Jean-Francois wrote on Nov 21, 2006 9:01 AM:Harry and Jay are right, this presumption of innocence schtick has gone too far. A soldier accused of a crime should have no rights and shouldn't even get a lawyer. What's a lawyer going to do but muck up justice? Answer the interrogator or go to prison for the crime without trial. Stick him in a hole and let's move on.

JJ to Jean-Francois wrote on Nov 21, 2006 10:20 AM:In case you aren't aware of our system works, presumption of innocence isn't a "schtick," it's the law.

JJ to Jean-Francois wrote on Nov 21, 2006 10:22 AM:In case you aren't aware of how the system works, presumption of innocence isn't a "schtick," it's the law. You seem to be suggesting behavior very similar to what these guys are accused of.

JC wrote on Nov 21, 2006 10:33 AM:I would expect a comment like that from a Frenchman. You have obviously never served a day in uniform otherwise you would have more respect for the system that the armed services is designed to protect.

ignore Jean-Francois wrote on Nov 21, 2006 10:33 AM:He's French. Stick him in a hole and let's move on :)

Ralph wrote on Nov 21, 2006 11:04 AM:Nothing to do with innocence or guilt but why, in the year 2006, isn't the interview with a suspected murderer recorded??? Audio or Video?? A simple web cam on a laptop would do. Come on people this is the 21st century!!!

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Nov 21, 2006 11:07 AM:To Jean-Francois: Wow! I thought your friends, Harry and Jay, were far out but; your comment is "beyond" left field. You are way out of the ball park... all the way to the parking lot. No rights and No lawyer? Go to prison without a trial? Either you are having a tremendous loss of brain cells or you are new to America. JJ is correct; presumption of innocence is not a "schtick", it's the LAW. You might want to listen to him; or her. Perhaps you are so very young and therefore clueless. Or perhaps you come from a country that oppresses its people. Whatever the reason...AW heck...there is NO legitimate reason for that comment.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Nov 21, 2006 11:11 AM:To 'ignore Jean-Francoise': I love that!!!

JJ to Ralph wrote on Nov 21, 2006 11:40 AM:I am wondering the exact same thing. It seems that bases would be covered all around had these "questioning sessions" been recorded or video taped. Probably would have saved a lot of taxpayer dollars.

Rob wrote on Nov 21, 2006 11:47 AM:This happens all the time in the military. Infact, it happened to me a few years back. It wasn't that I didn't have the opportunity to have and attorney, it was the fact that "I was told that I had to stick with the attorney I was given". It just so happened that when I listened to the "MY" military attorney, while defending me (on something that I was accused of without evidence, where there was evidence, and this lies the problem), that my defense attorney was actually transfered to work for the prosectution, at the same time, defending me. Yes, you heard it, defending me from the same people he was working for. So finally I have had enough of this "military justice" and had to speak out when I read it in the paper today. P.S. after all was said and done, I had taken my paperwork to a retired SJA, (Retired General I believe), and he stated that he could of had it all thrown out in less than a minute, (in my favor)due to all the evidence. Take this letter Mark Walker for what its worth. I just had to respond because enough is enough. God Bless.

Goatskull to Jean-Francois wrote on Nov 21, 2006 11:57 AM:Dude....all Americans are entitled to "the presumption of innocence". It's a basic right we have. Whether it's American soldier charged with war crimes, a local person in your town suspected of rape, murder, robbery or what ever we all have the presumption of innocent until proven guilty. I am not a fan of these guys and I very much doubt their innocence but regardless of what I or anyone else think they will go through the process untill proven guilty or not guilty or of some lesser charge.

Danielle wrote on Nov 21, 2006 1:08 PM:It does seem unbelieveable to me that they did not record these confessions. If they were not aquired legally then they should throw them out. But so far these guys have not seen much respect of their constitutional rights,I believe all the plea deals were necessary because they were lacking real evidence in this case. The whole thing is without knowing all the detials surronding the incident it hard to say they are guilty. I still believe they were doing their job, one that sucks, but regardless doing what at the time they needed to do. I would like nothing more than to find out NCIS screwed something up and the remaining guys walk.

To Rob from Danielle wrote on Nov 21, 2006 1:09 PM:The Military Justice system is a circus

Jean-Francois to Goatskull wrote on Nov 21, 2006 1:56 PM:Come on! I've read this board. Most people here don't believe in these Marines' presumption of innocence anymore than Santa Claus. That's what the public believes and that's how the public servants (ie Marine Corps prosecutors) should be allowed to work. The law should not pertain to the lawless. Rob is right, this is a circus, and not a good one, either.

Brother of Pennington, To Ralph wrote on Nov 21, 2006 2:07 PM:Ralph, you hit the nail right on the head. The NCIS didn't record any of the statements via audio or video. Kind of makes you wonder what they had to hide? If these NCIS agents are all on the up and up, then why not record these illegal interrogations? Is there anyone out there who really would try and substantiate an arugment where we should just give the NCIS the benefit of the doubt just because their job title has Investigator in it?

to Danielle wrote on Nov 21, 2006 2:45 PM:Rather than finding "out NCIS screwed something up and the remaining guys walk", wouldn't it be better to find out the TRUTH? And about the lack of recording -- the military justice system does not require it, even for confessions; in fact, confessions don't even have to be in writing for them to be admissible in court -- an interrogator can get on the stand and say, "Your honor, he said he did it." and it's lawfully admissible. Hopefully this loophole will be closed -- seems like a lot of trouble would have been spared if they had just recorded these interrogations. Likewise, who's bright idea was it to put a 25-year old Newbie interrogator in charge of taking "statements" -- it's not like this was an insignificant case or anything... again, NCIS not exactly bathing itself in stellar judgment...

Death Penalty Case: wrote on Nov 21, 2006 2:54 PM:Maybe they should have gone on trial for capital murder with death the expected sentence--no plea deals, and no wrist slaps, but death penalty for conviction. I believe all of these guys would jump for a chance to plead and avoid a trial. They know what went down and they know the probably outcome of a trial.

Brother of Pennington To Jean-Francois wrote on Nov 21, 2006 3:08 PM:I won't take a French shot at you, however, your comments lack any true knowledge or wisdom concerning the details of this case. Are you saying, that because suddenly you believe public sentiment is such that the presumption of innocence should fly out the door? The government sure believes you, and has since the investigation of this case began. Maybe you're reffering to the plea deals taken. You think because four guys took deals that that means they were suddenly telling the truth? If the boys were so intent on telling the truth why not come out with it the second they got back and we're thrown into solitary confinement? Why rot in jail for six, seven months if all they wanted to do is tell the truth? The answer is, the government wore these KIDS(remember that part; these are kids) down to the nub, until they had no more will to fight, and where then offerred some of the sweetest deals possible - instead of life in prison, they were given you a year or little more. If the prosecution case was so strong, and the truth was what they were really after, then why the need to offer so many sweet deals?

Goatskull to Jean-Francois wrote on Nov 21, 2006 3:22 PM:I told you of my own doubts about their innocence but they're still entitled to a trial and legal representation wheter they did what they're were charged with or not. If they are guilty I certanly want them to pay.

Goatskull to Daniel wrote on Nov 21, 2006 3:32 PM:"I still believe they were doing their job, one that sucks, but regardless doing what at the time they needed to do." If these guys knowingly broke into the house of someone they knew was not an insurgent or enemy comatant then they were most certanly NOT doing thier job. If what these guys are charged with is true then not only did they commit murder but they were neglecting their duties going after the people they were going after. I'm not saying that these guy did know Awad was an innocent civilian (tho I have a hard time believing they didn't). That is what hopefully will come out as both Pennington's and the remaining guys trials go forth.

To Brother of Pennington wrote on Nov 21, 2006 3:34 PM:I know you are young but you have more sense than alot of people on this board. There are alot of supporters out here and my thoughts are with you guys.

Daniel to Brother wrote on Nov 21, 2006 3:57 PM:So sorry for your brother's involvement, but there was every reason to hold out for as long as possible before taking a deal. The longer they held out, the better the deal, the more desperate the prosecution. It was also likely the families didn't know what the evidence was (due to attorney-client privilege), and that once it started to come out in open court, the families pushed them to take the deals; also as soon as one agreed to testify, everything changed as far as what the others would be up against. ~ Any reference to your brother and his squad mates as "kids" belies the fact that they swore an oath to behave in a certain way and by not doing so have betrayed themselves, their country, the Marine Corps and their families. This was not a prank -- they were fully armed servicemen carrying the full weight of the honor of their service on their uniform, and they used that power and authority to take the law into their own hands. Their age, inexperience will be taken into account at the sentencing, but not in determining their guilt or innocence, and certainly not as a reason to determine whether they should be held accountable for their actions. And, yes, I do believe that the statements being accepted as part of the plea deal carry more weight than their insistence via their lawyers and their families of their innocence. That the gov't is offering so many deals only points to their confidence that the stories will be consistent once the guys are put on the stands -- if I was the prosecutor and feeding a story, I would only make one deal, so the one person could keep it straight. The only way 4 can keep the story straight is if they are actually reporting on what actually happened.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Nov 21, 2006 4:03 PM:I've been reading these boards for three months. The Majority of those who comment believe in the presumption of innocence. There are a few who would deny that right to the accused. It's a right by law; whether civilian or military. What the heck does that comment at 1:56PM mean?..."the law should not pertain to the lawless"??... The law pertains to everyone. And who is to decide who the lawless are until they've heard ALL of the evidence and testimony? The UCMJ says that statements obtained through use of coercion, unlawful influence, or unlawful inducement may not be received in evidence against the accused in trial by court-martial. But, hey; NCIS took care of that. It may not be "required", but should be. If they really didn't coerce the accused, then why not record or have transcripts of what was said? I learned, the hard way, years ago, that when you are being accused of something of which you are innocent; keep a log of dates, times, names, and what was said. It will sure as heck come in handy when you need it. That was so long ago I almost forgot about it. I was a civilian on an Army base. I was harrassed (psychologically as well as physically) by a civilian employer. Because he couldn't have his way he began accusing me of things. NO body would help me. I looked guilty. Then a beautiful black man (a friend in need is a friend indeed) came to me one day and gave me a phone number to call, from a "pay" phone, each time I was harrassed or threatened. I eventually saw the man I called each time. He wore a really nice suit. My boss ended up working somewhere else. Maybe this is part of the reason I want to hear "every" little piece of evidence and testimony from "every" one. It disgusts me when people mindlessly jump on the guilty bandwagon. I totally agree that this case was important enough to warrant experienced people handling it. It would also be nice if those handling it remembered the laws they were sworn to uphold.

hey there "brother" wrote on Nov 21, 2006 4:14 PM:Plea deals are offered usually when prosecution doesnt feel that they will have a strong case to win at trial. If your brother is so innocent then why did he take the deal? When defendents ask for or take a plea deal, then that says they are guilty as charged. I also agree that they shouldn't have a lawyer r anything. If they are innocent then they would not have been charged. Alot of people talk down on the justice system in the military. I have seen the justice system in the military in action. It does not use people as "scape goats" or any of that trash. You can say your brother is a kid or whatever you want. He has been given all the tools he needs to either suceed or fail. That choice is his.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Nov 21, 2006 4:39 PM:To Daniel: UCMJ 845 article 45, Pleas of the Accused(b): "A plea of guilty by the accused may not be received to any charge or specification alleging an offense for which the death penalty may be adjudged." This allows for coercing of those who are "worn down to the nub", as Brother of Pennington said. These young men were threatened with death from the very beginning. NCIS knew what they were doing. The prosecution knew what they were doing. This is what these people do day in and day out, 4cryinoutloud. Neither has PROVEN anything more than the fact that they're good at coercion. They've planted the seed of doubt against their own countrymen from the beginning. I agree with Brother of Pennington; If they gave a toot about the truth they'd have brought in the so-called witnesses before counsel for the accused. The UCMJ says, "At that investigation full opportunity shall be given to the accused to cross-examine witnesses against him if they are available and to present anything he may desire in his own behalf, either in defense or mitigation, and the investigation officer shall examine available witnesses requested by the accused." Anybody hear of that happening? The so-called witnesses "were" available in Iraq during the investigation. Where was counsel to protect the rights of these young men???

John1 to "Hey There" wrote on Nov 21, 2006 4:59 PM:You have your story mixed up. Pennington hasn't taken a plea deal.

John1 to Daniel wrote on Nov 21, 2006 5:03 PM:What's not explicitly said by either yourself nor "Brother of Pennington" is that the pull of loyalty to the squad is very very powerful and regardless of what others may think, is used by the USMC on its youngest to help foster a unified fighting force in young men right out of boyhood. Fighting this loyalty instilled is among the toughest things I have ever had to do as a parent and a man. You have a lot correct in your description of what attorney-client privilege limited and what happened when all the information was on the table in front of some of the parents.

This does happen! wrote on Nov 21, 2006 5:09 PM:The military wanted these guys! He was done, the day the light was put on him. The military justice system is quick all right. You are guilty from the moment they want you to be. These guys didn't have a chance, they had to take a deal or they would have faced worst! Who in their right mind would serve is beyond me. They are put up for slaughter, without representation and asked to remain loyal. There is no presumption of innocence. They were set up to be guilty. The NCIS Agents are Marine and Sailors who couldn't make it in the grunts and or civilian losers who couldn't make it in the FBI and all have something to prove or justify their sorry existence!

John1 to AW4 wrote on Nov 21, 2006 5:10 PM:The so-called witnesses cannot be found in Iraq and were not available at Art 32. This was already part of the discovery record and the Investigating Officer Reports.

To Danielle wrote on Nov 21, 2006 5:29 PM:You are right! NCIS is did screw up! They are going to be taken care of though! I will be surprisd that Marine even get anyhting that resembles a real hearing. They will be forced to take a deal eventually or face worst retribution. I haven't seen much on the side of military judges that resemble anything with a backbone either. They all seem to want to continue their careers without problems and will go along wity the MArine Corps program. The guys are being sacrificed for the big picture!

NCIS is a bunch of scared enlisted men wrote on Nov 21, 2006 5:33 PM:These guys are afraid of thier own skins. If they don't make this happen they don't get promoted. They call themsleves, Marines! Please!

I would take a deal too! wrote on Nov 21, 2006 5:35 PM:If I was being railroaded, I would take a deal and try and survive this witch hunt not seen since Salem, Mass in the 1700s! The NCIS is not a real professional organization! A bunch of FBI wanna bes and enlisted Marines who wll do what ever is told or asked of them!

Was it really his choice? wrote on Nov 21, 2006 5:48 PM:"To hey there brother", Rob Pennington has not agreed to a plea deal and all reports are that he will not take a deal. Do we really believe that 7 US Marines, trained and practiced in taking and following orders, came up with this plot on their own without instructions from higher ups? They were in a war zone where different rules apply, and unless we have been to war we can’t say what it was like or what they faced daily. The Marine brass does not want this to go to trial because their lack of training given to these men and the poor leadership they provided the squad will all come out at the trials. So the USMC to cover up their mistakes and save face are making deals because they thought all would jump at the chance to deal and get it over with, but not young Pennington, Maginclada, Thomas or Hutchins. The truth doesn’t seem to matter here. Tragic part is that an innocent Iraqi civilian lost his life in mistake for a terrorist and 8 young men’s lives and those of their families are forever changed due to bad judgment, lack of leadership and Marine Brass practice of bowing to political correctness.

to Hey there Brother wrote on Nov 21, 2006 6:16 PM:Get the facts before you show your ignorance. Pennington did NOT take any deal. For someone so experienced in Military Justice you do not even know what you are talking about.

John1 from Danielle wrote on Nov 21, 2006 6:19 PM:I had just finished posting that and yours came up, these people drive me nuts. At least they should examine the facts of the case before deciding who should spend a lifetime in the brig. I guess alot of people will never understand the things these guys have endured and how much their rights have been violated regardless of the verdict.

to cryin wrote on Nov 21, 2006 6:25 PM:It doesn't matter how much the NCIS and prosecution botched up the investigation -- the accused may even walk because of it. If that's the case, we're talking about the difference between being innocent (i.e., the incident happened the way Hutchins described in his written report) or they're found not guilty -- they are guilty of kidnapping and murder, but the evidence was botched and it can't be proven. Regardless of how much of their statements were coerced or whether the witnesses were available, etc., things are not shaking out to portray these guys as innocent victims of a political / military conspiracy. The video made 2 days after the incident reveals a much different picture of these guys, showing their amusement at the thought of killing first, sorting out later, etc., with a clear callousness toward the local Arab population. Those rough jokes were not coerced, not pre-written scripts, not staged except for their own amusement. Out of 8 accused, we've witnessed 4 courts martial resulting in guilty pleas. Sadly, it's time to come to terms that things may not turn out the way you had hoped.

John1 to "to cryin" wrote on Nov 21, 2006 7:33 PM:Did you see the video? I have. All 40 minutes of it. Do you understand what this squad was doing when the video was made? The instant stress at seeing a pickup truck with dark containers in the bed? Have you tried to buck your courage with strong, even vile words, to make yourself steel for the next event? If you haven't seen the video nor had to do this, then your analysis will be deficient. Do you know the type of training starting at Boot Camp that a Marine rifleman undergoes? To identify the enemies of he US? Just like in WWI, WWII and other conflicts? Do you know the Marines directly use strong, even borderline derogatory comparisons in drill and duty? Here is a marching cadence my son learned: "Hajji, Hajji, wearing red, 5.56 to the head". How does this affect a young recruit- the words on the video are strong and not politically correct at all. But were all of them technically wrong? Islamic terrorists are the majority of terrorists in the last 50 years. That was the conclusion of the 1 minute 30 second interlude that you speak on in re: "callousness and amusement".

To "to cryin" wrote on Nov 21, 2006 10:11 PM:I hope and pray that our Marines are callous. Their lives are on the line every day for us. Whatever keeps them alive. Would it be better that they become overly sympathetic and die out on the field. Give me a break! By the way, if you REALLY want to see "callousness" watch some of the videos of the Jihadists who want to murder you and I. Political correctness will get you killed in war.

Oh Great wrote on Nov 21, 2006 10:22 PM:NCIS agent Garbo was working her first case. This has botched job written all over it! You bet your life he asked for an attorney when they threatened him with the death penalty. Just have the NCIS (obviously so thorough) present the videos of the interrogations (I'm sure they haven't overlooked something as simple as recording the "evidence") and I will be convinced the investigation wasn't either coerced at best or completely mishandled at worst.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Nov 22, 2006 12:12 AM:To John1: Get ready for a good laugh. I just read your blog to "to cryin". Didn't have my brain engaged and thought "I" was the one you were P***** off at. So, what do I do? I go through this lengthy explanation defending myself; all the while trying to figure out where some of the words you mentioned came from, because they were'nt my words. I get all the way to the end, look back up at the words "To to cryin" and the light bulb finally came on...brain engaged. Don't do that again. Yoiks!! I'll tell you one thing I got out of it though; which you know first hand...It sucks big time to think someone believes something about you that isn't true. (AW4).

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Nov 22, 2006 1:08 AM:To to cryin: I want to tell you a REALITY of life in general and of WAR. In order to be the best at what one does in this life he or she can often be considered cocky or arrogant. Look at athletes in all sports. Watch Baseball, Football, Basketball, Boxing, Ultimate Fighter Championships, etc. They all get fired up and beat their chests and celebrate in an almost primal way. And the primal fans do the same. The majority of people who go to action movies, cheer when the good guys kick the crap out of, or kill the enemy. Just go to any Norris, Stallone, Schwarzeneggar, Segal, Bruce Lee, or any action hero film. Our troops are trained to become warriors and to survive. The Best of the Best; whether it be Marines, Navy Seals, Army Rangers, Air Force pilots, or whatever, have to have an inner strength and ability to overcome their fears. Their leaders and mentors teach them, drill it into them, instill it in them so they'll be tough enough to survive whatever they face. When you spend every hour of every day for months on end not knowing if you'll be captured, mutilated or killed by an insane, vicious enemy; I don't give a toot who you are, it's going to do a number on your mind. It is your whole world... fighting and surviving. There is no outlet for letting off pressure. I think that earns one the right to laugh and joke about any cottonpickin' thing they want. I can give you a list of quotes by the leaders of these young Marines; quotes that give them the green light to joke and rejoice. Quotes that "encourage" them to have that bravado. It's a reality of war. If you didn't instill these things in warriors you'd have a bunch of wimps fighting your wars. Then all you'd hear over there and over "here" is Allah Allah Achbar!!!In case you don't know what that is, you should see the "many" videos made by the insurgents when they lie in wait to either shoot or blow up our guys. Listen to them salivate while they're waiting, and whispering over and over, "Allah Allah Achbar". Is that what you'd rather have? Then go there and have it.(AW4).

Horrors of War wrote on Nov 22, 2006 8:44 AM: It is unfortunate but true that military training encourages that type of insensitivity. The tapes of the jihadists are the same type of dehumanizing desensitizing process. It is perhaps unfair to hold the soldiers on either side, accountable when we have tried our best to make them into killers and given them medals and honor for atrocities. I don't know but perhaps that is why the Romans kept their legions, off fighting campaigns and out of Rome. With that said, how can we allow the recruiters into our high schools and campuses and why would any parent sign or approve of this savagery as a career choice?

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Nov 22, 2006 10:26 AM:To Horrors of War: AW4goodnesssake!!! Insensitivity? Insensitivity? You are so clueless it almost defies words. I said "almost". Being a female I had always been under the impression that "we" had a patent on nurturing, compassion and gentleness. On September 11th, 2001; when everybody's world as they knew it was turned upside down, I learned differently. My son called me and told me to turn on the TV. He said it didn't matter what channel. I knew immediately it was going to be war. I threw a tape in the vcr and have taped off and on since that day. I watched big, strong, tough men; firefighters and policemen, hold their 'brothers' in their arms and cry. I was amazed at the gentleness of someone so strong. I have unedited footage of our troops from the day they pushed to Baghdad. I've also been making scrapbooks with photos during this war we're fighting. I don't use anything that might offend anyone in the military. You have no idea what you're talking about. I have never seen any female show any more compassion or gentleness or SENSITIVITY than the young men you so readily try to 'dehumanize' by your very attitude. Watch guys surround a fallen comrade so that he won't be hurt any more, Watch them hold a fallen comrade in their arms, and then mourn him. There is "nothing" more "sensitive" than that!!! Unfair to hold the 'soldiers' on the other side accountable? What soldiers? When do you think they might start wearing their uniforms? OUR men and women wear uniforms. When do you think they might stop hiding behind women and babies because of their cowardice? When do you think they might stop using our own stupidity against us in this war; which is going to go on a heck of a lot longer than someone of your mindset can handle. The only other mindset prepared to do it is the "jihadists" you seem to care so much about. You are way out of line about our troops getting medals for atrocities. They're given medals for fighting valiantly, for being injured in battle, and for going above and beyond the call of duty in saving the lives of their comrades. The things they face every day would probably make you squeal like a little pig. How dare you try to belittle their sacrifices. If you are so sensitive to the jihadists, why don't you go to Iraq and walk through Hamdania and Haditha yourself. Shucks, dude; you won't even need a weapon. Just put that good old "sensitivty" to work for you. But when that jihadist decides you look like something he'd like to torture and mutilate, who are you going to call???? I can tell you who will probably show up to save your sensitive self...The U.S. Military.

Brother of Pennington to Daniel wrote on Nov 22, 2006 12:21 PM:I think you're confusing what I posted. I never said the fact these are kids, gives them the right to commit a crime. I stated the fact that they are kids, thrown into jail before they are convicted, put in solitary confinement, held in their jail cell for 23 hours days, that that wore them down, not made them do a crime, but rather wore them down so that when the prosecution came in on a big white horse with a slap on the wrist mentality, four of these guys took the deal accordingly. I have seen the evidence, and for quite a long time I've seen it all, and known every inch of it. It's easy because there is so very little evidence. There was nothing new brought out that made these guys flip, nothing new shown to the families. You rip a kid off a battlefield, throw him into jail, treat him like the worst kind of criminal, and make him believe that at every turn you're going to burn him, no matter the laws for right to a fair trial and presumption of innocence. Under those unholy stressful conditions you're going to end up with guys flipping regardless of the truth, especially when you consider how sweet the deals were. Is it any wonder that the four to take deals where the least experienced out of the eight? They were the youngest and easiest to take advantage of by the government, and that's why the government targeted them to take a deal since day one.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Nov 22, 2006 1:11 PM:To Brother of Pennington: WELL SAID!!! Post it again! (joking). OK, instead, I'll say again, WELL SAID!!! I have to write to your brother and let him know there's one more out here who believes in him and the others. Hang in there and give him your strength. I keep saying that because I don't know what the heck else to say that might help. (AW4).

MorallyRight1 wrote on Nov 22, 2006 1:29 PM:To Rob: YOU GO, GUY!!! And to the French pursuasion above, go back to France, they are waiting for you. And folks remember that these young men protect our very right to do just what we are doing here, expressing our opinions. They should have more rights, not less. Doesn't it dawn on anyone out there, that just maybe the NCIS wasn't doing their job correctly? There are governmental agents out there trying to make a name for themselves, and I think that is exactly the case here, as this one was only on the job less than two months, without any prior experience! Thank you Rob for having the wherewithall, and the integrity to follow through on what is right. Right for yourself, but more importantly right for all of us! AND, one other thing, to the folks who have had enough of this issue, don't you think these guys have had enough too? AND it isn't them that are continuing to draw out the process, it is the prosecution aka: the Marines, aka: the government. This whole scenario should never have started in the first place. In a war, in reality now, people get killed! Period. Read any history book, any at all. Just look at the lists from the towers and the pentagon and from our own military deaths. It is a war, people get killed. To hold one or several individuals responsible is totally absurd, whatever the reasons. This town had been cleared over and over of innocent civilians, and those that remained are to be assumed no matter what, the enemy. Period. Get over it. Those are the ones who should have no rights. Geeeezzzzzzz!

MorallyRight1 wrote on Nov 22, 2006 1:35 PM:And to Ralph @11.04-nope, no proof of the interrogations whatsoever. No audio, no video, but boy they did have that laptop ever handy to real quick type up what they wanted the guys to sign, now didn't they? And just out of curiosity, where are all these investigators now? Off work, but still getting paid? Or railroading others without giving them their rights? Yep this is 2006, but the military still wants to proceed under their antiquated methods, thereby protecting their passing of the buck, if caught red handed!!!

Brother of Pennington wrote on Nov 22, 2006 3:09 PM:Well I've said it before also AW4cryinoutloud, but you had MorallyRight1 bring a smile to my face with each post. It's been people like you, who through this process have given my brother the strength he needs to take on the big bad government. I saw him just this last weekend and he remarked about how much the support he has gotten from not just veterens but true Americans has allowed him the courage to fight for the truth, and NOT just the easy way to make it all go away. My brother is stronger than I could ever hope to be, and my pride in him has never for a second diminished. My brother was over there fighting terrorists and insurgents every single day, and Gowad was just that. And folks, it realy is just that plain and simple.

To MR1, AW4COL & Pennington Bro wrote on Nov 22, 2006 3:34 PM:Well said and WELL SAID again! Rob appears to be in the fight until the end, and you wouldn’t be that determined if you were hiding something. Yes-go ROB!!! What a brave young man. Some thing truly stinks with this whole case and I hope it all comes out at a trial.

To "Horrors of War" wrote on Nov 22, 2006 7:51 PM:You can't compare America's warriors fighting for your freedom and liberty with head choppers. You obviously have no idea what a real atrocity is.

To Brother of Pennington wrote on Nov 22, 2006 7:54 PM:More people support your brother than he knows. Give him a hug for us all next time you see him. He is one courageous young Marine.

Aud wrote on Nov 22, 2006 10:15 PM:To Cryin, You state that the NCIS and Prosecution has botched the investigation. I have read in this newspaper that four of the eight have taken plea deals. I really don't think that innocent people who have the caliber of defense attorneys accept plea deals. I also think that if these caliber of defense attorneys thought they could win this case on a legal technicality they would be going to court.

Horrors of War..... wrote on Nov 23, 2006 3:36 AM:To have my head chopped or to have 8 men tie me up and stand over me and shoot round after round into my head---what exactly is the difference? The intent was to create terror in Hamdania, and the Marines who did this were acting as terrorists. I don't see any difference in their action. They kidnapped, tortured and murdered! I don't believe that all American forces act this way, but this was a terrorist raid.

Harry wrote on Nov 23, 2006 11:04 AM:I have been watching the Thanksgiving messages from Iraq and have been deeply moved. Altho I am a harsh critic of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and particularly of the Hamdania case; I am very moved by the harsh conditions, constant danger and decency of most of the troops. I pray for their safe and prompt return to their families. God's Speed to them.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Nov 23, 2006 2:34 PM:To Brother of Pennington: Just taking a minute to let you know that you, your brother, Sgt. Hutchins, Cpl. Magincalda, the rest of the P8, and all who serve are in my thoughts and prayers today. Tell your brother of your pride in him. Support from his countrymen may help strengthen his resolve but, nothing can compare to knowing that your own family will take this journey with you; standing by your side all the way.

Mike wrote on Nov 24, 2006 10:44 PM:So let me get this straight...he says he asked for an attorney so people believe him...Guess you glossed over the part where he made corrections to a prepared statement and then SIGNED IT...Don't get me wrong the interview with a suspected murderer should be recorded but did the NCIS know what they were investigating at the time or did it ballon into something unexpected where they were just interviewing someone in the field...Either way you dont make corrections to a statement and then sign it...

Aud wrote on Nov 25, 2006 8:31 AM:To Mike NOV 24 10:44, I totally agree with you.

TP wrote on Nov 25, 2006 2:18 PM:Exactly Mike! Why would someone so sure they were not guilty SIGN a confession?! According to this newspaper, this wasn't even Pennington's first run-in with the military justice system. He's been court-martialed before! So you think he know not to sign something that wasn't true.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Nov 25, 2006 8:06 PM:Would somebody go back and re-read the part about what 'seems'to be a previous court-martial? I wonder if it isn't a misprint. It says, "Oct.17, three days after his 2002 enlistment in the Marine Corps expired and his military pay stopped. Because the charges remain unresolved, he contiues to be treated as a Marine despite his enlistment having expired."...Aren't they talking about the present? I think 2002 is a misprint???

Harry wrote on Nov 26, 2006 8:16 AM:AW4, I took that to mean 3 days after the completion of his enlistment; I think it means he enlisted in 2002. I can't find any other info about it (even on Google :) John1 says he knows about it and it has no relevance to this case.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Nov 26, 2006 1:54 PM:To Harry: I think "I" should have gone back and re-read it. Makes sense. Nice to know someone will check something for you when you ask. Yeah; I didn't even have to Google. Heh Heh!!! It's appreciated...AW4.

TP wrote on Nov 27, 2006 7:55 PM:I believe Pennington was ordered to court martial on Oct 17, 2006 - last month. His enlistment period expired three days prior - Oct 14, 2006. Had he not been charged with these crimes he would be out of the Marines effective 10-14-06. Since these charges remain unresolved, he continues to be considered a Marine until which time this case is resolved. The previous court martial was reported in another Hamdania story. It was introduced to make the point that Pennington was not unfamilar with the military justice system, and therefore should know better than to sign something he felt wasn't true.

TO: John1 to "to cryin" wrote on Nov 28, 2006 6:26 AM:seen the video? guess we'll have to take your word for that. But the rest of your analysis doesn't mean a hill of beans. If the video was made 2 days BEFORE the incident, it would not be evidence. But if it was in fact made two days AFTER the incident, and no one seems to be disputing this, then it apparently accurately reflects that though they had 2 days to reflect on their actions, they were able to justify and embrace kidnapping and murder to themselves and each other. That IS callous and indifferent and remains an accurate description of the video unless there are clips not shown in court (which i would have thought the defense would have objected to) where they express remorse over their actions (not the Iraqi's inherent threat or if they try to blame their hardness on their training, etc.). Two separate issues, and i would have thought by now, with your son admitting his guilt, that you would be able to tell the difference between understandable actions under combat conditions and unlawful activity. Evidently your son does -- if not, and he thinks his behavior, as reflected in that video, was excuseable "under the conditions", he should recant his plea deal and go to trial. If not, be glad they got caught when they did, as they may have been heading for more and more unlawful escapades in which there would be no wiggle room as far as making plea deals for anyone.

Harry wrote on Nov 28, 2006 9:55 AM:Can anyone tell us the nature of the previous court martial? I am wondering if it would constitute a "prior bad act" such as assault? Just because it is supposedly of limited relevence other than familiarizing him with the court martial process; I wonder why it is so "under reported". I am still under the impression that rather than a vigorous prosecution we will see white wash.

Not Over Yet wrote on Nov 28, 2006 10:03 AM:The sequeli for getting off with a plea and not receiving appropriate consequence for extremely brutal criminal behavior will probably be born by their families and their communities, in the years that follow their short imprisonment. Drug abuse, domestic violence, child abuse, alcoholism are some of the sequeli that one could anticipate. Their crime and attitude about it, as captured on video suggests depravity and callousness.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Nov 28, 2006 1:17 PM:To the remark that the video suggests depravity and callousness: I'm not seeing that. The report,11.16.06, of the video spoke in generalities. It did "not" say that they were joking about any one person specifically. It did "not" say that Awad's name was ever mentioned. It only said they joked about killing more people. The report says that the prosecutor is the one who said the video shows a "clear disdain for Iraqi's and no remorse for the Awad killing." There needs to be clarification because, the terminology of the 'report' is more people. There is "nothing" quoting any of them as having mentioned Awad specifically. As for disdain for Iraqi's; No one is 'quoted' as having disdain for Iraqi's; IF there is no specific mention other than the enemy, then the prosecution is possibly misrepresenting the video. It's very plausible for them to have been talking about the "enemy". Just so happens that many Iraqi's "are" the enemy. Words like depravity and callousness, used without knowing the whole of the video is darned premature. In any case; For any one of us to expect guys to not rejoice about killing the enemy is unrealistic. If your whole life, day in and day out, is that of facing the unknown and fighting for your very survival; No one has the right to judge the reactions of those who fight, of those who have seen unimagineable things. If one thinks one can do it better, and be a little nicer, and not be darned happy about killing those who would mutilate him and his or her comrades, then perhaps one should go over there and give a lecture on one's Mr. Nice Guy philosophy, rather than sitting on one's butt at the computer passing unrealistic, unwarranted judgement on one's very own.

Coffeefiend wrote on Nov 28, 2006 4:12 PM:Hello, just had to comment on Rob's story that his own lawyer actually also worked for the prosecution. Guess what, everyone this happens in other ways out here in the real world, Rob is telling the truth. Fifteen years ago I was on the business end of a violent robbery. My court appointed "victim advocate" accompanied me to a meeting with a counselor. Silly me, I mentioned that I had sought help a year ago for some very average, run of the mill family issues in front of her. She announced to me RIGHT THERE that she would be passing this on to the defense and that if my case went to trial, I would be questioned in court about it and it would be used against me. SHE WORKED FOR BOTH SIDES. Needless to say, I got rid of her. But take my word for it, this stuff goes on in and out of the military. SUPPORT RO! Heaven forbid you ever sacrifice the best years of your life for your country and end up in his shoes.

Not buying it: wrote on Nov 28, 2006 6:37 PM:Ya know, after a group of young guys go out and kidnap an older man, bind him and beat him up and then stand around shooting round after round into his face and head, and then joke about killing more----to me "callous and depraved" is mild. I hated the video tape of Osama and his crew joking and congratulating themselves on the success of 9/11 and this seems to be in the same catagory to me.

These Marines did thier jobs!~ wrote on Nov 30, 2006 8:08 PM:Most will never understand and or have the stomach to step up and do the dirty work of war!

It wasn't their job wrote on Nov 30, 2006 9:08 PM:What is wrong with the ones who volunteer to go occupy and terrorize another country and kill their civilians? It was not their job to commit this murder!!!!!!!!!!! It was an act of terrorism!

Brother of Pennington to Not Buying It wrote on Dec 1, 2006 12:55 PM:And also "It wasn't their job", both of you, if you are two different people, are errored in your opinions. Awad is very far from an innocent, and it's one thing that bothers me about people who post on this site. The Awad's are quite well known through out the town of Hamadanyia for their terrorist abilities. Awad's brother, Saleh Gowad, is known as the Prince of Princes(A true nickname) by the townsfolk, because he is so good at getting IED's planted that were blowing up my brother's fellow Marines daily; DAILY! The man doesn't do the dirty work himself, rather mitigates the duties to desperate, starving, broke Iraqis. He provides the money, leans on the weak with intimidation and threats, and has become quite efficent at the process. Let it also be known that in Hamandayia after the Pendleton Eight killed the TERRORIST, IED attacks went down by more than half. This is significant because IED attacks were coming daily, killing daily. And yes, we can and will prove that once it comes to trial, just you wait. I love these people who seem to feel my brother doesn't have a right to a fair trial, and that because these other four took plea deals it must mean my brother and the remaining other three are guilty since innocent people don't take deals. Gimme a freaking break. Look at the deals these guys received. It wasn't like they were facing life and took ten years instead. Every plea accepted has been 21 months or less, and considering the guys have already been in the brig 7 months and that the military does have a type of parole system in place, it's not a stretch to say these guys who pled guilty have already served the majority of their time, and none plead guilty to murder. So before you start spouting off how their deals reflect the guilt of the other four, check your facts. The four took deals each for their own reasons, but make no mistake, having the government letting you know at every turn that you won't get a fair trial, that you will be held indefinately in an atrocious jail before a conviction has even been made, that you will be treated like the worst kind of felons by the prison guards, that you're going to burn no matter the indecent steps taken by the NCIS or the lack of any physical evidence, has more to do with the deals being taken than the want upon those who took the deal to get the truth out and accept blame for their actions. And if this isn't the case then why did they wait six months, after being held in a jail cell for 23 hours a day, to figure out what the truth really was?

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Dec 1, 2006 11:59 PM:To Brother of Pennington: I posted earlier but it didn't take. Ditto to everything you said. It almost left me speechless..."Almost"!! Regardless of my stance that a person is innocent unless "proven" otherwise; from everything I've read about Hamdania (more than once) I have even more resolve in their innocence. I've wondered about the Iraqi's involved two weeks prior, and if there couldn't be some kind of revenge against our Marines. It took 5 days for the so-called witnesses to come forward with a story. They all knew each other.The insurgents are known for lying and staging things to make them appear the way they want. The military knows this happens all the time, yet chose to take the word of the Iraqi's. Reports state that the witnesses testimony couldn't be independently confirmed. They knew this in Iraq. It's unforgiveable that our military, knowing the importance of something like this, chose to take the word of Iraqi's and didn't take steps to protect the rights of your brother and the others. Be nice if they'd grow a conscience and right the wrongs. Hang in there. Many of us are with you. AW4.

Innocent until proven guilty wrote on Dec 2, 2006 6:00 AM:Too bad that didnt also apply to Awad, Pennington's brother says it was enough that Awad's brother had a nick name and his family was considered terrorists, to justify killing him. So much for the defense that they didnt know who they had...seems like he may have been targeted based on his relatives...if this post has any iota of validity! His statement that IED's went down--shows that terrorism worked--does that mean that we should adopt the tactics of terrorism? Should we send Marine suicide bombers into market places to frighten the local population. When you adopt the tactics of the people you are trying to defeat--you know you are truly lost. I see no reason to accuse those who pled guilty to the charges and agreed to testify against their "brothers" , "liars", while those who "stick to the story", truthful. I will however accept the result of the trial. If not proven guilty, I will absolutely accept that.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Dec 2, 2006 2:33 PM:I don't believe the prosecution's story. Therefore; Yes! Killing a terrorist who is planting an IED is justified. If it saves even a single life of one of our own sons and daughters, then Yes!, killing terrorists is justified. Send them to their 72 virgins. (Would they then become adulterers?; what with all those wives?). One of the Marine's Generals, when speaking of our enemy, said, "hunt them, find them, and kill them". Maybe they should have added...."and when you do, don't expect us to stand by you; expect us to take the word of the enemy, or of one who is very possibly the enemy." At least 'that' would be a little more up-front and appear somewhat honorable.

Brother of Pennington to Innocent unti proven... wrote on Dec 2, 2006 4:18 PM:Hey there, person. You didn't put a handle name so it makes it tough to respond to who you are. My post is valid and Robert is my Brother. I posted in response to the many who come on here and post how Awad was this poor innocent cripple. I take issue with that as he most certainly wasn't a innocent. I never stated a Marine should go into market place as a sucide bomber. You really are taking what I'm saying and twisting it into something different. The facts are, our Marines in Hamandaynia were getting blown up, sometimes multiple attacks a day, and after Awad, THE TERRORIST, was killed, the attacks went down by more than half. Are you really going to try and postulate the arguement that this is all just coincedental? Does it matter to you that are Marines were becoming causalties while these Terrorists ran free of any of the restrictive rules of engagement placed on our Marines? Why do these naysayers first go to how Awad was this poor man, rather than looking at what was happening to our Marines over in Hamadanyia, and who was responsible? Our Marines were dying daily, losing body parts, coming home with pieces missing. My brother as he stood in shackles in his jail cell, awaiting charges for murdering a terrorist, had his best friend, Jon B., blown to pieces by one of those nasty IED's. The irony is thick, isn't it? I have no problem with everyone wanting to look at all sides of this, and wanting to find out the whole truth. Where I take issue, is people who jump first and foremost to the side of Awad without really delving deeper into what truly happened over there. As to the Marines taking the plea deals? I never was trying to call anyone a liar, rather, once again, try to have you take a little deeper look into the possible motivations of those who took the deals. What was going on when they took the deals? What conditions were they being held in before ever being convicted of a crime? How much pressure was their family putting on them to make this nightmare just go away, especially considering the high costs of lawyers, and the low income of the families involved. And finally, how sweet were the deals that they took, especially in leui of the charges leveled at them? There was WAY more to their decsion being made than that of straight ahead honesty, and that was my point.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Dec 2, 2006 6:17 PM:I have a question: If the Tribal Leaders said the Marines took the insurgent's body to the police station...Why do the loving witnesses say that the Marines killed Awad and "planted" an AK-47 and shovel "next to" the body? HELLO!!! Either the sucker was at the police station or was at the hole. I firmly believe these so-called witnesses saw or knew of the report. I watched a clear video of Awad's burial a few minutes ago. I see a dark area on his mouth. The so-called witnesses in one of their other versions said he was shot four times in the face. Where might the other supposed holes be? ALL of these things are the word of the Iraqi's. PUHLEEZE...Does anyone really believe them? I like a good science fiction show. I like CSI... Geeeze...Where "IS" CSI when you need it? To top it off; the one thing that sticks in my craw is the Pentagon Official>>>> "who spoke only on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to discuss charges before they are filed..." Are we talking abuse of power or undue influence or anything here?? Where is the honor in a Pentagon Official doing that? Me, Myself, and I, are beside ourselves with frustration over the shameful way this whole thing has been handled from the get-go.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Dec 2, 2006 6:25 PM:Clarification on the post I just made a couple of minutes ago: I don't believe the body was "in" the hole, or "at" the hole, or "by" the hole. I believe he was, as the Tribal Leaders said...taken to the police station by the Marines. AW4.

Innocent till,,,,,,, wrote on Dec 2, 2006 7:20 PM:Mr. Awad was killed and then the IEDs decreased. That could have much less to do with the murder of Mr. Awad, than with the fear his murder engendered in the general population. I dare say that if you murdered some of the dissidents in America, they would stop publicly protesting and speaking out.

Brother of Pennington to Innocent till wrote on Dec 2, 2006 9:31 PM:Does dissidents equal Terrorist to you, or as with "general population", are you trying to keep the label of insurgent, terrorist off of the men planting the bombs and sniping our men from afar while they are on patrol. Your statement is somewhat confusing as you kind of seem to be agreeing with me. It doesn't take a lot of head scratching to deduct that when a key figure of a town's terroist network is killed, the IED infrastructure suffers. That has nothing to do with a general population's fear of the psycho Americans, and everything to do with the enemy being weakened.

Harry wrote on Dec 3, 2006 8:53 AM:Surely not all of those smiling faces holding up their purple fingers on election day are murderous terrorists; certainly not all of them are fair game for anyone who thinks they might be a terrorist or be related to a terrorist or that they happen to live on the wrong street or the wrong town. It isnt that easy or safe to move in Iraq these days, so it isn't realistic to say they should have gotten out of there by now. Even though they have the misfortune of living in Iraq and have survived Sadaam and the American invasion and occupation, they retain some human rights; individual soldiers or renegade units, can't act like war lords, and execute whomsoever they decide.

Brother of Pennington To Harry wrote on Dec 4, 2006 2:56 PM:Please re-read my post. I am not labeling all Iraqi's as being Terrorists, not even close. What I was saying was that the town of Hamadanyia has some of the highest contingencies of Insurgents, along with Fallejuah and Ramadi, and that it wasn't a situation where a few bad apples have brought the town this reputation, but rather, and I have talked with more than a few Marines who've been served in that town, and they've stated that not only is it a hotbed for insurgent activity, but a majority of the population is pro-insurgent. I was trying to understand what "Innocent till" was saying, which was it seemed to me, that he was changing terrorist to dissident. I have no problem with Iraqis not wanting Americans in their countries, or even being anti-American, but a man who's responsible for laying IED's is not a dissident, he is a terrorist and that was what I was trying to say. Harry, I'm not a fan of our troops being in Iraq anymore than you, but there are bad people over there hurting our men, and our government isn't allowing our men to defend themselves properly, instead, dropping law enforcement-like rules of engagement in a war zone, and putting our boys up against a team of Investigators every time an Iraqi is killed. Investigators who aren't always all that well-trained, and who won't get a promotion unless they get results. And what do results entail? Getting charges leveled against the Marines. This opens the the door to NCIS agents making short cuts and doing things that could not exactly be deemed lawful. Evidence of this? My brother asks for a Lawyer and is told to pound sand. The NCIS agents, unlike any other United States law enforcement agency doesn't video or tape or audio record any of the statements they take. This allows them to do whatever they please once they get our troops into an interrogation room, and end up making it a his-word-against-our-word type situation. Kelly Garbo, the lead NCIS agent on this case, her first case I might add, and at the ripe old age of 25, shouldn't be believed more than my brother who had already served 3 hard fought tours in Iraq, and earned at least a little benefit of the doubt because of that. Of course the government has given Rob none.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Dec 4, 2006 6:28 PM:To Brother of Pennington: Your brother has earned more than a little benefit of the doubt. He and the others have earned "full" benefit of the doubt from their own fellow Americans.

Harry wrote on Dec 6, 2006 7:07 AM:Brother of Pennington: You express youself well and convincingly. I respect you and your position. I am so strongly against this war and so ashamed of the action of America that the report of atrocities on the part of the troops, pushes me further toward my anti war and anti military inclination---BUT that being said, I absolutely don't know if these men are innocent or guilty of