Posted on 06/10/2010 8:00:43 PM PDT by SatinDoll
DECORATED ARMY DOCTOR WHO HAS REFUSED TO FOLLOW ORDERS DUE TO DOUBTS ABOUT OBAMA’S LEGITIMACY WILL GO STRAIGHT TO COURT MARTIAL.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
"...Walt and I have been involved in some other military cases such as the Iron Triangle. Sergeant Hutchins is sitting in a brig at Camp Pendleton today as you and I are speaking. On April 22, an en banc appellate jury, which is all nine judges, overturned his conviction. So on April 22, this young sergeant became an innocent man. But today he’s still in solitary confinement in Camp Pendleton."
The Post & Email: "Why is that?"
Mr. Harrington: "Because they can’t afford to let him out. The bigger question is, “Why is he behind bars?” This is a kid who has no conviction any more, no charges, no nothing, but he is still, in fact, incarcerated. It’s called “preventive detention”."
Anyone who is knowledgable about these subjects please comment. Reading the article first is good start.
The Hutchins case is well-known in military circles. It’s something of a legal mess where the MJ made some incredibly stupid decisions resulting in the appellate court vacating Hutchin’s convictions. The AP reported just a couple days ago that the government is appealing that order to vacate, which is why Hutchins remains in confinement. This is not unusual giving the gravity of the charges, murder.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2327565/posts
HAMDANIA: The Pendleton 8: OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS TELL A DIFFERENT STORY WHEN COMPARED TO THE MEDIA ACCOUNTS. WHY?
(A) WHAT WERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING UP TO THE PATROL THAT NIGHT? WERE THEY COMMON EVENTS OR WAS THIS A SPECIAL PATROL TO SEARCH OUT A SPECIFIC PERSON AS THE OFFICIAL CHARGES CLAIMED?
“The government’s case was that the patrol lead by Sgt Hutchin’s, Plymouth, Massachusetts, was after a specific insurgent named Saleh Gowad, and when he was not found at the location of his house, a random house was chosen and an innocent man was taken and killed. Make sure that you note the following that Sgt Hutchins was NOT at the house when Awad was taken; yet, Sgt Hutchins is the only one convicted of murder and is the only one who is continuing to do jail time.”
If the above is true and the conviction was overturned, then he should be set free.
Rogue government anyone? We have it in spades.
I really don't know the details of the alleged crime, I was speaking to the technical matter of law and process. Generally speaking, whenever a murder conviction is vacated on appeal, the suspect will remain in custody pending the government appeal of the vacated conviction. There's nothing unusual about.
I would point out the the conviction was vacated solely on the grounds created by the military judge at trial.
Yep. Sure looks that way.
Now to get it back to where it should be.
Did you read the interview with Mr. Harrington? He has some very, VERY interesting things to say.
Interesting? No. Entertaining, yes. He lost me when he used the phrase "preventative detention". That's not why Hutchins is being held, as I pointed out.
His "interview" goes downhill from there. He says some incredibly uninformed and idiotic things.
Really.
I find him far more believable than you.
I read the interview. He’s a nut.
Kooks have a kind of natural attraction. I'm not surprised by yours, just saying.
Neither of you have been forthcoming on specifics and that would be helpful.
I know you haven’t been on Free Republic for years, so maybe you’re unaware about calling people names can get you booted.
Now, I’m being polite and asking for specifics since I’m not a lawyer.
What has Harrington got wrong?
Start at the beginning of his "interview", and go to the end. What he got wrong, is pretty inclusive of the whole thing.
Incidentally, if you don't want "to be called names", I would suggest you don't question another poster's believability. Again, just saying.
If you don't want any invective, you shouldn't be the first to dish it out, sport.
I don’t dish, sport.
You said his statements were wrong but you won’t provide examples, or explain why. So yes, that does make him more believable than you.
Come on, give with some specifics.
You don’t know a thing about the Pendleton 8?
Well for one thing Sergeant Hutchins has been in the brig since 2006 when all of the Pendleton 8 were held without charges until the government decided what to charge them with.
He hasn’t been a freeman since.
1 - I’ve been here for almost 12 years, and it would take a LOT of name-calling to get someone banned. I’ve been called a baby-killer, etc...never complained, and never got anyone banned.
2 - “That’s exactly how they’ve gotten away with it since 1946. As we both know, you can’t pencil in a change to the Fifth Amendment without a ratification or a constitutional convention. They just did it, and for 46 years, it has grown to where it is today. The court system is operating under Admiralty Law, international law; there’s no doubt about that. I’m not big into the flag deal, but it makes sense, because in 1959, all of a sudden you had military flags in all public, federal and state institutions.”
A nut who can’t even figure out how long it has been since 1946. And no, there are NOT military flags at all federal and state institutions. Nut.
“Under an unlawful commander, every order is an unlawful order.”
Nut.
“It has been well established that no matter who Barack Obama’s real father might be, or where on earth he might have been born, he is NOT a ”natural born citizen” of the United States and he is therefore, ineligible for the office he currently holds.”
Nut.
Sorry to spoil your illusions.
OldPoopDeck is being his usual self.
SOP for him and his ilk.
No. I said in my first post on this thread that "The Hutchin's case is well-known in military circles."
When I later said in post #5, that I really "didn't know the details" of the alleged crime, that was a polite way of saying I didn't want to engage in a debate about the details of the alleged crime. I was just addressing the technical matter of the law with respect to the appellate decision vacating the trial court conviction.
In other words you willing to call someone a nut job because they feel that the government has kept this Marine locked up in a Brig since 2006 in a travesty of justice, but aren’t willing to discuss the well known details of the case, including four years in the brig before, during the court Martial, and now after the case was overturned....
So what are you here for?
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.