Marines open rare 'court of inquiry' into Afghanistan shooting

Associated Press ^ | ESTES THOMPSON

[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.

[centurion316]

Thanks for your observation, confirms my impression.

The one thing that I don’t have much use for is the Army vs. Marine Corps crap. That’s a holdover from WWII and caused us to do some incredibly stupid things in Korea and Vietnam. Army units served under Marine Corps command in the first Gulf War and both Army and Marine Corps units have served successfully in formations of the other service throughout this fight. For those who want to perpetuate the rivalry nonsense, I say: get a life.

[freema]

Jacksonville Daily News has a Reporter's Blog here with daily published reports here.

[Marine_Uncle]

They should be able to wrap this up in a few minutes. Our Marines where attacked and took appropriate measures in a fire battle situation.

[Girlene]

Thanks for the reporting information, freema.

[BnBlFlag]

Corps cave under pressure from Dog Faced Pu$$y!

[Dubya]

AMEN