Scott Silliman, now a law professor at Duke University.
"I think they are very much aware of the fact that questions of accountability are very much on the public's mind," he said.
The administrative fact-finding hearing, which began Monday with a discussion of preliminary issues before Tuesday's start of testimony, will focus on the actions of two officers: Maj. Fred C. Galvin, 38, commander of the 120-person unit, and platoon leader Capt. Vincent J. Noble, 29. At the end of the inquiry, which is scheduled to last for two weeks, the panel will recommend whether the officers should be charged with a crime.
Military prosecutors said Monday the court would consider whether the two officers should be charged with conspiracy to make a false official statement, dereliction of duty, failure to obey a lawful order, and making a false official statement. The decision on charges will ultimately rest with Lt. Gen. Samuel Helland, commander of U.S. Marine Forces Central Command.
The company, on its first deployment following the 2006 creation of the Marine Special Operations Command, was traveling on Highway One in Nangahar province, returning to its base from the Pakistan border, on March 4 when an explosives-rigged minivan crashed into their convoy.
According to a report issued by Afghanistan's Independent Human Rights Commission, which cites witness accounts, the Marines fired indiscriminately at pedestrians and people in cars, buses and taxis in six different locations along a 10-mile stretch of the road. Army Lt. Gen. Francis H. Kearney III, who led special operations forces in the Middle East at the time, ordered eight Marines back to Camp Lejeune and removed the rest of the company from Afghanistan.
An Army brigade commander, 10th Mountain Division Col. John Nicholson, apologized in May, saying he was "deeply, deeply ashamed and terribly sorry that Americans have killed and wounded innocent Afghan people." Initial reports pegged the number of dead at 10 or 12, but Nicholson said officials had concluded 19 died and 50 were injured.
But the next week, Marine Corps commandant Gen. James T. Conway said Nicholson's apology was premature because an investigation remained under way.
In November, Maj. Gen. Dennis J. Hejlik, the commander of the Marine Special Operations Command, said the Marines responded correctly when they were attacked and that he disagreed with Kearney's decision to pull them out of Afghanistan. The Defense Department's inspector general has since opened an investigation into Kearney's actions, responding to concerns raised by Rep. Walter B. Jones, R-N.C., who said the Army had "discarded the presumption of innocence."
Defense attorneys were told Monday they would not be allowed to call Kearney as a witness.
Mark Waple, a civilian lawyer representing Galvin, said evidence presented to the court will show the patrol followed regulations. He added that a Navy investigation found that at least one of the Afghan citizens who said they were injured "were told to make their claim for being injured so they could receive compensation. That's been a confusing factor in this situation."
Waple said defense lawyers have interviewed each of the 30 Marines in the six-vehicle reconnaissance patrol. After the convoy's second vehicle was hit by the bomb, he said, "the evidence is quite clear that the patrol received small arms fire from that location for approximately the next three miles."
"There is such a very clear line between the forensic evidence and the testimony of the Marines when compared to some of the statements of the Afghan civilians," Waple said.
During Monday's preliminary session, the defense asked for video and audio recordings of interviews conducted by Navy investigators with the Marines involved and transcripts of interviews with Afghan civilians. They also requested Navy investigators look to the possibility that occupants of a blue vehicle targeted by the Marines after the blast were Taliban members participating in a well-planned ambush.
"These guys were bad guys and they were on their way to the fight," Waple said.
Marines lawyers declined to comment Monday. In a statement, the Corps said the court will explore conduct of the convoy, rules of engagement, fire discipline, reporting of the incident and the "command climate" of the company.
The Marine Corps last used the administrative fact-finding process in 1956, to investigate allegations a drill sergeant marched a group of recruits into a South Carolina creek, where six died.
Summary Box: Afghan-Marines Shooting
The Associated Press
THE INQUIRY: The Marine Corps began a fact-finding hearing Monday to investigate the actions of two special operations officers and their role in shooting that may have killed as many as 19 Afghan civilians. Neither officer has been charged with a crime.
THE INCIDENT: Afghanistan’s Independent Human Rights Commission said the Marine unit fired indiscriminately at civilians after their patrol was hit with a car bomb. Attorneys for the officers say the evidence doesn’t match that version of events.
THE IMPORTANCE: The “court of inquiry” setting allows the Marine Corps to hold open hearings without formally charging anyone with a crime. The panel will eventually recommend whether the two officers named in the investigation should be charged.
http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20080107/APN/801070730
Odd???? There was no mention of this on the Marine Corps web link or on DoD’s web link.
Cong. Omar Mullah Murtha,.. are you planting false stories again????
When the Kennedy sliced off the superstructure of the Belknap back in the 70s it was handled with a formal JAGMAN investigation. A COI is very rare. I guess the international interest is driving this one.
And if they had been the ones who were killed nobody would be looking into anything. But it is alleged that the Marines were shooting people miles away. Let's see what the investigation comes up with.
Looks like the Yard Birds would have something better to do than put our Military in prison for killing our enemy.
But the next week, Marine Corps commandant Gen. James T. Conway said Nicholson's apology was premature because an investigation remained under way.
It’s sad that you recruit young guy’s , who just go, no questions asked, because they were asked. Put them in a hostile situation, They get rammed by killers, and what happens is predictable. But to have the gall to then try them as killers ??? What the f is going on here?
This article is not worth the paper that it was printed on. It doesn’t tell us very much and largely confuses the issues.
Firstly, LTG Kearney’s actions were operational decisions. They don’t shed any information, good or bad, on any possible criminal charges that might arise from this incident. I think that its fair to say that he didn’t have confidence in the leadership of this company, but that does not tell us anything about any potential criminal behavior.
COL Nicholson, who is one of the straightest shooters I have ever known, was just lamenting the loss of civilian life. He was not part of the operational chain of command, and is certainly not part of the legal chain of command.
Mark Waple, whom I have known since high school over 40 years ago, cannot be relied upon for the time of day. He’s made his living as a military ambulance chaser. Whomever retained him as a defense attorney made a monumental mistake.
The Court of Inquiry and any subsequent courts martial, if warranted, are firmly in the hands of the Marine Corps. I hope that they consider the evidence fairly and in light of the circumstances of deadly combat that these men found themselves.
Nothing that I have read has led me to a conclusion. I don’t think that anyone who was not there knows what happened and leaping to conclusions based on press reports or statements from third rate attorneys is folly.
Keeping tabs ping.
We have a winner!!
This is the main reason my son has no desire whatsoever to go back active in the Corps.
Oh, that and the way he was treated. For the record, the VA here is doing a great job.
If USSOCOM has Olson as Commander and Kearney as Deputy and the MARSOC as a constituent unit, then this Maj Gen Hejlik went against someone who probably evaluates him in some capacity. (rater or intermediate rater, perhaps.)
It was an act of courage.
I don't know enough about the facts and circumstances to say that, and I seriously doubt that you do either.
Call it experience.
Well, you are not the only swimmer in that pond. I think that I’ll rely on the facts, something that I don’t yet know.
Marsoc is a component command of USSOCOM.
My guess is that the Marines have a line in the rating diagram and that USSOCOM also has one.
MG Hejlik would answer to both.
I had the chance to work a bit for Col Nicholson at Jalalabad. What struck me was how much his men respected him...and my few interactions with him indicated it was justified.
The Army started an investigation, but the Marines weren’t happy with it. I’ll be very interested in what this investigation finds. For myself, I don’t see how shooting repeatedly for miles can be justified...if it was, then it was the only miles-wide ambush ever staged on this road.
The investigation should uncover what happened...but I strongly suspect this was an unjustified shooting. An ambush miles wide on the biggest highway in Afghanistan, right next to a major FOB with attack helicopters?
Roger, I think all of that is true. But, for UCMJ actions, it’ll be strictly along service lines: MARCORSOCOM to HQUSMC.
I am disturbed, as I’m sure you are, by some of the seemingly draconian measures taken against soldiers and Marines for actions in the heat of combat. But, I haven’t seen the evidence, so I’m not going to leap to conclusions based on what I read in the press.
During the First Gulf War, I was responsible for reviewing all of the Army friendly fire incidents. For the most part, the participants got a fair shake. However, I was amazed at some of the poor judgment in some cases, usually by a leader who ought to have known better.
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.