American Troops in Shackles... Literally!!

[Bonnie]

By Michelle Malkin

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |

Did you know there are seven young Marines and a Navy Corpsman sitting in a military brig right now in leg and wrist shackles — despite the fact that they've not been charged with any crime?


The men are in solitary confinement, locked in 8'x8' cells at San Diego's Camp Pendleton, as investigators probe an April 26 incident involving the 3rd Battalion, 5th Regiment, 1st Marine Division. They are behind bars 23 hours a day; family members can only see them through inch-thick Plexiglass. Military blabbermouths have told the press that the service members are suspected of kidnapping and shooting a man in the Iraqi town of Hamandiya. The Iraqi man's family reportedly came forward seeking payment for his death as media hysteria set in over the separate alleged atrocity in Haditha.


These men — our men — may be innocent. They may be guilty. Charges may or may not be filed this week. But this much is certain: The media leaks and the Murtha-fication of the case are already taking a heavy toll on the troops and their families. The headlines have already convicted them: "Iraqi's slaying planned by Marines, official says" and "Marines Planned to Kill Iraqi Civilian, Then Planted Evidence".


The national media ignored a protest by supporters outside Camp Pendletonover the weekend. "I want the Marines to know that they are not forgotten, that people are out here thinking of them," said one attendee. The father of one of the men in custody, Pfc. John J. Jodka, worried: "It appears to me that this is the reaction of some senior people to show 'We're in charge, we're cleaning up our act."


Not a peep heard yet from the American Civil Liberties Union. The website of the self-anointed crusaders for individual rights contains hundreds of articles on the rights of al Qaeda suspects and an indignant press release on the suicides of Guantanamo Bay detainees. But no mention of the Camp Pendleton 8. For their part, human rights groups were too busy shedding tears for the Gitmo terrorist suicide squad and lionizing them as "heroes" in the words of William Goodman of the Center for Constitutional Rights. Editorial cartoonists have been preoccupied desecrating the Marine Corps logo and tarring troops as baby-killers.



A clarion voice stepped into the fray this week to push back against the global rush to judgment against our troops. Ilario Pantano, a Desert Storm vet-turned Wall Street banker and new media entrepreneur-turned reenlisted Marine from Hell's Kitchen, launched his gripping book "Warlord: No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy" this week, which recounts his harrowing ordeal as a Marine smeared and cleared. Last spring, he faced the death penalty for defending himself and his men in the heat of battle and killing two Iraqi insurgents. He was accused then, as Marines are being accused now, of wantonly executing Iraqis to send a message. His family and friends' defense of Pantano was met, as those of Marines are being met now, with incredulity or apathy.


There were no pleas to withhold judgment against Pantano from the New York Times then. No Oprah sitdowns now with the wives and children of accused troops.

 

[Gunny]

The same rule applies in the military as does the civilian world ... incarceration is based on the severity of a crime.

If a civilian was accused of kidnapping and murdering someone, odds are he wouldn't get bail.

 

[Bonnie]

The same rule applies in the military as does the civilian world ... incarceration is based on the severity of a crime.

If a civilian was accused of kidnapping and murdering someone, odds are he wouldn't get bail.

Even in light of no actual charges being filed??? And shackled no less??

 

[Gunny]

Even in light of no actual charges being filed??? And shackled no less??

That was not standing operating procedure when I was in unless the servicemembers under investigation are considered flight risks. They would be relieved of field duties and assigned administrative duties until charges were filed. Again, it also depends on the severity of the crime.

I consider it extreme; however, I do not know all the circumstances surrounding their incarceration, so I am just posting some of the "what if's."

 

[Bonnie]

That was not standing operating procedure when I was in unless the servicemembers under investigation are considered flight risks. They would be relieved of field duties and assigned administrative duties until charges were filed. Again, it also depends on the severity of the crime.

I consider it extreme; however, I do not know all the circumstances surrounding their incarceration, so I am just posting some of the "what if's."

I don't know military procedure, but this over the top treatment seems very politically motivated to me?

 

[Gunny]

I don't know military procedure, but this over the top treatment seems very politically motivated to me?

Like I said, I don't know the facts surrounding the incarceration, but my first, best guess would be yes, it's politically motivated. The Marine Corps came down hard so no one could say they were ignoring the issue ...y'know, like the libbies did in regard to Abu Ghraib when they were wailing and squealing because the slodiers weren't sent to the stocks prior to charges being rendered?

Another point to consider is the Corps is as hard on its criminals as they are any enemy. My "other" next-best guess is that these Marines wouldn't be in shackles if the Corps didn't think it had a case.

 

[Annie]

Great minds!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32819&highlight=marines+camp+pendleton

 

[Annie]

and again:

http://defendthedefenders.org/marsoc_20070508_letter_from_ilario.php

May 8, 2007
Letter to the Supporters of DefendtheDefenders.org

Three years ago, I was leading Marines in Fallujah. Two years ago, with lawyers that many of you helped pay for, I walked into a courtroom at Camp Lejeune to face off against prosecutors in a fight for my life.

Today, I am back in the fight, and ask for your help in defending a team of true American heroes. Drawn from the elite ranks of "Force Recon," the hand-picked men of Marine Special Operations (MARSOC) are literally the best of the best, and instead of being honored they are being investigated for simply doing their job. Our commandos became the latest victims of rushed judgment and political posturing when they were accused of using "excessive force" to defend themselves during a suicide car-bomb triggered ambush targeting the Americans because some purportedly innocent Afghanis got caught in the cross-fire. But that day on March 4, 2007 in the town of Bati Kot, Afghanistan, our Marines became the victims of more than just suicide bombers, they were caught in the teeth of a thoughtfully engineered media ambush that has ensnared them, and by extension the U.S., in the Taliban's fight to wrest control of Afghanistan from the Karzai government.

The Taliban was banking on world opinion arriving at the simple and "obvious" conclusion that our men were responsible for the tragically inevitable loss of life consequent to commandos responding as they are trained to do when faced with the kind of attack that days later would kill nine troopers from the 82nd. The story, neatly packaged for global media consumption, made the April, 15, 2007 cover of The New York Times with the accusatory headline: "Marines Actions in Afghanistan Called Excessive." Not the first time they've gotten it wrong. The paper has a history of incendiary finger pointing that, put mildly, is at odds with the realities of ground combat. For example, last year they decried Task Force Black's methods as extreme (NYT, 3/19/06:"Task Force 6-26: A Grim Portrait of U.S. Abuse"). Of course, the Times never acknowledged that three months later (as a result of those methods) one of the most notorious terrorists in the world, Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, was brought to justice by the very same men of TF Black.

Even if our enemies have become adept at using the all-to-willing American media as a weapon to weaken our national resolve, how can a rational person simply assume that if innocent life was lost, our men did something wrong during that March 4 incident? Illogically high expectations about pinpoint accuracy and target discrimination in a fire-fight are the fantasy of armchair-academics and videogame players. Men on the ground know that war is sloppy and rough. Combat is not a noun or a place that you are "in," but rather a verb, a thing that you "do" to other people. Principally, combat is imposing your will on the enemy by violence of action and the ugly truth is that the process kills all kinds of people: good ones, bad ones, and yes, even our own. When our expectations of success and precision are unrealistic it threatens not only our service men, it emboldens our enemy, and it breaks our will to stand and fight. Suggesting that these highly trained and seasoned Marines acted indiscriminately is preposterous for two key reasons: the first is what we know about the threat that they faced; the second is what we know about the caliber of these Marines.

The threat from suicide attacks and other terroristic activities in Afghanistan has been covered extensively by Alisa Tang's writings for the Associated Press, who has recorded the massive surge in violence there, noting, "The Taliban and other militant groups are committing war crimes by targeting Afghan civilians, killing nearly 700 last year according to a report issued [on April 16, 2007] by Human Rights Watch." Wow. That's not a DoD statistic or some talking-head general, that's the NY-based rights group that also reported that, "of at least 350 bombings, 136 were suicide attacks. Eighty were on military targets but they killed nearly five times more civilians than security personnel." Compare 136 suicide attacks in 2006 with only 21 the year before and only six the year before that. What explains the exponential growth? What explains four suicide bombings last week on May 5, 2007 with only two security personnel killed? There is no military objective being achieved in attriting their own forces and wasting resources, but they are creating pressure on the government with every civilian slaughtered.

Suicide attacks on the Coalition to provoke a reaction is the only "military" tactic the Taliban can rely upon to divide the people from the government and Coalition forces, and sadly, it appears to be working. "Afghans can no longer accept or understand civilian deaths from international military operations," said President Hamid Karzai on May 2, 2007. Okay, but does anyone else see the problem here? The Taliban are using tactics that kill five civilians for every soldier and yet Coalition forces are getting the blame? Clearly, Karzai is feeling the political heat, and our Marines are paying for it. With the understanding that the Taliban are adept at killing civilians to apply pressure, let's re-examine the actions of our MARSOC forces when they fended off the attack on March 4, and which led to this investigation.

It is patently obvious that the Taliban knew that staging a complex attack on our troops from multiple directions in the middle of a town of 60,000 likely would yield civilian casualties, both from the initial attack and from the American response. In other words, civilian casualties were the evil intent of the attackers all along. It seems so elementary, but that conclusion seems to have escaped the Air Force Colonel (deputy to commander of Special Ops in Afghanistan, General Kearney) assigned to do the follow-up investigation, and who by the way has no combat experience. But I suppose it's easy to miss things when you wait four days to "investigate" witnesses and evidence in a town more reminiscent of Fallujah-ville than Mayberry.

Whether it was the Taliban's brutal control (three more suicide bombers in the days after the original attack on our Marines) or just honest to goodness poverty, I wasn't the least bit surprised that any evidence of the March 4 attack had vanished, maybe because I've fought in the squalor of the third world and the no-combat Air Force investigator hadn't. But I was shocked and saddened when General Kearney allowed himself to be duped into reporting that, "We found no brass that we can confirm that small-arms fire came at them." C'mon General, we collect up our brass here in North Carolina, and we're not even starving! More troubling was the general playing patsy to the Afghanis by kicking the MARSOC unit out of country before the so-called "investigation" was even conducted. It may have alleviated some short-term pressure on Karzai and the Coalition presence, but it has opened the door to the Taliban to turn up the heat, because clearly we cannot take the pain.

We all understand the so-called bigger strategic picture, but when is hanging Marines out to dry the way to achieve our ends in the Global War on Terror? It certainly appears that when General Kearney dispatched his no-combat Air Force "fact finder" he had already made his mind up about the facts. "My investigating officer believes those folks were innocent....We were unable to find evidence that those [Afghanis] were fighters." (Christian Science Monitor, 4/16/07). What about the pictures of bullet-scarred Humvees General? Are any of those "innocents" the same ones that were targeted two weeks after those remarks when a U.S. led raid hit three buildings in the same town on April 29, 2007 and captured automatic rifles, rocket propelled grenades, bomb-making materials, vests with loaded ammunition and a weapons cache? It certainly wasn't law-abiding "civilians" that fired upon the Coalition then, and I'm sure the six terrorists who were killed (two being female, one of whom was a teenager) can speak volumes about the extent of Taliban control. So too can the five Taliban that were captured for interrogation by Coalition Forces. The most compelling evidence of the complicity of the population of Bati Kot in the attacks on the Americans (and the subsequent framing of the MARSOC Marines) is the way the locals immediately blocked off the main road (Highway #1), on April 29, 2007 just as they did following a March 4, 2007 attack on a Marine convoy. "We have testimony from Marines that is in conflict with the unanimous testimony from civilians at the sites," said the general. Unanimous? The kind of unanimity that results when an AK-47 is pointed at your child or a head is lopped off to make a point? The kind of Taliban-sponsored "unanimous" that results in "civilian" protests with as many as 500 Afghani males challenging the action of the Coalition, calling for "Death to Bush" and "Death to Karzai"?

On the other hand, what we know about these Marines is simple and honest: I actually do know them, and I am lucky enough to count some of them as my friends.

I will tell you that they are the very best of the warrior profession. They embody an ethos that few understand and that even fewer dare to achieve. The average age of the Marines on patrol was 27 years old (with two combat tours under their belts) and they had spent much of that time in combat or training for combat with the very best commandos of every branch of service and nationality from the SEALs to the British SAS. They had already conducted 39 missions since their arrival in Afghanistan and they were finely tunedm even conducting a vehicle mounted machine gun shoot the day prior to the ambush on March 3, 2007! These were not loose cannons, as they have been made out to be. They are the Corps' most professional - truly the best of the best with leadership averaging four combat deployments and almost seven overseas deployments. One of the Officers in the ambush had volunteered for duty despite having recently recovered from a gunshot wound to his thigh in Fallujah, nearly losing his leg to an amputation. He had to fight the doctors off, and then later he would run the Marine Corps Marathon. Not to mention all the gunners on the convoy were Direct Action Special Reconnaissance Marines hand-picked to deploy as the first Marine Special Operations Company! At the very least, these fine Marines deserve the benefit of the doubt. That so many in the media - and even their beloved Corps - have already deemed them guilty of some crime is a travesty.

Flush with the their media victories in Iraq, Al Qaeda and the Taliban are looking to duplicate their divisive tactics in Afghanistan in an effort to fracture the Coalition and further despirit the American people. But this time they picked the wrong Marines.

I know by now many of you have grown weary of this war and long to tune out the barbarism and the political buffoonery that fills the airwaves, but you must not. Some will wring their hands and say, "Let the system run its course." I can tell you from personal experience that we cannot afford to loose these men or put them through a media circus only to later be exonerated. We cannot wantonly destroy the careers of our most capable war fighters in a fool's gamble to curry favor with foreign governments or mollify factions within our own. I ask you: where do the volunteers to fill our overtaxed ranks come from when they see the way we treat not just our warriors, but our best warriors?

There is more hanging in the balance then simply the fate of these honorable men. You have been generous with your time and your money, and I for one am grateful to the thousands of you that saw fit to stand with me once before, but I am calling on you again. Join my mother, Merry, the founder of DefendTheDefenders.org, and me in working to get the word out about these valorous Marines and help us to raise awareness and money for their legal defense (seven lawyers have been retained so far). Fortunately, the identities of these Marines have not been divulged and we all hope they can go back to the business of keeping us safe and free just as soon as this investigation is over. Remember, this is not about attacking the military, this is about defending it from itself.

Molon Labe,
Ilario Pantano

 

[Rosotar]

Like I said, I don't know the facts surrounding the incarceration, but my first, best guess would be yes, it's politically motivated. The Marine Corps came down hard so no one could say they were ignoring the issue ...y'know, like the libbies did in regard to Abu Ghraib when they were wailing and squealing because the slodiers weren't sent to the stocks prior to charges being rendered?

Another point to consider is the Corps is as hard on its criminals as they are any enemy. My "other" next-best guess is that these Marines wouldn't be in shackles if the Corps didn't think it had a case.

It's also important to remember that these Marines are representatives of the United States. I agree with Gunny that the treatment of these guys suggests there is a good case against them.

Crimes like this are VERY serious in that they provide propaganda for our enemies and strengthen the resistance against us, much like conservatives defending this behavior and calling for leniency does. If guilty, these Marines have increased the danger to their fellow service members and to the United States. If guilty, these guys couldn't have done more to assist the enemy if they'd actually been on their payroll.

We shouldn't be shocked by lawless behavior on the part of our troops though. It starts at the top. When there is such blatant disregard for international law and human rights at the highest level of command it's no wonder that we see it occasionally on the battlefield. If the Commander in Chief himself has no moral compass then how can we expect moral decisions all the way down the chain of command? Add to that the fact that these soldiers have been pushed literally to the breaking point by a CIC who basically doesn't give a flying flip about their well being and you have a recipe for disaster.

BTW Bonnie....I don't think that SOP regarding military criminals is "politically motivated" but I think you're trying to capitalize on it for your own cheap politically motivated agenda!

Nice try but truly pathetic!

 

[Annie]

It's also important to remember that these Marines are representatives of the United States. I agree with Gunny that the treatment of these guys suggests there is a good case against them.

Crimes like this are VERY serious in that they provide propaganda for our enemies and strengthen the resistance against us, much like conservatives defending this behavior and calling for leniency does. If guilty, these Marines have increased the danger to their fellow service members and to the United States. If guilty, these guys couldn't have done more to assist the enemy if they'd actually been on their payroll.

We shouldn't be shocked by lawless behavior on the part of our troops though. It starts at the top. When there is such blatant disregard for international law and human rights at the highest level of command it's no wonder that we see it occasionally on the battlefield. If the Commander in Chief himself has no moral compass then how can we expect moral decisions all the way down the chain of command? Add to that the fact that these soldiers have been pushed literally to the breaking point by a CIC who basically doesn't give a flying flip about their well being and you have a recipe for disaster.

BTW Bonnie....I don't think that SOP regarding military criminals is "politically motivated" but I think you're trying to capitalize on it for your own cheap politically motivated agenda!

Nice try but truly pathetic!

Gunny's post was from nearly a year ago: Old 06-15-2006, 09:37 PM

The same problems for the troops.

 

[Annie]

This pretty much rode right off the map, except for milbloggers, who came to realize these guys might be victims after all:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QACP0G1&show_article=1

Officer Advises Against Trial for Marine
Jul 11 08:25 AM US/Eastern
By THOMAS WATKINS
Associated Press Writer
SAN DIEGO (AP) - The government's case against a Marine accused of fatally shooting Iraqi civilians in the town of Haditha lacks sufficient evidence to go to a court-martial and should be dropped, a hearing officer determined.

The murder charges were brought against Lance Cpl. Justin L. Sharratt for killing three Iraqi brothers in November 2005.

The hearing officer, Lt. Col. Paul Ware, wrote in a report released by the defense Tuesday that those charges were based on unreliable witness accounts, insupportable forensic evidence and questionable legal theories. He also wrote that the case could have dangerous consequences on the battlefield, where soldiers might hesitate during critical moments when facing an enemy.

"The government version is unsupported by independent evidence," Ware wrote in the 18-page report. "To believe the government version of facts is to disregard clear and convincing evidence to the contrary."

Prosecutors allege Sharratt and other members of his battalion carried out a revenge-motivated assault on Iraqi civilians that left 24 dead after a roadside bomb killed a fellow Marine nearby.

Sharratt contends the Iraqi men he confronted were insurgents and at least one was holding an AK-47 rifle when he fired at them.

In addition to Sharratt, two other enlisted men are charged with murder and four officers are accused of failing to investigate the incident—the largest single Iraqi civilian death case of the war. Sharratt's case is the first among the three charged with murder to go to a hearing known as an Article 32 investigation, the military equivalent of a grand jury.

"Whether this was a brave act of combat against the enemy or tragedy of misperception born out of conducting combat with an enemy that hides among innocents, Lance Corporal Sharratt's actions were in accord with the rules of engagement and use of force," Ware wrote.

...

 

[actsnoblemartin]

this is war, to pretend their is civility in war, is an absolute joke!. I say free them now, and charge the basterds who put them their in the first place!, and no more rules of engagement bullshit. Every american soldier immune from prosecution otherwise, why the hell should anyone serve!

The same rule applies in the military as does the civilian world ... incarceration is based on the severity of a crime.

If a civilian was accused of kidnapping and murdering someone, odds are he wouldn't get bail.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Not a peep heard yet from the American Civil Liberties Union

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

DUH


That's because this is a military case. The ACLU doesn't get to do military law, only military lawyers get to do military case. These men clearly fall under the UCMJ - the ACLU couldn't help them even if they wanted to. They would have to successfully argue that the UCMJ doesn't apply to them before they could represent them on the criminal charges - and they would fail in that argument, because the UCMJ always applies to US soldiers in combat.



You freedom haters are aware that all the ACLU can ever really do is represent people in court? Its not like they can stand up and decree things. Sure they also like to help educate people of their rights - and if they decided to educate these soldiers they would tell them what they already know, that they have no right to a civilian court.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

but why shackles?, they havent even been charged

The same rule applies in the military as does the civilian world ... incarceration is based on the severity of a crime.

If a civilian was accused of kidnapping and murdering someone, odds are he wouldn't get bail.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

but why shackles?, they havent even been charged

Before this thread goes any further...

This thread is a year old. Why it was bumped, who knows.

The Pendleton 8 were subsequently charged.


"Seven Marines and one Navy corpsman have been charged with murder and kidnapping in connection with the April death of an Iraqi man in a small village west of Baghdad, Marine Corps officials announced yesterday.

The corps said that the eight sought out Hashim Ibrahim Awad in his Hamdaniyah home, dragged him into the street, bound his hands and feet, and shot him during a late-night operation, according to Marine criminal-charge sheets released yesterday. The troops are members of a fire team with Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment. It is unclear what motivated the incident."
www.washingtonpost.com

And now most recently, convicted.....

Marine who led murder of Iraqi gets 15 yrs prison
"CAMP PENDLETON, California (Reuters) - A U.S. Marine squad leader who boasted to his men they had "got away with murder" after kidnapping and killing an Iraqi grandfather was sentenced on Friday to 15 years in prison.

A military jury at Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base issued the sentence, along with a reprimand and dishonorable discharge, after finding Sgt. Lawrence Hutchins III guilty of unpremeditated murder, larceny and other crimes on Thursday.

His wife and mother sobbed after hearing the sentence. Hutchins, wearing a khaki short-sleeve shirt and dark green trousers, showed no emotion, although at one point he lowered his head to the table.

His 2-year-old daughter was also in the courtroom. Hutchins, 23, was allowed to spend some time with his family before guards took him to a military brig.

The sentence concluded the trials of seven U.S. Marines and a Navy medic involved in the April 2006 incident in Hamdania, Iraq, in which they were seeking a terrorism suspect and grabbed his neighbor during the night when they could not find him.

Hutchins, of Plymouth, Massachusetts, and another Marine shot Hashim Ibrahim Awad, 52, a father of 11 and grandfather of four, according to witnesses. Then the unit set an AK-47 assault rifle and shovel next to the corpse to suggest he had been an insurgent planting a bomb, they said.

Witnesses said Hutchins congratulated his squad after the crime, saying, "We just got away with murder." One said the men had been inspired by the 1999 movie "The Boondock Saints," about Boston vigilantes killing mobsters.

The prosecution had sought to convict him of premeditated murder, which would have brought a sentence of life in prison, and witnesses testified that Hutchins led the plot.

The sudden changing of the target to Awad may have made the jury see the crime as unpremeditated.

Seven others had already been convicted in the case, one in a series in which U.S. troops have been accused of abusing or killing Iraqi civilians. They received sentences of between no additional time in prison and eight years behind bars.

Only Hutchins was convicted of murder.

The other shooter was convicted by a jury last month of conspiracy to murder and did not receive additional time in prison, surprising some legal experts.

Also on Friday, a separate military jury sentenced Cpl. Marshall Magincalda to 448 days in prison after he was found guilty of conspiracy in the crime.

The punishment means Magincalda was to be released from the brig on Friday because he has spent the last 450 days in detention.

In a brief statement to the jury on Thursday, Hutchins expressed no remorse.

Hutchins' attorney, Richard Brannon, ascribed the actions of Hutchins and his men to "a failure of command," alluding to charges their platoon leader's rough handling of some detainees had sent the wrong message to Marines.

Brannon told the jury that Hutchins was an outstanding Marine who led his infantry squad in a dangerous area where troops had to battle stress and attacks from insurgents.

"They were under fire," Brannon said. "It does impact you.""
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0224338920070804

 

[Chips Rafferty]

Even in light of no actual charges being filed??? And shackled no less??

You mean just like the thousands of evil alien t-u-u-rusm "suspects" in Georgie's Gulag Archipelagos?!!!!

With no Chicken and "Arse" Cream, airconditioning, compassionate leave, and cable TV??

Oh Mah Guard! Those poor boys.

THIS IS TOTAL WAR!!!

 

[Gunny]

You mean just like the thousands of evil alien t-u-u-rusm "suspects" in Georgie's Gulag Archipelagos?!!!!

With no Chicken and "Arse" Cream, airconditioning, compassionate leave, and cable TV??

Oh Mah Guard! Those poor boys.

THIS IS TOTAL WAR!!!

You're REALLY straining yourself now.