Please visit Sgt Ryan Weemer's website Defending a Hero.
You'll also find the latest news and analysis at Defend Our Marines.
Posted on 07/11/2008 7:12:13 PM PDT by RedRover
CAMP PENDLETON ---- A military prosecutor on Friday asked a Marine officer to recommend that a veteran of the legendary Fallujah battle be tried for murder for his admission that he killed a prisoner under his control.
"While he is a remarkably sympathetic figure," prosecutor Nick Gannon said of Sgt. Ryan Weemer, "especially on these facts, this is not a gray area. It's black and white. It's right and wrong."
Gannon bolstered his argument by pointing to testimony that Marines who took prisoners during the massive 2004 offensive in Fallujah were told to treat the detainees humanely and get them in out of the firefight and back to a detention facility.
And even in the chaos of the first day of house-to-house fighting, Marines were told they could not fire freely at anyone, the attorney said.
The arguments in a Camp Pendleton courtroom came at the close of an investigative hearing into the allegations against Weemer, who is charged with murder and dereliction of duty in the death of one of four captured and disarmed enemy fighters on Nov. 9, 2004.
Weemer's lead attorney Paul Hackett argued that Weemer's actions had been in self-defense, saying that the detainee he allegedly killed was reaching for Weemer's gun.
"He acted in self-defense," Hackett argued.
Weemer, of Hindsboro, Ill., firmly pressed his lips together as he listened to the arguments. The 25-year-old Marine faces a life sentence in military prison and dishonorable discharge if he is convicted of murder.
Hackett pointed to alleged statements from a Marine in the house at the time of the killings, a man who spoke to Weemer seconds after the shot was fired. According to testimony from a navel investigator, Weemer told that Marine that he shot the detainee after the man tried to grab his gun.
Maj. Glen Hines is investigating whether Weemer should be charged with murder, lesser charges or not at all. He will make his recommendation to Camp Pendleton's Lt. Gen. Samuel Helland, head of Marine Corps forces throughout the Middle East. A final decision rests with Helland.
The slayings came after Weemer and his squad mates searched a Fallujah home and found men and a cache of weapons. Prosecutors allege Weemer's squad leader, then-Sgt. Jose Nazario, shot two of the men under his control, then ordered Weemer and a second Marine to kill the other two men.
Nazario, who left the military, is being tried for voluntary manslaughter in a civilian federal court. Weemer and Sgt. Jermaine Nelson are facing murder charges in military court.
Please visit Sgt Ryan Weemer's website Defending a Hero.
You'll also find the latest news and analysis at Defend Our Marines.
There was scant coverage (as usual) of the defense, but I assume defense attorneys countered that there was no feasible way to “get them in out of the firefight and back to a detention facility”.
We won the second battle of Fallujah because we fought it like a war. Second-guessing the actions of the men on the sharp end is, as you say, pure insanity.
Stop it and Now. I am so fed up with our military being charged with crimes while serving in the War on Terror. Our servicemen are charged with crimes while in combat, few witnesses if any witnesses and their careers are ruined by the lawyers.
This activity is a disgrace and I wish President Bush would somehow stop this judicial action.
RedRover is there anything that can be done? It appears this lawyer stuff started with the War on Terror am I correct?
I tried to find information on the prosecutor, Nicholas Gannon, but other than these stories couldn’t find anything.
Maybe he’s just doing his job, but I must say I think this business is just absolutely disgusting.
Very damaging to the Marines, too.
It was mainly bill clinton who seems to have brought the lawyers in everywhere. But Bush has done nothing to reverse this. How in hell can you fight a war with lawyers breathing down your back every minute, watching every move with a critical eye, while people are shooting at you, and you can’t count on your commanders to stick up for you?
It was my honor and privilege to sit on two juries while I was in the service and our duty was very clear . Give the accused soldier a fair trial .
The zeal with which the Corps have pursued these cases is because we've been in a tough counterinsurgency. Until recently, we were getting our asses kicked by the insurgents and their sympathizers in the information war. The insurgency turned Abu Ghraib, Haditha, and other incidents into major propaganda victories. It's standard counterinsurgency doctrine to severely and swiftly punish crimes against the local population (see Breaker Morant as a model).
But I believe that the Corps command made a major error in fighting an information war as a legal war. Many of the cases arising out of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven to be baseless. Still, nothing other than guilty verdicts and punishment will ever satisfy global "elite" opinion.
So a major thing we can do is to spread and discuss actual information about these cases. That's why some other Freepers and I set up Defend Our Marines. We've made a contribution by countering the mass media spin and bringing truth to light. Anyone is welcome to join in.
In the Fallujah case there is an unprecedented situation. One man will be tried in federal court while two men will be tried in military courts—all for the same alleged crime. I have much more confidence in the military jury.
That is my feeling also . Perhaps someone who still active can tell us , but the man charged in federal court might have the benefit of the requirement of a unanimous verdict .
That may be. Someone else will have to weigh in.
The civilian trial will be in Los Angeles, and my fear is that the jury may take the opportunity to put the war itself on trial. In any event, I don’t trust civilians to judge murder on a battlefield.
Applying our laws, standards, morality to a bunch of raghead “counterinsurgent’ POS, is, in my opinion, stupid, idiotic, and dangerous. THEY DO NOT give us anywhere close to the same consideration. So fight fire with fire. And if shooting “unarmed” prisoners bothers you, then all we need to do is march them down to the nearest public square and chop their heads off every Friday afternoon. We don’t OWE the Iraqi’s one damn thing. No aid, no money, and for Go##amn sure, not ONE American life.
Well, if someone commits a crime, they should be court martialed, and a jury of their peers should sit in on it.
Maybe that’s the case here. But I can’t get around the suspicion that these men are being persecuted, or prosecuted, because of inappropriate political pressures and too much concern to satisfy a left wing press that will never be satisfied.
Sure, if someone is guilty, he should be charged and punished. Maybe I’m wrong, but I doubt whether that is the case here.
As I recall, John Kerry was awarded a medal for shooting a youthful Vietcong in the back as he ran away. I don’t fault him for shooting an enemy that had been shooting at his boat earlier—although I do fault him for awarding himself a medal for lying about what happened.
But that’s the thing. In the heat of battle, you shoot the enemy. If you even THINK he is going to grab your weapon and escape, or use it on you, you shoot him. Holding a court martial over such an incident because of a whining press and lying Muslim witnesses is ridiculous, IMHO.
That’s just my opinion. I hope the jury will consider the facts and not be influenced by political pressures. At least it’s not a DC jury.
So care to venture a prediction? Court martial or dismissal?
I’d say court martial. (Of course, since we’ve read little from the defense, you never know what testimony the judge has heard.) From what HAS been reported, the investigating officer has a taped interview of a Marine allegedley admitting a possible “crime”. He most likely will let a jury panel decide one way or another. Unfortunately, it seems the battle of Fallujah will also be on trial. I hope Sgt Weemer has a panel of Marines who fought there.
I’m with you on all points.
The separate trials, one in federal court, will create an unusual wrinkle. Nazario will be tried first and the verdict in his trial will have an unknown impact on the UCMJ cases.
Wonder if your opening statement can double as your closing statement?
May be the shortest (Nazario) trial on record. SHOULD be the shortest trial on record.
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.