Donahue Denies Conversation with Lt Gen Helland in Hutchins Case…And Still Gets Caught
June 12, 2008
A retired Marine officer has denied charges that he spoke with Hutchins case convening authority Lt. Gen. Samuel Helland regarding the disposition of Sgt Larry Hutchins.
In an email to me that was copied to several other parties, Major Herbert W. (Bill) Donahue, Jr., vehemently denied any involvement with Gen. Helland, and threatened legal action against me for “libel/slander and defamation of character.”
Donahue did not stop there, however, and went on to accuse me of “impugning the integrity of several ethical attorneys,” among other things. The email basically degenerated into a personal attack, including several false accusations that are easily disproved if I can be bothered to go back two years in email and post the truth–which by the way, I would have already done if I wasn’t moving to Washington State tomorrow. Donahue wrapped up with yet another legal threat–certain, I’m sure, that I would cower in fear and immediately retract everything I’ve posted. Maybe weak-minded men with no honor do that sort of thing, but I don’t.
While Donahue’s threat is far from the first I’ve received, it rivals the ones I get from the Pakistani Islamics for its sheer humor potential–and the Pakistanis threaten me with photos of Freddy Krueger and Batman captioned by broken English, so that should give you an idea of where I put the good Major’s bluffy whining. Not only am I completely comfortable with the idea of being sued for this, I welcome a lawsuit. It will open the door for Tim Harrington, me, and others to talk about Larry Hutchins’ case freely in open court, including the way it’s been engineered by the Marine Corps leadership since day one–something, by the way, that not even Sgt Hutchins has been able to do yet. Sadly, however, I fear that the lawsuit isn’t going to be coming anytime soon.
“But he sounds serious!” you say. Yes, he does. Of course, he also sounded serious when he threatened fellow Marine Tim Harrington with the same type of lawsuit only a little over a month ago. What, pray tell, could he have wanted to sue Tim over? Let’s take a peek at an email written by Donahue to Harrington on April 23.
“It is now obvious that you have called me a liar and other things, behind my back,” writes Donahue. “From what I was told, you told at least one person that I was a liar, that I was not in touch with senior officers – especially LtGen Helland – and some other things, things that question my integrity, honesty and personal reputation. [...] I am going to pursue filing a civil case against you for defamation of character (slander).”
Yes, you read that right. He threatened to sue Tim Harrington because Tim didn’t buy Donahue’s story about being buddies with General Helland.
In my response to the Major’s “festering, pungent missive (longtime ER readers will recognize that inside joke),” I pointed out the apparent Catch-22 situation Donahue now finds himself in–with a small amount of glee, I admit.
“Here’s the thing, Major. You have to pick one. Either the conversation happened, and then you can sue Tim for calling you a liar, or it didn’t happen, and you can sue me for believing your lies about it. Kind of sticky, isn’t it? I’m just curious…which version of the story did you give to Kevin McDermott? How about the Hutchins family? Most importantly, what did you feed to Larry himself?”
Oddly enough, I haven’t seen another answer from Major Donahue or even something from Kevin McDermott, although I’ve been checking my email quite often. I was certain Donahue would have a perfectly logical explanation for the contradictory stories, so when I didn’t see anything in my inbox, I also checked my spam folder and even the trash. For some reason, my email is more silent than a church mouse at noon. I just don’t get it.
Captain Don Greenlaw and others will sit at home this Saturday, barred from visiting Sgt Hutchins on his last weekend in Camp Pendleton, by email order of Hutchins’ attorney and Major Donahue–even though their contributions to Sgt Hutchins’ well-being and that of his family go far beyond anyone’s idea of “duty.” Meanwhile, those of us who have been here fighting the information battle for two years will remain. Tim Harrington, Walt Fitzpatrick, and the rest of us have been threatened with far worse than a lawsuit, and by far more worthy adversaries than a retired Marine officer who fancies himself to be a high roller. So we will keep doing what we do, until the fight is done.
Hard Copy Proof of Manipulations in Hutchins Case
June 11, 2008
Retired Major Herbert W. “Bill” Donahue, Jr., head of an organization called United American Patriots, had at least one private, off-the-record conversation with Helland regarding the general’s then-pending decision on Hutchins’ case. In this behind-the-scenes and highly unethical conversation about the case, Donahue advised Helland that he “already had” three potential attorneys lined up for an appeal. Their names–Culp, McDermott, and Applegate–were given to the general at least two weeks prior to Helland making a decision as to how much, if any, prison time Sgt Hutchins would serve. Helland, armed with the knowledge that there was an appeal waiting to begin, simply reduced Hutchins’ sentence by a few years and washed his hands of the affair.
However, this is not where the machinations end.
Major Donahue then retained attorney Kevin McDermott for the “appeal” of Hutchins’ case. The retired officer claimed that he would, through monies he says his organization can raise, fund Hutchins’ appeal. However, there were a few caveats.
“[I]f I…do not get copies of each and every email anyone sends out on Larry’s case, I have no option other than to tell my Board that we should drop Larry’s case,” wrote the major in an email to McDermott, members of Hutchins’ family and a few supporters on June 9.
In addition, Donahue listed a “crowd” of people that he demanded cease all work on the case–including contact with Hutchins. Who are the people that Donahue claimed will “seriously jeopardize Larry’s chances at appeal,” and what have they been doing? While their names aren’t important, what they have done over the last two years is. These “dangerous” people, according to Major Donahue, include:
- A retired Marine captain named Don Greenlaw, who located and furnished an apartment for Larry’s wife and child, (including co-signing the first six months of the lease), found and purchased a vehicle for her (he was reimbursed for that purchase by other members of the “crowd”), and ensured that Sgt Hutchins had visitors every week. He also served as an on-base advocate for all the men of the Pendleton 8, going to bat for them with brig leadership over issues such as making sure they received necessary health care, medication, and were able to call their families. He even arranged for accommodations for Hutchins’ family when they flew to California to visit their son. In addition, Greenlaw ensures that Sgt Hutchins is kept up to date on all matters relating to his case, including the work that I and many others are doing to help.
- A man named Skip Franklin, who has visited Sgt Hutchins faithfully every single week for a very long time, helping to keep his spirits up and offering friendship.
- A fellow Marine named Tim Harrington who, on his own time and to his own personal and financial detriment, has put aside much of his business to investigate both the Haditha and Pendleton 8 cases. He has taken Hutchins’ cause all the way to Congress, and has become a literal encyclopedia on both cases–and the Hutchins case specifically. In his possession are thousands of pages of plain, exculpatory evidence never allowed at trial.
- A military blogger who raised over $17,000 by herself for all eight of the men’s families–money that went to things like diapers, groceries, and phone bills while they struggled to pay for lawyers who milked them dry. She, together with others, has worked on the Pendleton 8 case since the beginning–and worked similar cases for almost 4 years. Her work has been published in numerous online and print media, and she was instrumental in helping to vindicate another Marine charged with two counts of murder in 2005.
I know the men listed above–good, honorable men who have given their all to help Sgt Hutchins and his squad, and as you’ve probably figured out, the last person Donahue listed is me. The four of us, according to Major Donahue, “can only hurt” the appeal.
Kevin McDermott, the attorney Donahue chose out of the three names he provided to Lt. Gen. Helland, agreed with Donahue, sending a very pointed email to Major Donahue on June 9 as well about the Marine captain who has done so much for Hutchins’ family.
“I agree with you 100%,” writes McDermott. “I am not sure who Greenlaw is but if he isn’t picking up 100% of my legal tab, please have some one [sic] tell him to shut the hell up and keep his nose out of the picture. If the family and Sgt. Hutchins don’t throw a blanket over this guy, I am not interested in carrying this appeal through. I will not be a ringleader at a circus. Make sure Greenlaw under stands [sic] that.”
For the first time in nearly two years, and due to the demands of Major Donahue and Kevin McDermott, Hutchins will have no visitors this weekend–his last at Camp Pendleton before being moved to Fort Leavenworth, KS soon after. As Captain Greenlaw so gracefully stated to Kevin McDermott, albeit under heavy protest, “Per your request and Major Donahue’s request, it is all your show, as of now.”
McDermott has more to say in another email, and writes that “one of the main reasons [SSGT Frank] Wuderich [sic] hasn’t been extricated from the Hadithah [sic] mess” is that “he had a pair of clowns who let him talk to 60 Minutes.” The two “clowns” that McDermott refers to are Neal A. Puckett and Mark A. Zaid, the very capable attorneys for SSGT Wuterich who have Rep. John Murtha on the run after filing a lawsuit against him for his remarks made against the Haditha Marines in the early days of the case. McDermott does not mention whether the other Haditha attorneys, who have to date seen charges dismissed almost all of the Marines involved, are also “clowns.” He also fails to say whether the Thomas More Law Center, which has been the first defense team to get undue command influence ruled on by a judge, are made up of a crowd of “clowns.”
Meanwhile, Major Donahue issued one last edict in his new position as self-appointed king of defense.
“If Larry is going to NOT listen and follow his attorney’s advice,” he writes in the June 9 email, “then my organization and I will have no recourse other than to cease the financial aid.”
The major goes on to tell all and sundry that Kevin McDermott and this appeal is “Larry’s last hope for vindication.” However, what Donahue fails to mention in his email to the family and others is the downside of the appeal process. Of course, those of us in the “crowd” that are so “dangerous” to Hutchins and his appeal process have no problem with speaking the truth, so I will show you the dirty little secret no one wants to talk about.
The following is from a transcript, available online, of a background briefing by a senior military attorney. In it, he explains the military “justice” system, and spends a moment on the appellate process.
Appellate courts generally look at law issues in the civilian world. They look, was the law upheld, was the law right. Our service courts have a broader capacity. They can — oh, yes, they have to look at the — was the law done, was case precedent followed and law followed, et cetera. But they can also say — they look at a case from the standpoint of beyond a reasonable doubt. They have to be convinced that the accused was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sounds like a good deal, correct? From what has been published on this site and many others, anyone who’s paid attention to this case over the last two years knows there would have been far more than “reasonable doubt” had all the evidence been allowed in. No problem, though, because in an appeal they can bring in all the new evidence and Hutchins goes free, right? Wrong.
[Question:] They can reconsider evidence?
SR. MILITARY LAWYER: They can take the record of trial and say, you know, “Based upon this, no,” and find him not guilty.
[Question:] But you can’t add new evidence on.
SR. MILITARY LAWYER: Generally, no. No. They don’t add evidence. But they can look at the regular trial and say — and that’s their authority.
What this attorney is saying is that the appellate court will look at the original trial, at the evidence presented in the first court-martial, and make their decision based on that information only–and this is only one of several sources that explain exactly the same thing.
That also means that there will again be no mention of the fact that the original judge denied the prosecution’s motion to bring in the autopsy because they could not prove who the Marines had even killed. (If you’d like to see the autopsy report the judge hid from the trial and the motion the prosecution lost, I have it here. You’ll notice the acronym “BTB” all over it; that stands for “believed to be,” as in “we think so but we don’t know.”)
There will be no mention of the combat logs for the unit (I have those here.) There will be no mention of the “Ronin Diaries,” the detailed journal kept by Lt. Nathan Phan about the unit’s activities (yes, I have those too). There will be no mention of other “lost” evidence and the memos sent back and forth while the government tried to figure out who had it, or even how botched, falsified, and corrupt the NCIS investigation was. By the way, I have that here as well in RAR format.
None of this will see the light of day in the appeal that Donahue calls Hutchins’ “last hope.” None of the thousands more pages of exculpatory evidence that we have will make it in either. This is why those of us who McDermott and Donahue have barred Hutchins from speaking with have worked so hard the last two years. An appeal is not a chance for new evidence, or for evidence conveniently “left out” in the first trial. As an attorney well-versed in military cases (and as the one who is also handling the Jose Nazario case), Kevin McDermott knows that better than anyone. So why does an attorney take an appeal case when he knows he can’t introduce new evidence, and the first trial was rigged? I’ll let readers figure that one out on their own–you’re all smart people.
So let’s recap. Major Donahue had an under-the-table conversation with the convening authority, Lt Gen Helland, about a case Helland was about to make a final decision on. Donahue tells Helland that he has three attorneys ready to go on the appeal. Helland slices a few years off the sentence to make it look good, and walks away. Donahue chooses McDermott as the attorney, and the two of them move in. Immediately, Donahue sets himself up as “control officer” of the appeal, demanding that all correspondence go through him and that those of us who make up the support system Hutchins has had for the last two years simply go away. McDermott agrees and predicates his involvement on Hutchins’ willingness to ‘play ball,’ even though both Donahue and McDermott know that the appeal will only include evidence already presented, and none of the thousands of pages of exculpatory evidence that we hold.
Something stinks here, and it’s not the “crowd” or the “clowns.” It remains to be seen how Major Donahue or General Helland will explain a conversation about the case when Helland had no business discussing it with Donahue, or how McDermott and Donahue will explain their quick move to control all aspects of Hutchins’ life, including barring those of us who have done the most work on his case, or who have become a much-needed support system for him, from even talking to him. Perhaps most interesting will be whether the powers-that-be will actually open an investigation into what I’ve just explained. I’ve got the documentation to back up what I say. Does the government have the integrity to look into it?
General Mattis to Testify Against Chessani in Undue Command Influence Hearing
May 30, 2008
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.
Lt Gen Samuel Helland: One Small Step, But Not Even Close to Right Yet
May 27, 2008
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.
Letter to General Helland re: Sgt Lawrence Hutchins
May 22, 2008
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.
Major Setback for Prosecutors in Chessani Trial; Judge Finds Evidence of Unlawful Command Influence
May 21, 2008
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.
LA Times Says “Awad” Was “Suspected” of Insurgent Ties
May 13, 2008
The LA Times blog at least has .000001% of a clue, which is more than I can say for the Patriot Ledger, North County Times and the AP.
Lawrence Hutchins, convicted as the ringleader in the execution of an Iraqi suspected of insurgent ties, is set soon to be transferred from the Camp Pendleton brig to the military prison at Ft. Leavenworth, Kan.
Points for not calling the terrorist a “victim” or characterizing him as the next Nobel Prize candidate. Of course, these points are deducted for their refusal to consider the evidence they’ve been provided with.
Patriot Ledger Ignores Evidence, Says Sgt Hutchins Should Stay in Prison
May 10, 2008
I read the following screed about Sgt Lawrence Hutchins this afternoon and was so disgusted I had to sit down and write a counterpoint to it. This could get long, so grab a cup of coffee and have a seat. We’re going to go through this line by line, so the holier-than-thou folks at the Patriot Ledger who wrote this trash can figure out just how stupid this article is. I’d name the article’s author, but he was too much of a coward to put his name on it. This editorial is actually the only one currently on the Enterprise News Opinion page without a name on it. Interesting, isn’t it? But let’s get started.
Compassion is an essential element of justice, but U.S. Rep. William Delahunt’s plea to free a Plymouth Marine convicted of murdering an Iraqi civilian is beyond mercy and sends a horrible message about what we will allow our military members to do in the name of combat.
With this opening statement, the author throws any fairness, truth, or even interest in justice out the window. Actually, what sends a horrible message is training Marines to do a job, then prosecuting them for doing it. The reason Delahunt is making a plea for Hutchins’ release is because he has seen the evidence. Delahunt’s lawyer sat in the courts-martial. They’re quite aware of the situation. Now, believe me when I say Delahunt is a schmuck. He’s not supporting Hutchins out of the goodness of his heart. He’s doing it because those of us who fight for Larry made sure Larry’s congressman knew about the evidence. You can’t claim plausible deniability when you own a copy of the documents that prove a Marine innocent. Delahunt is between a rock and a hard place. If he comes out and asks for Larry to be released, then he has improperly-named rags like the “Patriot Ledger” verbally slapping his limp wrists. If he sits there and prays it all goes away, then people like my friend Tim Harrington will be camped out in front of every news and radio station in New England talking about how Delahunt knows the government railroaded Sgt Hutchins and did nothing. Not everyone in New England is a wacked-out Kennedy liberal, so think about that a moment. Delahunt is simply playing the political game for his own gain–and the Patriot Ledger is even worse.
Sgt. Lawrence G. Hutchins III just had four years of his 15-year prison term reduced after a plea of clemency to his commanding general. The sentence and the resulting reduction were sufficiently compassionate for the crimes for which Hutchins was convicted. Any further reduction would be a perversion of our military justice system.
Let me explain what “a perversion of our military justice system” really is. Eighteen-hour interrogations with no bathroom breaks. Not recording any of it, and making the Marines sign statements that were not written by them, but constructed by NCIS agents from their memory of the interrogation. How about telling the Marines that asking for a lawyer would “be the worst mistake they ever make?” How about denying them medical attention for their combat injuries while they’re in shackles for months before the government even charged them with a crime? Let’s not forget the part where the government just happened to “accidentally” stop paying these men before they were ever convicted or even tried, and the part where Sgt Larry Hutchins was in solitary confinement for ten months, even though he had always been a perfect Marine and a stellar example.
Hutchins, 24, and other members of his eight-man squad were convicted or pled guilty to abducting and killing Hashim Ibrahim Awad, 52, in the Anbar Province town of Hamdania. But according to testimony by members of his unit, Hutchins hatched the plot to kill Awad and then cover up the crime to make it look like the victim was preparing to bury a roadside bomb.
In the most damning piece of testimony, Navy Hospitalman Melson Bacos, testified that Hutchins shot Awad in the head to prevent the body from being identified. Bacos testified Hutchins declared: “Congratulations gents, we’ve just gotten away with murder.” [emphasis added]
Here we have Example #4,478,897 of someone talking about things he knows nothing about. First of all, Hutchins performed a dead check, and this is done by shooting the person in the head and face. [How many times do I need to go over this?] The idea of him shooting the insurgent in the face to “prevent the body from being identified” is so stupid it defies logic. The Ledger ignores the fact that not even the Iraqis who claimed to be this man’s family could identify him before the shooting, let alone after. The government has no idea if it even exhumed the right body–not because Hutchins shot him in the face too many times, but because it relied on a corrupt NCIS agent. Until Agent James Connolly pulled Awad’s name out of a hat, those eight men had no idea they had killed anyone but Gowad (the original target)–and there’s still no way to know if they didn’t.
Consider the number of cases where NCIS has actually been caught fabricating evidence, adding sentences and words to statements that change their meaning, and other such disgusting tactics. In one case a few years ago (the Daniel Scott King case), NCIS agents literally interrogated a Navy enlisted man to the point where he was hallucinating from lack of sleep and writing down his hallucinations and dreams as confessions. NCIS took it all and tried to see him prosecuted for it. They grilled him for almost 20 hours a day, every day, for almost an entire month. Agents even tried to take his young daughter from her elementary school for interrogation after King’s wife would not give NCIS access to the girl. [Side note: It's important to mention that they do these things routinely and with impunity. A military judge in the King case ruled that the NCIS was "immune" from prosecution--no matter what.]
We have a Uniform Code of Military Justice and our soldiers, sailors and Marines are tried under that system because they are held by peers and superiors who understand the pressures and situations troops in combat encounter. Civilians cannot begin to grasp that context.
Soldiers, sailors, and Marines are being tried under a system that is broken, by peers and superiors looking for their next stripe or star. They may understand the pressures of combat, but they have lost their integrity and personal honor. They do not operate from a standpoint of loyalty and truth, but from one of cowardice, self-service, and political expediency. For the Patriot ledger to paint the military justice system as anything but a broken sham of a system is irresponsible and misleading.
In World War II, few cases of crimes or atrocities were found because at that time, we were considered to be defending ourselves. There was a righteousness to our cause and our soldiers’ actions reflected that.
In Korea and Vietnam, the enemy forces often used women and children to ambush American troops so soldiers had to make split decisions as to what course of action to take when confronted by civilians.
Some of the same scenarios exist in Iraq, perhaps even more so as we engage in an urban war where the enemy is not easily or readily identifiable.
But because we entered their country as liberators, our troops must be held to a higher standard. In Hutchins’ case, they dragged an innocent man from his home and then killed him in cold blood. No one disputes that. But a military jury, all fellow Marines who served in Iraq, convicted Hutchins of unpremeditated murder, larceny and making a false official statement.
The Iraq War veterans who heard the case determined Hutchins actions were neither bad decisions in the course of combat nor acceptable military conduct. They were crimes. [emphasis added]
I don’t even know