Phil wrote on Oct 11, 2006 10:39 PM:As I said when the corpsman cut his deal, expect more. This is a game of musical chairs and none of these guys should want to be without a chair when the music stops. My bet, the Corps is pointing for the SNCO present. Semper Fi!

Roach wrote on Oct 12, 2006 7:15 AM:Something defies imagination here, though, if we think all these guys are cutting deals just to save their own skin. Do you really think they would not only lie, but lie in a way that sends one of their squad-mates to prison for a very long time just to save their skin? It does make sense that some of these guys will minimize their own role in copping a plea; I think it's possible Bacos' "I tried to stop them" testimony was not entirely true (though it may be, I just don't know). But I really can't believe that a squad of Marines would have three or four of their members lying straight through their teeth in a way that potentially gets their fire team leaders and squad leader sent up the river for 20 to 30 years. If that's believable--and I don't think it is--how much more believable is it that they killed an Iraqi out of frustration over their inability to find an insurgent. The latter seems far more natural, even for otherwise normal people stuck in a war zone, then a complete breakdown of group loyalty and lies on behalf of a prosecutor. The fact some of these guys said a similar story when one-on-one with the NCIS only reinforces the probability any testimony through a deal is truthful. Supporters said that these guys were a band of brothers and Marines with honor who would not take a plea if it meant telling a dishonorable lie simply to forward their own interest. I don't think it's going out on a limb to say that if it meant lying none of these guys would testify against his squad-mates just to save his own skin, and certainly not three or four of them, and certainly not three or four at the expense of their former buddies.

Morallyright1 wrote on Oct 12, 2006 8:44 AM:Does it not occur to anyone that such generalized statements like that of Ms. Duignan can change the tides of a case like this? But, then so does the sensationalism of the title of the article as well as all that was contained therein. I hope someday that the favor can be returned to those who so casually throw their opinions around, and it is your life that hangs in the balance.

AW4CRYINOUTLOUD wrote on Oct 12, 2006 11:13 AM:Hey Phil: I'm clueless on this; what does SNCO stand for? I went to bed last night trying to figure it out. Not having much luck with that.Thanks from one of many who support ALL of you.

to MR1 wrote on Oct 12, 2006 11:55 AM:Morallyright 1--some humble name there--does it occur to you that in every trial in history that has any kind of public interest has dealt with this problem of news and opinion reporting, and that there is a well established procedure called voir dire to deal with it, where both sides' counsel and the judge can strike jurors for casue or no reason at all, if they think they'll bias the proceedings? Did it also occur to you, perhaps, that in a free country like the US we're entitled to know when public servants, including those in the military, break the law? You realize I hope that they're public servants, responsible to the public and our publicly elected commander in chief and his subordinates and are not superior to the people in terms of their rights (including laws against murder), I hope. The people have sovereignty and a right to expect those who work for the government to follow the laws, wouldn't you agree? If you don't like it, though, there are still some military dictatorships around the world including Cuba and NK, where the people are expected to lick the soldiers' boots and follow their whim and the whim of their dictatorial leaders and recognize their superiority as a class to the people as a whole. Your thinking is why the founders warned against standing armies; certain servile people want to give up their freedom to the military and erect them as a warrior aristocracy. Sorry, this isn't pre-Magna-Charta England.

TP wrote on Oct 12, 2006 12:26 PM:Duignan’s statement isn't a revelation. Anyone who's watched an episode of Law & Order knows that the first one to plea bargain gets the best deal. It's hardly a "tide changing" comment. I don't see any real reason for the prosecution to offer any more deals. Oh, and Roach I think it was reported that Baco’s admitted he did NOT try to stop them, but wished he had.

Harry wrote on Oct 12, 2006 12:44 PM:We really need to be patient and let it play out. It may be that others will make a deal regarding the charges, or they might pled Not Guilty and stand trial. I think Roach's comments make a lot of sense, but I am willing to wait and see how the legal system works. We don't know the evidence and not one of us knows what happened.

Goatskull wrote on Oct 12, 2006 2:10 PM:To Harry, Here here! Could not say it better.

Has a hint wrote on Oct 12, 2006 2:16 PM:SNCO. Staff Non-commissioned Officer. That would be your Sergeant and upwards. E6. The elders, the leaders. The crud may happen downstream, but it flows upstream to the mentors who (allowed it) to happen.

AW4CRYINOUTLOUD wrote on Oct 12, 2006 2:17 PM:Oh my goodness! First I read MR1's comment about Kathleen Duignan and I had not thought much about it. Then I read the blog TO MR1. The attitude toward MR1 bothered me so I went to the site of the NIMJ itself. Now you know why I say "AW4CRYINOUYLOUD". This is a group of people who have NO influence in a military court of law. They say they are a non-profit group devoted to "educating" the public about the military justice system. If I want to be educated on the military I will do as I have been; Researching actual military law. Not what some group "tells" me to believe. Like the female NCIS investigator "told" the Marine what had happened. Under Ms. Duignan's Bio it says the organization is to "advance the fair administration of military justice". WOW, isn't that a relief for non-thinkers? It also says NIMJ does "not" provide legal services or "represent individuals". Then why are they interfering in this mess and making comments to try and influence people? It goes on to say that "It does, however, "comment" on regulations and legislation, and regularly appears as an amicus curiae (friend of the court) in cases raising important issues of military justice law and policy." Friend of the Court? Well, heck. How about somebody being a Friend of the Persecuted? Most of NIMJ's so-called cases involve military 'Commissions'; like those who oppose the detainee program at Gitmo.; which is under the rules of Military Commissions, NOT Military Courts-Martial. There seems to be more concern for the 'bad guys' at Gitmo than for our own military. Where the heck is the "justice" in that? Wonder if Murtha will be joining this organization. And when did our troops become "public servants"? We the public, have no authority over them. Their oath is to their country and to their military. They are under "Military" rule and law; which is "based" on civilian law. If we civilians in this country would butt out and let our troops do what they were trained to do, without hanging over their shoulder watching every move they make, we could just kick back, feel safe, and be cottonpickin grateful that they are there for us, standing between us and the those who want to behead us.

to TP wrote on Oct 12, 2006 2:17 PM:There are at least several reasons the prosecution would offer additional deals: the more eye-witness testimony against the SNCOs (Senior Non-Commissioned Officers) the more likely the conviction, or the more pressure on the SNCOs to testify against any higher-ups that may be involved in the apparent systemic breakdown of this unit; the Marine Corps must take partial responsibility for the situation, especially to those who joined the unit most recently; finally, with Haditha looming, the more deals, the fewer courts martial, and the faster the courts martial that are conducted, so they can get this incident off the table to make room for the next cycle of charges, if there are any. And Bacos did say he made an attempt to stop them but was rebuffed by Magincalda for being weak.

Harry wrote on Oct 12, 2006 2:18 PM:(I figured out the Non Commission Officer but had to go to Google to get the "Staff".)

Jay wrote on Oct 12, 2006 2:45 PM:To Harry, Roach, Goat and all: Would like to comment but the on-line editor wont let me. He's punishing me again for complaining about his handling of this site. Truth? Justice? These Marines are getting WAY more of it than the NCT gives.

AW4CRYINOUTLOUD wrote on Oct 12, 2006 4:10 PM:To Has a hint: Thanks. Gads, now I have to learn rank. Harry was way ahead of me. I didn't even get out of the gate on that one.

Harry wrote on Oct 12, 2006 4:26 PM:The following quote frm this blog is one of the most dangerous and dispicable things I have ever read. It is not moral relativism it is flat our immoral! "If we civilians in this country would butt out and let our troops do what they were trained to do, without hanging over their shoulder watching every move they make, we could just kick back, feel safe, and be cottonpickin grateful that they are there for us, standing between us and the those who want to behead us." I am sure there were Bosnian Serbs who said that and Pakistani and Afgans who said that; I imagine there were Iraqis who said that as the Kurds were gassed; I am sure that many Russians said that during the Soviet era and the subjugation of Eastern Europe, and good and decent Germans' might have said that as the troops marched into Poland, Austria, and France and as the trains rolled thru their towns to Auchwitz. Please don't turn away and not look!!!!! The Constitution of the United States of America gives us civilian control of our armed forces for a very good reason.

John1 to Harry wrote on Oct 12, 2006 4:55 PM:Harry, Not to be picayune, but in your note re: "Staff NCO"- actually none of the eight were staff NCO's. There was a staff NCO for the platoon and he was not at Hamdania. In this case, the SNCO's are Sgt Hutchins and Cpl Thomas.

Harry wrote on Oct 12, 2006 6:09 PM:John if you feel a need to be petty, pedantic and picayune, go right ahead. I can take it. You might have missed it but the question was what does SNCO mean? It was sort of a military trivia. I guessed, “Non Commissioned Officer” and Google led me to "Staff". If that is wrong it really doesn’t matter much in the scheme of things. You go ahead and worry about the small stuff, and correcting others over minutia if that empowers you; it doesn’t much matter to me.

AW4CRYINOUTLOUD wrote on Oct 12, 2006 6:39 PM:Well; not only have I been accused of "servicing the troops', now I'm "dangerous" and "despicable" and "flat out immoral". I thought that kind of verbage was in the past. Apparently not. I was trying to disagree and make my point firmly, but without "gutter sniping". I never realized that I was such a colorful person; to bring out so much contempt in another. I guess I'm just "gifted." Don't know whether to be happy or sad about that one!

Arthur wrote on Oct 12, 2006 6:45 PM:All I want to say is: how many of you are old enough to know what really happened during WWII, in Korea and Vietnam. None of us were there, don't judge these Marines. If I were Pres. Bush I would free them. I pray they all stand together and let Bacos receive his due. What is his backgound anyhow?

wow Harry wrote on Oct 12, 2006 7:26 PM:"it doesn’t much matter to me"? -- me thinks thou protesteth too much

john1 to harry wrote on Oct 12, 2006 8:12 PM:whoa there, Tex! I brought up the specific because it makes a difference. Staff NCO's do not usually act as squad and fire team leaders, and in Kilo Co of 3\5, the staff NCO's (ssgt, gunnery sgt, sgtmajor) were not a part of the unit action in and around Hamdania.

TP wrote on Oct 12, 2006 9:11 PM:Thanks to the person writing why the prosecution might make additional deals. Those reasons make sense. I hope that's what happens. And I stand corrected on Baco's statement.

to Aw4 etc. wrote on Oct 12, 2006 9:57 PM:In the United States the people are sovereign and the military is accountable to them. They are public servants. They need to fight the way the laws say they do or be punished. If you don't like this system, you should move to Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, or some other totalitarian society that makes a cult of obedience and deference to the military. The military deserves respecdt and sympathy for the conditions it labors under, but it doesn't deserve a blank check. The laws are superior to the military and must remain so if we're to be a free country who fights wars in an honorable way.

Harry wrote on Oct 12, 2006 10:10 PM:John1 you have totally lost me. I will follow my own advice and await and follow the court martial process. I confess that I am less knowledgable about things military, than any person who contributes to this blog, I have no idea what all the kilo co and gunnery and sgtmajor means and I truthfully am not going to start researching it. I would rather re-read what Titch Nat Han wrote about Peace is the Way. I don't take back a word I wrote on 4:26. I think that statement was positively chilling and all the adjectives I used plus more.

Phil wrote on Oct 12, 2006 10:49 PM:Not Staff NCO, SNCO stands for Senior NCO in this case. No Staff NCOs were on scene. La Musica is about to stop. Semper Fi!

John1 to Harry wrote on Oct 13, 2006 6:47 AM:Harry, I agree with you that citizen oversight of the military is a founding proposition of our Constitution and country. Public scrutiny of the Government's handling and prosecution of the Pendleton Eight's case is part and parcel of that oversight, wouldn't you also agree?

Unreasonable Reason? wrote on Oct 13, 2006 7:13 AM:The soldiers in question should be sent back to the front lines with medals. They are prosecuting the war against the enemy. When the enemy refuses to wear a uniform and fights in an insurgent style, they subject the civilian populace to the status of the enemy. If the civilian populace does not control their own countrymen once their army is defeated, they themselves should become the next logical target. When the question of life and death come into play there really aren't any morals. The insurgents are there to kill our soldiers. We have tried reasonable, they only understand base brutality. Do you think Japan and Germany would have given up if we had not crushed a large amount of their citizens first?

Suspicious wrote on Oct 13, 2006 8:22 AM: What is his backgound anyhow?" What does this mean? What is his background anyhow???????????????

Harry wrote on Oct 13, 2006 11:10 AM:John1, Yes I do agree with you, regarding the accused men being held at Camp Pendleton. You may have noticed that I am very suspicious of the motives, statements and procedures of our government and I have no natural inclination to trust the armed forces. I consider the current government to be grossly dishonest, and as it is in free fall at the present, to be apt to do almost anything. The President has shown that he doesn't consider the Constitution to be binding on him, so I doubt he considers military law or codes of conduct to have any efficacy.

Reality Check wrote on Oct 13, 2006 11:54 AM:"If the civilian populace does not control their own countrymen once their army is defeated, they themselves should become the next logical target." Nice way to blame the victim there. Who should control them: old ladies and children? The Ba'athists whom we fired from police and military posts? The military-age males we keep in Abu Ghraib without charges for months at a time. Actually it's the occupying power's duty to keep order under well established international law (and common sense), but George Bush and his incompetent subordiante Rumsfeld engineered this war on the cheap. So we never had enough troops to keep order and protect the populace. The Iraqis who helped us are constantly harassed and killed, and the whole country is completely in an anarchic state. And we wonder why the Iraqis are not grateful!?! We replaced Stalin's Russia with Somalia. At least under Hussein you knew you were OK if you steered clear of the government, politics, and Shia nationalism. We started this war; it was our job to put a government in place. We have failed miserably because our own leadership is incompetent and obsessed with democracy so much they though the Iraqis didn't require a normally sized occupation army. And our military had no coherent plan for occupation.

John1 to Reality Check wrote on Oct 13, 2006 12:51 PM:We turned Abu Ghraib over to the Iranians (oh, I mean Iraqi Shia Government).... US oversight in that prison is over.

Jay wrote on Oct 13, 2006 2:08 PM:To John1: With regard to your comment to Harry at 6:47 AM: You sound almost EXACTLY like Harry and I a couple of mos ago! It is so hypocrytical to jump on the bandwagon when you were the source of the the most anti-American, ant-Constitutional and oft times vile diatribes a short time back! I dont mind you coming to your senses. I applaud it but dont tell us that this was your opinion all along. Your previous statements are historical fact. You should try a shot at politics (wouldn't be surprised if you did. You made a cottage industry and cause cebre out of this and also must have something on the NCT to have them join your personal crusade of hate and war-monegering all this time). Like so many good right-wingers you've reinvented yourself as a believer in our system instead of the vociferous detractor of freedom of speech (for those that disagree with you) a short time ago. Must be that your getting close to making your son's "deal". Then he will be the "snitch" and that will be fine with you. By the way. How are you going to claim that your son was "totally innocent" of "ANY" crime (as you REPEATEDLY stated) when he is (presumably) about to confess to at least taking part in the cover-up? Refusing to report a conspiracy or a murder (or whatever happened) IS in itself a crime! I know you'll respond to me. You always do. You can't just take your medicine quietly and you'll NEVER (in my opinion) confess or apologize for this dissent that you have wrought upon us. Please don't bother.

AW4CRYINOUTLOUD wrote on Oct 13, 2006 2:21 PM: At first I didn't understand a couple of people who were so upset about my saying that if we (civilians) would butt out and let the troops do what they're trained to do without (civilians) hanging over their shoulder watching every move they make,etc....Then I realized they wee missing the point. I'm well aware that the Constitution provides civilian control in order to guard against potential usurpation of powers by the military. That's why a civilian President is Commander-in-Chief and why the War Powers Clause gave Congress the power to declare war. Agreed. I'm with you guys on that....BUT!....Once the President and Congress approve our going to war, the MILITARY has it's UCMJ, its ROE's, its strategies and plans for battle. WE (civilians) have no cottonpickin business interfering in that. We have no "sovereignty" over that. Sure; if we don't like what they do we can contact our Representatives here at home. THAT is our 'legal construct' for civilian control. The President can amend ROE's and Congress can do its part as representatives of us "civilians". That's why I said we could just kick back, feel safe, and be grateful for our troops. Now if some brave 'civilians' want to go over to Iraq and try to tell our troops want they don't like and what 'they' think the troops should do; go and declare your "civilian sovereignty" over them while they're in the middle of battle.

AW4CRYINOUTLOUD wrote on Oct 13, 2006 2:50 PM:With all "due"? respect for The Oct.12, 9:57PM comment toAW4: Whaddayamean the military "are public servants"? Please let me know where in the Constitution it says that. Or wherever it says that. The military doesn't have a "blank check". There wouldn't be guys in the brig, being presecuted, being denied access to the things they need for their defense. You say that civilian laws "are superior to the military". Hate to tell you; Military law is BASED on Civilian law, and goes beyond what is required in civilian law. Examples; the P8. Do you know how quick the ACLU would be suing civilian law enforcement if you or I were coerced and treated the way our Marines and Corpsman were? As for me moving to Cuba, Venezuela, or North Korea; Thanks, but I don't like cigars, can't stand Chavez, and Kim is too short. As for our country? The best on the planet!! Perfect? No! Need a lot of change? Oh yeah! But , my favorite colors are red, white, and blue. And, some day, let me know how one fights an "honorable" war. What might the rules be? That should be a real gem. OH gosh, I figured it out already...No ROE's. NO ENGAGEMENT!!

Harry wrote on Oct 13, 2006 3:42 PM:John1, We were the torturers in charge; our part was much more than providing "oversight". The abuses that we perpertrated on the Iraqi prisoners were unspeakable abominations and no doubt resulted in the deaths and maimings of many Americans. "Oversight" is what congress is supposed to exert over the Executive branch. At Abu Ghraib the United States was the offending power. It is because of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo that I so readily agreed to your question to me earlier, about the need for public scrutiny over the Government's conduct in its management of prisons and brigs and its commitment to justice. It is oversight when you keep your eye on things, review and advise or protest, it is criminality when we are the perpertrators of atrocities.

AW4CRYINOUTLOUD wrote on Oct 13, 2006 5:14 PM:Well: Good Grief!! I just read a post that is so laughable I almost fell out of my chair. I have read jibberish before but am truly fascinated by what appears to be a gut hate for one of the bloggers; one for whom I have great Respect. The depravity for one to accuse this honorable man as the source of anti-American, anti-constitutional, and vile diatribes is just sicko crud. To accuse NCT and an honorable man, of hate and war-mongering is equally sick. NCT publishes the news and allows all kinds to say what they want. The fact that NCT printed the sicko crud is "proof" that they are 'unbiased'. Live with it Jay!!! As for telling an honorable man that he should take a shot at politics. Guess what? Wouldn't that be refreshing? The man of whom you speak has never at any time insulted any of you. He has only corrected you on technical things. You know; like a teacher who has more intelligence than his student might do. He has shown more composure and restraint than some. A lot more than I have. And you have the pea brain gall to wonder why I would take the word of a United States Marine over any Iraqi. It's good to know that I am now a "vociferous detractor of freedom of speech". I guess you mean me too, since I am an American who voted for GW. According to your way of thinking that means I'm a "right winger'. Very fascinating. I just thought I was an American with opposing viewpoints from other Americans. My heart breaks every day when I hear of our own being hurt or lost. You DO NOT have a monopoly on that. OH HEY; I'll respond on the question of how one could claim one's son "was totally innocent of 'any' crime... when he is (presumably) about to confess." You answered your own question. YOU are the one doing the presuming. Who are YOU to PRESUME anything about what our Marine may or may not do? FYI; When one is innocent and there has been no crime...THERE IS NO COVER-UP!!! Why should the man you choose to insult worry about taking his medicine? That is for "sick" people. HE isn't the one who needs medicine JAY.

AW4CRYINOUTLOUD wrote on Oct 13, 2006 5:57 PM:Oh, I can't resist! "WE" were the torturers? "WE" are the perpetrators of atrocities? Acts committed by a 'few' of our people at Abu Ghraib brought shame to us and fanned a fire that was already burning. A fire that will never be put out until "WE" put it out. Atrocities? I won't list them. There are too many, and they pale in comparison to anything at AG. All Americans know about them. They still continue. Rather than turning on your own, why not write to Malaki and request that he get HIS stuff together, request that he have HIS people stand up and help us in our effort to make Iraq a country free of insurgency so that it will be an ally against these 'torturers'. HE knows how the insurgency tries to turn us against our own. Take all the animosity you've built up for whoever, for whatever reason, and turn it on the ones who attacked us on our soil. Stop the juvenile barbs against the father of one of OURS. Last time I heard (for those who keep telling us what the Constitution means), one is PRESUMED INNOCENT unless proven guilty. Jay knows the word presume, presumed, presumption,presumably.

John1 to Jay wrote on Oct 13, 2006 9:03 PM:Jay, I have always stated that PUBLIC scrutiny of this case and the military's actions were necessary. I have never opposed your freedom of speech,nor any others that disagree. Indeed, however, you and yours have denied that I have a right to the same freedom, however. Very predictably, you and your kind try to stop dissent and the exposition of opinion.What Harry stated is embodied in the US Constitution, so there is little to debate there. At no time have I ever stated anti-Constitutional nor anti-American statements. Whatever NCT's coverage has been, it has been their own, and your childish intimations are just that, childish.

John1 to Harry wrote on Oct 13, 2006 9:05 PM:Harry, Excuse my poor wording. What I meant in my statement is that the US no longer holds prisoners at Abu Ghraib; Iraq now holds the keys to the facility, so to speak. Merely a statement of what is now, not a statement of what was or what happened there.

John1 to Jay wrote on Oct 13, 2006 9:12 PM:Jay, my son and his legal team prepare for trial in March 2007. Your belittling him really makes not a whit of difference to and doesn't change that preparation. Next week will be very active news, I think, with the several Article 32's proceeding. You have apparently made a determination not to extend in return my offer of peace. So be it. Dissent is your way. You make a comment that I have brought "dissent" to these blogs. And what, by heavens, is WRONG with dissent? Such is also the foundation of my country. I do not believe you to be a citizen, so I do not ascribe American values to you. I could be mistaken, of course.

Sad_Day wrote on Oct 13, 2006 9:27 PM:They kept these men in solitary locked down like animals. Any man would break after such treatment. It's sad to see a government lean on a young man until he breaks. I remember reading Orwell in high school and having nightmares about the Soviets. Now I have nightmares about our own government.

AW4CRYINOUTLOUD wrote on Oct 14, 2006 5:25 PM:To: John1....OORAH!!! From a proud American.

Harrry wrote on Oct 14, 2006 6:04 PM:John1, Of course I accept what you meant and I am sorry I took you to task. I understand problems with wording, on more than one occasion I have been corrected, vilified and ridiculed for syntax and wording. (SNCO for instance.) Since we so often find ourselves in disagreement, I fear sometimes we are too quick to take offense or exception. There is so much we don't agree with; there should be more acceptances for the really non-important stuff.

John1 to Harry wrote on Oct 14, 2006 8:59 PM:Harry, I would bet that at the end of the day, we agree on more than either of us realize. Have a good Sunday.

Harry wrote on Oct 15, 2006 8:25 AM:I have that sense as well John1. I know that we both cherish our family and our children and that we both love our country and that we try to do right by both. I also know that we aren't overly influenced by public opinion but try to be true to our own values. I wish you and yours a good Sunday as well. Pacem!

Morallyright1 wrote on Oct 19, 2006 5:16 AM:To the Magna Carta expert...you are so right, the general public does have a right to the information, but not before the wheels of justice ie: the jury and judge get the information. Otherwise, our form of government is that of heathens....where everyone is out for themselves. And I do not believe that is the case here in the U.s. And since you are such an apparent staunch supporter of our good old government, then you can see how damaging deciding something in the media can be. We would be back to the hanging tree I am afraid. And just so you are fully aware....these men are going to be tried and judged not by our recognized standard laws...but those of the Military, set up by the Military, and hence very, very vague....and, then, how come the Military is in fact, above the laws of the land, prey tell??? They themselves set themselves in a superior position, not I.