getting off easy.. wrote on Sep 25, 2006 12:00 PM:There was an entire family that got slaughtered and this goes down as a non-capital punishment crime..??? How do they figure??

Goatskull wrote on Sep 25, 2006 12:17 PM:I think you are confusing this with the Haditha case. This one is about one man who was alegedly murdered.

7000 / 100 -- so what? wrote on Sep 25, 2006 12:23 PM:Wow, 7000 hours, 100 interviews, and they STILL managed to lose track of their witnesses? And why didn't they share their findings with the Defense -- why all the games and wasting of taxpayer money? If it is such a strong case why did so many charges just get dropped? And the IOs admit the government has a lot of challenges with it's case? It doesn't matter how many "hours" or "interviews" they did, they weren't looking for the truth, they just went through the motions. And nctimes, thanks for the bias, ending with such a stupid anonymous quote -- "agency (?) officials say privately" ... way to be professional. I believe the 8 guys in the brig over whatever "agency" and all the promotion-seeking prosecutors.

P wrote on Sep 25, 2006 12:41 PM:".....to kill Awad after he would not provide members with information about insurgent activity in the area." Well if Awad wouldn't provide the info the soldiers were asking for, then in my opinion, Awad is indeed a terrorist or at least harboring them.

Roach wrote on Sep 25, 2006 12:41 PM:Some of the supporters of these guys have suggested they're innocent, being rail-roaded, and that the investigating officers were leaning the defense's way at the Article 32 Hearing. Now we see that the Gen. Mattis is more than capable of dismissing a weaker case (as he did in the assault allegations) and that he and the IO have agreed that the murder charge case involving Awad should go to trial. We've also been told to look for a smoking gun and it's been suggested that the evidence so far is weak. It's not weak; three of the eight defendnats confessed. They admit they're at the scene of the crime. And there's a 52 year old cripple's dead body. That is as close to a smoking gun you'll see in a war crimes case. Don't forget, Scott Peterson got a death penalty simply for admitting he was at the scene where the body was found; he didn't even confess. A confession is super-strong evidence. And the defense nonsense about the confessions being coerced has been disproven by NCIS testimony under oath at Shumate's Article 32 Hearing.

to P wrote on Sep 25, 2006 12:56 PM:Gee, is that the type of democracy we are trying to sell in Iraq? Do you think that maybe he didn't know? or do you think maybe he was afraid to tell for fear of reprisals? Or maybe you are so biased, or suffering from denial that you can not consider that these guys just might be guilty. Sadly no amount of investigation will satisfy you, you are a lost cause. I can understand these guys parents being in denial, but anyone else??? go figure.

to "To P" wrote on Sep 25, 2006 1:11 PM:I never said that the soldiers were not guilty of killing Awad. They probably did kill him. Better him than them. "Maybe he didn't know"? Everyone in every neighborhood knows who the gang mambers are, this is no different. If the police came to me and asked me who they are in my neighborhood, I'd tell them. In fact, I have.

John1- to Roach wrote on Sep 25, 2006 1:14 PM:Oh, Roach, you know very little and speak inarticulately about what little you know.

Concerned wrote on Sep 25, 2006 1:26 PM:They are innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately the damage has already been done, all around. Here's a question for the government: When is a war not a war?...I guess they've already decided. Talk about a no win...

Jay wrote on Sep 25, 2006 1:35 PM:Sounds to me like "P" is the one WE should be worried about, he's actually running loose in our midsts. As always, John1 can come up with something insulting to say to a fellow citizen excercising his free speech. I thought that's what your son was fighting for John1!

Goatskull wrote on Sep 25, 2006 1:56 PM:You supporters of these guys would be entertaining if if wasn't for the fact that you are scary. If these guys are guilty then they deserve the punishment that they get. If they are innocent then they derserve to be freed and compensated for what they and their families were put through. Keep in mind people we are not at war with Iraq. We are at war IN Iraq, not WITH.

ex-marine wrote on Sep 25, 2006 1:59 PM:When i was in the Marine Corps we on the lower end of the proverbial totem pole (NCO and below) knew what was expected of us, we knew what was acceptable and what was not. Rarely was there ambiguity. If we got the "wink, wink" go-ahead, we went ahead. If this behavior was in fact perpetrated by multiple members of a unit then there is cause for concern at higher levels of command. I am not making excuses for the actions of the accused, but you have to look higher. As for those readers who think it is okay to execute an unarmed man because he will not talk - This is the behavior that begins the descent to the bottom of the barrel. This signals a complete loss of morality, I do not care what type of war you are fighting. We saw it in Vietnam. Thankfully there were men brave enough to try to stop it then, and apparently there are men brave enough to stop it now. In this case men talked. I doubt there are false confessions. Let the trials begin and quit the nonsense talk about dismissing all the charges.

Roach wrote on Sep 25, 2006 2:01 PM:John 1, your opinion has no weight. You're biased and completely incapable of being persuasive on this case. The facts speak for themselves; three of the eight defendants confessed, and no admissible evidence has been offered to show why we shouldn't believe those confessions. Those confessions were enough for "Mad Dog" Mattis for Pete's sake. You, on the other hand, are selectively leaking privileged and confidential information that favors the defense--one of the defendants is your son, I believe--while the defense lawyers try to hide harmful information from the public and the court martial panel. This may be understandable considering your blood relations and all, but it's not persuasive to people in the real world who like to see both sides of the issue. Give it a rest before you get yourself in trouble and inadvertently waive some privilege. There is no father-son privilege in a criminal defense case (nor son's lawyers and father privilege). What will you do when they call you to the stand and ask about how you figured out all of this stuff?

A Hint on Whodunit . . . wrote on Sep 25, 2006 2:06 PM:Innocent people don't confess to crimes, even when they're enlisted Marines lacking a strong sense of self and used to being told what to do by authority figures.

mark wrote on Sep 25, 2006 2:16 PM:100's of interviews? 1000's of hours? My gosh they must be guilty! Is the NCIS alleging that this supposed crime took place in a crowded theater? a shopping mall? Charges of making false statements= proclaiming one's innocence. Obstructing an investigation= refusing to confess. These are the sort of disparate last ditch charges one one expect when the prosecutors know they have a very weak case. When you have strong evidence for murder one you don't need any icing on the cake.

P off base wrote on Sep 25, 2006 2:21 PM:I think it's great that you would work with the police to identify violent gang members in your neighborhood. But would you do so in broad daylight, in the middle of the street, with windows all around? Further, would you do so if your neighborhood had dozens of killings weekly, and not enough police to keep you safe? Even if you would co-operate under these circumstances, do you think it is a good idea to shoot people on the spot who might make a different choice?

Patrick wrote on Sep 25, 2006 2:22 PM:The real criminal in all of this is our so called leader and commander, he is reponsible for 2701 deaths of our American sons and daughters fighting in Iraq. Impeach Bush the criminal now and bring home our troops from that hell hole we have created!

mark wrote on Sep 25, 2006 2:45 PM:Whodunit, actually innocent people "confess" all the time. That is why civilian DA's don't usually rely on them, but build a solid case with actual evidence. A quick Google search:"false confession conviction overturned" as of 3min ago yields 254,000 results.

ex-marine wrote on Sep 25, 2006 2:51 PM:Dear 'Never In the Marine Corps': You've tipped your hand -- the only people who refer to themselves as "ex-Marines" are those who've never worn the uniform -- or who have disgraced it. Either way you're a fraud.

Harry wrote on Sep 25, 2006 3:05 PM:Thank you ex Marine for the honor and good sense that you bring to the discussion. I had started to resent the Marines; I have read so much garbage with Semper Fi at the end of it. If these men are innocent God Bless them; but if they took a cripple man out and shot him because he wouldn't jeopardize his family by collaborating with them they deserve to be punished. I appreciate that ex Marine doesn't condone or excuse murder.

to Hint to Whodunit wrote on Sep 25, 2006 3:32 PM:don't check out the news much, do you? Does the name "John Mark Karr" ring a bell? I suppose that you're angry that the prosecutor didn't file charges, even though the evidence proved wasn't involved. After all, he DID confess, didn't he...

to Roach wrote on Sep 25, 2006 3:41 PM:"A confession is super-strong evidence." Oooooo - it's not just strong, it's "SUPER" strong -- what is this a toilet paper commercial? Get a grip. There were no confessions. And nothing was "disproven," what did show up was how inexperienced the investigators were that the pros. put on the stand. 2 dozen or more investigators, yeah, how many are fresh out of their 9 weeks of training, hmmm? And why so many? So the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing? That way you can't compare stories -- everything just gets dumped on a desk somewhere. No wonder the prosecutors don't want the defense counsel to do their own investigations.

Civilian DA Expert wrote on Sep 25, 2006 3:43 PM:Have you ever watched Court TV? Confessions are a key part of evidence in criminal cases today, yesterday, and in the future. A very small percentage of convictions are ever overturned, and your google search proves only what we already know: sometimes innocent people confess. That doesn't mean they're not guilty 99% of the time. Plus there is other evidence here, like physical evidence including Awad's body, a rap video produced by the accused admitting the crime, and the testimony of Iraqis. Remember them, Iraqis, the people neoconservatives are so proud to liberate until they dare to say something Americans don't want to here.

Mary wrote on Sep 25, 2006 4:06 PM:Whether or not they are guilty this case is the primary reason why no one should encourage their kids to enlist while this ridiculous adventure in Iraq is going on. I do not believe under normal circumstances State Side these guys would be even remotely be associated with a murder case. But in heat of the emotions of repeated depoloyments and back-to-back missions it is easy to see how they may have strayed from their normal values. What has Bush wrought?

To "P Off Base" wrote on Sep 25, 2006 4:59 PM:As a matter of fact, yes. I have identified the criminals in broad daylight. I have gotten in their faces while on the phone to the police after they, 3 of them, assaulted my son . I have filed charges and taken them to court. I told the drug dealer to stop whistling at my 14 yr old daughter because she is jail bait as far as he is concerned. I told him to grow up because he acts like a 12 yr old. We have had our cars vandalized repeatedly. My truck was totaled with crow bars at 3 am. I involved the police and there are NOT enough police to protect us. They have repeatedly told me to move. But guess what? I refused and they don't mess with us anymore because they know I don't take their crap! It's easier for them to leave us alone than to be harrassed by the police. This Awad chose not to help the good guys. Sucks for him.

Bottom line wrote on Sep 25, 2006 5:07 PM:is...Awad refused to work with the marines which means he was probably working with the the insurgents thus making himself an enemy of the US. In a war we kill our enemies.

Wednesday wrote on Sep 25, 2006 6:18 PM:So why are they going to do any more Article32s if any recommendations are going to be ignored? If Mattis picked these guys to advise him at the 32s, then ignores their recommendations, it doesn't say a lot for his confidence in their judgment...and it's not agood reflection on his...

Sad wrote on Sep 25, 2006 8:01 PM:I am a Marine. I would like to say a little something here. The people of Iraq are still very scared. Of corse there are going to be people out there who for saftey sake wish not to talk. These people have been opressed for as long as man has kept records. They are afraid. That said, the Marines and Corpsman involved, they were afraid and angery too. They approch a man who refuses to talk. This must have made them think,"this guy is not good". Of corse they freaked out. They lost a man a few days earlier and were skiddish. I'll be honest. I have been there and I do not trust a word out of their mouths. Funny thing is, it is just as dangerous in New York and LA due to gang violence. Same crap. You go after bad guys, you loose someone close, you go haywire. What is hard to imagine about this. No they should have not killed the man. But there was fear and where there is fear there is panic. Where ever panic roams, there also lies destruction.

to Bottom line wrote on Sep 25, 2006 8:04 PM:Perhaps Awad refused to cooperate because we have too few troops in Iraq. People cooperate, then the insurgents come and cut their heads off. We don't have enough troops to protect those who work with us--whether Joe Blow the informer or the mayors of small towns like Hamdania--so most sensible people try to steer clear. There's no reason to assume this guy was an insurgent or insurgent sympathizer on that basis, though one can see how a handful of uneducated enlisted marines could adopt that kind of crude logic.

Roach wrote on Sep 25, 2006 8:19 PM:I love this logic: some false confessions occur by wack-job attention-seekers like John Karr, and this proves that these particular confessions are false. Sorry, doesn't work that way. Are these guys scaredy cats who fold in front of civilian NCIS agents? I don't think so. Maybe they just felt guilty when confronted with their crimes and the evidence against them, like so many criminal defendants do. Do some research on interrogations and false confessions; studies show that somewhere between 99% and 99.9% of confessions are legitimate. Even 1,000 false confessions a year in a criminal justice system that processes millions of people doesn't support this fashionable "false confessions" meme. That would be well less than 1% for those of you that failed basic math. Incidentally, the highest annual false confession estimate from any study ever was a national total of 840.

Engage wrote on Sep 25, 2006 8:27 PM:How many NCIS does it take to work a case? Why did it take 7000 hours to do the job? It sounds impressive and thorough at first until you realize that lack of experience and government bureaucracy can really do a number. 100 interviews could mean 10 interviews done 10 times. I am waiting until the evidence is in (which is nothing other than hearsay at this point). I wish the "hate America first" crowd would wait for the evidence IF it ever appears then make up their minds. Presumed Innocence prevails otherwise our rights in this country cease.

John 1 to Jay wrote on Sep 25, 2006 8:46 PM:Jay, Insult? Well, that's a definition for a comment meant to hurt and offend. Roach's comments are ignorant and inarticulate. So my reply while seemingly to some insulting, are reality. Mr. Roach spends an inordinate amount of his time on his own website doing whatver he can to deride and "insult" the Pendleton Eight. So I will feel no regret on my statement.

John1 to Civ DA Expert wrote on Sep 25, 2006 9:06 PM:Your point on convictions being overturned would only be arguable to a case where there has been a conviction. However, there are differences between civilian and military law in such percentages, as I am sure you know. Physical evidence such as Awad's body-- Well, the autopsy shows no subcutaneous bruising from wrists being flexicuffed and there are interesting results from the ballistics. But let's let that be a surprise. As to the testimony of Iraqis? Which Iraqis would those be? The ones the prosecutors cannot now find? Deposed by an interpreter no longer able to be found, either? What happened to the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution? With no site visits allowed; gamesmanship in the discovery process in violation of UCMJ Article 46? An IO report which noted that there was "no evidence" for Charges II, III, IV and V? It will be an interesting court martial indeed....

John1 to Bottom Line wrote on Sep 25, 2006 9:09 PM:Whatever happened to the right of innocent until proven guilty? Also, your statement on "uneducated Marines" is itself based on bias and ignorance.

John1 to Roach wrote on Sep 25, 2006 9:15 PM:Actually the SJA disagreed with the IO's report in that the IO recommended dismissal of several charges based on LACK OF EVIDENCE, but the SJA apparently holds more sway here.

mark wrote on Sep 25, 2006 9:26 PM:Well civilian DA expert I guess all of your expertise comes from watching court TV. You are mixing up several cases here so it is obvious you have not been following this one. There are confessions, verbatim transcripts, and then there are confessions, statements cobbled together and written out by the investigating officers for the accused to sign, usually with some false promise as an inducement. The NCIS is run by the same military law enforcement that puts Lynndie England and Charles Graner in charge of hundreds of Iraqi prisoners so excuse me if I have little faith in their expertise or even minimal competence.

John1 to Civ DA Expert wrote on Sep 25, 2006 9:27 PM:Oh, and no evidence for VI and VII, either....

AW4CRYINOUTLOUD wrote on Sep 25, 2006 9:32 PM:To Roach: First off, the Marines did not confess! You act like they just jumped right up and did it of their own free will. We are talking about 20 to 23 year old young men who believed in their mentors. After hours and hours of interrogation without right to any counsel, without being allowed to even use the 'facilities', and after hours of being threatened with being put to death.....They signed a "PREPARED" statement. The second thing is where you say, "They admit they're at the scene of the crime. And there's a 52 year old cripple's dead body." For cryin out loud man, of course they were there. They fought the guy there. And...NO...No dead body. Quote from your own media reporters who said they interviewed the family members and neighbors: "Going in search of Hashim, family members were told that Marines had brought his body to a local police station, Nasir said. The family recovered thir father's corpse from a hospital at Abu Ghraib, Nasir said." Now! You tell me how the so-called witnesses could say there was a gun and shovel by his body. Another report said the gun and shovel were in Hashim's hands. Give me a bloody break. In the very same article I'm relating to you Hashim's neighbors and family members say..."the Marines went to Hashim's home, took the 52- year-old disabled Iraqi outside and shot him four times in the face. " There is more, but, pick one Roach. Was the guy dragged away OR was he shot in the face. Also, if he was shot in the face four times what in the hell was left to torture? Yep, you just keep right on trusting those Iraqi's over your own countrymen.

mark wrote on Sep 25, 2006 9:40 PM:oh and Roach, of the death penalty cases that have been overturned by DNA evidence so far, 25% were based solely on false confessions, most of the rest were jail house snitches cutting a deal. With so much at stake I think that is a pretty scary percentage.

John1 to Sad wrote on Sep 25, 2006 9:53 PM:Kilo Co did not lose a man a few days earlier.

Shut UP EVERYONE wrote on Sep 25, 2006 10:37 PM:Don't all of you have anything better to do than sit around passing judgement. That will be the jury's duty, not yours. 50% of what you read or hear in the news is a lie and the other 50% you can't believe. Unless you have first hand knowledge SHUT YOUR MOUTHS and let the legal system do the talking. I am sick and tired of people ABUSING their "Right to free speech"!

to Sad wrote on Sep 26, 2006 4:38 AM:Don't be sad. Like so many, you are assuming the fairy tale that the prosecution has put out is in any way close to what happened that early morning. The defense lawyers cannot pro-actively present their case to the public, unlike the prosecution. But according to media reports close to the time of the incident(see jodka's site for references), what happened was that these Marines caught an insurgent digging a hole by the side of the road at 3 o'clock in the morning. Pretty clear what happened next. And as usual in Iraq, the "family," somehow getting their hands on the Marines' report from the incident, created an accusation that fit the report in order to get money from the military -- they had to find a way to explain why their alleged relative was out by the side of the road at 3 in the morning with a rifle and a shovel. The photographs that the prosecution is presenting to the media as "evidence" were admittedly staged and taken more than a week after the incident. As far as needing to stage the scene themselves, since these Marines took the body, shovel and rifle to the police station themselves there was no reason to stage the scene -- noone else saw it. So don't be Sad, these guys did their jobs correctly and with discipline, and so far are the only ones involved in this manipulation of the military justice system that continue to serve with honor.

to get a grip wrote on Sep 26, 2006 5:42 AM:As far as the investigators being "fresh out of their 9 weeks of training,"actually it's 19 weeks. But it wouldn't matter if it were 119 weeks. Discrediting the investigators is a sign of a weak defense. By the way, how many "weeks of training" does it take to become a Marine??

To Sad wrote on Sep 26, 2006 7:57 AM:Listen buddy, stop talking like you knew what happened that night. I don't care if you were or currently a Marine or not. So am I, so what? It doesn't give me the omniscient ability to know what happened or the types of people involved. If you have been in the Marine Corps, then you would know the old adage "perception is reality." Unfortunately for the prosecutors, the public expects more then perception (and heresay) to find these Marines and sailor guilty. Prove it with real physical evidence and hard facts. Not compulsory statements or heresay from "Iraqi witnesses" that has a cultural tendency to exaggerate beyond belief and spout second, third hand testimonies as if it was their own first hand account. If you want to reply to me, you can call me Marine Infrantryman.

to John 1 wrote on Sep 26, 2006 8:59 AM:Statements made regarding the investigators being undertrained, overworked, heavy handed, eager for promotion, uninterested in the truth, etc.,etc...are ALSO based on bias and ignorance.

to "to get a grip" wrote on Sep 26, 2006 10:55 AM:"Discrediting the investigators is a sign of a weak defense." NOT true, since it is the prosecution, using the investigators findings, that have to prove their case. The Defense SIMPLY has to discredit it, starting with discrediting the investigators through lack of experience and quality of their training.

to SHUT UP wrote on Sep 26, 2006 10:57 AM:Stand up for your rights and DON'T READ THIS BLOG!

Harry wrote on Sep 26, 2006 11:36 AM:to Shut Up: you were probably glued to the tv set for the All OJ Simpson All the Time Show and the All Scott Peterson All the Time Show and "Rodney King 24/7 Show" and The All Michael Jackson All the Time Show and the "All about BTK show" and I bet you had some opinions about guilt or innocence. Don't have to turn on your set and you don't have to read the blogs.

FED up wrote on Sep 26, 2006 12:20 PM:What is the basis of your statement regarding the "lack of experience and quality of training" of the investigators? You can't back up your statements with any facts because if you had the facts you would keep your mouth shut. Your statements are based on the bias of the news and your ignorant assumptions. I guess if the the defense can't "discredit the findings" of the investigators, their only choice is to TRY to discredit the investigators themselves. Weak.

Harry wrote on Sep 26, 2006 2:19 PM:To FED up There is a lot of noise that seems to be intended to drown out the charges--lots of bravado without a shred of fact or statements to support them. These posts are doing the defense a great deal of damage.

to Fed up and harry wrote on Sep 26, 2006 4:12 PM:me thinks you protest too much :)

Harry wrote on Sep 26, 2006 4:38 PM:exactly my point the noise machine from the gates of camp pendleton--exactly "they protest too much".

mark wrote on Sep 26, 2006 5:10 PM:There is a very good reason why trials are open to the public. It is not to provide material for court TV or talk radio or even the tabloids. It is to allow us, the general public, to weigh in and hold the authorities feet to the fire, force them to prove their allegations. I have followed this case very closely for months and unless the prosecution has some super secrete evidence it did not share at the article 32 hearing, apart from the "confessions", then the prosecution, in my opinion have a very weak case. The whole Hamadia investigation seems to have been nothing more than a hysterical over reaction to the Hiditha case. The hysteria does not even seen to be over those allegations, but instead seem to have more to do with the Army running that investigation of Marines and more importantly Marine Officers rather than the USMC and NCIS.

Keep it simple wrote on Sep 26, 2006 7:02 PM:They were trained to kill and put in a situation that unless you are there, you would not understand. Now they are being tried for doing what they are told? Yes, I know there are rules of war, but come on, where is the responsibility at the top? These guys will get pardoned if they are convicted. What a waste of time and money.

to mark wrote on Sep 26, 2006 8:02 PM:Why do you say confessions create a weak case? Studies show 99% of them are truthful. Look at J.P. Blair's article in Volume 20 of the Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology (collecting studies). Confessions were long considered the absolutely strongest form of evidence in a criminal case, the so-called "queen of proofs." A case with nothing more than a confession is very strong. When you have a dead body, Iraqi testimony, and who knows what else, you have an even stronger case. What am I missing? What evidence do you see that casts any doubt on the prosecution's charges? There is none, just empty bluster by the defendants' parents and their lawyers . . . in other words, people with no credibility.

mark wrote on Sep 26, 2006 10:50 PM:There are confessions and then there are confessions. The only thing that the general public knows for certain is that what the prosecutors in this case possess are not transcripts of the defendants in their own words. It has already been entered into evidence that one or more of the investigators prepared the statements, in their own words, then procured one or more of the defendants signatures on them. They may have signed them for a variety of reasons. One, the disorientation of being pulled directly from a very hot combat zone where Marines go sometimes months without more than a few hours sleep per day. Accused of murder, threatened with death and questioned for hours. Then, and this is just conjuncture on my part because the NCIS does not record their interrogations, told to sign the paper and they can go back to their unit, or home, or whatever false promise that can be used to get a signature on a piece of paper. Also confessions not born out by or even contradicted by other evidence are not as strong as you imagine. I've given my theory as to why this case has been allowed to take the path it has. I feel pretty confident these "confessions" will not in the end carry much weight absent plenty of good physical evidence and/or credible eyewitness accounts.

To Harry wrote on Sep 27, 2006 12:52 AM:You could not be any further off base. I have my opinion but it is just that, an opinion and until those men are convicted or cleared I will keep it to myself. I am not glued to any TV because I am here fighting for your freedoms an safety. Do all of us a favor and show a little respect for those of us in uniform and keep your OPINIONS to yourself or air them in a place that does not demoralize those of us who freely and voluntarily serve and defend this nation. I read the articles on line because it is my only connection to the world. Stop and think about who and how you may be impacting by all this banter. I am PROUD of what I am contributing to this world. What are you contributing and sacrificing! I bet the sacrifices that my family and I are making are way more than the ones you would sacrifice by keeping your opinions to yourself.

usmc26 wrote on Sep 27, 2006 7:42 AM:God bless our military men and women everywhere for their service. The Marines are no longer, "The Few, The Proud, The Marines.." anymore. What I don't understand is why do they have to be locked up while awaiting their Article 32? The USMC has given themselves a black eye for treating their Marines so shabbily.

Harry wrote on Sep 27, 2006 8:22 AM:To the person who posted at 12:52 and addressed his comments "To Harry": I am sorry if my posts and opinions have a demoralizing impact on you or if you find them disrespectful. That is not my intent. However I will not keep my opinions to myself and I will not take my opinions elsewhere. It is my impression that these are community opinion boards, not a military support web site. I would not go on to a Military support site to argue or detract from the purpose of the site, but I feel it is my right and indeed my duty to express my opinion here. I do not recognize that those fighting in Iraq are serving America or making her safer or freer. I believe the opposite; each day in Iraq we become more at risk and the terrorists grow stronger. I understand that you believe in what you do and are Proud of your course of action. I am PROUD to have been a committed witness for peace and freedom for more than 40 years. I sincerely pray for a peaceful resolution to this horrendous and unnecessary war. I pray for your safe return and I wish you and your family well.

Disillusioned Majority wrote on Sep 27, 2006 10:15 AM:More than 60% of Americans feel this war was and is a mistake. There is plenty of disagreement about the best way to get out of it--but a large majority of Americans do not support this war. We know it is not making America safer!

AW4CRYINOUTLOUD wrote on Sep 27, 2006 6:01 PM:To the guy who wrote To mark on Sept. 26 at 8:02PM: To quote you...("When you have a dead body, Iraqi testimony, and who knows what else, you have an even stronger case. What am I missing? What evidence do you see that casts any doubt on the prosecution's charges?"). Well Spud. 1.There would be a dead body because he was shot in a firefight. 2. Iraqi testimony? Good gravy man. How do you know they aren't insurgents? Do you take their word over your own countrymen? 3.You ask what you are missing and what evidence is there that casts doubt on the prosecution? Try reading the June 5, 2006 Washington Post report by their 'special investigators' who 'interviewed' the so-called witnesses. The witnesses story changes right there in the same article, on the same page. Just Google it. You'll find it "IF" you want to. There is also a CNN transcript to Paula Zahn show that also discredits the so-called witnesses. Here's a line from the Terrorist Training Manual....Other missions consist of the following: #5. "Spreading rumors and writing statements that instigate people against the enemy." There you go; you're making them happy!!!I could go on but my blogs get too long. Mark is Right On!!!

Harry wrote on Sep 27, 2006 9:41 PM:who do they have writing their training manuals, Karl Rove? I don't even know if that "TTM" is for real but I do know that it will not stop me from expressing my opinions. I would be ashamed of you if you were bullied into not expressing your opinions and rest assured I will express mine.

AW4CRYINOUTLOUD wrote on Sep 27, 2006 11:00 PM:To Harry: Who told you not to express your opinions??? Wasn't me!!!Google and check for yourself. I believe that as much as I believe a bleedin heart like someone who can't even stand up for his own countrymen. Since you named Karl Rove it's obvious where you're coming from; therefore useless to go any further when dealing with a closed mind.

Harry wrote on Sep 28, 2006 7:34 AM:I did google it and read parts of it. I don't deny the terrorist threat but I am far more concerned with the full assault on the American Constitution and the role of America as defenders of torture and pre-emptive strikes than I am about that TTM. The Bush Administration has no regard for the values that are the most precious.

Roach wrote on Sep 28, 2006 11:29 AM:Here's some basic logic for you folks: just because a terrorist somewhere once wrote in a manual that terrorists should lie as part of a propaganda/disinformation campaign does not mean that these particular Iraqis are terrorists, nor does it mean they're lying. Other than the fact this city has a lot of Sunnis in it, there is no evidence Awad, his family, or any other Iraqi in that neighborhood is a terrorist or, in this instance, is lying. This is reinforced by the fact so widely ignored by these Marines's supporters that three of the eight accused confessed under conditions described under oath by NCIS as perfectly consistent with SOP. So this sounds like a prima facie case to me and good reason to quit criticizing NCIS, the JAG, Mattis, and anyone else involved in this prosecution.

Jim-USN-Retired wrote on Sep 28, 2006 11:47 AM:Until PROVEN BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT, I find these men innocent of any crime. Isn't that part of what the United States of America is all about? That said, I've heard of nor seen anything that would PROVE TO ME BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT that these men are guilty of anything but serving their country honorably. To you Marines a loud Semper Fi from a Swab Jocky!

Harry wrote on Sep 28, 2006 1:28 PM:Jim: It is a bit early to say you haven't seen or heard anything....The presentation of evidence in the setting of a court martial has yet to begin! So far all we have heard is the clamor of friends and family and those who would condone mass murder of Iraqis babies and invalids if it were done by Marines.

Amy wrote on Sep 28, 2006 8:44 PM:This whole situation make me sick. These men would die to protect our country and they are not being revered like our soilders should. Any rational person know that during times of war and combat, these men (and women) have to use their experience and instinct to make a quick decision. If one of these men ACTUALLY killed this man, we know it was an accident (innocents die during war) or had a very good reason. Why are they being treated like convicts with no real evidence??!!!! Rapists and murders in our jails get better treatment!

Sick and Disgusted wrote on Sep 28, 2006 9:39 PM:If it was your mother or grandmother or father you might feel differently. "Rationality" might be different from humane or even human.

Scraping Bottom wrote on Sep 28, 2006 9:41 PM:only your non human status could be responsible for your attitude. You are more ignorant and less to be pitied or feared.

OurGovSUCKS! wrote on Sep 28, 2006 11:38 PM:this is such BS how can we be prosicuting our own troops who are out risking their lives defending you and me. These men deserve all the praise in the world for protecting us and our children and i am truely ashamed to be part of such a sick and twisted country that would do this. although i am not a religous person, my love and prayers go out to these kids/soldiers god bless

AW4CRYINOUTLOUD wrote on Sep 28, 2006 11:41 PM:In defense of Jim/To Harry...To tell Jim (someone who served his country) that "so far all we have heard is the clamor of friends and family and those who would condone mass murder of Iraqi babies and invalids"...Harry, you have reached the bottom of the barrel. It is disgusting as well as insulting. You, of course, include me in there, because I don't for one minute take the word of the Iraqi's over my own. I begin to think that your name is definitely not Harry. Sounds like you are living in the wrong country. I'd be proud to buy you a one way ticket to Iraq. I think you'd fit in well there. If the insurgents read your blogs I'll bet they're just "allah allah achbar"ing themselves silly. Why don't You go over there with the lying, IED building, RPG launching terrorists. Tell them you believe every word that comes out of their mouths. Tell them that you don't believe young men who fight for OUR country.

To Harry who knows Nothing! wrote on Sep 29, 2006 12:55 AM:My God man, you talk like you were there!! First...there is No evidence that these Iraqis were NOT insurgents. Second...No one confessed to anything. Third...Clamor of the families..excuse me, but these guys' families KNOW these guys better than anyone...YOU DO NOT KNOW A N Y T H I N G about them other than a twisted story that has been presented by media and NOT FACTS! I suppose you think you KNOW their families well enough to have already decided that they condone mass murder. You are such a fool. You and Roach follow this like it's a soap opera and can't wait to jump to your computers and start your unfounded CLAMOR of ignorance. Just remember....YOU WEREN'T THERE, THEREFORE YOU KNOW NOTHING!

Rick wrote on Sep 29, 2006 4:46 AM:These guys - our finest are being treated worse than the scum they have at Gitmo ! All on the word of the enemy. These people hate us and would do or say anything to kill off our people. Imagine if we did this to our troops fighting the Japanese or Germans on the hear say of the enemy during WWII ! The General is a disgrace to the uniform of this country for even putting them on trial ! The undo hardship he put on their families, all because he is afraid to tell the politicians that he won't put them on trial. I'm a DAV and my family has served this country in every generation since 1656 but I told my son don't! They have no loyalty to this nation.

Tina wrote on Sep 29, 2006 4:56 AM:I can't believe these cases. I remember reading that the US government has been paying off the Iraquis for every accidental death and for destruction of property out of our tax money but they don't pay for the death of terrorists. So not only are the people in this town against the US but they watch their neighbors collecting money from the US. So why not them? They say "our relative got killed, give us money." The US asks "was he a terrorist?" they say "no way, now give us the money". And the US like a dummy, like everyone in the world is a boyscout who swears on a bible, and not a person from a cultural background of carpet trading and Arabian horse trading, says "oh they said so so it must be so". This is what comes of teaching the Washington "who cut down the cherry tree?" story in elementary school even though the story was false. So they don't do forensics, and they don't have professionals study the body and the bullets or whatever nor the premises and they charge idealistic kids with these crimes. Then they spend more of our taxpayer money to set up a media center so the media can have access to the trial. There is something wrong with this picture. Then you have the dems jumping up and down about the rights of arrested terrorists. Geeeeeez! Something is wrong. Something is very wrong. When they teach diversity in classrooms they should include that different societies have different value systems, especially when they hate your guts and want to kill you and hurt you. I wonder if an Iraqui can get 72 virgins for killing American soldiers by hanging, without having to fire a shot, they just get the US military to do it, by lying. So to summarize: the winners get to hurt Americans, they have finanical incentive to do so, and our boys were not given access to the body and in other case bodies to study them and set up a proper defense. Remember the fauxtography scandal where they found that bodies were being brought from the morgue and set up to make it look like a killing? Hello? Is anyone there with a brain?

jeff wrote on Sep 29, 2006 7:43 AM:This is DISGUSTING. These heroes are being held, and prosecuted for doing there job. Based on an "eyewitness" from the village in which this BATTLE occured. It is impossible for 8 soldiers to commit this act. As a former Army infantry vet, I am sick to think the U.S. Marine corp. brass are using these great men as scape goats, i.e.Abu Grab Why doesn't Rumsfeld step in? or Bush? These are not there kids, nor are they the kids of most white collar workers. Thses families are going BANKRUPT. Yet the terrorist prisoners at Guitmo get T.V.,get to pray together, eat special meals etc....... Let's help these heroes Not hold them up as examples of how "fair" the U.S. is. I did vote for Bush last election, but this is B.S.

jm wrote on Sep 29, 2006 7:44 AM:This is DISGUSTING. These heroes are being held, and prosecuted for doing there job. Based on an "eyewitness" from the village in which this BATTLE occured. It is impossible for 8 soldiers to commit this act. As a former Army infantry vet, I am sick to think the U.S. Marine corp. brass are using these great men as scape goats, i.e.Abu Grab Why doesn't Rumsfeld step in? or Bush? These are not there kids, nor are they the kids of most white collar workers. Thses families are going BANKRUPT. Yet the terrorist prisoners at Guitmo get T.V.,get to pray together, eat special meals etc....... Let's help these heroes Not hold them up as examples of how "fair" the U.S. is. I did vote for Bush last election, but this is B.S.

calm down wrote on Sep 29, 2006 7:56 AM:Everyone needs to calm down and let the truth come out at trial. If these men did not do what they are accused of doing -- seeking out a crippled man, binding his hands and feet, stuffing him in a hole, shooting him and covering it up -- then they and their lawyers should be the first to speak up and show that they are innocent. If they did do those things, they are acts of criminal conduct, not justifiable acts of war. We cannot assume what happened, and every one of these men deserves a good defense. But we cannot absolve the Marines or their commanders automatically because they are at war. We must hold ourselves to the same moral standards to which we hold those who are fighting us. If a gang of Iraquis did this to an American soldier, they'd probably be killed by us. These Marines are getting a chance to explain themselves. Let's just listen to them rather than rushing to judgement about whether they are murderers or heroes.

Harry wrote on Sep 29, 2006 9:16 AM:Thank you "calm down" yours is the first measured, non inflamatory post in weeks (and I very much include my own in that) I am going to try to follow your advice and "calm down".

WesleyFB wrote on Sep 29, 2006 10:50 AM:Regardless we need to weigh a few things here, these marines are under constant danger from an enemy that doesn't wear a uniform, lots of so-called innocent civilians in fact are secret warriors, heck the children have even been recruited to lure soldiers into areas where the adults then attack them. This is a vicious war and also you can NEVER forget the brutality of the people there cutting heads off, burning our people and dragging their bodies through the streets.. I too would also be very cautious and YES! better one of them die than me! what is wrong with some of you liberal America-Hating communists in here who have more respect for murdering headcutters than the warriors that protect your borders and fight our wars for YOU! Shame! and God Bless America!

soldier's mom wrote on Sep 29, 2006 11:29 AM:These precious, young Marines were hounded into "confessing" after hours of interrogation without water, bathroom breaks or sleep. Terrorists thugs at Guantanamo have more rights than our own boys. God help us! It is Col. Navarre who should be face court martial for denying them basic civil rights. I thank God for our MEN in uniform who protect us against the evil enemy whose goal is the end of western civilization. May the cowards who hide behind the backs of the real men one day realize that killing the enemy in time of war is not murder. God bless our troops!

jason wrote on Sep 29, 2006 11:54 AM:So roach have you ever served in the military or done anything honorable. My guess is NO!! Well I have and I know what it is like to have a bond and brotherhood with the greatest men and women in the world.

to soldiers mom wrote on Sep 29, 2006 12:15 PM:the news today had the story of a man held at guantanamo for the past year without charges and he is still chained to the floor of his solitary cell -- please, I don't think the Marines at Camp Pendleton are chaining the 8 to the floor of their cells and they haven't been in solitary for years with no end in sight. They haven't been deprived of sleep or subjected to freezing. "Get off the cross. we need the wood".

Patriot wrote on Sep 29, 2006 12:54 PM:In response to the one who responded to soldier's mom: It's a little difficult to understand how an American can identify more closely with cold-blooded terrorists who would love to saw your block head off than with your own countrymen. Thank God our protection doesn't depend on angry, self-loathing fools such as yourself.

Roach wrote on Sep 29, 2006 2:21 PM:From the Navy Jag website: "If this is the option you choose, then your statement (whether verbal or in writing) can later be introduced into evidence against you by the government at your court-martial. This is very strong evidence of guilt, because people do not usually confess to doing something that they didn’t really do. Although there are certainly cases where people do make false confessions, this is really the exception not the rule. It is significantly easier for the government to obtain a conviction against someone who confesses to committing a crime than against someone who remains silent. As stated previously, the government may still be able to convict you without a confession, but it must do so based on evidence other than what came out of your mouth." This website is designed to provide objective advice to criminally accused sailors and Marines. Three out of eight Marines accused of a murder falsely will not confess falsely. The only logical conclusion is that they confessed truthfully because they did what they're accused of.

AW4CRYINOUTLOUD wrote on Sep 29, 2006 4:56 PM:AW "Roach". What do you mean "the only 'logical' conclusion is that they confessed truthfully"....Who are you trying to be; Mr. Spock? You wouldn't recognize 'logic' if it jumped up and bit you in your "antenna". Excerpts from a military article; Jurisdiction, ROE & the Rules of Deadly Force: "American military personnel unselfishly lay down their lives in the line of duty. This nation owes them the best protection we can provide. In doing the right thing-protecting the liberty of others- they should not risk losing their own liberty in a foreign or domestic jail." It goes on to say that "The Standing ROE and Rules of Deadly Force merely establish policy; they do not supercede law. Nonetheless, they imperil the liberty of military personnel by authorizing force that does not comply with the law, exposing them to criminal liability and severe penalties." There is more but I don't want to overload your 'logical' brain. This was written in 2000'. How soon they forget!!!!

John1 to AW4 wrote on Sep 29, 2006 8:57 PM:AW4: Trying to explain logic to Roach is an impossible task.Roach is a master of a glib pseudo-intellectualism inculcated in him by some master of the craft. Roach learned his lessons well. He attempts to draw conclusions from legal theorisms as disparate as comparisons between apples and carp. Roach then attempts to paste these defective conclusions in the minds of those unfortunate enough to read his drivel. The whole case of the Innocent Eight is a study in deprivation of due process, a jump to conclusions based on zero evidence and a Quixotic search for a politically correct outcome.

Hey Roach wrote on Sep 29, 2006 9:15 PM:Read the post above "To Harry who knows NOTHING" It also applies to you. YOU were not present at these "interrogations" either! Therefore, YOU KNOW NOTHING of what went on it there!!

Harry wrote on Sep 30, 2006 9:46 AM:Who was present at the interrogations? This is why the post from "Calm Down" is so important. The reams and reams of posts (mine included) about guilt or innocence all share one thing in common, they are only opinions.

R2D2 wrote on Sep 30, 2006 10:06 AM:According to their defense lawyers, the brass from the top tried to force them to confess, so if they did confess the confessions should be dismissed

Roach wrote on Sep 30, 2006 10:17 AM:I do not have perfect knowedge, but that doesn't mean I know nothing at all. Most "knowledge" in life is probabilistic in nature. The guy who doesn't speak English probably isn't a citizen. The guy breaking in at night probably means me harm. AW4 and John1 are confusing certainty with knowledge generally. I know that without evidence to the contrary, these confessions are like most other confessions rather than being a gross deviation from them. (For example, none of us assumes they spoke Chinese in the interrogtion room. We can even say we "know" that, can't we?) One can reasonably say if 99.9% of the time X happens, then X happened in this case. One cannot say because 1% of the time Y happens, Y happened in this case. That's the issue. Do you not agree most times confessions are reliable, they are rarely excluded, false confessions are rare (as per the Navy JAG website and varoius studies), and therefore, without knowing more, we can assume these confessions were legitimate and truthful until it's shown otherwise. And to be shown otherwise, the defense will have to proffer real evidence rather than self-serving and non-testimonial statements by lawyers. Instead, some of you all want to defame the prosecutors, the JAG, Gen. Mattis, and the SJA all on the basis of a very small .1% possibility that these confessions are not reliable . . . all the while saying there is not evidence, as if confessions were not the most important evidence in this and every other case. Well a .1% possibility (really .001% or 1 in 100,000 here b/c it's times three confessions) is not a reasonable doubt about what happened.

Jay wrote on Sep 30, 2006 1:56 PM:To John 1: Sorry. As I stated in another blog I have been too busy all week to write. Yes. We have ALL lowered ourselves to insult and counter-insult in these blogs. One begets another. I guess it is human nature. I find it notable though that you decry ROACH but support the disconnected and truly weird ramblings of "AW4...". Double-standard? Yeah, I think so. As for ROACH spending an "inordinate amount of time deriding" the "Pendeleton 8": Dont you do the same thing on your site in their defence? What business is it of yours how much time he spends doing something LEGAL? Who in this nation is spending more of an "inordinate amount of time" publicizing their opinion on this issue than you? Answer: No one. You are the King of the noise-makers on this matter. Please bear in mind your own hypocracy.

To Wesley wrote on Sep 30, 2006 3:25 PM:The hatred of the communists keeps creeping into the posts--we were taught to hate them back in the 60 thru the 80's, but the "pinko godless commies" are now passe; its the radical muslims you need to hate now. Get with the program. You get an honerable mention for the "murdering headcutters" tho we might be able to use that.

John1 to Jay wrote on Sep 30, 2006 4:06 PM:I neither support nor condemn AW4's posts. My only point is that Roach's attempts at "logic" are defective. Moreover, I feel no regret in going after his written spewings.

John1 to Roach wrote on Sep 30, 2006 4:10 PM:Roach, You know more about less than anyone I know. You know especially little about statistical inference and extraordinarily little about Bayesian inference and calculating probability of independent and dependent events.

AW4CRYINOUTLOUD wrote on Sep 30, 2006 5:31 PM:To John 1:Thanks for the reply. I'm starting to get dizzy trying to understand the jibberish of Roach and Jay. I don't have a lot of fancy words. I only know that I support Pfc. John and all of the Innocent Eight; First of all because they are Americans. Secondly, because they are Marines; which in my estimation means that they are the best of this country. Lastly; I am a very inquisitive person (without the fancy vocabulary) and I have been all over the internet researching it. Not ONE person during my blogging has had the backbone to answer me on reporting by the media who say that they "interviewed" the so-called witnesses. The Washington Post has two different accounts by the family and neighbors of the deceased. CNN sent transcripts 'live' to Paula Zahn's show at the time they "interviewed" the so-called witnesses. If "I" can pick up on their screw ups, then all the journalists with all the fancy words should have been able to. UNLESS they just didn't give a 'darn'. They were more interested in creating drama and getting the story out first; causing harm to our very own. ANYONE can go back and read the articles and , if they really care about the truth, find that that there was one hell of a 'rush to judgement'. These are very young guys who had faith in their mentors and in those of power over them. They believed in this country and its people, so for ANY American to not give them the benefit of the doubt, to not 'care' whether or not they are being set up by the Iraqi's, to not care whether or not the media screwed up, is shameful. And all the fancy blowhard jibberish spewed will only make same people look as unamerican as they sound. God Bless you John 1. You have class. You stand up for OUR Marines and Navy Corpsman and you do it with pride and honor.

Harry wrote on Oct 4, 2006 8:44 AM:OMG she's gonna spew again. And a large amount of spew at that! AW4CRYINOUTLOUD may not have a fancy vocabulary, but she gets maximum utility of the few "fancy words" she can find in her thesaurus. (spew) She has told us she proof reads every thing she writes, an old habit from her time at the FBI: I wonder what rules of capitalization she utilizes. Please note: judgment is the prefered variation, not judgement, gibberish not jibberish, un-American not unamerican. I really don't think that is important, except for showing proper respect for our country by capitalizing America; but you were quite judgmental of others and cited your professional training so I thought I would help you keep up your standards.

Harry wrote on Oct 4, 2006 9:59 AM:John1 if you are going to condemn or ridicule Roach, or anyone who doesn't know much about "Bayesian inference" and probability,