Will Murtha Apologize?

[Ecofarm]

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A military judge on Tuesday dismissed the case against the highest-ranking U.S. Marine charged in the killing of 24 Iraqi civilians at Haditha, whittling down the list of those who must still face justice for the 2005 incident to just the accused ringleader.

Military Judge Col. Steven Folsom dropped all charges against Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, who was accused of violating a lawful order and dereliction of duty, at a hearing at the Camp Pendleton Marine base in Southern California.

Folsom's decision means that, out of eight Marines originally charged in December 2006, six have won dismissals of their charges and one has been cleared at court martial.

The accused ringleader, Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, still faces court martial. The proceedings against him, however, have been put on hold pending the appeal of a pretrial ruling.

Folsom threw out the charges against Chessani, a 44-year-old Colorado native, after finding that a four-star general who oversaw the case could have been influenced by an investigator who later became his adviser.

The judge ruled that military prosecutors could refile the case but it was not immediately clear if they would do so. The prosecution could also appeal his ruling.

Chessani's lawyer said the married father of six young children and his legal team were "cautiously optimistic" that his two-year legal battle was behind him and that he could retire.

"We hope its over. We believe it should be over," attorney Brain Rooney said.

Chessani was the highest-ranking officer accused of wrongdoing in the shootings at Haditha, which were first reported in Time magazine and portrayed by Iraqi witnesses as a "massacre" of unarmed civilians.

The witnesses claimed angry Marines killed the two dozen men, women and children out of revenge after a popular comrade, Lance Cpl. Miguel "TJ" Terrazas, died in a roadside bombing.

The reports brought international condemnation on U.S. troops in Iraq and famously inspired Rep. John Murtha, a Democrat from Pennsylvania and critic of the war, to charge that the Marines had killed the civilians "in cold blood."

Defense attorneys said the civilians died during a pitched battle with insurgents in and around Haditha that followed the death of Terrazas.

Rooney said that the fact that seven of the eight Marines had been cleared or no longer faced charges proved that the events at Haditha were "not the massacre that Time magazine and John Murtha made it out to be."

"We've had to go through a two-year process to prove what we knew from the beginning," he said. "You need to trust what your battlefield commanders are telling you and give them the benefit of the doubt."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080617/us_nm/usa_iraq_haditha_dc

At 1:30 and 4:00 (claims incident was worse than Time Magainze portrayed) the scumbag speaks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7przeLpl2s

Rep. Jack Murtha cuts and runs when asked about Haditha (Sept. 2007):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMedVWUsSFU


Will he never admit he was wrong and what he did was borderline treason?

 

[skadistic]

NO. He didn't in any of the other cases.

 

[bhsup]

Kerry never has. Why would Murtha be any different?

 

[emzie]

How does this come close to treason?

 

[Ecofarm]

How does this come close to treason?

Slander and libel against your own soldiers? Creating propaganda for the enemy? That's pretty treasonous.

----

I think he might apologize. He might wait for the last troop to clear. I hope that once all of them are cleared, his constituence might demand an apology. Yes, it is stupid that he is holding out hope that one of the eight will be convicted (it seems quite sure that he will not) but I will give Murtha a day or 2 after the last clears as his last chance IMHO.

We'll see.

 

[El_Machinae]

They can sue him, no? That would be pretty cool

 

[emzie]

Slander and libel against your own soldiers? Creating propaganda for the enemy? That's pretty treasonous.

Unless he knowingly lied, you're just being crazy.

 

[Ecofarm]

Unless he knowingly lied, you're just being crazy.

Had had no basis for the accusations he made. He cited "insiders" as his sources and never revealed them. He declared the soldiers GUILTY before trial and said that the event was even worse than portrayed by Time. He did all of this (knowlingly) to create a soapbox upon which to spew his anti-war rhetoric.

During war: It was outright slander and libel against US soldiers. It created propaganda for the enemy. From a US congressman, that's treason.

I'll stick with "borderline treason", but yes, everything points to it being done knowingly. Nothing, AT ALL, points to him having bad info except his unsubstanciated claims that "insiders" told him stories. Further, "insider" rumors do not justify what he did, even if they actually existed.

There's no excuse for what he did.

 

[FriendlyFire]

During war: It was outright slander and libel against US soldiers. It created propaganda for the enemy. From a US congressman, that's treason.

I'll stick with "borderline treason"

There's no excuse for what he did.

Billions of dollars missing and unaccount for in Iraq isnt treason but we should start working up treason charges for a congressman calling for an investigation over civilian deaths. Christ when Bush starts apologising for hes mistakes that'll be the day.

 

[Ecofarm]

Billions of dollars missing and unaccount for in Iraq isnt treason but we should start working up treason charges for a congressman calling for an investigation over civilian deaths. Christ when Bush starts apologising for hes mistakes that'll be the day.

1) There is no need to bring up missing money. Open a thread about that if you want to discuss. If you already have and the thread died cause noone cared, don't try to revive it here. Necro your own thread.

2) Could you manage not to mention Bush, just once?
2a) And no Fiasco (is that where you got the missing money stuff from?)

3) He did not just call for an investigation.

HE DECLARED THEM GUILTY. Watch the videos I provided.

AND he said it was even worse than Time portrayed.

AND he did that based on "insider rumors" that were never revealed.

He knowlingly (you can't do this kind of crap based on insider rumors) committed slander and libel (and created enemy propaganda) to create a soapbox for himself. This is obvious to an even slightly critical observer. He probably had the speeches ready and was overly-eager for an event to launch them from.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Civilians were saddly killed.
Ultimately it was found that the terrorist/insurgents used them as human shields.
Gen Mattis findings have been quite clear and very even handed on this matter.

You really want treason charges ? Especially when the 2007 Congressional hearing conclusions found no evidence of actual AlQeda connections in Iraq and no evidence WMDs in Iraq.

Mate Iraq is a huge mess. You wonder why Murtha was pushing so hard to these investigations when just about everything was going pearl shapped. True he put a foot into he mouth and should at the very least apologies. But then again not even acknowledging any mistakes seems to have worked very well for the Bush administration during the last seven years.

 

[Ecofarm]

You really want treason charges ?

I'll stand by my OP "borderline treason". Certainly you can see why? It's not like it is completely not treason, right? I think any honest person will wonder: is slander and libel against US troops during war by a congressman treason? And would have to answer, at least, "maybe".

True he put a foot into he mouth and should at the very least apologies.

I'm glad we agree there.

But then again not even acknowledging any mistakes seems to have worked very well for the Bush administration during the last seven years.

You almost made it, didn't you. But you just couldn't quite resist.

 

[philippe]

Just sue his ass for libel and slander.

End of case.

and yeah,

Creating propaganda for the enemy? That's pretty treasonous

ecofarm is going banana's again.

you do know what the penalty for treason is, right?

 

[LesCanadiens]

I'm not watching a youtube video. Paste his comments into a post in text form, or I'll assume that you're another stark raving mad right winger who gets his panties in a bunch whenever he thinks someone is disrespecting the troops, but thinks nothing of sending them into death zones while simultaneously steering clear of any recruiting centres.

 

[Ecofarm]

I'm not watching a youtube video. Paste his comments into a post in text form, or I'll assume that you're another stark raving mad right winger who gets his panties in a bunch whenever he thinks someone is disrespecting the troops, but thinks nothing of sending them into death zones while simultaneously steering clear of any recruiting centres.

While I could give a damn less what you think of me, I can respect a healthy dislike of youtube. I'll see what I can do.

ps. I haven't steered clear of recruiting centers. I volunteered for the front line (82nd infantry in enlistment contract) during Gulf 1 on Aug 6, 4 days after the 82nd was deployed. I left an expensive private university (paid for by parents) to do so.

When John Murtha set off a firestorm by publicly convicting the Haditha Marines before they had even been tried, he was starting a chain of events that are continuing to snowball and one of those Marines, Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, is suing him for defamation.

Another Marine, Col. Jeffrey Chessani plans on hauling Murtha into court also for libel.

The Justice Department tried to get the case dismissed, but his public accusations against the Haditha Marines are well documented and the Judge refused to dismiss the case and has ordered the Pennsylvania Democrat, John Murtha to give a sworn deposition.



A Marine Corps sergeant is suing the 16-term congressman for alleging "cold-blooded murder and war crimes" by unnamed soldiers in connection with the deaths of Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha.

The deaths became known in May 2006 when Murtha, who opposes the Iraq war, said at a Capitol Hill news conference that a Pentagon war crimes investigation will show Marines killed dozens of innocent Iraqi civilians in the town in 2005.

Murtha's office declined to comment on the ruling. He has said his intention was to draw attention to the pressure put on troops in Iraq and to cover-up the incident.

The Justice Department wanted the case dismissed because Murtha was acting in his official role as a lawmaker. Assistant U.S. Attorney John F. Henault said the comments were made as part of the debate over the war in Iraq.

U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer said the congressman might be right, but said she won't know for sure unless Murtha explains himself. She did not set a date for Murtha's testimony but said she would also require him to turn over documents related to his comments.

"You're writing a very wide road for members of Congress to go to their home districts and say anything they choose about private persons and be able to do so without any liability. Are you sure you want to do that?" Collyer said, adding later, "How far can a congressman go and still be protected?"

Collyer said she was troubled by the idea the lawmakers are immune from lawsuits regardless of what they say to advance their political careers.

Background:

First we showed a letter written to John Murtha from L/Cpl Justin Sharratt's father, a heartfelt letter about Murtha's reprehensible conduct regarding those Marines.

After we found out that all charges had been dropped against L/Cpl Justin Sharratt, we asked if Murtha was going to apologize and we provided detailed information, webform contact to John Murtha, phone numbers, his office location and directions on how to get to his offices, for those of you that wanted to see him apologize to have your voices heard.

Then we saw the Haditha investigators recommending that all charges be dropped for the Haditha Marines.

Murtha's words before the Marines had been tried:


On Wednesday, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., said the accounts are true.

[...]

Murtha, a vocal opponent of the war in Iraq, said at a news conference Wednesday that sources within the military have told him that an internal investigation will show that "there was no firefight, there was no IED (improvised explosive device) that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

[...]

The Marine Corps issued a statement in response to Murtha's remarks:

"There is an ongoing investigation; therefore, any comment at this time would be inappropriate and could undermine the investigatory and possible legal process. As soon as the facts are known and decisions on future actions are made, we will make that information available to the public to the fullest extent allowable."

Murtha held the news conference to mark six months since his initial call for "redeployment" of U.S. forces from Iraq.

He said U.S. forces were under undue pressure in Iraq because of poor planning and allocation of resources by the Bush administration.

Murtha deserves to be publicly humiliated for those accusations against Marines without the benefit of a full investigation or trial and I am glad the judge has ordered this deposition.

http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2007/09/haditha-marines-judge-orders-john.html

Sorry it's a blog (from September 28, 2007), but I'm familiar with the story and it's accurate.

From CBS (Sep 28, 2007):

(The Politico) A federal judge has ordered Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Pa.) to testify in a defamation case related to the deaths of Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha in 2005, according to the Associated Press.

Murtha, a former Marine. accused Marines involved in the "cold-blooded murder and war crimes'' during the Haditha incident. Fran Wuterich, a Marine sergeant involved in the icident, has sued Murtha for defamation over his comments.

According to AP, U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer wants Murtha to explain why he made this statement and any documents he has related to the incident.

From the AP: 'You're writing a very wide road for members of Congress to go to their home districts and say anything they choose about private persons and be able to do so without any liability. Are you sure you want to do that?'' Collyer said, adding later, ''How far can a congressman go and still be protected?"

Frankly, I don't understand this ruling at all, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is appealed by the Justice Dept. and House general counsel's office on behalf of Murtha. Murtha, who can say some inappropriate things once in a while, was clearly acting in his capacity as a lawmaker when he made the comments and is thus protected by the Speech or Debate Clause from any type of prosecution for official acts.

Therefore, this case should have been dismissed, and I hope it will be. It's not that I agree with what Murtha said. I don't know enough about the incident to have an opinion whether Wuterich or the other Marines did anything improper or illegal. But Murtha has a right to say what he did under the Speech or Debate Clause, even if he was wrong about what happened. When we start restricting what members and senators can say in the performance of their jobs, then we are really in trouble as a country.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/28/politics/politico/thecrypt/main3310709.shtml

And Wiki:

In November 2005 Murtha announced that a military investigation into the Haditha killings concluded U.S. Marines had killed innocent civilians.[24] Referring to the first report about Haditha[25] that appeared in Time magazine, Murtha said:[26]

“ It's much worse than reported in Time magazine. There was no fire fight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. And that's what the report is going to tell.
Now, you can imagine the impact this is going to have on those troops for the rest of their lives and for the United States in our war and our effort in trying to win the hearts and minds.
”

The Marine Corps responded to Murtha's announcement by stating that "there is an ongoing investigation; therefore, any comment at this time would be inappropriate and could undermine the investigatory and possible legal process."[27] Murtha was criticized by conservatives for presenting a version of events as simple fact before an official investigation had been concluded.[28]

On 2 August 2006, Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich filed a lawsuit against Murtha for character defamation during an ongoing investigation into the Haditha incident. Donald Ritchie, associate historian in the Senate Historical Office, said "that such defamation suits happen from time to time but that they tend not to go anywhere because of the constitutional protections members have."[29] Murtha noted his statements were based on a report prepared by the military in July.[30]

On 4 August 2006, a Marine Corps spokesman was quoted, saying Murtha was not briefed until a week after his accusation of murder "in cold blood."[31][32]

On 21 December 2006, the US military charged Wuterich with 12 counts unpremeditated murder against individuals and one count of the murder of six people "while engaged in an act inherently dangerous to others".[33] While announcing the charges, Colonel Stewart Navarre said, "We now know with certainty the press release was incorrect and that none of the civilians were killed by the IED (improvised explosive device) explosion".

On 11 July 2007, The Marine Corps released the results of its further investigation in the criminal prosecution of the first Marine subjected to (or granted) criminal due process. The investigating officer (not the prosecutor) rebukes the government's "massacre" story. In his opinion, the Iraqis claiming to have seen the "murders" were so inconsistent and unreliable that the he recommended dropping all of the charges against the first Marine who has been prosecuted though that doesn't mean all the Marines would be cleared of charges. The investigator noted the potential employment of fabricated "massacres" by those seeking to achieve negative publicity and calls for troop withdrawal.[34]

As of September 2007, Frank Wuterich remains the only Marine charged with murder in the Haditha killings.[35]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Murtha#Haditha.2C_Iraq_killings

So, is his disrespect of the troops just my imagination?

 

[LesCanadiens]

While I could give a damn less what you think of me, I can respect a healthy dislike of youtube. I'll see what I can do.

ps. I haven't steered clear of recruiting centers. I volunteered for the front line (82nd infantry in enlistment contract) during Gulf 1. I left an expensive private university to do it.

You went to serve in Gulf War 1? Maybe you met Superman, my best friend? I'm Iron Man, and he and I are in the Justice League together. I'll tell you about it some other time.

 

[Ecofarm]

You went to serve in Gulf War 1? Maybe you met Superman, my best friend? I'm Iron Man, and he and I are in the Justice League together. I'll tell you about it some other time.

Yea, I joined Aug 6 and had to wait till December to go to basic training and jump school. I was a paratrooper in the 82nd Abn 1990-1994. I have 3 army achievement medals and an army commendation medal in addition to my national defense ribbon (for serving during wartime). I made E4 in 24 (or was it 26?) months and would have made E5 after Ranger School, if I had re-enlisted (they offered the school if I would stay) - but I decided to go to back to college. I paid for finishing my BA (FIU, not the expensive private school I left to enlist) and my MSc in Sweden with my GI Bill/College Fund.

While I don't think it compares to being a superhero, I feel a sense of satisfaction that you are impressed enough to not believe me. I can't do anything to prove it to you short of giving you my real name, unless you want to ask me some questions about Ft. Bragg (but then I could just be an army brat).

On topic, do you think Murtha was disrespectful and wrong to do what he did?

 

[Ecofarm]

Ok, I see, LesCanadiens.

You were just being a prick getting me to find those citations for you and you never had any intention of contributing to the thread.

Nice. You know the saying:

"Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again"

 

[lovett]

Murtha was almost certainly disrespectful and wrong. That doesn't mean he didn't believe what he said. He probably did, and his judgement was probably clouded by his pre-formed opinions.

So yeah, they should sue him for libel and defamation and so on. Treason? No.

The US constitution actually defines what it means by treason:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."


Note that this can be split up into two parts. Being involved in a war against the United states, and/or being in contact with the United States' enemies and giving them 'aid and comfort'.

This Murtha fellow was obviously not involved in the former. As for the latter, his statement might be construed as aiding the US' enemies in a propaganda sense. But unless he was their adherent (as in: Loyal Supporter) its certainly not treason. Saying just debases the meaning of the word.

 

[Ecofarm]

Murtha was almost certainly disrespectful and wrong. That doesn't mean he didn't believe what he said. He probably did, and his judgement was probably clouded by his pre-formed opinions.

Had had no reason to believe what he said. He had not even been briefed by the military yet when he called it 'cold-blooded murder'.

One does not go saying the sort of crap he did based on 'insider rumors' and he damn well knows that. But he did it anyway. That's why it is malicious and self-serving.


It's kinda strange how people will call Bush a liar despite him having intel from multiple countries pointing to WMDs, but this guy pulls this stunt with absolutely no basis whatsoever and you want to give him the benefit of the doubt. Sup wit dat?