Semper Infidelis?

Family, friends, supporters and now the attorneys for the Camp Pendleton 8 are increasingly worried that a United States Marine Corps, long known for its tradition of loyalty above all else, may be inappropriately turning on seven of its own and a Navy Corpsman simply to score political points with a fledgling Iraqi government increasingly concerned over the behavior of American troops stationed in Iraq. The 8 stand accused of the kidnapping and murder of an Iraqi civilian in April.

One of many controversial issues involves the possibility that some defendants may have made statements injurious to their defense as a result of being taken directly from the battlefield and immediately subjected to extreme interrogation techniques, said to include threats of a possible sentence of death. The military is well aware of how combat stress can impact individuals, often allowing a cooling off period for soldiers returning from duty in a war zone. Ironically enough, the Camp Pendleton 8 may have been subjected to interrogation techniques the government is now prohibited from applying to terrorist suspects as a result of a recent Supreme Court ruling.

Defense attorneys say their clients are innocent and have asserted that investigators extracted incriminating statements by using inappropriate interrogation methods. here

On the heels of previous complaints by the defendants civilian attorneys that assigned military attorneys have not had time to devote to the case due to high case loads and logistics, they are now being denied the opportunity to visit the alleged crime scene in Iraq, as well as an opportunity to question relevant witness. Meanwhile, the Marine Corps has constructed a media center, purportedly to handle press and public relations activities around the hearing.

An Article 32 hearing is the first step in the military judicial process of determining whether criminal charges against an accused will stand and they will go to trial. The hearings for the accused men are expected to begin in late August or early September. story here

Hearings had been scheduled for July but have been pushed back. It should be noted that two previously charged service members were not charged after Article 32 hearings as a direct result of being able to challenge what looked like damning evidence at the time - 2nd Lt. Ilario Pantano and, most recently, Specialist Nathan Lynn.

Details of why the credibility of several witnesses in the Camp Pendleton 8 case could be called into question can be found in a previous post. Several of the witnesses made conflicting statements to the media at the time. What remains unclear is whether the USMC is interested in taking the defendants to trial to combat public perception both in America and especially in Iraq that the US Government too frequently gives its soldiers a free pass when it comes to potential crimes in a war zone.

The area of Hamdania, where the crime is alleged to have taken place, was a hot bed of the insurgency at the time. It's comprised of a Sunni Muslim population, yet served by a Shiite police force. The conflicting motivations of Iraqi civilians and policemen, which could involve insurrection and or cash payments for dead family members, particularly in such hot zones, deserves scrutiny. Current developments suggest that may not happen prior to the Article 32 hearings.

Some speculate that the USMC may be having it both ways. The defendants might well be exonerated should a full trial with discovery and cross examination ever take place. But the Article 32 hearing would allow the USMC to show they take allegations of crimes on the part of servicemen seriously. That speculation is of little comfort to the Marines and Navy Corpsman, now confined for months. Nor does it help the military families who may be watching their life savings disappear in the face of rising attorney fees associated with availing themselves of civilian attorneys. That approach was said to be critical for 2nd Lt. Ilario Pantano's successful defense.

A Comprehensive history of the case, including a pod cast of my own appearance on Wide Awakes Radio can be found on the website Innocent Marine.

Previous extensive coverage here via Michelle Malkin's site. The Captain's Journal is following the case, as well.

Comments

[xxx]

Awe shucks, the military using INAPPROPRIATE INTERROGATION METHODS? Say it isn't so. As they say, Dan, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I highly doubt the military used inappropriate interrogation methods on these thugs, but it is extremely ironic that you and the rest of your ilk support torturing of terrorists and killing them on site without any trial let alone an interrogation, but god forbid, when it looks like something negatative to your cause comes out, like soldiers committing murder, then all of a sudden you are all about the rights of the accused,and how dare the bad military men interrogate those poor soldiers for hours at a time, yet you think nothing of what was done to Iraqi prisoners or what goes on at Gitmo on a daily basis.

This is what happens when you change the rules. The rules change for everyone. You cannot have a set of rules for 'us' and a set of rules for 'them' which is why it is a stain on American honor for ALL TIME that George Bush and his cadre rejected the Geneva Convention and have and are still trying to change the meaning of the word TORTURE to allow them to torture prisoners without calling it torture, even though of course they claim they would never torture anyone...again, which would seem then to make the need to change the meaing of torture a pointless exercise.

I repeat. This is what happens when you change the rules. Everyone loses, not just the other side.

[Beaker]

"I highly doubt the military used inappropriate interrogation methods on these thugs"

How very typical. This is why patriotic Americans dispise you leftist asshats. We are willing to error on the side of those who put on the uniform and defend our freedoms. You and your ilk are willing to be counted on the side that bombs schools, buses, hospitals, use women and children as human shields, and behead helpless captives.

In this case, we are asking for a fair trial. Nothing more or less. Those Marines earned that right when they decided to serve their country, Fucknozzles like you have that right because of their service.

Now do us all a favor and go back to Daily Kos and beat off to pictures of "mother Sheehan" with the rest of your douchebag friends. Idiot.

[Sharrdd]

>>are increasingly worried that a United States Marine Corps, long known for its tradition of loyalty above all else, may be inappropriately turning on seven of its own and a Navy Corpsman simply to score political points<<

You've got the loyalty part out of context.

The Corps has always been willing to sacrifice a member in the name of public relations and in recent years political correctness, hence the phrase: For the good of the Corps.

As a Marine, I was suprised to see the brass show some common sense and "loyalty" by not nailing Corporal Belile to the wall for PR problem Haji Girl created.

I've personally seen lives destroyed and good Marines turned on so there can be a fall guy for the good of the Corps.

Loyalty is a one way street, it won't protect us from the flying coffin V-22 Osprey and it certainly won't ensure those 8 receive a fair trial. Publicity on the other hand...

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/1999