All charges dropped for Haditha Marine

Posted By Uncle Jimbo

A reminder of something I shoulda remembered.

We had the pleasure of interviewing Justin's father Darryl Sharratt twice in recent weeks on Pundit Review Radio. The first interview, we discussed the impact of this case on his family. In the second, we discussed how it took him more than 50 calls over 18 months to get Murtha to talk with him. You can find links to both interviews here,

 

http://www.punditreview.com/2007/08/09/charges-finally-dropped-against-haditha-marine-justin-sharratt-2/

 

Thanks.

 

Kevin

Those guys always do a great job and this case and all the other Haditha cases seem likely to become the breeze. I wonder how these guys get their reputations and careers back?

From the AP

LOS ANGELES (AP) - A general dropped all charges Thursday against a Marine who had been accused of killing three Iraqi brothers in response to a roadside bomb attack in Haditha in 2005.

"The evidence does not support a referral to a court-martial," Lt. Gen. James Mattis wrote in his written decision.

Lance Cpl. Justin L. Sharratt, 22, had been charged with the murder in the deaths of three of those killed after the bomb attack Nov. 19, 2005.

The decision to drop the charges followed an earlier recommendation from a hearing officer who listened to evidence in the case. Under military law, a commanding general has total jurisdiction over a case.

In his recommendation, Lt. Col. Paul Ware said murder charges brought against Sharratt were based on unreliable witness accounts, poor forensic evidence and questionable legal theories.

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

Clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, eh? I wonder how that ties in with Murtha's cold-blooded killers theory. I assume sweeping apologies will be forthcoming from the lummox.

I hope I meet up with Murtha when the Troops on the Hill event kicks off on the 17th and 18th check out the site and sign up if you can be there. The idea is to show Congress that pulling the rug out now would be an awful mistake for a multitude of reasons. We need to remind them that Americans don't believe in losing when winning is still an option. Polls show that some of the good news is seeping out to the public, but we need to keep up the efforts. The Democrats saw that support for the war was low and for the President even lower, and they took their shots trying to shut it down. They failed because enough of them knew that voting for defeat was a treachery that would not be forgiven.

There is too much positive news coming out of Iraq right now for it to be suppressed or ignored. The press and the Dems have been rubbing our noses in shite about how bad things have been, let's rub  Congress' nose in the sweet smell of success.

Oh I'm sorry do I owe you an answer on how Kev's Iraq or Madison coin flip? Wow how rude of me, the flip went off as scheduled and.........Oh you can wait until I edit the video right?

In the meantime check out the Editor's podcast over at Military.com. Ward Carrol talks with Michael Goldfarb from the Weekly Standard, who owned the Sotty Beauchamp story and your humble narrator contributes a bit called The Resurgence of the Surge. Very cool tunes by Steve Morse formerly of The Dixie Dregs.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2819/20710674

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference All charges dropped for Haditha Marine :

» Democrats said the surge is what? from Neocon News
So now it appears that the Democrats have seen the writing on the wall (or read some of the recent poll numbers) and have decided to admit that the ill fated Surge of troops in Iraq is, in fact, working. There seems to be a massive amoun... [Read More]

Comments

[SemperFi Wife]

I would consider Murtha wearing an extra large hair shirt and televising extended periods of self flagellation a good START.

[mindy1]

I am glad for him. I hope that the investigation continues to see who is guilty and innocent.

[Soldier's Mom]

Can we try him in Delaware? I was born there and I have been told that one of the laws still on the books is punishment by public flagellation by a cat-o-nine tails!

I am so glad that Lt Col Ware had the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the powers that be that wanted a hanging boy!

Semper Fi and God Bless Cpl Sharratt

[Cincinnati_Bob]

How about we just go to DC and beat the ignorance out of some beltway blowhards. ?

[Grimmy]

mindy1:

News flash. This entire issue is nothing but a put up job by enemy propagandists and adherents to the enemy.

There was no crime committed. There has never been any evidence of any crime because no crime was committed.

Every allegation is bullshit manufactured by a known insurgent and family members loyal to the insurgency and then shopped around by a piece of shit traitor in journalist clothing from Time.

There are photos from overhead drones that prove the Marines correct in their actions. There are recordings of radio traffic that prove the Marines correct in their actions.
There were intel reports that predicted the attack prior to it happening and it developed nearly exactly according to those reports.

The Marines, were and are innocent of all wrong doing.

All those who have allowed themselves to become confused on this are the weak pieces of filth that the enemy propagandists prey upon in times of war.

People need to learn to STFU and Soldier or stand the $#$$ by for the consequences. Submission to the betrayers wont last for ever.

[Grimmy]

mandy1:

Just wanted to clear up my usual sloppy writting. The last 2 lines were not meant for you or aimed at you.

[jordan]

Gen. Mattis once again calls it straight. Could my confidence in the military justice system be returning?

[SoldierNoLongerInIraq]

Uhhh, at the risk of introducing fact, this isn't really the point Murtha was making. He was referring to allegations of cold blooded killing of civilian Iraqis by Marines shortly after the IED hit, not the Sharratt case, which involved questions about his shooting of armed men hours after the blast.

They are two separate incidents. Lt GEN Mattis has thus far retained charges against two enlisted Marines in the intial attack, plus three officers alleged to have covered up the incidents, which to a military leader would be even more disturbing.

Lt GEN Mattis has NOT ruled yet on whether Capt (CPT for Army guys) Stone should face administrative actions for his role in the investigation of the Haditha incident (probably a notation in his ORB).

We had long known that Lt Gen Mattis most likely would quash the charges against these men because independent investigating officers had written that neither the facts nor the law would support the indictments.

How to avoid Haditha-like incidents in the future? Have PID. Don't lie about what happened.

How should blogs handle these incidents in the future?

Don't defend liars. Don't defend killers.

Innocent until proven guilty, but not innocent just because they wear a uniform.

[jordan]

Wait a minute. The charges against Sharrat were from the same chain of events for which the other Haditha Marines were charged, were they not? Did not Sharrat's charges stem from the Haditha incident? What was in question was the series of events as the Marines described them, which JAG prosecutors didn't believe.

Murtha's comments didn't differentiate between the murder of armed men versus the civilians in the house. At the time he spoke, there was NO information about the men having been armed. In fact, Murtha's whole point had been that ALL the victims were unarmed civilians.

He stated, "There was no roadside bomb. There was no firefight. It's much worse than TIME magazine says." When this story first broke, what was out there and available publically (because it was written about extensively here) didn't specify anything about armed men, just implied all victims were unarmed civilians.

There's a clearer exposition on this over at Calfornia Conservative (top post.)

[SoldierNoLongerInIraq]

No. The incidents were separated by many hours. The only thing that connected the two men partially excused from military justice today was the village of Haditha and the fact they were from the same battalion.

The full exoneration for LCpl Sharrat stemmed from what we've long known from the Article 32 hearing: He had PID on armed male gunmen and used proper escalation of force procedures in a confusing environment. He fired only after one of the MAMs pointed a weapon at him, an allegation that was supported by the forensic evidence.

It was a good kill, and his primary investigator, LTC (LtCol) Ware recommended to Mattis that Sharratt nevertheless be asked to testify against fellow members of K Co, 3/1.

He was NOT part of the roadside bomb incident that ultimately led to the deaths of 24 civilians.

For CPT (Capt) Stone, Mattis reserved a fairly stinging summation about his conduct. While not wishing to continue court martial proceedings against him, the LtGen nevertheless said that the investigation Stone voluntarily conducted wasn't up to standards, and that he lost sight of his job, which was to pursue justice regardless of the accused.

Wuterich and others face a toughter path. To me, it is very difficult to imagine that his squad had PID on 15 civilians when they pulled their triggers. Although the fog of war is a very real phenomenon, there has been testimony by IA jundhi and others that disputes a complex attack that included SAF.

But they are innocent until proven guilty. So far, the Article 32 hearings have not been favorable to their version of what happened.

We never want to hamstring men in the field, but we also must ensure that our small unit leaders (SULs) are fully competent and morally capable of executing lawful orders.

On Blackfive, there seems to be an assumption that anyone who wears a uniform in Iraq is inherently innocent. He or she is innocent of a crime until proven guilty, but combatants can and should weigh in on what they testify that they did or didn't do.

For those who have walked the same walk, they can talk. And I think we should talk about these incidents because, frankly, what happened in Haditha is not in any way typical of how most squads handle these incidents (and there have been hundreds and hundreds of them).

[SoldierNoLongerInIraq]

"There was no roadside bomb. There was no firefight. It's much worse than TIME magazine says."

Actually, I don't know where you got that. I just did a search and that's not what he said.

In fact, the only place where that does appear like that is Blackfive (hmmmmm).

The transcript printed in American Journalism Review from all the quotations on Lexis-Nexis had the following:

"It's much worse than reported in Time magazine," Murtha told a group of reporters. "There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. And that's what the report is going to tell."

He was referring specifically to the USMC's now discredited version on both the SIGACT and the follow-on press accounts that the Iraqi civilians in Haditha had been killed by an IED that also killed a Marine.

This was a complete, utter lie.

The report to which Murtha referred actually did say what he said it would say. The Article 32 hearings that followed on the joint reports narrowed done the events to specific criminal charges for fewer men, but the basic narrative has not changed.

The IED did NOT kill the Iraqi civilians. They were killed by US Marines who swept through their homes and opened fire on a vehicle entering the area. A MOUT sweep that fails to use PID after a squadleader orders a house "hostile" in a TIC is the understatement on "pressure," and without PID and without any evidence that they were reacting to hostile fire.

At least from what we've heard so far from the investigators' reports and the Article 32 hearings. There still is a trial afforded to these men, and more evidence could turn up.

But what Murtha said to be true was corroborated in the Article 32 hearings because that was the evidence presented against two of the Haditha actors.

Blackfive perhaps could correct this misconception.

[Soldier's Mom]

I can only speak for myself, but I don't necessarily believe that EVERY soldier in Iraq/Aghanistan is innocent, but I do believe that they have a right to due process which does not include the MSM and Congress setting themselves up at judge, jury and executioner. Some have admitted guilt and some have been convicted. If they are truly innocent, then I believe that they will win in the end -- maybe a pollyanna view, but I was raised by a military father who was also a cop who taught me that even in the best of units, there are some bad apples. I also don't believe in covering up. But -- in conclusion, I also don't believe in tar and feathering everyone in a group because some people think, say or do certain things. You are no longer in Iraq and I am thankful you made it home -- I work for the Army and I was just at a funeral 3 weeks ago and another one tomorrow so I may not have walked the walk, but my oldest son has -- he is SF and a pathfinder and he has been over 7 times now since October 2001. I believe him when he tells me that just like Ivory Soap, 99 and 44/100 percent of our soldiers are the best of the best but the only ones we hear about over and over are the ones who aren't.

This is my personal opinion so please don't frag all of Blackfive for it.

[jordan]

So he didn't say: "There was no firefight. There was no IED. It was much worse than Time magazine said."

Rather, he said: "It was much worse than reported by Time. There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood. That's what the report is going to say."

Maybe my "version" of the quote came from the sentence: "It was much worse than reported by Time. There was no firefight. There was no IED that killed these innocent people." Thanks for the correction.

So the report said all the victims were innocent civilians, and that they were killed in cold blood? If all of this had been established, why was there any further investigation? That pretty much clinches it right there. They should have been thrown in jail right then, and the key thrown away. Why even bother with a trial?

Sharratt's parents seem to be demanding a censure and apology from Murtha. In light of the above, that seems like an unreasonable demand, seeing as Murtha didn't mean to impugn all the Haditha Marines, he only meant just the two that the hearings later zeroed in on.

I'm not saying there wasn't wrongdoing. But this is no reflexive defense of anyone who does anything wrong in uniform. They should be given the benefit of the doubt until given due process, and not judged and convicted in the press. Nobody who's been in the military community for a long time thinks everyone in uniform is an angel, believe you me. But we all picture our "boys" in the same situation, and would hope they would be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

[SoldierNoLongerInIraq]

There are investigations, and there are hearings on the evidence uncovered along with counter-facts and testimony, which either leads to a commanding general convening a court martial proceeding or not.

In this case, thus far, LtGen Mattis has concluded that there was wrongdoing by both investigators in the Haditha Marines' chain of command as well as by several enlisted men involved in actions in the wake of the initial IED attack.

Some of these he has marked for non-judicial punishment, such as a mark in an officer's ORB, others he has set free upon recommendation of the Article 32 hearing officer, and still others he has, thus far, retained for criminal court martial.

I put a great deal of faith in LtGen Mattis, who certainly has walked in these men's boots, as, one should say, Rep Murtha, also a decorated Marine.

If you are asking for Congressmen or anyone else to remain silent about non-classified official reports they are provided by military officers, the guilt or innocence of anyone formally charged with a crime, then, frankly, you're being a bit callow.

People are indicted for crimes every day. They are arrested by police officers, charged by prosecutors and hauled into court.

If your stipulation is that this process should be reversed when the accused is a member of the military, then you're asking us to quit being America and to start being a military dictatorship, which is repugnant to anyone who has taken an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic.

No one in this nation is above the law, even Marines and Soldiers. I have been in the exact same position these Marines were in at Haditha, but for some reason we didn't kill dozens of unarmed civilians, including women, the elderly and babies.

Something very wrong happened at Haditha. Whether a crime was committed or not is up to the courts to eventually determine, but from what we've learned from the reports and the Article 32 hearings, Murtha's words have been closer to the truth than perhaps some are willing to concede.

I hope that everyone is exonerated in this case (except the officers who so clearly fabricated SIGACTS and other versions of the events; they don't deserve to wear the uniform), because I hope the events that actually occurred are different from what investigators, villagers, IA jundhi, Marines and others have said happened.

I fail to see why Murtha should be censored for saying the truth about a report he was provided during a military briefing. What he said is what the reports and the Article 32 hearings have said. He was just saying it publicly.

[jordan]

From what I hear of Gen. Mattis, I too trust his judgement on these cases.

Congressmen absolutely should remain silent about information they might know before an investigation is complete. That's why officials will routinely refuse comment on any case that's is still under investigation.

Murtha's words prejudiced the case, and had the soldiers convicted even before the investigation was complete. Even if the evidence was very damning, and he "knew" for a fact that the soldiers were guilty, it was innappropriate to comment as he did, especially editorializing about them killing "in cold blood" because they were under so much pressure.

Before a jury comes back with a verdict, we give our defendents the presumption of innocence, and should give our soldiers the same. Murtha was opposed to the war, and publically prejudiced this case before it was decided to advance his own agenda against the war.

Now, Gen. Mattis is man of the hour on this, and I think most people will accept his judgements on these soldiers, whether guilty or innocent. FWIW, California Conservative has posted a letter from Sharrat's parents about the case.

[SoldierNoLongerInIraq]

Yes. Murtha's quote was considered so prejudicial, the Article 32 hearing officer and GEN Mattis wouldn't even entertain the motion from defense counsel that suggested it.

The investigation already had been done. Actually, there were several of them, the final being a joint probe by members of service and civilian agencies.

What Blackfive and other milblogs haven't noticed is that Murtha actually produced a defense of these men -- they were victims of combat stress after multiple tours to Iraq -- that actually wasn't true. For the charged Marines, it was their first combat deployment.

For those of us who favored this war and supported the troops (including me) who ended up fighting in twice (two deployments and counting!), I've come to conclude that had we known the abject incompetence and cruel disregard for the task at hand by those in positions of military and civilian power, Murtha was right.

If we weren't going to do Iraq right, then we shouldn't have done it. He and Inouye (you might notice the medals on his resume) didn't trust the Pentagon or uniformed leadership (Tommy "Polo Steps" Franks) doing the Phase IV planning, so they couldn't support an invasion plan they drew up.

In hindsight, they were absolutely right. If we weren't going to do it right, then we shouldn't have done it.