Posted on 06/13/2008 9:13:08 AM PDT by RedRover
RIVERSIDE ---- A second Marine has been found in contempt of court for refusing to testify before a federal grand jury and has been ordered to jail.
Sgt. Ryan G. Weemer, charged with murder in the death of an Iraqi detainee in Fallujah in 2004, appeared in uniform before U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Larson on Thursday and was ordered into custody after a brief hearing Thursday.
Weemer can be held for up to 18 months unless he decides to testify before the grand jury.
The jury is investigating Weemer's former squad leader, Jose Nazario, who is no longer in the Marine Corps. Nazario is charged with voluntary manslaughter in the killing of two Iraqi captives during fighting in Fallujah in November 2004. He has pleaded not guilty.
Last month, a third defendant in the case, Sgt. Jermaine Nelson, spent a week in jail when he refused to answer the grand jury's questions. A judge freed him after he agreed to appear before the panel next week and at least hear the questions that jurors may ask.
Like Weemer, Nelson is charged with one count of unpremeditated murder. Investigative hearings for the two Marines to decide whether their charges will stand will take place at Camp Pendleton later this year.
Rather than a bulwark against “hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution,” today’s federal grand jury is a rubber stamp, leading many to agree that “a good prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.” Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL)
Hyde was right then, and this case demonstrates he’s still correct.
On what legal bases does this clown of a judge claim jurisdiction. Clown should be impeached.
Hope Sgt. Weemer holds out like Sgt. Nelson did, legal or not this judge is out of line.
This is ridiculous. This is what all soldiers, Marines and fighting personnel are going to be held on now that those same combatants are given constitutional rights. A buddy of mine says he is not going to be looking for “intelligence” assests anymore....they are all going to die. So at some point he will probably be dragged in the muck for his actions by those interepting them as illegal because he was a player in an “illegal” war
MEJA - military extraterratorial jurisdiction act.
While the main problem in our military remains with the Generals and their staffs in DoD, the parasitic lawyers and judges never met an idea that they knew they were not qualified to comprehend.
Being able to prosecute military in federal courts is pathetic, the law should never have been changed to allow it. With no statute of limitations on murder a service member could be prosecuted years later at the whim of a disgruntled fellow service member.
Nazario is out of the Corps and was charged in federal court under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act.
Weemer also got out of the Corps but was recalled so he'd be subject to the UCMJ. But now he's in a federal jail anyway.
What's the point of the UCMJ if military members are also subject to the federal legal system for actions in combat?
Yup! That's what that ruling says to me - Take NO prisoners, ever! No exceptions. Problem solved.
What crummy law. Utterly no justification for it.
Doesn’t seem a little screwy that a service member could be charged under two legal systems?
Untested Law Key in Iraqi Abuse Scandal
It would apply only to crimes committed abroad that carry at least a one-year prison term. It would affect only civilians working for or connected to the Defense Department.
So much for intended laws!
“The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the Veterans of earlier wars to be treated and appreciated by their nation.”—George Washington.
No, not all. In fact, that is what the Fallujah case is all about. Marines allegedly killed insurgent prisoners. Worst case for the Marines, life in prison. Best case, a ruined life.
So much for the thanks of a grateful nation.
To my knowledge, MEJA has only been applied to servicemen who had been discharged before the investigation commenced. In those cases, there is no UCMJ jurisdiction.
Then Sgt Weemer could be first.
The article isn’t rich with detail but a federal judge found him in contempt of a grand jury and he now sits in the county lockup—not in the stockade.
And like Sgt Nelson, he could also be charged with unauthorized leave under the UCMJ for his time in jail.
SGT Weemer is charged with contempt of court in a civilian court. He is a subpeonaed witness there, and his refusal to answer questions there subjects him to liability. The UCMJ doesn't have any immediate jurisdiction over that offense (Article 132 could be used, but that's not really an appropriate use of that) - but Weemer isn't charged under MEJA. Stand corrected.
Is it paranoia or am I right in suspecting that the left wants to make our national defense weak?
One difference with Weemer, I think, is that he was the one who originated this by telling a story to authorities that became the basis of this entire investigation. I wonder if they can compel him to affirm or deny his original story.
If Weemer says it never happened, then there is so little case left that one could only find the spirit of it in a seance with a Gypsy and a crystal ball.
Something just doesn’t seem right here.
To put it country simple, I’m just a dumbass civilian who only answers to one law of the land.
You’re serving your country, protecting DCs (dumbass civilians) like me and you’re subject to two legal systems.
It just doesn’t seem right, or does it?
As you know, there’s a big difference between a willingness to tell a “sea story” and to tell the truth, and nothing but, in a legal proceeding. Sea stories ultimately don’t count.
Me, too, jaz. After Fallujah, I imagine jail in Riverside is a walk in the park.
That, by itself, isn't a problem.
For example: imagine that I, as a soldier, decide to drive over to the Brew Pub for some drinks, gets smashed, but gets stopped en route by the civilian police for DUI. I therefore would be liable to the local authorities AND the military for the DUI. (In practice, the military usually gets jurisdiction because they are much harder on DUIs than the civilian world). Concurrent jurisdiction happens all the time.
Sea Story = Myth
Myth = there’s a germ of fact in it that the myth’s built on, but everything else is fiction enhanced over time by the retelling.
The truth of the Nazario/Fallujah story: they were in combat and chaos ruled in the living and the dying; in the killing and the being killed.
Anyone who’s ever seen the bear knows that. Over time it gets hard to sort out.
Thanks, interesting. Although, in the Fallujah case, the charges are have arisen over an incident in a combat zone. That, I believe, makes the case much more unusual if not unique.
BTW, I’m don’t have a legal background, but wonder why the 5th Ammendment doesn’t apply in cases such as this? Is Grand Jury testimony exempt from 5th Ammendment protections?
The 5th Amendment only prohibits coerced, self-incriminatory testimony. It does not prohibit all coerced testimony. If the testimony will incriminate a third party, the 5th Amendment is not relevant - especially if my memory is correct that SGT Weemer was given immunity for his testimony.
Thanks again.
To the best of my knowledge, Sgt Weemer has not received a deal for immunity and is still liable for prosecution.
If they are going to cherry pick between civilian and military law to prosecute, then the defendants should at least be able to assert their right to not incriminate themselves.
They must be having another crack epidemic in SoCal.
I hope you know I was being funny and was not serious. I am glad you are pinging people to this thread.
I’m not so sure. If you got drunk off base, I thought you would be subject to civilian authorities first, not military. Military may be able to bring charges, if the civilian authorities will not.
However, this case is totally different. Nazarrio is being charged in federal court for combat action in Iraq. The only other time this act has been used against a serviceman is the Green case. I’m not sure where that case is right now. Bringing charges against Nazario in federal court challenging the Rules of Engagement during a battle is a very bad idea (IMO). They are opening up a can of worms the military does not need.
Right now there's a question on whether the shootings even took place. If Weemer was offered immunity to testify against Nazario or Nelson and claimed there was a shooting, then he would be putting himself at the scene of same shooting, even if there wasn't one, and a target for whichever prosecution team wants to pull his pants down.
Kinda like how this mess started.
He should take the 18 months.
Hiya Girl, was that you in the hallway I just bumped into?
Cheers!
BUMP!
It only covers those charged *after* they have separated from the military. I say, bring 'em back on active duty for trial by Court Martial. No soldier, current or former, should be judged for their actions in a war zone by anyone other than other military. Preferably ones who have also seen the elephant.
Then the UCMJ should be amended. It's just another part of the US code anyway. If the alleged "crime" was committed while subject to the UCMJ, then the proceedings should be in the military justice system. I actually think that could probably be done with no change in the law, although a single line added to § 802. Art. 2. Persons subject to this chapter to include those whose alleged crime occurred while otherwise subject to the UCMJ.
The fifth amendment uses the phrase "cases arising in the land or naval forces or in the militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger" to exempt those cases from the requirement to hold a Grand Jury before holding someone for a crime. These cases certainly arose in the military. The UCMJ is part of the US Code (Title 10, Chapter 47).
In fact this whole law was unnecessary, "In time of declared war or a contingency operation, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field. " are subject to the UCMJ. Thus no need for a special law for civilian employees and employees of contractors.
I also believe that the law, passed before 9-11, by a Republican Congress, and signed by DemonRat Clinton, was never intended to apply to cases arising out of combat operations. IIRC, it grew out of cases arising in the Philippines and on Okinawa, where servicemen were accused of raping local girls, but separated before they could be tried by the military.
The law was passed by a Republican Congress, and is being interpreted and enforced by a Republican adminstration. It was signed by Billy Jeff though, after he was impeached.
I’m just shaking my head in how many Marines and Soldiers are being tried for things for the most part would seem fully acceptable by most when considered within the framework of a insurgent war.
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.