Request for generals at next Haditha hearing denied

By: MARK WALKER - Staff Writer | Tuesday, May 22, 2007 8:34 AM PDT

CAMP PENDLETON -- Prosecutors are resisting defense requests to have several former top U.S. generals in Iraq testify at an upcoming hearing for Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, who is accused of failing to investigate the deaths of 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha in 2005.

Chessani's attorneys want to hear what the generals knew and why, like their client, they didn't order an investigation into the deaths. Two of those it wants to testify, Gen. George Casey and Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, were the top commanders in Iraq at the time.

Prosecutors rejected the request as "immaterial" in a one-sentence statement sent to Chessani's attorneys Monday.

"But that's just the government's position," said Brian Rooney, one of Chessani's attorneys. "We are petitioning the hearing officer and anxious to see what he has to say. The decision is ultimately his."

In the military justice system, a defense request for witnesses is first filed with prosecutors. If they reject the request, the defense can appeal to the hearing officer who has the authority to overrule the denial.

The denial also covered a requested appearance by Maj. Gen. Stephen Johnson, the man in charge of Marines in the Anbar province when the killing occurred. Rooney said Johnson's testimony could be crucial for Chessani, one of four officers charged with dereliction of duty for failing to order a probe immediately after the incident.

In early 2006, Johnson told Army investigators examining how Marine commanders handled the Haditha deaths that he didn't feel the deaths warranted an investigation and that killing of innocents in combat situations were not uncommon.

"It happened all the time," Johnson is quoted as telling the investigators in a report of his comments published last month in the Washington Post.

Chessani was commander of Camp Pendleton's 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment at the time of the incident, in which five Iraqi men who emerged from a car were shot minutes after a roadside bombing killed a lance corporal and injured two other Marines. Before the day was over, another 19 Iraqi civilians, including two women and five children, would die at the hands of Marines inside homes near the site of the bombing.

The men who carried out the killing claimed the deaths resulted from the roadside bomb and a subsequent firefight, a story that did not hold up when investigated several months later. Chessani was relieved as battalion commander when the unit returned home in April 2006.

Chessani's hearing to determine if he will face trial by court-martial begins at Camp Pendleton on May 30 and is expected to last through June 9. The Article 32 hearing is akin to a probable cause hearing in civilian court.

The first Article 32 hearing in the Haditha case ended last week and is now in the hands of a hearing officer, who will make a recommendation on whether defendant Capt. Randy Stone should stand trial for dereliction of duty.

Maj. Gen. Richard Huck, head of the 2nd Marine Division in Iraq at the time, testified during the Stone hearing that he had told Chiarelli and Casey that he believed the killings were "collateral damage" resulting from combat. That was the initial report of what happened and didn't change until a Time magazine reporter, Tim McGirk, interviewed relatives of the victims and began asking questions in January 2006.

"It goes a lot further than Gen. Huck," Rooney said in reference to the other generals.

The government has named a handful of witnesses it intends to call during Chessani's hearing. The defense plans to call about 30 witnesses, but will not hear from Time's McGirk, who is refusing to testify, Rooney said.

On another front, Navy Secretary Donald Winter has rejected calls for a probe of Naval Criminal Investigative Service agents who interviewed witnesses and the men who were ultimately charged.

Chessani's attorneys last month filed a complaint with Winter alleging the agents had used bullying tactics that included not allowing several Marines to use the bathroom or have anything to eat or drink during lengthy sessions.

The tactics, the attorneys complained to Winter, seemed to be part of an effort to find wrongdoing based on comments made last year by U.S. Rep. John Murtha, D-Penn., that the enlisted Marines responsible for the death had killed in cold blood.

"It is reasonable to conclude that the improper conduct of NCIS agents ... was fueled by a desire to substantiate Congressman Murtha's irresponsible public statements," the attorneys said in their request to Winter.

Winter responded late last week, saying that the Department of the Navy enforcement agency follows the law and that no investigation was necessary.

Hearings for three enlisted men facing murder charges in the deaths take place at the base this summer.

-- Contact staff writer Mark Walker at (760) 740-3529 or mlwalker@nctimes.com.

5 comment(s)[-]Go to Top

level field wrote on May 21, 2007 10:20 PM:Prosecutors will get the advantage and prove their case. Defense will be handicapped all the way through ... watch.

mark wrote on May 22, 2007 9:05 AM:"Winter responded late last week, saying that the Department of the Navy enforcement agency follows the law and that no investigation was necessary". That's an extraordinary statement to make. Is he sure? Always? I don't think any big city chief of police could or would make such a claim.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on May 22, 2007 2:02 PM:I'm beginning to think that reporters in these proceedings could write their articles way ahead of time. Just relate the usual: Defense requests denied. Prosecution requests granted. There you have the headline and the story good to go. All you need are the names to fill in the blanks.

AEQUITAS ET VERITAS wrote on May 22, 2007 2:47 PM:Ladies and gentlemen, this has to be the most convoluted, irrational, alice-in-wonderland situation in the annals of military jurisprudence. The prosecution rejects a request by the defense for witnesses?? Now how does that equal justice? Good golly molly. I thought the scales of justice gave the defense at least as much weight as their opponent. Must prosecution witnesses be approved first by the defense? I would think that the defense would merely subpoena witnesses and if the hearing officer (judge) rejects the subpoena, then that's an appealable issue. So much for the procedural fairness. But that's getting the cart before the horse. I now believe firmly that scapegoating is at play in all of these prosecutions, emphasized by the fact that no general officers have been prosecuted and almost all of the prosecution is of the enlisted ranks. Maj Gen Johnson said that the killing of innnocents in war is inevitable. True. So ~ if a grunt snaps under pressure and blasts people he thought at the time were the enemy, but later analysis shows that he was mistaken, then that's the death of an innocent in wartime that is excusable. Good gravy and sakes alive ~ just dismiss all of these cases, thank the men for their service, restore them, give them counselling for the horrific stress they have suffered and give them easy duty from here on out. They've done their time in hell. Let's not treat them as shamefully as we have the wounded vets at Walter Reed.

level field wrote on May 22, 2007 4:51 PM:24 not enough? How about 100? 1000? When do you stop and say "This doesn't look right, how did it happen?" I'm not saying blame this that or the other for the deaths, but the question is who is responsible? I think it wayyyyyyy to simplistic to blame a kid with a finger on the trigger. Why not appy some critical thinking here and some real hard work to find out what happened and quit watching the clock for 1630. If the law professionals handling these cases worked half as hard as the grunts they are prosecuting and defending, it think the needle would point north up the chain. But go ahead and get a few convictions notches in your record belt ... even if it is a few junior enlisted men. That's about as easy as hunting from a car at night with a spot light. You can kill 'em at will, but how sporting is that??? Think about it Jethro.

First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, email addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.

Submit Comment[-]

(optional)
   

Advertisement

Videos