confused wrote on Mar 15, 2007 2:01 PM:How can Lt.col. Meeks rule on anything for Hutchins, He was the judge that made the ruling in the Shumate trial. How fair do you think he's going to be?

Hutchinsupporter wrote on Mar 15, 2007 3:08 PM:This is such a bunch of crap. Hutch I support you!

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Mar 15, 2007 8:46 PM:Someone doesn't seem to be interested in assuring that Sgt.Hutchins, is afforded his rights under the UCMJ. Not to mention Magincalda, who still awaits trial. Both declare their innocence. Previously NCIS agent Garbo stated that their agents interrogate and then "they", the agents, go back later and type reports and statements for the accused to sign. One Marine at a hearing for Lt. Phan said he was given one to sign while he was on guard duty and that he didn't get to read it. Two other Marines testified that their statements were falsified. Even another agent backed it up on one of the statements. Now, all of a sudden they're saying that Sgt. Hutchins self-typed a seven page confession. Oh please! I have ocean front property in the middle of the Mojave desert to sell anyone naieve enough to believe this. What about the investigation into the questionable practices of NCIS? Anybody wonder what happened to that? Yet, they're allowed to continue tainting these hearings. All we have is the "word" of the prosecutor and NCIS agents; which "proves" Zero!!! A statement is "not" a confession. Neither is a self-typed "seven page" statement. NOT a confession. A statement recites facts that an incident, for which there can be legal justification, occurred. It doesn't take seven pages to confess to something 4cryinoutloud. It would more likely take seven pages to make a statement. Why would it be "typed"? Why not handwritten to prove it was done by the person making the statement. ANYbody could change a typed paper. These Marines were denied counsel in Iraq. Military law states that when counsel is requested, then counsel is to "Be Present"; not just requested, but Present, to advise as to voluntary or involuntary statements. Anybody hear of that happening? Magincalda wasn't assigned an attorney for eight days after being sent to Pendleton. Pennington complained several times that he was denied. They ALL complained they were coerced and denied counsel. All of them said their statements were under duress. Any one seeking justice cannot ignore these things. There has already been an abuse of power from Iraq to Pendleton. Is there not ONE person in authority in this country with the guts to stand up for what's right and put an end to this Abuse of Power???

No Surprise Here! wrote on Mar 16, 2007 11:55 AM:Well...Illegally obtained, coherced statements ruled admissable. The USMJ states that no person under the UCMJ can be forced to make incriminating statements nor can anyone compell one to make incriminating statements. Furthermore...if one asks for a lawyer...all questioning must cease and a lawyer must be appointed. All of those things were violated rendering all statements ILLEGAL. Still they are ruled admissable. This is fair and impartial, eh? If anyone is STILL wondering why any of these guys made plead deals...you'd better get a clue.

Hello wrote on Mar 16, 2007 12:37 PM:It's just as aw4 has been saying, there has been no proof and there is no justice in the military system.

The Piper Must Be Paid wrote on Mar 16, 2007 3:54 PM:I am hoping for a speedy trial and conviction--and that his own statement and the testimony of the other men are used to convict and sentence him for life. This has been dragged out far too long. A man was murdered; the perps have been enjoying hero status; they bragged about getting away with murder! Enough!

To Piper wrote on Mar 16, 2007 9:29 PM:ENOUGH????? For who??? You??? then quit reading about the case. There is so much more to this case, yet you just want to hurry up, convict, and sentence him for life. Doesn't matter what was realy going on, huh? ENJOYING HERO STATUS? What the HELL are you deluding yourself with. Did YOU hear anyone bragging...or you just CHOSE to take someone else's word for it. These guys are not enjoying anything. They have been locked up for the past 10 MONTHS in Military Prison!!!! Geeeezz. I don't think anyone cares what you are hoping for OR whether YOU have had enough. Pretty self-absorbed, aren't you? I wonder if it was YOUR life on the line or your son, would you still hope for speedy trial and conviction and sentence for LIFE. I would bet my life...NOT!!!

To Piper again... wrote on Mar 16, 2007 9:31 PM:To ad to my last comment....I HOPE TO GOD THAT YOU NEVER EVER GET A JURY SUMMONS.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Mar 16, 2007 10:23 PM:To The Piper: The statement of the Sergeant was "not" an admission of guilt. The statement was one of an occurrence that he considered legal. You already know that statements were coerced, that statements were prepared by NCIS agents sometime after questioning. Prepared statements by an organization that has a questionable history of interrogations and investigations. There was "no" confession. The testimony of the other men came through plea deals...agreements to go along with the prosecution's story. There is nothing to show corroborating evidence from the Iraqi so-called witnesses. Even the Post, CNN and Time admitted that their interviews with the Iraqi's, that the prosecution calls 'witnesses', "could not be independently confirmed". If true, Aren't you just a little curious as to why NCIS was so quick to take their word? Especially when even a layman knows the Iraqi's have a history of lying. There is no corroborating evidence found in the autopsy of Awad. NCIS made no records of the interrogations. As for the video; All that's been said about it is that a few of them talked about killing more "people". Not one of the accused has been reported to have named Awad, anyone specific, or innocents. If you want to use a video like that to convict someone, then I can tell you where to find many of the same kind made by our troops when they kill the "enemy"! Have you ever seen videos made by the enemy when they joke about killing OUR young men and women? How about getting upset about that! You cannot convict these Marines for being happy about killing the enemy. Their own leaders; the very ones who now persecute them...have taught, trained, encouraged, and "ordered" them to kill the enemy and to be proud of it. Want some quotes? They're a matter of public record. I wrote to four of these leaders; Generals. I received two polite kiss-offs. That's politics!!! If being happy about killing the enemy is what you call proof, then let's accuse these leaders of these Marines of instigating and being accomplices to what "they" are now calling murder. There actually is no proof that a crime has even been committed. The prosecution's attempt to "create" one from plea deals does "not" make it so.

John1 wrote on Mar 18, 2007 9:26 PM:I have the video. The video was played at JJ's trial. It's not "PC" and those who are faint of heart would not like it. The marines in the video talk very directly about taking out (killing) insurgent "Hajji's" and also laugh at "racial profiling" as it relates to their then- recent insurgent sightings as it related it came to protecting themselves... it's contextual. The marines also discussed who in the last 50 years had been the chief terror suspects (young, middle-aged, old, well dressed, not well dressed, driving car-truck-boats- Arabs men. The language is as coarse and salty as you'd expect Marine infantry in the line of fire would be.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Mar 19, 2007 2:25 PM:RE:the video. Out of millions and millions of Americans who go online and watch any of these military videos... I'd love to know how many of the "faint of heart" who protest this video, pay money to watch movies like 'Saw','Texas Chain Saw Massacre','Pinhead','Jason','Chucky', etc, for entertainment. Yet in the "real" world they have the nerve to pass judgment on our troops for celebrating the demise of the enemy.

John1 to AW4 wrote on Mar 19, 2007 3:14 PM:AW4, this faux-surprise-shock at the Marines' demeanor on the video makes me so angry. Youtube, hell Discovery Military Channel, has worse- FAR worse, without all the handwringing. The fear these guys PALPABLY feel and transmit when they see a pickup truck with suspicious cargo gives the context of their dangerous environment.

To: To Piper wrote on Mar 20, 2007 4:42 PM:I not only have had a jury summonds--I have been a jury foreman.

To Piper: wrote on Mar 21, 2007 5:30 PM:Welll then...One would have thought you might have learned something with that experience. Unfortunately, you earlier comment shows that you did not. You must have snowed that jury.

To Piper again wrote on Mar 21, 2007 11:06 PM:I see that you only addressed the second post at 9:31 to brag about being a jury foreman, (not a great feat these days) yet you did not address a single issue in the previous post to you at 9:29. Well, one can take that as proof of your self-absorption. Pretty pathetic.

To To Piper wrote on Mar 22, 2007 10:53 AM:When someone writes using all capital letters and rambles on in an incoherent manner, I quickly decide that they have some mental problems. The post at 9:29 appeared and read like a diagnostic example of schizophrenic thinking--so I didn't even try to follow or finish it, let alone respond.

Piper wrote on Mar 22, 2007 11:11 AM:I wasn't "bragging" about being a jury foreman--I was merely pushing back a little! ...and you can take or leave my comments anyway you chose, your opinion and your pathetic but not pretty comments mean less than nothing to me.

To Piper wrote on Mar 22, 2007 2:04 PM:Wow! Not only a "jury foreman" but a self appointed phsyciatrist too. You really are something. There was nothing pathetic or rambling in my comments nor am I mentally ill or schizophrenic. I can understand though, why you couldn't follow. Keep in mind that your comments are not "pretty."

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Mar 22, 2007 8:06 PM:To Piper: I read your comments at 3:54PM on the 16th and thought you were way out of line. I agree 100% with 'To Piper'. You obviously lack the character to give a man a chance to be heard. A man who hasn't had a trial yet, and who is presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. NO one has proven a cottonpickin' thing. All you have are plea deal statements which prove nothing. Even one of the analysts staed that there's a history of cases in which military defendants were deemed to have been unduly pressured to plead guilty. Instead of accusing someone of having mental health issues; which most likely you are trying to transfer from yourself to another, why don't you tell us what the corroborating evidence is? Unless you happened upon any NCIS record of their interrogations, or any proof of the Iraqi's accusations, or any autopsy proof of anything, or...Gee!... I don't know!...."ANY" thing to corroborate statements made by coerced, intimidated young men. Let us know if you've seen the video. No mention of anyone specific was made. Only glee at having killed "people" (I believe 'people' was the wording). FYI; Insurgents are people. Please share your brilliance with all of us and solve your own mental health issues.

hello wrote on Mar 22, 2007 9:12 PM:Plea deals are only part of the truth and only the part that makes the others look guilty.

John1 to Hello wrote on Mar 22, 2007 9:26 PM:Well, plea deals make the one pleading look guilty, too....But, you're right, only part of the story is told. The 3 remaining trials shall be most interesting.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Mar 22, 2007 11:47 PM:To hello and John1: You guys are so right. I agree with John1's choice of words: "plea deals make the one pleading look guilty too". Emphasis on "look" guilty! No one has proven a crime was committed but the prosecution sure is trying to make it appear so. I, too, eagerly await the trials.

Hello wrote on Mar 23, 2007 11:04 AM:to john1 and AW4 Your right I stand,(sit) corrected.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Mar 23, 2007 9:45 PM:To Hello: Why do you stand (sit) corrected? I agree with you.

who cares? wrote on Mar 24, 2007 7:41 PM:Your "agreement" is not the gold standard!

Done wrote on Mar 24, 2007 7:44 PM:I don't think that any of the guys who copped a plea, are asking to withdraw their plea and stand trial with the full penalty of the law hanging over them. They are each guilty and they know it. All this denial and grandstanding is just that, empty barrels rattling around the halls of justice.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Mar 27, 2007 9:41 AM:To who cares: I tried responding to you before but it didn't go through. "I" care. I agreed with 'Hello' and couldn't understand why he felt he should be "corrected". As for my agreement being the 'gold standard'. "That" is in "your" mind, not mine. YOU dreamed that one up. Sad that you have nothing better to do than nitpick at my comment to 'Hello'. Sad that I'm even responding to stupidity.

MorallyRight1 wrote on Apr 10, 2007 11:28 PM:I want to know where in the UCMJ it says it's okay to have the same judge preside over two diferent defendants in the same case? Talk about lack of justice..... The Marines are really showing just how much grey matter they have between those ears.