mark wrote on Jun 3, 2007 11:50 PM:With all do respect, Lt Col Eugene Robinson, if your jurors might be so easily confused, what the heck are they doing serving on a jury in the first place?

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Jun 4, 2007 12:27 AM:Congressman Bill Delahunt stated a few months ago that he was concerned about Sgt. Hutchins being given due process. He stated he was concerned that Pennington's sentence was severe in relation to the others. Now this. You'd think somebody in Congress would do something about the abuse of power running rampant in the Marine Corps judicial process. No matter what the rights of the accused, there's always a military judge or convening authority who can screw them right out of those rights. If that isn't abusing one's power I don't know what is. None of these Marines were afforded their rights in Iraq and nothing has changed in their own country. Of course the military judges can make their decisions on a case-by-case basis. Why make it fair for the accused? Let's assure that the military judges can pick and choose who they want to stick it to the most. Ms. Duignan refers to the 5 as being given "light" sentences. I don't think Pennington feels that his sentence was "light". One Congressman doesn't. Over 500 leaders of this country and only ONE has made any attempt at all to see that the scales are balanced for these Marines. Our Congressmen are so busy trying to dig their way out of this war that they've sacrificed the careers and even the freedom of those "they" sent to fight it. The sentence that makes me laugh, or cry, is that "Among permissible reasons for keeping evidence out of a trial is the danger that it would confuse the issues, mislead the jury or unfairly affect the case". First of all; shouldn't the jury have ALL of the evidence? How in the hell is this information going to "confuse the issues? The military judges must think we have a bunch of dummies for a jury if they think any jury can't comprehend what's happening. OH! Shucks! That's right! We don't really want them to comprehend, or decide for themselves whether something is unfairly affecting the case. Problem is that the thing that's unfairly affecting the case is the abuse of the military judges who are making the decisions that will ruin the lives of their own. Gads! How proud of themselves they must be.

MACK M. wrote on Jun 4, 2007 12:53 PM:If I were on a jury, I would listen to the testimony of plea bargainer "witnesses" with great skepticism or might not believe it at all. After all, it is the prosecution who made the deal with those who pled guilty and now the prosecution can, with the help of the military judge, hide, disguise and conceal the character, quality and nature of what is really tainted and coerced testimony from the jury! Its probative value in my book is near zilch. This is a disgrace and is further evidence of the totally unfair, stacked and bogus prosecution of these Marines. If it were up to me I'd dismiss all the charges and declare any convictions null and void in the interests of justice. What these Marines did or didn't do, in the crucible of heavy combat, to some Iraqi who well could have been a terrorist should not be the basis of prosecuting them! Oh sure, later anybody can nitpick it apart and tease out this and that theory, but those doing that are more interested in putting some kind of PR face on the DOD and pleasing foreign governments than they are in real justice for our Marines.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Jun 4, 2007 1:21 PM:The article, "Judge Dismisses Charges Against Detainee". Hello! The military judge dismissed charges against a young man classified as an "enemy combatant" because of a technicality...he wasn't classified as an "alien unlawful enemy combatant". Two tiny words and charges are dropped by our government. Does the Marine Corps need to be reminded of the "many" technicalities that should have resulted in charges dropped against our Marines? Miranda is applicable to military law. Under Miranda the Marines, ALL of them, when under investigation in Iraq were denied the right under Miranda to have "presence" of counsel. The Haditha Marines were also denied presence of counsel. Does this one, single, huge, technical screw-up not bother the conscience of NCIS? Oops! I shouldn't have asked that one. Does it not bother the conscience of the prosecution, the hearing officers, the military judges, or Mattis? Guess I shouldn't have asked that one either. If any of those in power had any semblance of a conscience or a sense of what's right, None of these Marines would have spent a day in the Brig or been put through a degrading living hell that they do NOT deserve. I need a Dramamine!

MorallyRight1 wrote on Jun 4, 2007 6:52 PM:Hoorahs to AW4---The Miranda rule is definately applicable under Military Law, and yes these men's rights were violated. But does anyone care one iota? Just try and get a judge (most likely nearing retirement) who would ever go out on a limb for what is right and wrong and actually say something, much less rule in favor of these men. I cannot help but wonder how long it will take the new kids on the block to figure out how screwed they could be if they inlisted in today's Marines. I hope all of you parents are making sure they know this case and what has been going on, as well as the others.

MorallyRight1 wrote on Jun 4, 2007 9:04 PM:One Military judge finds this evidence "crucial and essential". Yet another judge finds the exact same evidence "not relevant,...might confuse the jurors." Hello, there Mr. Judge, I think you might be a bit confused. Of course the fact that the prosecution basically 'bought' those plea deals by offering the deal of the century ie: months as opposed to years incarcerated for the exact same case, same charge, same everything. From beginning to end, the Marines continue to put themselves out there as the laughing stock of all branches of the military. Their personal interpretations have gone a bit awry if you ask me. And this is a case in point. At least the Army judges are being consistant with their rulings (and all appear to agree on the interpretations of the UGMJ, as well!!).