Posted on 02/14/2008 3:35:03 AM PST by RedRover
CAMP PENDLETON -- The Marine Corps has ordered one of two men charged with manslaughter in the 2005 deaths of 24 civilians in the Iraqi city of Haditha to testify for the prosecution at the court-martial for a co-defendant.
Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum has been ordered to appear at the trial of Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, which is scheduled to start in less than three weeks, and tell the jury his version of the events of Nov. 19, 2005.
Tatum's attorney Jack Zimmerman said he was caught by surprise when served with the order.
"We were sent a copy of an immunity order that we did not negotiate nor ask for," Zimmerman said during a break in a motion hearing for his client on Wednesday. The order specifies that anything Tatum might say at Wuterich's trial would not be used against him at his own court-martial.
"We have no deal and we still plan to plead not guilty," Zimmerman said.
Wuterich led a Kilo Company squad from Camp Pendleton's 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment on a resupply mission when a roadside bomb destroyed one of their four Humvees, killing a lance corporal and injuring two others. A subsequent search for their attackers led to the deaths of 24 civilians, including several women and children.
Wuterich, 27, and Tatum, 26, face separate court-martials on charges arising out of the deaths. Tatum is charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter, reckless endangerment and aggravated assault and is scheduled to go on trial March 28.
Wuterich is charged with nine counts of voluntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, reckless endangerment and obstruction of justice.
The disclosure that the government is compelling Tatum to testify against the man that led him at Haditha came during a motion hearing for Wuterich. At the hearing, Wuterich's attorneys are attempting to quash statements he made to investigators and address other issues before the trial starts on March 3.
Tatum's attorneys are attempting to do the same in a nearby courtroom. Zimmerman is seeking to suppress all statements his client made to investigators after Tatum asked for an attorney during a May 9, 2006, interview with Naval Criminal Investigative Service agents.
Special Agent Matthew Marshall testified that Tatum became upset at the start of that questioning, telling the agents he didn't want to go any further and wanted a lawyer.
But a few minutes later, Marshall contended that Tatum agreed to "reinitiate" the interview and the questioning went on for several hours.
The agents who took part in that session subsequently wrote a report reflecting their recollections of what Tatum said, a report the government is now using against him.
Asked why the session wasn't video or audiotaped, Marshall said he wanted to do so when agents conducted a follow-up interview with Tatum on May 17, 2006. That request was expressly forbidden by his superiors for unexplained reasons, Marshall said.
"We asked for permission to wire up and do that and it was rejected by NCIS headquarters," he told the military judge presiding over the hearing, Lt. Col. Eugene Robinson. "I have been an advocate of videotaping for years but unfortunately that is not the way the agency operates."
During Wuterich's motion hearing before Lt. Col. Jeffrey Meeks, his attorneys sought to suppress a statement he made to Army investigators in Iraq in March 2006 following a Time magazine report that questioned what happened at Haditha.
Those Army investigators had presented Wuterich with an advice-of-rights form that had been altered to remove language suggesting he was suspected of wrongdoing.
The hearings for Wuterich and Tatum continue this morning. It was not clear when either judge will rule on the suppression motions in either case.
Two Marine officers who were at Haditha also face trial at Camp Pendleton later this year on charges related to failing to order a full-scale investigation into the civilian deaths.
More PC micromanaging... just let these guys do their friggin jobs so they can get out of Vietsand. I wonder how many soldiers and Marines will lose their lives because they hesitate wondering “Do I have the right to fire here, or will I be court martialed?”
They’re desperate.
Frank and Steve will be exonerated. Chessani will pay the price.imo.
What is that statement?
Is it the "advice of rights form with altered language?"
I'm really interested in what words they wish to suppress. Anyone know?
The military seems to be able to work outside the law.
When a person lawyers up the interview is over. Period. Nothing more can be said concerning the case by investigators. And the person being questioned should be immediately released or returned to confinement. So for Tatum to “agree” to keep talking tells me the investigators broke the law.
An altered advice of rights form also tells me that no advice of rights form was given to Wuterich. Any thing that has been altered should make it useless as far as legal is concerned.
IMO, both of these men’s rights have been violated.
I’m talking about Wuterich and not Tatum.
Absurd, witch hunt. These men should not be on trial, charges should never been laid against them. It’s sad that one of the greatest fears facing our military personnel is being second guessed by stuffed-shirt, civilian-in-uniform lawyers who will put the solidier’s split second, life and death decisions under months-long scrutiny in an attempt to fix blame for collateral damage in the fog of war.
Patently ridiculous, but perilous for these brave troops.
I fear for the future of this grand experiment.
Lock and Load.
A good guess would be the phrase, “Shoot first and ask questions later.” I’m on my mobile so I can’t check, but I’m fairly sure SSgt Wuterich said that to Col Watt (the Army investigation).
The “shoot first” comment was what came to my mind, too, but I wanted to see what they were in a snit about before I commented on it.
The “shoot first ask questions later” comment is simply a line NCO telling his guys not to hesitate, that they’d get killed if they did that.
He’s not in some freaking classroom teaching proper language when he’s standing outside some that’s declared hostile and where the enemy is holed up.
If I were his attorney, I’d put an expert in ROEs on the stand and ask him to repeat verbatim the exact words of the ROEs and the exact wording of the explanations of what they mean.
If they couldn’t do it word for word, then why should some NCO who’s getting shot at be expected to pretend he’s in some classroom doing a powerpoint briefing/class. That’s just pure ignorant, armchair quarterbacking.
“Don’t hesitate” is what “shoot first ask questions later” means.
IIRC, didn’t Wuterich say in his interview that that “might have been the words he used?” In other words, who can really remember the exact words used at a time like that?
Agreed.
These motion hearings are absolutely critical. Rules of evidence are different in Article 32 hearings than in courts martial. Dodgy statements should be and, I pray, will be excluded from court.
These motion hearings ARE critical. The prosecution wants to be ticky tacky about what will be allowed. For example, the proseuction wants Maj. Dinsmore’s testimony about the white sedan, the enemy’s possible tactics, etc. excluded unless the defense can prove he actually told Wuterich face-to-face this information. They want a specified chain of custody for that information in a freaking war zone.
But when it comes to something pretty clear cut like statements the Army took AFTER excluding language that Wuterich was facing an accusation of wrong-doing....oh, that’s okay. That sounds like a clear violation of his rights against self-incrimination.
Or how about something even more obvious - no autopsies. They are charging both Wuterich and Tatum with the deaths of Iraqis, not knowing who killed them, how they died, etc., They can’t even prove that either man killed any of these Iraqis.
Just when you think the stench can’t get any worse, the prosecution manages to take it up another notch.
I wonder what else has been "altered"?
Reflecting their recollections! Here we go again. If any of their recollections are faulty and just happen to favor the prosecution it could mean the difference in an innocent Marine going to prison or being exonerated. The policy of not using audio or video tapes is ridiculous!
Those Army investigators had presented Wuterich with an advice-of-rights form that had been altered to remove language suggesting he was suspected of wrongdoing.
Looks as if CID and NCIS agents went to the same school and had the same teachers.
I can't believe a judge would allow an altered document to be admitted into evidence but then much has happened in these hearings I find hard to believe.
The exact words he used would be more important when deciding if his squad members understood and followed his orders correctly.
His recollection of the meaning of what he said rather then the exact words he picked at the time would seem to be much more telling of what he expected his words to convey.
“Don’t hesitate” could very well be understood by trained soldiers as if you sense a threat, shoot.
“Shoot first and ask questions later” could be understood as don’t bother to identify anything.
Combat isn’t a word parsing contest....and only a legal idiot would try to make it so.
He could have said “F_’em over!” He could have said, “Blow their asses to hell.” He could have said, “These are Hillary’s minions...send ‘em to their 72 virgins.”
Are those illegal, or is it just some dude scared and hyper on adrenalyn trying to say something, anything, to help his guys stay alive?
I say it doesn’t matter one iota what came out of his mouth the instant before they entered that building.
BECAUSE....It was not a training exercise.
That was supposed to have been completed and internalized at all the classes those Marines had already had to participate in.
“BECAUSE....It was not a training exercise.”
Exactly ... it was his FIRST instance of actually leading men into combat.
The words he picked much later to describe the actions he believed he recalls telling his men to perform IS very telling of what he thought was proper at the time.
Hardly.
It was just time-based, situation-based communication.
Words at a time like that don’t mean diddly squat.
Since there’s a reasonable interpretation of “shoot first, ask questions later” then they don’t mean anything.
I get fed up with those who haven’t been there trying to parse the words and actions of those who have. It isn’t a football game and an after game analysis.
I scanned through the docs really quick both before and just now, but there's plenty of info in there that shows this train never should have left the station, including that it's been known since day one that there were 8 EKIA and 15 neutrals. 24 civilians is a known lie and the media must be aware of it.
This case is so compromised on so many levels by the government prosecutors and the NCIS, it shouldn't be allowed to go forward and should be summarily dismissed. I pray Frank's attorneys stay strong and expose this fraud for what it is.
“It was just time-based, situation-based communication.
Words at a time like that don’t mean diddly squat.”
So if he said something like - “ PID your targets, we don’t know if any shots came from this house “ - it would have meant diddly squat also ?
What you are fed up with dosen’t really matter much to discussion, but thanks for sharing.
Yes, that’s the nub of it. Whether there was a disregard of Positive Identification.
But even if so, and I’m not convinced it is so, the entire squad had the same ROE and LOAC training. The squad members are responsible for their own actions.
A weakness in that prosecution is that the government is setting this aside. At least three Marines who say they shot without a PID were never charged and have immunity. Heck of a thing to explain.
For that matter, this entire discussion means nothing. We’re just bleeps on the worldwide web.
At the end of the day, each of those troops were responsible for their own training.
Those of us who weren’t at that training or in that situation in Haditha are in the dark.
My sense is that the exact words cannot be remembered. Also, they are just talk, good advice from your dad, before you go do a tough job..
This whole campaign has the air of a petty House of Commons clash. I don't know if you've ever watched one of those huff n puff contests, it's nothing but a smear, sneer, roar and jeer exibition, with members hopping around like prarie dogs.
Rules? They don' need no stinkin' rules.
Was HE specifically suspected of any offence at the time, or were the questioners trying to put together enough info to see if there even WAS any offence ?
A cop can question people who were at the scene of a robbery without reading all of them their rights. In this case, the questioners might not even know if a robbery had taken place.
How do you equate that with people standing around the scene of a robbery?
If I follow you right, I’m pretty sure they can be used -
Lets say a cop walks up to a crowd saying “ What’s going on here? “
If someone says “ I stabbed the sucka “ and points to a body on the ground I can see no reason that would not be useable.
At that point, the cop should arrest and Mirandaize the now suspect.
“That’s a pretty poor analogy. They knew he was at the scene, was armed and shot people. “
You’re right, at the scene of a robbery they would KNOW that a robbery had taken place. In this case they did not know that any crime had been committed, and if so, which of the participants might have done something illegal.
I think that defence would have to show that the investigators had reason to believe that a crime HAD been committed, and that they had reason to believe that HE was responsible before that would come into play.
It’s interesting though how half the arguement is against self-incrimination while the other half says the statements are not incriminating at all.
This apples vs oranges juggling is annoying and non productive.
Pinch me. I need to wake up. No wire, big liar.
Looks to me like training of new recruits should include the admonition of never talking to any Military investigators. This should also be part of any debriefing.
If someone is handing me an advice of rights form, that tells me they consider me a suspect of some type of crime.
And the best advice of all if they haul you in: Just say you know nothing. And get up and leave.
But a few minutes later, Marshall contended that Tatum agreed to "reinitiate" the interview and the questioning went on for several hours.
The agents who took part in that session subsequently wrote a report reflecting their recollections of what Tatum said, a report the government is now using against him.
Asked why the session wasn't video or audiotaped, Marshall said he wanted to do so when agents conducted a follow-up interview with Tatum on May 17, 2006. That request was expressly forbidden by his superiors for unexplained reasons, Marshall said.
So they can just write up their version of what Tatum said AFTER the fact? How is this acceptable? This session went on for several hours. No wonder they refused to videotape subsequent statements. They can't manipulate them to say what THEY want them to say--not without obvious editing.
This whole thing just makes me sick.
Obviously there’d be a typical immunity agreement that would be binding, so they couldn’t actually introduce the testimony at his trial, but I’d still worry about the prosecutors using it to develop their strategy against him.
I'm not sure. If he wasn't subject to arrest (or comparable detention) I don't think they're required to inform him that he's a suspect before questioning him--or at least courts have trended toward allowing this.
Of course I have no idea how it works in military courts, and the environment may be different enough that a "voluntary" statement means something completely different.
“Maybe if you used an analogy that referred to a combat situation instead of a Harlem scuffle, it’d be easier to communicate. “
Not sure how you expect investigators to determine IF a crime was committed without asking those at hand what happened.
Not sure how you expect investigators to consider the people they question as suspects before they determine that there is anything to be suspected of.
There had already been an independant investigation by the army, The Watt Report.
When it comes to a citizen’s rights it should make no difference if you are in the military or not. If there is a difference then what the hell is the point of having a military at all? Every person in this country needs to pay close attention to their rights. Flaunt them, DEMAND them. Use them like I’m using one right now. Whoops, gotta go, I just spilled a box of .44 magnum shells...
Yep, and the Watt report found no indication that Coalition Forces intentionally targeted civilians -
http://warchronicle.com/TheyAreNotKillers/Documents/WattReport/Investigation3-1Marines030306.pdf
How does that say that subsequent investigators considered Wuterich a suspect ?
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.