Well...that's all ya really need to know about that. If I were you folks I'd expect a few more phone calls,
emails, cards and letters about this topic than you were already expecting.
BTW. When ya get tired of yer TRB stocks dropping through the basement, lemme know, would ya? I have a couple
of ideas that will turn that around for ya. Promise.
Bones
On Saturday 02 September 2006 01:11 pm, dweller@rrbiznet.com wrote: DEAR LA TIMES, I KNOW IT IS YOUR 'BUSINESS' TO SUPPOSEDLY REPORT THE 'NEWS', BUT YOU ALSO
OWE IT TO THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA TO VERIFY YOUR INFORMATION AS 'FACTS' AND NOT JUST INUENDO AND SUPPOSITION, RUMOR AND THE
LIKE. BY ALL MEANS, EVERY REPORT ON THIS SITUATION CLEARS THE PENDLETON 8, IF YOU HAD FINISHED YOUR SEARCH OF THE FACTS
IN THIS CASE.
A TRIAL OF OUR MILITARY, WHO VOLUNTEERED TO WALK INTO HELL TO PROTECT YOU AND
I IS NOT JUSTIFIED NOR RIGHT. IT IS A WELL KNOWN FACT THAT 'THINGS HAPPEN IN A WARZONE'. TIME AND QUICK MAKING
DECISIONS MAY SAVE THE LIVES OF AN ENTIRE UNIT. YES, MISTAKES WILL BE MADE. IT IS THE HUMAN ELEMENT. BUT, LET
US NOT FORGET THE INHUMAN ATROCITIES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN THE NORM IN THE TREATMENT OF AMERICAN MILITARY SOLIDERS WHILE
IN COUNTRY IN IRAQ.
YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO 'TRY' THESE SERVICE PERSONNEL IN THE 'PRESS'. THAT
IS NOT THE DEFINITION OF YOUR JOB.
BEFORE REPORTING A DEFINITE 'SIDE' TO AN ISSUE, NO MATTER WHAT THAT ISSUE MAY
BE, MAYBE YOU SHOULD CONSIDER AS YOU EDIT AND PERUSE THE ARTICLE AS READING IT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE AS IF YOU WERE WALKING
IN THAT PERSON'S SHOES? IF THE WORDS IN THE ARTICLE HURT YOU, SHAME YOU, GIVE YOU CAUSE TO PAUSE AND QUESTION THE VALIDITY,
THEM MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, IT SHOULD NOT BE PRINTED. OR MAYBE EDITED IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT NEITHER ACCUSES, CHOOSES SIDES,
CONDEMNS, ETC. ISN'T THERE ENOUGH PAIN IN THE WORLD TODAY?
I REALIZE YOU MAY NOT APPRECIATE MY WRITINGS. I ONLY REQUEST THAT YOU
CONSIDER THEM. PLEASE CONSIDER THEM AND QUITE POSSIBLY RETURN TO THE DAYS OF YORE AND THE VALUES THAT THE PRESS
USED TO HOLD SO DEAR, AS WELL AS ALL OTHER AMERICANS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME IN READING.
DIANE M. WELLER dweller@rrbiznet.com West Salem, OH 44287 Proud military mother of a Marine and a Sailor and US Veteran
----- Original Message ----- From: "Warren Bonesteel" <WRbones@rap.midco.net> To: "Bones" <wrbones@rap.midco.net> Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 9:51 AM Subject: From a Pendleton Eight Mom about the LA Times...
Leanne being the Mom in question.
Time to get the word out.
My guess is that certain members of the MSM knows that their original story is bogus and is falling apart,
so now they're trying to cover their asses by setting the stage for a DoD "cover-up" or "whitewash" story when these Marines
are exonerated.
Find anything you can on this story... put all of the pieces together and get the word out.
The MSM beast is dying. It's time to double-tap them and put them outta their misery. The best way to do
this is to assemble the facts on any story - particularly stories such as this - and share those facts with everyone you can
think of. Butcher, baker, candlestick maker, newspaper editors and publisher, elected officials at every level of government,
TV and radio stations...even 501(c)3s. Don't argue with 'em, don't be nasty. Just give 'em the cold, hard facts and keep movin'.
Bones
========================================
Hey guy's, This is from majics mom on the La Times garbage article, Just so you know it came from a parent..................................
==========================================
The LA Times took a statement out of context and used as headline. _________________________
David Kern, CIC
========================================
HI GUYS: TAKE A LOOK AT THIS....WE NEED YOUR HELP IN DAMAGE CONTROL..........PLEASE CONTACT THE PAPER EDITOR,
AND THE REPORTER AND DEMAND A RETRACTION. EVEN WITHIN THE ARTICLE THE STATEMENTS ARE NOT ACCURATE. THIS IS PER MR. LOW.
OUR ATTORNEY. IT LOOKS SO BAD WITH MARSHALL JR'S PICTURE RIGHT UNDER THAT HEADLING. JUST TO SELL A DAMNED PAPER??? SAD,
SO SAD!
THANK YOU VERY MUCH LEANNE
KEEP THE FAITH, HOLD ON TO THE HOPE, AND WITH PRIDE.....
Two Marines Admit Killing Iraqi Man The pair are among eight troops accused in
the high-profile case. The defense challenges whether the statements were indeed confessions. By Tony Perry, Times Staff Writer
August 31, 2006
CAMP PENDLETON €” Two Marines have confessed to kidnapping and killing
a 52-year-old Iraqi man in Hamandiya, west of Baghdad, a military prosecutor said Wednesday at a preliminary hearing.
Capt. Nicholas L. Gannon said that Sgt. Lawrence G. Hutchins III and Cpl. Trent D. Thomas had admitted to
the slaying, one of two high-profile cases in which Marines allegedly killed Iraqi civilians without provocation.
Gannon added that a third defendant, Lance Cpl. Robert Pennington, gave a statement that laid out the alleged
conspiracy to cover up the killing by leaving phony evidence and filing a false report.
Seven Marines and a Navy corpsman have been accused in the April 26 incident of dragging Hashim Ibrahim
Awad from his home, shooting him and leaving an AK-47 and a shovel near his body to suggest he was an insurgent burying a
roadside bomb.
On Wednesday, two so-called Article 32 hearings were held to determine whether two of the Marines should
be court-martialed. Similar hearings are set for the other defendants in the next two months.
The defense lawyer for Cpl. Marshall Magincalda, at the hearing for his client, said he planned to argue
that the alleged confessions mentioned by the prosecutor were merely statements given to investigators, not admissions of
guilt.
Similarly, a defense lawyer for Pfc. John Jodka, at his hearing, said the statements had been obtained through
coercion and were untrue.
At both events, defense lawyers said their clients were willing to let the two hearing officers make recommendations
once they had read the investigative documents, saying that airing the evidence in public could keep their clients from receiving
a fair trial.
Jane Siegel, the civilian attorney for Jodka, told hearing officer Col. Paul L. Pugliese that reading certain
parts of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service report aloud in court could "completely pollute the local and national jury
pool. Some of it is very inflammatory."
The report includes statements by Iraqis and by the defendants. Any of the cases that go to a court-martial
will be heard by a military judge or a jury of Marines.
The Jodka hearing was highlighted by an announcement by the lead prosecutor, Lt. Col. John Baker, that the
government would not seek the death penalty on the murder charge. Baker said such a request was inappropriate in Jodka's case
but did not elaborate.
A Marine spokesman said the decision involved only Jodka.
The military indictment lists Jodka as one of five troops who fired weapons at Awad.
Jodka's second civilian attorney, Joseph Casas, said the Iraqis who had implicated his client could not
be believed.
"Their culture is so different from our own that when they narrate a story, they tell it in first person,"
he said, suggesting that Iraqis who said they had witnessed something might have only heard about it.
Magincalda and Jodka are the first of the eight defendants to undergo an Article 32, the military's equivalent
of a preliminary hearing, named after the relevant section of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Magincalda, 20, who was serving his second tour in Iraq when Awad was killed, replied only "Yes, sir," when
asked several questions by the hearing officer, Col. Robert Chester, to determine whether he understood the charges and the
legal process.
All eight defendants are from the same platoon in Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 5th Regiment, 1st Marine
Division. The battalion was on its third tour in Iraq.
A dozen Marines from a different battalion are suspected of killing 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha in November
after a roadside bomb killed one Marine and injured another. Charges in that case are expected to be filed in September.
After reviewing the evidence, each hearing officer will prepare a recommendation to Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis
Jr., commanding officer of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force and Marine Forces Central Command.
(page one of two.)
==================================== Los Angeles Times Readers' Representative Office E-mail: readers.rep@latimes.com Telephone message line: (877) 554-4000 Fax: (213) 237-3535 Postal mail: 202 W. 1st St., Los Angeles, CA 90012 Newspaper delivery
hotline: (800) 252-9141
Local news is handled by the Metro desks of the following editions: Los Angeles Edition (Metro) Deadline:
No later than one day before an event. News hotline: (213) 237-7001, ask for City desk. Fax: (213) 237-4712. E-mail: metrodesk@latimes.com
Orange County Edition Deadline: One week before event. News hotline: (714) 966-7715. Fax: (714) 966-7711.
E-mail: ocdesk@latimes.com
Valley Edition Deadline: One day before an event. Main number: (818) 772-3200, ask for respective desk.
Fax: (818) 772-3385; (818) 772-3338. E-mail: valley@latimes.com
Ventura County Edition Deadline: No later than one day before an event. News hotline: (805) 653-7547, ask
for City desk. Fax: (805) 653-7548; (805) 653-7576. E-mail: ventura@latimes.com
Dear Friends,
I have just read and signed the petition: "Boys In The Brig for Murder"
Please take a moment
to read about this important issue, and join me in signing the petition. It takes just 30 seconds, but can truly make a difference.
We are trying to reach 10,000 signatures - please sign here: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/202106093
Once you have signed, you can help even more by asking your friends and family to sign as well.
Thank you!
Linda
Stanley
Statistical Probability and the Innocent Pendleton 8, Part 1 Posted
by Kit Jarrell on August 31st, 2006 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 Votes | Average: 0 out
of 5 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 Votes | Average: 0 out of 5 (No Ratings Yet) Loading ...Readers of ER are well aware
of the Camp Pendleton 8, or as we refer to them, the Innocent 8. Over the last few months, we have been some of their
staunchest defenders as their case has moved forward. Just as in the case of Ilario Pantano, we have been ridiculed and
derided for our unapologetic position. I believe that just as in the case of Ilario Pantano, our defense of these
eight brave men is well-founded and will be vindicated as Pantano was. In the meantime, however, the eight men confined
at Camp Pendleton for crimes they did not commit deal not only with the anti-war liberals who writhe in nearly orgiastic
glee at the idea of American Marines being tried for war crimes, but also with the pseudo-intellectuals who call themselves
pro-military conservatives. Well-educated and comfortable, they sit in air-conditioned offices and pontificate about
things like honor and integrity. They talk about the details of the Innocent 8 case with all the seriousness of a
hippie in Starbucks trying to convince you of the moral evils in red meat. And in the end, they€™re just
as wrong. Chris Roach, of AFF€™s Brainwash, is a perfect example. Normally a conservative, Roach has taken
it upon himself to €œ[speak] out against the diatribes of the Hamdania lawyers and their knee-jerk supporters
on the right.€ A lawyer by profession, Roach has put a fair amount of time into writing about this case (and
Haditha), even appearing on our radio show a few weeks ago after his remarks offended the father of one of the accused
Marines and angered the daylights out of us. To be perfectly honest, I€™m tired of reading his drivel
disguised as the €œvoice of reason.€ I€™m sick of listening to him couch his insinuations
and accusations in the innocuous-sounding phrases of the cover-your-butt-at-all-costs Conservative crowd. Roach claims
that my piece on the Pendleton 8, entitled The Death of the Marine Corps, is €œblind, partisan hackery,€
and that I €œfulminate without much evidence or anlaysis [sic].€ He goes on to deem it €œcompletely
unpersuasive.€ Let€™s hold Roach€™s own writings up to the same mirror. This is Part
1 of a two-part piece.
On August 18th, Roach makes the statement that €œthe best thing for the
general public and media to do is simply to let the process run its course,€ and says that he believes the
Marine Corps is perfectly capable of policing its own. However, he has no problem claiming today, in a comment here at
ER that €œThis case is headed for conviction.€ On August 3rd, he posts the following: Probably
the absolute worst trait to emerge among conservatives in the US in the face of embarrassing and, at times, horrifying
news from Iraq and the Middle East is to erect a barely plausible alternate reality. Marines kill a cripple in Hamdaniyah
and confess to NCIS investigators that they murdered him, well, the confession was coerced and he was an insurgent. Children
killed in Haditha; must have been spotting IEDs for the insurgents. Apartment blown up in Qana by the Israeli Defense
Forces; it must have been staged. [emphasis mine] You€™ll notice that there is no waffling here, no assumption
of innocence, not even an €œalleged€ or €œare accused of.€ He makes it quite clear
that he believes the Pendleton 8 are guilty of killing a €œcripple.€ [The reader will also notice
that he sees the Haditha Marines as being guilty, as well as the IDF in the Qana incident.] Even though Chris Roach
is obviously convinced that the man killed in Iraq was a €œcripple,€ the autopsy report mentioned
nothing of a permanent disability. Maybe Roach didn€™t get the memo. Yesterday (Aug 30), Roach posted
his latest article, entitled Hamdania Defense Strategy Begins to Unravel. There are quite a few gems in this one, so let€™s
take a look. In this matter, Eight Marines (sometimes called the €œPendleton 8€) are accused of
killing Hashim Awad. I€™m guessing that Melvin Bacos, one of the accused, would prefer to be called by
what he actually is: a Navy Corpsman. Minor detail? Perhaps, but it matters. Roach says, €œEveryone is entitled
to his own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own set of facts.€ Awad was an old and crippled Iraqi man€ There€™s
that assumption again. We€™ve already covered this one, so we€™ll move on. The defense first
charged that statements made to investigators were coerced and inadmissible. Then we were told that the defense
wanted a swift Article 32 hearing to set the record straight and put the prosecution to the test, only to attempt
to waive the Article 32 hearings when the prosecution called their bluff. Here€™s where Roach shows that
level of knowledge generally called €œjust enough to be dangerous.€ His statement that €œthe
defense wanted a swift Article 32€ is incorrect. If you actually read the article he links to, here is the basis
of his assumption: For weeks, attorneys for eight Camp Pendleton service members accused of murdering an Iraqi
man thought hearings would begin by month€™s end. Now it appears that legal and logistical issues will delay
those hearings until September or later. The postponement has prompted at least one of the lawyers to say that base
officials should release the suspects from jail until the scheduling is sorted out. Does it say that the defense wanted
a swift Article 32? Not at all. In fact, Retired Marine Col. Jane Siegal, who represents PFC John Jodka III, mentioned
during her interview on our radio show that it was preposterous that the Marine Corps had planned to hold the Article
32 only a week after the men were charged, especially in light of the fact that the day before the Article 32 hearings
began this week, the prosecution claimed their investigation was incomplete. In light of this, Roach€™s conclusion
that the defense attempted to waive the Article 32 because €œthe prosecution called their bluff€ is
also incorrect. They asked to waive the Article 32 because they are convinced of their innocence and are willing to
go to trial. The reason for this is simple: It will save money, force the prosecution to turn over whatever evidence
they have, and allow the defense to actually go to Iraq, interview witnesses, and construct a worthy defense. Don€™t
forget, one of the reasons the prosecution has been holding back is because they claim that since there was not an
actual court-martial date set, it was premature to spend money and time on trips to Iraq. Next: Roach claims
that the €œstatistical inferences in similar cases suggest guilt€ on the part of the Innocent 8. That€™s
right€“it€™s all a numbers game to him. Don€™t miss Part 2.
Just so ya know...almost everything written in the article is either
false or "mis-represented."
General
newsroom phone: 508-746-5555 Sarah Corbitt, Editor in Chief - scorbitt@mpgnews.com Scott Smith, Managing Editor - ssmith@mpgnews.com Charles Mathewson, Plymouth Editor - cmathewson@mpgnews.com Nan Anastasia, Opinion Editor - nanastasia@mpgnews.com Contact the MPG Newspapers newsroom: Sarah Corbitt, Editor in
Chief - scorbitt@mpgnews.com Scott Smith, Editor - ssmith@mpgnews.com (Duxbury Reporter, Halifax Reporter, Marshfield Reporter, Pembroke
Reporter, Kingston Reporter) Tamson Burgess, Editor - tburgess@mpgnews.com (Carver Reporter, The Sentinel, Wareham Courier) Click here to
send press releases, announcements or letters intendend for publication in the MPG Newspapers
Plymouth Marine allegedly confesses in case of civilian death Lawyers,
dad claim coercion
August 31, 2006 | Patriot Ledger By Patriot Ledger staff and news services
CAMP
PENDLETON, Calif. - An alleged confession by a young Marine from Plymouth appears to form a crux of the government€™s
case against seven Marines and a Navy corpsman charged with killing a civilian in Iraq. Defense attorneys challenged
the validity of the statement by squad leader Sgt. Lawrence G. Hutchins III of Plymouth and a confessional video by Cpl.
Trent D. Thomas. The lawyers have said they will try to suppress any alleged confessions if the case goes to trial.
They contend investigators used heavy-handed and coercive techniques to obtain them. Without the confessions, lawyers
said, the government has no case. What exactly they allegedly confessed to was unclear, and prosecutors did not elaborate. Hutchins€™
father, Lawrence Hutchins Jr., said today that his son and the other servicemen at first refused to make statements when
they arrived at Camp Pendleton, but then did so a short time later.
€˜€˜At first
they got called in, and said they would not make any statements without representation,۪۪
Hutchins said. €˜€˜Then within a few days, they were brought in and threatened and coerced, about
not being able to see their families again, and that they should make statements,۪۪ Hutchins
said. €˜€˜They were told these were serious charges, and that if they were convicted, they
will not be able to see their families, and that it would go easy if they confessed,۪۪ Hutchins
said. €˜€˜Almost all of them made statements, but as far as I know they all agreed to a situation
that happened there, but not to what was alleged. €˜€˜I have no idea what was said, but as far
as I know, Larry has not confessed to murder.۪۪ In a surprise development yesterday, prosecutors
said they would not seek the death penalty for one of the accused men, Marine Pfc. John J. Jodka III. It was unclear
how prosecutors€™ position on the death penalty in Jodka€™s case would affect other defendants. Details
about the prosecution€™s case emerged yesterday during preliminary hearings for two of eight men accused
in the shooting death of 52-year-old Hashim Ibrahim Awad on April 26 in the village of Hamdania. The hearings convened
for Jodka, 20, and Cpl. Marshall L. Magincalda, 23, are similar to grand jury hearings in civilian courts. Under military
code, the hearings determine whether the defendants face a court-martial. Hutchins, 22, is scheduled to have his hearing
on Oct. 16. The charges include kidnapping, murder and conspiracy. According to prosecutors, the Marines and sailor
kidnapped Awad, bound his feet, dragged him from his home and shot him to death in a roadside hole. All have been
held in the Camp Pendleton brig since May. At Jodka€™s hearing, the defense argued vehemently to keep secret
€˜€˜inflammatory€™€™ statements made by the private and other Marines,
saying they would prejudice any potential jurors in the event of a trial. Joseph Casas, an attorney for Jodka, said
the statements were the only evidence the government had. €˜€˜Take the statements out of the
picture and I submit to you the government has nothing,۪۪ Casas said. Laurie Levenson, a law
school professor at Loyola University, said the prosecution€™s decision not to seek capital punishment was
an unusual move possibly aimed at reducing public scrutiny of their case. €˜€˜This builds the credibility
of the prosecutor,€™€™ Levenson said. €˜€˜They will still need to meet
their burden (of proof), but I don۪t think their burden will be as high.۪۪ The
military has not executed anyone since 1961, when a soldier was hanged for rape and attempted murder, she said.
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
Subject:
Re: The opposition to a fair trial for the Pendleton Eight by the USMC and th... Date: Monday 04 September 2006 03:32
pm From:
FYI
A reply from a Retired SgtMaj. USMC in Texas who worked at the Marine Military Acadamy.
A true warrior. Semper Fi, Leo
In a message dated 9/4/2006 10:16:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time, writes: >
Leo, I've had nothing to do witht he MCL for 20 yrs or more. Plan to stay > that way. Our Marine Corps quit long ago
defending their own. I've had some > personal experience with an Alumnus of MMA- an outstanding Marine officer- >
committed suicide because of the way the Marine Corps treated his case. Our > MC ldrs today are to politcally involved.
Rare are those have guts to speak > out- even at possible threat to their careers. Today, even those who do- >
wait till they are in retirement. Difficult today- to keep the faith. > > S/F Name Deleted by me
Forward
FYI, I agree with the below! Semper Fi, Leo
LtCol Craig Roberts speaks out...
[Emphasis added]
From: Craig Roberts [mailto:centurion007@chouteautel.com] Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 10:42 AM To: Major Bill
Donahue USMC (Ret) Subject: The Pendleton Eight
Ref: The opposition to a fair trial for the Pendleton Eight by the
USMC and the Marine Corps League.
Major Donahue,
Are the marching orders from HQMC to "make it look like
a fair trial, then hang them"?
I don't think the Marine Corps League honcho understands what the basic issue here
is. It needs to be plainly stated up front that the Warrior Fund and the MCL donors are NOT chosing sides for or against
the Marine Corps.
They are trying to make sure that all the sides of the Pendleton Eight issue are evenly balanced
and fair. The problem is when the politics and political correctness of the upper echelons of our current Pentagon occupants
get in the way of established procedure and fairness, this reflects upon the Corps and all it stands for
not only for today, but in the future.
In my experience there are good officers and bad officers, and there
are those who are good warriors and fight the good fight, and those who are political coat-tail hangers who are
very mercenary with their morals and will do what is necessary to get promoted and advance, even at the expense of
others. When the latter are in charge of an issue, such as this one, then the system of fairness and "due process"
suffers and those accused pay the price. In the mind of these types of officers, "what do a few enlisted men
mean when it comes to being promoted from lieutenant colonel to colonel, or colonel to general...they are expendable."
The
issue in this case - as far as the Warrior Fund and the MCL - is NOT supporting the defendents against the Marine Corps,
but to establish fairness so that both sides have equal say and equal support for one reason: To get to
the TRUTH!
How can that happen when the system stacks the cards against the defendents?
None of us know exactly
what happened that day in Iraq, and we sure do want to know. But to hold and try men simply on accusations in a manner
that presumes guilt is just plain wrong.
There is no reason to even confine them then at this point. They can simply be
told they are on restriction to base until the issue is established at the Article 32 hearing. They are Marines .
They
will honor their orders. Right now every Marine on active duty is seeing that the Corps (at least the officer corps) does
not trust them . This is the wrong signal to send to our warriors who are at the sharp end, or anywhere else for that
matter.
The bottom line is that the defense should be given every opportunity and tool to present a proper defense
....not to get their clients off, but to get to the truth as soon as possible. If the men did not do what the Iraqi "witness"
said they did, then what does the Corps fear? If they did, then this needs to come out quickly and the men punished
so that the world can see that we do honor law and order and will not tolerate violations of law by our
men.
As a career investigator and police officer I am seeing a huge political coverup being perpetrated here . By
the way the Marine staffers and JAGs are conducting themselves, it appears obvious that the Pendleton Eight are pawns in
a political game that reaches to the highest levels. They are going to be used as political "throw downs" for the
administration.
What should be happening is that the Commandant and the Sergeant Major of the Corps should e personally
involved to make sure that the eight men receive the best defense that can be had to prove fairness beyond a reasonable
doubt. They should have as much, if not more, support from the Corps as the prosecution.
There should be no room
for accusations of prejudicial deck stacking after the fact.
The Corps hierarchy should:
1. Provide access
to all alleged evidence to defense counsel.
2. Provide transporation to the scene, security while there, and interpreters
so that statements and interviews can be obtained by defense.
3. Provide findings of all medical/autopsy evidence including
all photographs.
4. Provide copies of all reports from the scene and during the investigation.
5. Honor
all practical and fair requests from defense on a timely basis.
6. Provide names and access to all witnesses.
The
one thing that they will not do that IS done in civilian courts under the Constitution is provide a jury of the defendents
peers. The Courts Martial will consist of mostly or all officers, many of which may never haveb seen combat. The "jury"
should include enlisted Iraqi veterans, all field types with combat experience in the area. THEY are the only ones
who would have the experience to see through any untruths or falsifications . After all, the thrust is to
get to the truth and prove innocence or guilt. This should be the mission of both sides! In this case, I am seeing
the old adage "give the guy a fair trial, then take him out and hang him" being perpetrated right under
our noses.
What is happening appears to be nothing more than a thinly veiled witch hunt. That's how I see it, and
that's how history will see it if these lads are convicted. The waters in this event are already tainted. The Corps has mishandled
this case and managed to get itself backed into a corner. It was handled badly from the beginning, with overreactions,
blind accusations, mismanagement of resources, and prejudice. It is not too late to salvage IF the Corps
provides to the defense all of the above items.
The way the Corps is conducting itself sends the message that they
are doing everything they can to inhibit the defense because the Corps' case is weak to begin with. To provide equal
access to the facts would be comitting political suicide, so it's better to keep the defense in the dark and at a dsadvantage as
long as possible.
A case can be lost simply because a defense is weak, not because the defendent is guilty, and
lawyers know this.
That is why in the civilian courts we have "discovery" wherein the defense can obtain the evidence,
reports and other items prior to trial that the prosecution has.
As for the Marine Corps League, I cannot understand
what the problem is with their "official" stance.
As you point out, it would not be an issue of taking sides for
or against the Marine Corps, it needs to be apparent from the MCL side that the MCL is interested in fairness for the
accused until they are found guilty. That's it, plain and simple .
As it stands now, it is appearing to the
general public that the official MCL stance is to support the prosecution , and therefore be politically correct with
HQMC. Evidently, the leadership of the MCL is not concerned with the welfare of Marines, but with the welfare of the relations
between the MCL and the current administration of HQMC and the Oval Office. This is akin to a village standing
on the sidelines and watching some of its own residents being accused of witchcraft, with the penalty of being burned
at the stake, because the judges are the same people who are in charge of the village and whether the v
illagers get benefits. Who is going to stand up to the judges, even if they are wrong ?
The brass at the MCL
does not understand that you can "fight city hall." The Marine Corps officers in the upper ranks today are temporary. Their
decisions are not. The MCL will be around long after the careers of today's colonels and generals are over. What
the MCL does today in assisting young Marines in seeking truth and fairness, even if it results in punishment, will
be a legacy that will stand forever .
If the MCL officially does nothing, that too will be the message that
will be cast in bronze for the next generation, and the one after....
As for the "trial", what the public is seeing
are three tigers and a lamb deciding what is for dinner.
The bottom line is that what is happening is this: we are
being sent the message that the current Marine Corps eats its young. That is not the Corps that I remember, nor
the Corps that we all fought for. My Marine Corps was a family. My question is this, what in the world has it become
these days?
United American
Patriots 2006 5817 Starboard Drive, Suite 100 . Greensboro, NC 27410 Email .: info@unitedamericanpatriots.org
Designed & Developed by Beacon Technologies
Statistical Probability and the Innocent Pendleton 8, Part 2 Posted
by Kit Jarrell on August 31st, 2006
Loading ...In Part One, I introduced you to Chris Roach, a normally-conservative
writer who has been making some pretty strong accusations of guilt against the seven Marines and Navy Corpsman charged with
murder in the Hamdania incident. Letâ‚„s pick up where we left off. Roach is claiming that the Camp Pendleton
8 are guilty, and that he bases his conclusion on his belief that theyâ‚„re not â‚œacting
innocent.â‚„ Pretty amazing, isnâ‚„t it?
My initially more guarded views on this case have begun to turn
towards the conclusion that there is a strong likelihood of guilt. The biggest change has been the defendants failures to
back-up their public relations strategy with a legal strategy consistent with actual innocence.
There goes the presumption of innocenceâ‚€œnot
that Roach ever really had one. What happened to the Marine Corpsâ‚„ ability to â‚“police
their own?� Roach goes on to pick out what he, as an attorney, sees as the failure ₓto back-up
[sic] their public relations strategy with a legal strategy consistent with actual innocence.� Apparently, Roach₄s
extensive civilian legal experience entitles him to predict what innocent Marines would do if they were â‚œreally
innocent.â‚„
Roach seems particularly annoyed by CPL Marshall ₓMagic�
Magincaldaâ‚„s refusal to testify at his hearing on Wednesday.
In the world of criminal defense, where discovery opportunities
are almost zero, his defense attorney did not want to put on any of the NCIS investigators,
This is also incorrect. The defense are not the ones who didnâ‚„t
wish the NCIS to testify. The prosecution claimed during Jodkaâ‚„s hearing that calling the NCIS personnel
to the stand could jeopardize the â‚„secretâ‚„ parts of their job. This resulted in an objection
from not only Jodkaâ‚„s defense team, but Magicâ‚„s as well. It is quite clear that the
defense has every intention of questioning the NCIS agents.
It is known fact that they did not record the interrogations, which
lasted between 7 and 8 hours with no breaks for food, water, or even the restroom. None of this is relevant to Roach, who
is insistent that ₓThis is not the kind of strategy a truly innocent person would typically pursue.�
[Note: It is also known fact that the investigators took Jodka back to the scene of the incident and told him to pick up his
shell casings, and that the brass they took him to pick up was more than 100 meters from where Awad was at the time of the
shooting. For those not catching on just yet, that means that Jodka was 100 meters from Awad when he fired on him. Last time
I checked, itâ‚„s rather difficult to tie someone up while 100 meters away from them.] The title of Roachâ‚„s
next section is ₓInnocent People Would Testify Now, and Their Lawyers Would Let Them.� Is that
so? Charles Gittins might disagree. I asked Gittins, who defended Ilario Pantano, why his client never testified in his own
Article 32.
KJ: There was a lot of talk in the blogs and various forums - some
of it by JAG officers - that questioned your tactics; specifically, your choice₦not to have him testify₦Why
not let him testify?
CG: I am sure there are lots of people who are not in my position
who questioned my tactics. Thatâ‚„s why I was representing Ilario and not them. It is easy to be a spectator,
much less easy to be making those tactical calls with the clientâ‚„s life on the line.
Roach isnâ‚„t satisfied to make his blanket statement,
however. There is more. Then the defense teams for the different defendants parted ways, some seeking unsuccessfully to waive
the Article 32 hearings, while others have asked for continuances to get some evidence together. (One wonders if this is a
harbinger of one of the defendants flipping on the others). Considering the men have already given their answer to the question
of a deal, and have given the same answer since Day 1 (hint: it starts with ₓHell� and ends
with ₓNo�), I₄m going to say that the only ₓharbinger�
here is that of Roachâ‚„s ineptness at analyzing the case becoming more evident as time goes by.
Roach then goes on to talk about the burden the prosecution has.
ₓWithout justification or excuse� is an element of the offense to be proved by the prosecution.
You canâ‚„t undermine the required showing of probable cause on that element without testimony by the defendant.
As Ilario Pantano showed quite clearly, that is not necessarily
the case. Innocent men do not have to testify. Just because the Fifth Amendment gives the accused the right to not incriminate
themselves does not mean that not testifying means they are guilty. Itâ‚„s also important to note that we
are still in the hearing phase. This is not a trial. The men are certain that they will be taken to trialâ‚€œthey
even requested it. These Article 32s are only going on because the prosecution wanted them and the investigating officer decided
to go ahead and do them. Why would they testify now, when they can simply get this phase over with and move on to a trial,
where the rules are different? To these men and their families, the Article 32 is simply a formality, the pre-game show. They
want to move into the main arena, and theyâ‚„re willing to up the stakes to do it.
Now we come to the real reason I decided to write this article,
and the source for its title. Roachâ‚„s next paragraph smacks of complete smarm, coupled with an utter contempt
for the Marines accused in this case. The title of his next section?
Statistical Inferences Based on Similar Cases Suggest Guilt Yes,
youâ‚„re reading that right. Heâ‚„s partially basing his belief in their guilt on statistics.
There have been extremely few court martials for unlawful use of
force in the current war in Iraq. The Washington Post recently conducted an exhaustive study of the subject that unearthed
only 39 cases of unlawful homicide being prosecuted in Iraq, in which only 12 defendants ever served time for their offenses.
Many were simply kicked out of the service or reprimanded. These paltry numbers of bona fide felony prosecutions suggest extreme
indulgence of defendants in a war where many innocents, surely far more than 12, have have been killed illegally by American
forces. [emphasis mine] A point that is interesting is the fact that the Post article Roach refers to is being hailed by truthout.org
as well. In other words, Roach is using the same material the anti-war Left moonbats are.
[Roach also cites a 98% conviction rate in military courts-martial,
a fact that he pulled from militaryinjustice.org, a site that, oddly enough, was started by the mother of a Marine who was
charged and convicted of murder.] According to Roach, the fact that more troops are not being charged and convicted in Iraq
should be taken to mean that these Marines and corpsman are probably guilty. Just in case you mention the â‚“just
because they₄re charged doesn₄t mean they₄re guilty�
idea, he makes one more point: Let me let you in on a not-so-surprising secret of the criminal defense bar: almost everyone
that is arrested and indicted is guilty.
Perhaps in the civilian world, thatâ‚„s correct.
However, what are the statistics of military law? I know a few JAG lawyers that would disagree with Roachâ‚„s
sweeping generalization.
So where does this leave us? We have eight men, all of whom have
served their country in a manner above reproach, some of whom have been wounded in battle more than once, who have never given
anyone in their chain of command a reason to think they would act in any manner besides that fitting of a United States military
member. We have a case full of holes, we have conflicting ₓwitness� statements (and missing
witnesses), we have unrecorded interviews and a videotape of a ₓstatement� that may have been
the result of what we know was a 7-hour long interrogation.
And then we have Chris Roach, who fancies himself the â‚“devilâ‚„s
advocate� in this ongoing debate. Unfortunately, as Jodka₄s father eloquently pointed out
on Roachâ‚„s site,
A devilâ‚„s advocate has come to mean a person
who takes a position for the sake of argument or who presents a counterargument for a position they do believe in, to another
debater.
Mr. Roach- you can be a skeptic all you want, and publicize it-question
the defense, etc; but playing Devilâ‚„s Advocate with my sonâ‚„s enumerated rights under
UCMJ, which you have done on EuphoricReality isnâ‚„t the definition of Devilâ‚„s Advocate,
merely an unfeeling SOB who is the enemy of my son. [emphasis mine]
Chris Roachâ‚„s position is uninformed at best,
and callously dangerous at worst. Supporting the men who defend us with their blood, who have not been tried in a military
court-martial, who have been found guilty of nothing, is not ₓblind, partisan hackery.�
It is the least we can do.
House OKs bill mandating
tougher punishment for military imposters
By Leo Shane
III, Stars and Stripes Mideast edition, Friday, December 8, 2006
WASHINGTON - A bill mandating tougher punishment for military imposters gained final
approval from the House on Wednesday, and will now go to the president to be signed into law.
The legislation, dubbed the "stolen valor act," calls for up to six months in prison for
anyone who falsely claims to have earned a military honor, and up to a year in prison for fraudulently wearing a Purple Heart,
Silver Star or other high military honor.
Both crimes would also be classified as felonies, which can carry additional penalties
such as limits on gun ownership and disqualification from certain public offices, depending on the state.
Under current law, anyone caught wearing a military medal they did not earn faces a misdemeanor
charge and up to six months in prison, but law enforcement can’t do anything to someone simply displaying or claiming
to have earned the honor.
House officials on Wednesday said the change closes that critical loophole and helps protect
the integrity of the military awards.
"These frauds have diminished the honor of our military heroes," said Rep. John Salazar,
D-Colo., who introduced the original version of the measure. "They use it to gain credibility for themselves, and often go
on to commit even worse crimes."
Along with cases of individuals using the fake medals to gain speaking engagements and
community leadership roles, Salazar referenced crimes committed in 2004 by retired Marine Sgt. Gary Lakis, who claimed fake
combat experience and nonexistent Silver Stars in order to gain $66 million in defense contracts to provide training to the
service.
The military revoked those contracts once Lakis was found to be lying about much of his
military career, but he fled the country before FBI investigators could arrest him and charge him with fraud.
Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., said awards such as the Purple Heart "hold a deeper meaning and
value for servicemen that far outweighs their monetary worth," and called the bill a chance to honor the sacrifice of all
troops by preserving the military's legacy.
The tougher penalties are backed by a number of veterans groups, including the Vietnam
Veterans of America and the Military Order of the Purple Heart.
As of late last week, supporters thought the bill likely wouldn't pass this session because
of House Republican leadership's resistance to moving a measure proposed by Salazar, a first-term Democrat.
The measure approved yesterday was a nearly identical bill sponsored by Sen. Kent Conrad,
D-N.D., which was approved by the full Senate in September.
The White House has not released any timetable for when the bill could be signed into law.
Stolen Valor Act of 2005 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by Senate) S 1998 ES
109th
CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 1998
AN ACT
To amend title 18, United States Code, to enhance protections
relating to the reputation and meaning of the Medal of Honor and other military decorations and awards, and for other
purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Stolen Valor Act of 2005'.
SEC. 2.
FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Fraudulent claims surrounding the receipt of the Medal
of Honor, the distinguished-service cross, the Navy cross, the Air Force cross, the Purple Heart, and other decorations
and medals awarded by the President or the Armed Forces of the United States damage the reputation and meaning of such
decorations and medals.
(2) Federal law enforcement officers have limited ability to prosecute fraudulent claims
of receipt of military decorations and medals.
(3) Legislative action is necessary to permit law enforcement officers
to protect the reputation and meaning of military decorations and medals.
SEC. 3. ENHANCED PROTECTION OF MEANING
OF MILITARY DECORATIONS AND MEDALS.
(a) Expansion of General Criminal Offense- Subsection (a) of section 704 of title
18, United States Code, is amended by striking 'manufactures, or sells' and inserting 'purchases, attempts to purchase,
solicits for purchase, mails, ships, imports, exports, produces blank certificates of receipt for, manufactures, sells,
attempts to sell, advertises for sale, trades, barters, or exchanges for anything of value'.
(b) Establishment of
Criminal Offense Relating to False Claims About Receipt of Decorations and Medals- Such section 704 is further amended--
(1)
by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
'(b) False
Claims About Receipt of Military Decorations or Medals- Whoever falsely represents himself or herself, verbally or in writing,
to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States, any of the
service medals or badges awarded to the members of such forces, the ribbon, button, or rosette of any such badge, decoration,
or medal, or any colorable imitation of such item shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than six months,
or both.'; and
(3) in paragraph (1) of subsection (c), as redesignated by paragraph (1) of this subsection, by inserting
'or (b)' after 'subsection (a)'.
(c) Enhanced Penalty for Offenses Involving Certain Other Medals- Such section
704 is further amended by adding at the end the following:
'(d) Enhanced Penalty for Offenses Involving Certain Other
Medals- If a decoration or medal involved in an offense described in subsection (a) or (b) is a distinguished-service
cross awarded under section 3742 of title 10, a Navy cross awarded under section 6242 of title 10, an Air Force cross awarded
under section 8742 of section 10, a silver star awarded under section 3746, 6244, or 8746 of title 10, a Purple Heart awarded
under section 1129 of title 10, or any replacement or duplicate medal for such medal as authorized by law, in lieu of
the punishment provided in the applicable subsection, the offender shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more
than 1 year, or both.'.
(d) Conforming Amendments- Subsection (c) of such section 704, as so redesignated, is further
amended--
(1) by inserting `Enhanced Penalty for Offenses Involving' before 'Congressional Medal of Honor'; and
(2) by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following: '(2) CONGRESSIONAL MEDAL OF HONOR DEFINED- In this subsection,
the term 'Congressional Medal of Honor' means--
'(A) a medal of honor awarded under section 3741, 6241, or 8741
of title 10 or section 491 of title 14; '(B) a duplicate medal of honor issued under section 3754, 6256, or 8754 of title
10 or section 504 of title 14; or '(C) a replacement of a medal of honor provided under section 3747, 6253, or 8747
of title 10 or section 501 of title 14.'.
Passed the Senate September 7 (legislative day, September 6), 2006. Attest:
Secretary.
The Warrior Fund (www.warrior-fund.org <http://www.warrior-fund.org/> ) was established in June of this year as the 6th Mission for UnitedAmericanPatriots,
Inc. to help ALL of our military, especially those like "The Pendleton 8" who have already been "processed" through an Article
32, or who are currently facing such.
It is completely legitimate 501(c)3 non-profit public charitable mission, with
all the legal under pinnings (re: Legal Documents) posted on the website to include Corporation papers, IRS Letter of Determination
and By Laws. It has its own Board of Directors with Mr. Richard Van Luvender (rvanluve@comcast.net) as its President.
UnitedAmericanPatriots (parent organization
for The Warrior Fund) and the Warrior Fund's Board of Directors have contributed a massive amount of time, effort and personal
finances (non-reimbursable) to get this Fund up and running.
As of this email, more than $ 16,000.00 has been raised.
Our goal is to raise at least $ 2 million. And even this amount could well be less than needed if/once all of the cases
we are monitoring goes to a full Courts-Martial. Please remember: even if "convicted" at a Courts Martial,
there are appeals processes available (and we all know many "convictions" are reversed on appeal, or the punishment" is reduced).
These heroes of ours face the DEATH penalty if convicted.
The "process" for an individual defendant to get financial
legal assistance from The Warrior Fund is posted on the website. It is straight forward and is structured so as the
maintain maximum fiduciary integrity and "honesty" in all the Fund does while at the same time protecting the defendants rights
and ensuring any funds provided are used for his/her legal defense.
All of this - the organization and legal "footing"
for the Fund - was done under the advice and monitoring of two of North Carolina's (state of Incorporation) top attorneys,
and, a Certified Public Accountant.
Additionally:
We have been in direct contact with several of the defendant's
families and attorneys. I, personally, have been in constant communication with the mother of Cpl Marshall
Magincalda and the mother of one of four 101st Airborne soldiers who are headed to CONUS (continental United States)
who are also accused of a near "mirror-image" "incident" as the Pendleton 8 are facing.
I've also been in contact with
at least three of the key defense attorneys, LtCol Neil Puckett (USMC Ret), BGen Brahms and Mark Zaid.
While there
are several "local" defense funds established by parents of individual defendant's (and I applaud and support each such effort),
UnitedAmericanPatriots' Warrior Fund is but one of a very small handful of nation-wide (national) legal defense fund
organizations.
During times such as these, there will be dishonest persons trying to financially gain from other's
misfortunes. We must remain very vigilant to any so-called "legal defense fund" and report any illegal activity
along these lines to the proper authorities, beginning with your state's Attorney General.
UnitedAmericanPatriots has
a mechanism in place to check out questionable websites in this regard so, if you have any doubt about such a fund-raising
website, please contact me direct and I'll have our investigators check it out and get back to you.
Fun Graphix is a non gain, non profit group for sharing purposes only.
DO NOT contact the Owners or Members over copyright issues. All shares are done under the FAIR
USE Act with out any gain or profit & therefore is not a crime .
No Members claim to have made any of the graphics that they send to this lis/websitet. The
graphics come from a wide variety of web sources & are therefore deemed to be public domain. As far as they are aware
they are licensed for personal use only, & are by their respective artist. Any infringement of said copyright is non intentional. The
tubes/mists/graphix are for Non-Profit use ONLY any other use is prohibited. All respected rights go back to the original
creator
The webmistress supports Feel Free Graphix. You are more than welcome to right click on any
graphix and "save as" name you decide and save to your computer.
Please spread the word of our Prisoners of
War and our Missing in Action. There are STILL Americans who don't know anything about them! There are Americans who don't
know the true meaning of POW/MIA! TEACH THEM. NEVER FORGOTTEN!!
