Euphoric Reality

ANN ARBOR, MI – Late yesterday afternoon, military prosecutors filed an official notice that they are appealing the June 17th decision of Military Judge Colonel Steven Folsom, USMC, which dismissed all charges against Lt Colonel Jeffrey Chessani on the grounds of unlawful command influence.

Click here to read the prosecution’s notice of appeal now.

Prosecutors have 20 days in which to file their appeal brief to the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (NMCCA), which is located in Washington, D.C.

Thomas More Law Center, representing Chessani, released a statement of their disgust today.

For over two years, the federal government, the Far Left media and anti-war politicians have smeared the names of loyal Marines, spent millions of dollars to uncover the “Haditha massacre” that never occurred, and employed an army of Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) agents in what it described as the largest investigation in that agency’s history. To show for their efforts military prosecutors have lost 7 of the 8 cases they charged, the eighth case is still awaiting trial.

Earlier this week, the prosecutors suffered their latest setback when military judge Colonel Steven A. Folsom, USMC, dismissed all charges against LtCol Jeffrey Chessani, USMC, the highest ranking Marine officer facing “Haditha” charges. Despite this ruling, the government has indicated that it intends to pursue an appeal, which will continue the case and the expense of taxpayer money for many more months, if not longer.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, which is representing LtCol Chessani in the court martial, commented, “The investigation and prosecution of the Haditha Marines has been a Fiasco. A military command decision should end it now—for the sake of the Corps, our nation and the Marines involved.”

Thompson continued, “Colonel Folsom’s ruling is rock-solid. If the government wants to continue wasting taxpayer dollars pursuing this case on appeal, we are more than committed to defending the military judge’s ruling, even if it means taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. We intend to fight as tenaciously as LtCol Chessani’s Marines fought in Iraq. Enough is enough—it’s time to end this Fiasco.”

In a detailed ruling, which took the military judge over an hour to deliver from the bench, the judge dismissed the charges on the basis of unlawful command influence, which he described as “the mortal enemy of military justice.” The government’s appeal will be heard initially by the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals (NMCCA), which is located in Washington, D.C. A decision by that court could then be appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) and then even to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The whole thing is pretty ridiculous, and goes to show the absolute lengths the government will go to in order to prosecute these Marines.

Col. Steven Folsom just made the list of my favorite people of all time.

ANN ARBOR, MI – Military Judge Colonel Steven Folsom, USMC, this morning dismissed all charges against Lt Colonel Jeffrey Chessani on the grounds of unlawful command influence. He blistered the prosecution’s case in an opinion he read from the bench that lasted an hour. The ruling was without prejudice. Colonel Folsom gave prosecutors 72 hours in which to notify him whether they would appeal.

The ruling was greeted with tears of joy from Chessani’s wife and several spectators in the courtroom.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, represents LtCol Chessani alongside his detailed military attorneys. The two Law Center attorneys assigned to his case are former Marine officers themselves. Robert Muise served in the First Persian Gulf war as an infantry officer, and Brian Rooney was a Judge Advocate officer who served two tours of duty in Iraq. Lt Colonel John Shelburne, USMC, and Captain Jeff King, USMC , the detailed military defense counsel, make up the rest of Chessani’s defense team.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Law Center, commenting on the judge’s decision had this to say, “We are all grateful for the judge’s ruling today. He truly was the “last sentinel” to guard against unlawful command influence.”

“Tragically, our own government eliminated one of its most effective combat commanders. The insurgents are laughing in their caves,” said Thompson.

We finally have a chance to show the undue command influence in the Hutchins case as well. Thank you, Col. Folsom!

ANN ARBOR, MI – Military Judge Colonel Steven Folsom, USMC, will issue his ruling on the crucial Unlawful Command Influence motion brought by LtCol Jeffrey Chessani’s defense counsel in a Camp Pendleton, California, courtroom on Tuesday, June 17, 2008, at 9:00am PST.

Col Folsom had originally scheduled hearings in Chessani’s case to last for three days, June 16–18.  However, in an announcement that might prove to be significant to the Chessani case, Col Folson indicated late last week that he will announce his decision on the defense motion to dismiss on June 17 in a hearing that should last approximately one hour.

In May 2008, Col Folsom ruled that he found evidence of unlawful command influence (UCI). Courts consider UCI the mortal enemy of military justice.  The judge’s finding was based upon the evidence that Generals Mattis and Helland, who controlled the disposition of LtCol Chessani’s case, were impermissibly influenced by Marine lawyer Col John Ewers, one of the initial investigators of the Haditha.  Col Ewers was permitted to attend at least and up to 25 closed-session meetings in which LtCol Chessani’s case was discussed.

Start praying, folks.  If these charges are dismissed, then the door is open for us to bring Sgt Larry Hutchins’ case up as the next undue command influence example.

What do you do when you can’t get Marines to testify against each other, can’t get them to take a deal, and generally have no case? Why, up the ante, of course.

A federal grand jury is considering amending charges against a former Riverside police officer from manslaughter to murder for killings while he was a sergeant in Iraq, a defense attorney said.

Jose Luis Nazario Jr. is charged with voluntary manslaughter in U.S. District Court in Riverside — because he is no longer in the military. But prosecutors are now asking a grand jury in Riverside to change the charges to murder, said Kevin McDermott, one of the attorneys representing Nazario.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jerry Behnke said he could not comment on whether the grand jury is reviewing the case or why the prosecution would ask for charges to be amended. Grand jury proceedings are closed to defense attorneys and the public.

Of course he’s not going to comment on why they would be amending the charges to read murder instead of manslaughter. What would he say? I can see the press conference now.

“Well, folks, this whole process isn’t going the same as the others. There’s an order to this whole thing. See, first we charge them all, even though we have no evidence. Then we confine them in ungodly conditions…what’s that? Oh god, no. Not like detainees. Those guys at Gitmo are living fat and happy. We’re trying to break these Marines, not coddle them. Stop asking stupid questions.

“Anyway, usually after about 18 hours of interrogations with no food, water, or bathroom breaks, a few months of shackles and solitary confinement, they’ll sign anything we ask. Yes, we’ve done it before, we know it works. But these Marines, they’re being a bit uncooperative. Nelson refused to testify even though we put him in jail over Memorial Day weekend, we had to pull him out of jail because the milblogs made a bunch of ruckus about the whole thing. Nazario’s refusing to plead guilty…it’s just ridiculous. Don’t these guys know they’re supposed to play along? Well, we’re just going to remind Nazario of what’s at stake here. He’s got a family. We’ve got Mattis on board, he’ll testify against the Marines. But anyway, the short answer to your question of why we decided to bump it up is obvious–we have to bring in the big guns. We have nothing unless we can either get them to plead guilty, or get someone to roll.”

ANN ARBOR, MI – Military prosecutors are expected to call as their witness General James N. Mattis, a highly respected Marine officer and one of only a handful of four-star Marine generals, to testify in the court-martial hearing against LtCol Jeffrey Chessani on June 2, 2008, at Camp Pendleton, California.

Gen Mattis, recently given his fourth star, was the previous convening authority for the Haditha cases and the officer responsible for referring LtCol Chessani’s case to a general court-martial. Prosecutors are relying on him to rebut previous findings of the Military Judge that there is evidence of unlawful command influence.

So let me get this straight. When the defense asks for Mattis’ sworn deposition, they’re denied. Yet the prosecution can call him as a witness with no problems at all? And what will Mattis say? Well, of course he’ll say there was no undue command influence, and the judge will nod and say, “Oh, okay. Wow. Good thing you came on the stand and set that straight. Thanks, guys. Let’s all go get a brewski now.”

Am I the only one who thinks this fish smells worse than a two-dollar hooker? As it turns out, I’m not.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, the national public interest law firm defending LtCol Chessani, commented, “This case is dripping with double standards and political intrigue as the Pentagon attempts to appease Washington’s political establishment and press…”

[I must point out here that those of us fighting for these and other Marines like SGT Lawrence Hutchins have repeatedly tried to get Thomas More Law Center involved, but were rebuffed. Now suddenly it appears they've seen the light, sort of like the Apostle Paul on the road to Damascus. We're just happy they caught up.]

And here’s a little factoid you may not have known about:

“…Gen Mattis was investigated for ordering a ground and air assault of an Iraqi ‘wedding party’ in 2004 that resulted in the deaths of 40 men, women, and children. At a press conference shortly after the incident, he defended his actions by retorting, ‘I don’t have to apologize for the conduct of my Marines.’ What is puzzling is that even though Mattis rightfully was never charged with any criminal wrongdoing in that case, he did not give LtCol Chessani the same consideration.”

Did you catch that? “I don’t have to apologize for the conduct of my Marines.” Brilliantly said, and yet here we are, with Mattis at the forefront of a witch hunt against the very men he claims to love and respect so deeply, in almost the same type of situation. Then again, when it comes to the Marine Corps leadership, it’s not about fairness, justice, or even honor–as we’ve seen time and time again in case after case.

What makes me so curious is how Mattis will explain away roughly 25 closed-session meetings where one of the investigators was allowed to attend and discuss the case with the officers controlling the disposition of the case. That’s like a homicide investigator meeting with the judges in a civilian case. In other words, not right.

Chessani’s attorneys will be able to cross-examine the general on the stand, but if past track record is any indication of how that will go, the prosecutor will object, the judge will sustain, and Mattis will not be exposed for the dishonorable man that he is. We shall see if the judge has the personal integrity and fortitude to make his decision based on facts instead

[Note: I am well aware, dear readers, that my freedom to call Mattis dishonorable was given to me in part by Mattis himself. However, it was also paid for by Jeffrey Chessani and Larry Hutchins, so you'll forgive me if my loyalty lies with them instead of the one who ruined their careers and traded their freedoms for his fourth star.]

As disgusting as these cases continue to be, and as much of a cesspool as the military “justice” system has become, each mistake, each over-the-top action that they take is one more arrow in our quiver. It is one more piece of proof of innocence for all of these Marines, one more way we can show how badly these cases are conducted. That means one step closer to freedom for SGT Larry Hutchins.

So hang in there, Larry. If the NCIS, the JAG, and the Marine Corps leadership show their backsides any more, we’ll have caught them with their pants down completely–which is exactly what I, and others like me, intend to do.

Interesting developments in the Camp Lejeune case today.

RALEIGH , N.C. – Two Marine officers in a unit that was accused of killing as many as 19 Afghan civilians in 2007 will not face criminal charges, the military said Friday.

Lt. Gen. Samuel Helland, the commander of U.S. Marine Corps Forces, Central Command, made the decision not to bring charges after reviewing the findings of a special tribunal that heard more than three weeks of testimony in January at Camp Lejuene.

The tribunal investigated allegations that as many as 19 Afghan civilians died when a unit of Lejeune-based Marine special operations troops opened fire after a car bomb targeted their convoy on March 4, 2007 in Nangahar Province.

This decision is very significant for several reasons.  First, it’s a small victory for those of us advocating on behalf of Marines and soldiers accused of “war crimes” while doing their job–which is primarily, by the way, killing the enemy last time I checked.

What makes the decision interesting is that General Helland just happens to be the same officer who served as the convening authority in the SGT Lawrence Hutchins case.  Hutchins is better known as the squad leader of the Pendleton 8, a group of Marines who, together with their Navy Corpsman, were accused of murder after taking out a terrorist in April 2006.  All but Hutchins finally broke after 18-hour interrogations and months of confinement in solitary, shackled conditions that Gen. James Mattis called too severe.

The men took plea deals, pointed the finger at Hutchins, and now all seven of them are free–or at least, not imprisoned.  Hutchins remains in the brig at Camp Pendleton, recently sentenced to 11 years by General Helland, even though the government still to this day cannot prove that the Marines killed anyone besides the terrorist they were sent to find–and kill.  Their entire case rested on their ability to threaten seven men long enough and hard enough to get them to sign statements admitting something they did not do.  Everyone has a breaking point, and the NCIS made sure they found every single one.  The results are honorable Marines now facing life as federal felons and one in jail for the next six years–in return for doing their job.

Why the shortsightedness in the Hutchins case, and the contrasting willingness to do the right thing in the Lejeune case?  The evidence showing Hutchins to be innocent is overwhelming, public, and freely available.  The undue command influence recently found by a military judge in the Haditha case has been touted as a huge victory for not only LtCol Jeffrey Chessani, but also for Hutchins, who stands to benefit from the door finally being opened to show the same in his own case.

Whether Lt. Gen. Samuel Helland can and will do the right thing twice in a row remains to be seen.  Judging from his track record thus far, I’m not expecting much. These days in Marine Corps leadership, honor seems to be in short supply.

Also posted at TheNextRight.com.

The following letter was sent to Lt. Gen. Helland and others last night regarding the continued imprisonment and wrongful conviction of SGT Lawrence Hutchins.

I am currently writing a definitive account of the Hutchins case from beginning to end. I am incorporating all the documents I have in my possession, including the Ronin diaries, autopsy report, record of trial, NCIS work product, combat logs, interviews, and much more.

After two years of research in this case, as all of you are already aware, I can and will prove well beyond a reasonable doubt all of the following:

- There was a casual familiarity between the prosecution and the convening authority that crosses the line well into undue command influence. This was not an exception, but the modus operandi, as evidenced by recent rulings in United States v. Chessani and other examples in related cases such as United States v. Girouard.

- This familiarity between the convening authority and the prosecution extended to the defense attorneys, as they “played along” with the government’s script, ultimately failing in their duty to represent their clients, and denying them a fair trial.

- The six remaining Marines and Navy Corpsman lied on the stand. Each of them had a personal reason, something that the NCIS used to bargain with, and I will expose these reasons, including NCIS’ maximizing of them to force the Marines to falsely incriminate themselves.

- These lies purchased sentences that accomplished a two-fold purpose. First, they allowed the government to “punish” someone, thereby saving face with both the media and the Iraqi government in one fell swoop–without ever having to actually prove their case in a fair court of law and without ever having to actually convict the men involved. Secondly, the sentences offered the men a way to get on with their lives. The prospect of perjuring oneself is obviously less frightening when sanctioned by the government and done in return for the whole sordid mess just going away. As evidenced by the online postings of Jodka, Magincalda, Bacos, and Pennington, they have already forgotten that their lies betrayed the man who led them into battle and would have laid down his own life to ensure they made it home from Iraq. They all “just want to move on.” Of course, [some of their] willingness to be paid for their stories does not speak well for their veracity either. One does not pay for the truth to be told, and one does not accept payment for telling it.

- From the first day the Marines and Corpsman were confined, everything about their confinement was designed to emotionally, psychologically, and physically (by denying medical attention to Cpl Magincalda) break them–before they had even been charged with a crime. Gen. Mattis himself has admitted that the Marines and Corpsman were held in overly strict conditions.

- The NCIS conducted their investigation with a blatant lack of integrity, fairness or even concern for the truth. Their methods were not only suspect, but outright corrupt. This is perhaps one of the most easily proven points of the entire case.

From the beginning, this case was flawed at its core. From the lack of witness verification to cruel and unusual punishment, from openly suborning perjury to the manufacturing of “evidence,” the government has acted with complete and utter disregard for facts. Aided by a “defense” corps that submarined its own clients, the Marine Corps took a sergeant of Marines with an unimpeachable record of service and destroyed his career and that of his men–not to mention bankrupting families and tearing relationships and marriages apart. Proving this is not an issue. The documents speak for themselves.

Once the story is written, I have almost 50 websites with a combined total readership well into the tens of millions ready to run it. It will be on internet talk radio shows with global listenership. I guarantee you that this story will be the #1 result on every search engine on the internet for Sgt Lawrence Hutchins. I will also make sure that it is the #1 result for every single officer involved in this case, from every attorney to every judge who has ever touched this case. There will be no libel, no slander–only truth, facts, and the documents that back them all up.

The government has shown an inherent unwillingness to do the right thing, and therefore I feel it my duty to expose every lie, every inconsistency, every hole in the story…Regardless of personal cost to me, Sgt Hutchins WILL be exonerated–if not by his government, then by his countrymen in the court of public opinion. When they see the extent of the injury to Hutchins’ name, they WILL seek justice.

I do not think I need to remind you that The Long War is unpopular at best. As we have discussed at length, if the average American were made aware of the extent the government will go to in order to appease the media, the anti-American Left, and a foreign power, it could be an interesting election year…

Kit Lange

Thanks to John Bambenek, Deb Lange, and Deb at Yankeemom, all of whom have recently come on board to help wade through the hundreds of pages of case material, catalog it, and cross-reference so that this story may be finally written once and for all. We will win this fight, and it will not end until Larry Hutchins walks out a free man.

This is a HUGE, HUGE victory in the Haditha case…and possibly a huge victory for SGT Larry Hutchins as well, as the door is finally open to show undue command influence in the Pendleton 8 case. Today is a great day for Chessani, his attorneys, and for all of us whose mission is to end these charades of “justice.” The case is far from over, but it’s one giant leap toward righting this incredible wrong. My prayers are with the attorneys, Lt Col Chessani, and SGT Hutchins as we keep fighting for the end of this madness.

ANN ARBOR, MI – Prosecutors yesterday hit a major speed bump in their rush to convict Marine LtCol Jeffrey Chessani when the Military Judge ruled that he found evidence of unlawful command influence. Courts consider unlawful command influence the “mortal enemy of military justice.”

Although the case is far from over, yesterday’s ruling now forces prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) the facts upon which the unlawful command influence is based are untrue; (2) those facts do not constitute unlawful command influence; or (3) the unlawful command influence will not affect the proceedings.

The Unlawful Command Influence motion (click here for Motion) was brought before Military Judge, Colonel Steven Folsom, by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Law Center attorneys Robert Muise and Brian Rooney, both former Marines, wrote and argued the Unlawful Command Influence motion on which yesterday’s decision is based.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “Considering the politically charged nature of this case – and particularly this motion – Colonel Folsom made a courageous decision.”

Thompson went on to say, “The taint of unlawful command influence started from the inception of the investigation, when high-ranking Pentagon officials decided to make LtCol Chessani a political scapegoat to appease a liberal anti-war press and politicians. This ill-conceived prosecution has resulted in the removal of one of America’s most effective combat commanders in Iraq by the Marine Corps’ own standards. Although nothing can undo the harm caused to our Nation and to LtCol Chessani and his family, this ruling gives us hope that the military justice system will rise above the politics that fomented this prosecution and allow LtCol Chessani, who devoted more than 20 years to the Marine Corps and to the defense of our Nation, to get on with his life.”

Colonel Folsom found that the defense met its burden of presenting “some evidence” of actual and apparent unlawful command influence. His decision was based upon the evidence that the Generals who controlled the disposition of the case were apparently or actually impermissibly influenced by Marine lawyer Colonel John Ewers, who was permitted to attend numerous, closed-session meetings in which LtCol Chessani’s case was discussed.

Colonel Ewers was one of the investigators of the Haditha incident from the beginning. He is a witness that the prosecutors plan to call in its case against LtCol Chessani. Consequently, he should not have been involved in any of the meetings in which the disposition of the Haditha cases was discussed with the Generals who convened the court martial. During the hearing, the defense called Col Ewers as a witness. Col Ewers admitted that he was present during at least 25 meetings in which LtCol Chessani’s case and the other Haditha cases were discussed with the Generals and other legal advisors.

The criminal charges against LtCol Chessani stem from a house-to-house, room-by-room battle four of his enlisted Marines engaged in on November 19, 2005, after being ambushed by insurgents in the town of Haditha, Iraq. Even though LtCol Chessani promptly reported the events of that day to his superiors, including the deaths of 15 noncombatant civilians caught in the battle, nobody in LtCol Chessani’s chain of command believed there was any wrongdoing on behalf of the Marines.

However, months later, a Time magazine story planted by an insurgent propaganda agent, caused Pentagon officials to order the largest investigation in the history of the Naval Criminal Investigative Services (NCIS). As a result, LtCol Chessani, one of America’s most effective combat commanders in Iraq, now faces dismissal (an officer’s equivalent of a dishonorable discharge), loss of retirement, and imprisonment of up to 3 years.

Thus far, after 30 months of investigation costing millions of dollars, the cases against three of the four enlisted men charged for their part in the Haditha incident have been dismissed.

The Law Center, along with two detailed Marine lawyers, LtCol Jon Shelburne and Captain Jeffrey King, is defending LtCol Chessani, the highest ranking military officer charged in the November 19, 2005, Haditha incident.

I love how liberals use words. For instance, a movie made by British filmmaker Nick Broomfield called “Battle For Haditha” is called an “excellent documentary,” a “fictional drama,” and a “recounting,” all at once. I had no idea those words were synonyms.

Armond White from NYPress.com can’t say enough glowing things about this piece of trash masquerading as a documentary. He talks about how Broomfield “can juxtapose the insurgents cold-bloodedly planting an IED (Improvised Explosive Device) with a U.S. commander deploying a satellite sniper.” How are these two situations at all the same thing?

The movie’s entry in Wikipedia is even better. “The outline is reportedly based on rumours,” says the entry, “as the trial had not even begun when they started filming, with the assumption that the Marines on trial are guilty and the Victims family and neighbours were telling the truth.” And yet you call this a documentary?

Dave Calhoun of the TimeOut London explains that Broomfield does not call it a documentary but glosses over this apparently minor point in favor of rubbing in the “grim scene” where “a group of Iraqi women in the town of Haditha grieve over the deaths of their husbands and sons at the hands of US marines. [sic]” So is that where we’ve come? “It’s not real, but who cares? We’ll still market it anyway.”

Oh, it gets better. In the interview with Broomfield, several interesting points are made. Let’s fisk a bit, shall we?

When questioned, Iraqi eyewitnesses suggested that US soldiers had gone on an armed rampage in the town in revenge for their colleague’s death and that was how most of the 24 Iraqi civilians had died – at least six of them children aged between two and 14.

They suggested it? Does that mean they saw it (as the term ‘eyewitnesses’ actually means) or they just came up with a theory and presented it? If the latter is the case, then I suggest that Michael Moore is gay. Someone should investigate.

Starting last June, Broomfield and producer Anna Telford made several research trips to Jordan (‘We didn’t go to Haditha itself, it was too dangerous’) and held long conversations with ‘five or six people from the town, all of whom were there on the day and knew the people who were killed’.

They made a documentary/fictional drama/clusterf*** without ever actually visiting the place where the events supposedly happened, before any of the details had even come out about the incident in question? Not to mention that their reason for not visiting is because it was dangerous?

Does anyone else out there think this is ironic? They don’t believe that the Marines were taking fire but they couldn’t go in there because someone might shoot them? Someone tell me what’s wrong with this picture. By the way, if you’re planning to bring up the Time magazine story, let me just point out this article. We blew that story out of the water two years ago.

From the marines’ conversations, Broomfield concluded that ‘their standard operating procedure rules are so fu***** hardcore. If, for example, a house is described as “hostile”, then you just kill everyone in the house. It doesn’t matter if it contains two-year-olds or the elderly, which is what they did in Fallujah – where these guys had come from.

I suppose Mr. Broomfield would prefer that the Marines knock and ask to be invited for tea. Hostile means hostile. It means that the occupants inside are trying to kill you. Just because insurgents procreate and get old doesn’t mean that they’re not trying to kill you. This isn’t rocket science.

‘I realised that these soldiers were very, very poor kids, who had all left school unbelievably early. It was the first time they had all been out of the United States. They didn’t speak a word of Iraqi. They had no idea what they were doing in Iraq, and they felt let down by the marine corps. It was hard to condemn them out of hand as cold-blooded killers.’

I see someone’s been talking to John Kerry. Very, very poor kids? Is he serious? Left school unbelievably early? We have the most educated military we have ever had–right now. By the way, how many WWII soldiers spoke German? How many of the Marines in the Pacific were fluent in Japanese? We’re not conversing with these people over candlelit dinner.

“…taking a strictly journalistic approach to the film’s plotting and basing events on his research and conversations with those who intimately understand his characters’ culture, whether Iraqis or marines.

Strictly journalistic? I think we proved that to be fallacy about two sentences into this debacle. And didn’t the author just finish talking about how the Marines in Iraq “had no idea what they were doing in Iraq?” How could they understand the culture so “intimately” if they didn’t know what they were doing?

Oddly enough, the director ends with a sentence that I wholeheartedly agree with.

It’s much more convenient for the US government and the marine corps to make scapegoats of these guys than actually deal with its policy and rules of engagement in Iraq.

Absolutely. It’s far easier to send SSGT Frank Wuterich, Lt Col Jeffrey Chessani, and others to prison, for instance, than it is to tell the world that hey…we’re going to kill a lot of Muslims while we’re over there, and sometimes that will include women and children. War is hell, and the more hellish it is the sooner it will be over. Hiroshima and Nagasaki know.

This film is tripe, it’s false, and it’s a dishonorable portrayal of our men in uniform. The Haditha Marines did their job. Period. Give them a medal–don’t make half-baked films about your personal idiotic theories and call it anything less than what it is: a farce.

Two and half years later, the government has finally seen fit to drag three Iraqis to the States to testify against Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani in the Haditha case. Perhaps it took them that long to find three in the area that weren’t insurgents. Maybe it took the government that long to get their stories to match.

Two doctors and a nurse from Haditha are giving depositions, said attorney Brian Rooney. He represents Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, who is accused of not properly investigating the killings…Rooney said the two doctors are expected to testify about a Haditha town council meeting, during which Iraqis demanded that Chessani investigate the 24 deaths.

Perhaps most heartbreaking about the entire affair–and the Pendleton 8, and Iron Triangle, and Captain Roger Maynulet, and Lt. Ilario Pantano–is not even that we repay our most honorable warriors with accusations and ruined lives. Perhaps it is comments like these, written by a Marine in the comments and echoed a hundred times to me by troops all over the world in the last two years.

“wow, here we go again, making our troops look like cold blooded killers. why join the military to defend this country if you are going to prosecute us for shooting people that are shooting at us?”

These trials do not take place in a vacuum. The entire world sees that the United States has taken to eating its own. In an effort to appease those who have no right to demand it, we have instead shown ourselves as weak, ineffective, incompetent, and unwilling to stand behind the men we send into war. How dare we? More importantly, with evidence so blatantly proving these men innocent, why is everyone so afraid of speaking the truth?

Every day that these cases go on, and every day that the men behind the this mockery of justice are not exposed, is another measure of shame that we all bear as a nation. I challenge you to educate yourself. I challenge you to have the testicular fortitude to speak the truth.

Things are about to heat up in the remaining Haditha case. Attorneys for Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani will be in court at the nearly-infamous Camp Pendleton tomorrow to argue more motions–some of which the judge has brought on himself.

Robert Muise, an attorney with the Thomas More Law Center which is defending LtCol Chessani, will be arguing that the case should be dismissed on two separate grounds: first, that the existence of unlawful command influence prevents Chessani from receiving a fair trial, and second, that Chessani has been the victim of selective prosecution for improper reasons.

Both of these motions are obvious, easily proven, and no-brainers. However, as we’ve seen historically in these cases, that means nothing.  Let’s keep in mind that this particular judge has ruled that in order for Chessani to be found guilty, the prosecution does not need to prove that the Marines acted improperly…only that Chessani should have suspected that they did.

What?

We’ll be bringing you all the scoop, as usual.

In what is perhaps the most asinine travesty of justice I’ve seen in quite some time, the judge presiding over Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani’s court-martial in the Haditha case has, in the immortal slang of some of my friends, “stepped on his crank.”

Amid the flurry of arguments in the hearing on several motions earlier in the month, comments by military judge, Colonel Stephen Folsom, USMC, has shed some light on how he will conduct the trial of Lt. Colonel Jeffrey Chessani. According to the judge, it makes no difference whether the Marines in LtCol Chessani’s battalion did or did not kill civilians in cold blood – the issue for the jury will be whether LtCol Chessani should have reasonably suspected his Marines killed civilians in cold blood. [...]

Observed Thompson, “A military jury could find LtCol Chessani guilty even if it concluded that his Marines did not kill civilians in “cold blood,” no Law of War violation actually occurred, and his decision not to conduct a formal written investigation on the November 19, 2005 Haditha incident, was the right decision based on the actual facts – all prosecutors would have to show is that LtCol Chessani should have suspected a violation in order to find him criminally guilty.”

What kind of justice is this? None. This is a disgusting mockery of law, and because of it, a decorated, honorable officer who has served his country well for many years will suffer even more than he has already.

One Media Matters-like organization is already too many. It appears as though there’s another liberal apologist blog out there. Their name is News Hounds. The post that caught my attention dealt with last weekend’s interview of Justin and Darryl Sharraltt on Hannity’s America. To say that their post didn’t attempt to refute Justin’s story is understatement. In fact, they jump right into criticizing Mr. Hannity:

Last night’s (October 27th) Hannity’s America was a strange magazine format which combined stories about mediums and haunted houses with a lead off interview that was billed as “The Truth About Haditha.” Hannity is a college drop out with no professional journalism credentials and this lack of professional journalistic acumen was well reflected in Hannity’s “leading questions” which served a political agenda. (Comment: Although Fox’s Chris Wallace can be partisan, he looks like Cronkite compared to Sean Hannity!)

Hannity billed his interview with Lance Corporal Justin Sharratt, his lawyer, and his father as “exclusive.” He began by noting that this interview would be a response to Congressman John Murtha and military officials who are “trying to paint the story with a different brush.” Before the interview began, Hannity set up the Fox/right wing premise by asking the not so rhetorical question “have politics gotten in the way of patriotism?” Without doing an overview of the Haditha story, he asked Sharratt to explain what happened on that fateful day. Hannity asked Sharratt if he saw any of his fellow Marines doing anything that they weren’t supposed to do. Not surprisingly, Sharratt said that he didn’t. Hannity mentioned the article in Time Magazine which reported that the Haditha civilians claimed they were attacked by the Marines. Hannity asked Sharratt why Time would report that and Sharratt said he didn’t know.

You’ll notice that Newshounds doesn’t mention Capt. Jeffrey Dinsmore’s sworn testimony. I posted about Capt. Dinsmore’s testimony in a post titled A Timline Emerges back in July. Here’s what I posted then:

As previously reported by NewsMax, the battalion S2 officer made a full and complete report based on his monitoring of the day’s events and the intelligence he and others had amassed then and previous days. As we wrote at the time, the PowerPoint after-action report he sent up the command ladder proved to all the higher officers that the incident warranted no further investigation.

I also mentioned these important details that should’ve been included in NewsHounds’s post: continue reading…