Citizen wrote on Sep 7, 2007 6:41 AM:I personally think that many kids and women getting wasted at close range is an inherent problem. That said, this guy's legal strategy is much more sound and consistent with innocence than the (a) alternating regretful and excuse-making testimony of the Hamdania crew (b) the cocky attitude of Sgt. Hutchins or (c) the non-testimony of so many other defendants in these kinds of cases. Some acknowledgement of honest mistakes and the undeniable human cost of war shows the humanity and apparent good moral judgment of the defendant, rather than the kill-em-all-let-God-sort-them-out attitude sometimes expressed by their defender. It also seems more effective than the defiant, Nuremberg-like refrain "I was only following order."

Our soldiers fight on two fronts wrote on Sep 7, 2007 7:20 AM:This is a war. People get killed in wars. Let our soldiers do their jobs. If President Bush and the Democrats were interested in victory and not some sort of twisted political correctness we would have won and been mostly out of Iraq by now.

Concerned-1 wrote on Sep 7, 2007 8:16 AM:Why do you keep ramming this stuff down our throats? Are other papers carrying these stories everyday? All this news does for me is make me depressed and stressed. Tell us about it when it's over. Your ostrich friend, C-1.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Sep 7, 2007 11:40 AM:What is up with the "we are at war defense" Saddam was at war in his own country and we condemned him for his actions. Now we have invaded the country and are doing the same thing. What an irony

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Sep 7, 2007 1:00 PM:To Citizen: With all due(?) respect. Your mindset is that of Citizens today who are spineless, who have no courage, who judge one's innocence or guilt solely on whether or not the accused grovels or seems to show remorse... FOR WHAT? For having to kill the enemy to stay alive? For following orders? Give me a break! Your reference to Sgt. Hutchins attitude comes from total ignorance and a suspect haste to accept the negative concerning this Marine and all of our troops. And please don't try to refute my accusation. Your lengthy comments are public record. You have taken one comment that came from coerced plea deals to make your ignorant remark about the Sergeant. A comment, I might add, that was supposed to have been a quote, yet was quoted two different ways by the media. So, someone didn't get their quotes quoted right now did they? So much for quoting someone. Especially when that one quote can destroy an innocent person. You owe this Marine an apology, which I'm well aware will not be forthcoming. In its stead I will educate you. My husband and I have met this Marine. The LAST thing represented by this Marine is any cocky attitude as ignorantly stated by you. This Marine sat in the freakin' Brig for over a year while his "brothers" made their (coerced) statements over and over again; some in the media. He at no time was able to defend against the injustices of their statements made through coerced plea deals. This Marine never once in those months said anything negative about his own men. During the stressful days of courts-martial this Marine represented integrity, strength, honor, and courage. My husband and I visited with him in the Brig and NEVER did this Marine display what you choose to ignorantly refer to as a cocky attitude. YOU do NOT know what you are talking about. Frankly, I don't believe you care, as long as you get your negative views out there hoping that those who aren't aware of the INJUSTICE of the UCMJ will believe your crap. Even when this Marine was unjustly convicted, and after sentencing he, at NO time, NEVER displayed the attitude of which you so ignorantly accuse him. His ONLY thought was that his men were home and alive. His ONLY concern was for his child and his family. I am sick and tired of ignorant, know-nothing, armchair quarterbacking, troop-hating CITIZENS who seem to have nothing more to their lives than the desire to misrepresent and destroy an honorable and decent AMERICAN CITIZEN and PROUD MARINE who has been the victim of the enemy, his own country, and obviously the ignorance of at least one CITIZEN of his own country. You are getting first hand insight into a young man who for months you have denigrated but, before you try to reply in your insulting usual fashion, let me say it for you...You don't believe it. Of course not. It isn't negative enough for you. There! I saved you the trouble. Perhaps you should change your residence to Guantanamo. I'm sure you'll find more CITIZENS(?) who are of the same mindset as yourself. [These are definitely MY opinions and not those of NCT]

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Sep 7, 2007 2:02 PM:The comments at 11:40AM were not mine. The Jihadist Blogger again. I wonder if this ... knows that he's representing the very thing we are fighting; he's misrepresenting the ideology or thoughts of others. His incessant whining about the war and always professing that America is responsible for everything, is getting old. Apparently he can never back up what he tries to convince me of, so, in his inadequacy he resorts to lowering himself to the enemy's same cowardly tactics. Very sad!

Citizen wrote on Sep 7, 2007 2:09 PM:This is apparently the fake AW4. Don't worry real one, your honor is intact. As for the we are at war defense, it's simple. Basically we condemn al Qaeda and Saddam for breaching the law of war, killing civilians, having an undisciplined and brutal military, etc. But then, because we're at war, just like Saddam was with Iran and the Shia rebels, and just as AQ imagines itself to be with us, that means we can kill civilians, breach the law of war, have a brutal and undisciplined force, and fail to honor our duty under well established international and law of war principles to prosecute our own troops when they commit battlefield atrocities against prisoners, noncombatants, and the like. It's simple you see. They're bad for doing these things, but that means we can do them too. And they're bad for doing them even when they're at war, but when we're at war we can do them because we get to follow our own rules and not follow the ones that we condemn others for breaking. Doesn't it make sense now?

DESERT BUG wrote on Sep 7, 2007 2:32 PM:Ahh, a glimmer of hope. "Ware may have tipped his hand in remarks at the close of the hearing. He told prosecutors he wanted them to explain in writing why Wuterich should be held accountable for the deaths of six Iraqis inside a bedroom of the first home they stormed."I watched Sergeant Wuterich on "60 Minutes" and despite the mock horror of the interviewer, Scott Pelley, Wuterich was totally convincing and showed himself to be a good and honorable Marine whose primary concern was for the survival of the Marines he was leading. One Marine with both legs and an arm blown off just seconds earlier and 2 others seriously maimed and wounded. Wuterich didn't "go berzerk" as some jerk like Murtha would assert. What happened was purely the collateral damage of war and combat and not an intentional "massacre" of the innocent. Colonel Ware: I hope and I trust that you will do the right thing, the fair thing, the only logical thing and recommend to General Mattis that there is insufficient evidence to sustain the charges against a great Marine, Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich!

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Sep 7, 2007 3:18 PM:I have been all wrong about Congressman John Murtha! I just noticed this on his website: "He [Murtha] had a long and distinguished 37-year career in the U.S. Marine Corps, retiring from the Marine Corps Reserve as a colonel in 1990." I think he brings a world of experience to the table and his views about our actions in Iraq should be taken very seriously! He says that Wuterich and the others were under such pressure that they lost control of themselves and went on a rampage after that roadside bomb went off. That's understandable but not a very good defense against the charge of murder. Let's get out of Iraq and Afghanistan and just admit that the whole effort has been a travesty and an unjust war resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent people, on both sides! Now Osama bin Laden laughs at us and is coming out with a new video commemorating 9/11. Terrible. We should have attacked Pakistan, not Iraq if we were to attack anybody. Pakistan is hiding bin Laden and secretly harbors al Quida and the terrorists! I feel like going to Bagdad and protesting this war just as Jane Fonda went to Viet Nam and protested that war!

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Sep 7, 2007 3:57 PM:NOT ME at 3:18PM.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Sep 7, 2007 4:57 PM:Not me a 3:57 PM

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Sep 7, 2007 5:05 PM:To Citizen: I feel that you judge one's innocence or guilt on whether or not the accused grovels or seems to show remorse. Remorse for What? For having to kill the enemy to stay alive? For following orders? Yep! Following Orders. Not that difficult to comprehend. Your reference to Sgt. Hutchins comes from ignorance of this Marine and his character. In your haste to find the negative you completely ignore any facts concerning this honorable young man. You readily accept statements made through plea deals. Your perogative but, in the process you missed the Fact that the so-called quoted statements have been quoted differently twice by the media. But I wouldn't want you to have to actually consider that the media is ever wrong or that the prosecutors are ever wrong. We all know how truthful Mr. Nifong was in his accusations about innocent young men. My husband and I have met this Marine. Have you? Have you spent days at his court-martial, in the courtroom, and for hours between? Have you looked into his eyes to see the good in them? NO! Because if you had, you'd have seen a Marine who has integrity, strength, and courage. He has been persecuted by his own country yet, for the past year he has never had one bad word for his "brothers" or anyone else. He has been put through hell in the Brig waiting, unable to defend against plea deal statements or statements in the media. At his own court-martial he couldn't speak for himself until day of sentencing; at which time he remained steadfast in his innocence, in his belief that he did what was asked of him. He did not grovel and cry for those who sentenced him and he most definitely would not ever take a bended knee to the likes of Citizens who try to demoralize him. This Marine has pride, integrity, and courage. He, at no time, has ever displayed what you in your ignorance refer to as a cocky attitude. After sentencing his only thought was that his men were home safe and alive! Isn't that just a terrible thing for a Marine to be grateful for? According to you apparently. I am sick of ignorance and know nothing, armchair quarterbacking, troop hating Citizens who take pleasure in the suffering of their own countrymen. These are My opinions and Not those of the Jihadist sick creep who thinks he's fooling anyone about the way I feel about this Marine and those who serve this country.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Sep 7, 2007 5:16 PM:Well, I had posted the 1:00PM and it just showed up 4 hours later. Since others had already posted I thought mine didn't take so I just re-posted. If it comes up, sorry about the double. I know it will make the Jihadist Blogger happy. He gets to read my comments all over again. And he WILL read them. It's easy to tell. He can't handle the truth and shows up when he reads it; ad nauseum!

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Sep 7, 2007 5:27 PM:To Citizen: If that wasn't you being me at 11:40AM, what do you care if the idiocy of the Jihadist Blogger's comments make any sense? Whatever! I'll clue you in on something that seems difficult for you to comprehend. Read my lips: Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean that they don't understand. Does it make sense now?

Go Figure wrote on Sep 7, 2007 7:03 PM:To AW4, Hutchins is not a honorable Marine, he commited a crime and now he must do the time (15 years) Your blog about coerced statements and plea deals by his co defendents is hog wash.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Sep 7, 2007 8:22 PM:Yep! It was Me at 3:57PM

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Sep 7, 2007 8:38 PM:To Go Figure: You're wrong. Sgt. Hutchins IS an Honorable Marine. You should make that comment about the Sergeant say that in the presence of several Marines I've had the privilege of meeting, and in the presence of many who comment on this site and others. I don't suppose you've ever heard of anyone being unjustly persecuted before. Like that hasn't happened over the centuries. Actually, one of the "most" innocent of all ever persecuted may have given His life for your sins; depending on your beliefs of course. As for coerced statements and plea deals, you're wrong again. Gee, you're wrong a lot. Frankly, I think you know better. Go Figure!

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Sep 7, 2007 8:46 PM:It was NOT me at 3:18PM. It WAS Me at 3:57PM. It was NOT Me at 4:57PM. Is anyone confused? Does anyone give a crap? Yep! I do and will NOT apologize for it.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Sep 7, 2007 10:31 PM:I only agree with the system when the outcome matches my politics.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Sep 7, 2007 11:44 PM:I hope everyone is enjoying the Jihadist Blogger as much as I am. 10:31PM wasn't me! Well, shucks; it's kind of obvious isn't it? The remark at 10:31PM was illiterate. Now we have an illiterate, name stealing, cyberstalking, nauseating Jihadist Blogger. Will wonders never cease?

to AW4 wrote on Sep 8, 2007 6:51 AM:I wonder why you feel it's so important that you be identified with your words -- if what you were writing made sense and had the effect you desired, why on earth would you care if you got credit for it?

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Sep 8, 2007 10:08 AM:10:31PM NOT Me.

to AW4 wrote on Sep 8, 2007 12:12 PM:My comment to you at 6:51AM was out of line. I apologize. Truth of the matter is that you make a lot of sense. I just hate to admit it. I realize it isn't getting credit that counts. It's the misrepresentation that's wrong. I hope noone does it to me.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Sep 8, 2007 12:13 PM:Post Sep. 7th, 3:18PM was ME. A fake is posting on here as ME & to make matters worse "it" protests that I am not "it." Oh well, the fake AW4 is the one that uses terms like "Jihadist Blogger" to confuse and mislead "its" fellow jugheads into believing almost anything. These phony tactics are certainly condemned by the Proud and the Few!

Citizen wrote on Sep 8, 2007 12:23 PM:I've not written under any other name but this one. I'm surprised the NCtimes doesn't check ip addresses for that kind of abuse, which I don't support. I'm glad you like Sgt. Hutchins and he seems like a good guy and all that. Lots of felons do seem that way, when they're not committing felonies. I know, I've practiced criminal defense law in my day, including for accused service members. That said, the only question is what happened and whether it violates the law, in this case by violating the ROEs. A jury of peers found otherwise. You say, "At his own court-martial he couldn't speak for himself until day of sentencing; at which time he remained steadfast in his innocence, in his belief that he did what was asked of him." This is false; his attorney could have called him to the stand at his Art. 32, as a witness in his own defense at trial, and then again at sentencing. They chose not to do so. As for plea testimony, that's why we have cross examination and a jury/panel system; they get to judge the credibility of witnesses. Plea testimony is part of nearly every conspiracy case, civil and criminal. Should they all be set free? The idea that 5/8 if the squad are lying seems inherently fanciful, particularly as they all have at least some honor and loyalty to one another, I thought. Hutchins didn't get a plea option not least because he dragged his heels, was the most culpable, and had ltitle to add to the prosecution's bag of tricks by not coming forward earlier. His "story" is unknown re what happened and why it was justified because he's never said it under oath and neve offered a counter-story that shows his innocence. I do think it's cocky not to acknowledge it's wrong to kill someone at random when you can't find the insurgent you're looking for. You say he shouldn't have remorse for "killing the enemy" but there is no real evidence Awad was an enemy or, if he was, that they had any reason to think so. He was seleted at random by all accounts. As for Haditha, I agree with you that it's a different case and the actions are more defensible, though I think it's clear someone in that squad killed women and young children at close range, which I believe without a specific threat is a war crime.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Sep 8, 2007 12:56 PM:Hee Hee! The post at 12:13PM...Funny or Pathetic? I can't decide. I'll just call it BS. And for the Jihadist pain in the ***; It's in the wording. You're too obvious. Oh! Please share what your problem is with me. You've only picked on a couple of others (that we know of), so what's up with that? Do you agree with everybody else? Just curious. Oh well. No Big. ... Thanks for wanting to be me. AW4!

12:13PM Post Sept. 8 wrote on Sep 8, 2007 1:13 PM:To AW4: I just don't know what to say. I think the Devil made me do it. I can't seem to stop using your blog name to misrepresent you. Perhaps I should join BLOGAHOLICS ANONYMOUS (accent on the word Anonymous of course). That may be my only salvation.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Sep 8, 2007 2:34 PM:To Citizen: Sorry about the double whammy. I didn't think my 1PM was going to post. Sgt. Hutchins wasn't allowed to speak for himself. I didn't give reason why. Like I said, we spent several days and many hours with the Sergeant. We are not the only ones who believe in this Marine and know that he was the sacrificial lamb for the prosecution. I've been blogging about it for a year. No surprise. Plea deals? I don't beleieve in them for anyone for any reason IF and WHEN it involves more than one defendant. It does Not protect the innocent or the least culpable, whether military or civilian. If you've practised law you'd know that. The Sergeant didn't take a deal because he believed he did the right thing. Why would you plead guilty when you're NOT? Since you've practised law, explain why NCIS took the Lieutenant's thumbdrive and Pennington's laptop. There was no plot by the Sergeant, no Masterminding a plot. He surely wouldn't have put it on a computer unless it was sanctioned. That is EVIDENCE that has not been seen since Iraq. You said there was no real evidence that Awad was the enemy. There was no evidence of any kind as to WHO it was. For one year the media and the prosecution hammered over and over again about the poor handicapped Awad, actually building sympathy for a freakin' Insurgent. NO AWAD! NO CASE! NOT in a system that follows the rule of law, yet at every illegal turn the prosecution was allowed to continue with its persecution. Sorry! You and I are never going to agree. That's an indisputable fact. Again; sorry about the double whammy. AW4.

Zeke wrote on Sep 8, 2007 2:56 PM:The caliber of these comments has improved greatly with the addition of Citizen's expertise and experience. It is actually educational.

Huh? wrote on Sep 8, 2007 5:47 PM:What expertise and experience? What did I miss?

How Do You Plead? wrote on Sep 8, 2007 7:06 PM:AW4 is a big defender of Michael Vick; they only got him on a plea deal. I think that is the way they got the BTK murderer too.

DESERT BUG wrote on Sep 9, 2007 10:11 AM:"Citizen's" comments on the testimony of plea bargainers is disingenuous and circular reasoning. He seems to defend the admissibility of such testimony as evidence by merely asserting that its use is widespread. Navy corpsman Bacos offered such testimony IN EXCHANGE for the reduction of a possible sentence of TEN years in prison to ONE year with credit for time served. To admit such testimony in evidence is a travesty and a huge assault on the concept of due process and a fair trial. Oh sure, the jury/panel can evaluate the worth of such evidence, but once they have heard it who knows what real doubts are planted in their minds? Who knows whether their final conclusion would have been different had they not heard that worthless testimony? Sergeant Hutchins has been singled out to be used as a sacrificial lamb in the effort by some elements of DOD to do a PR campaign for their own benefit. Clearly, Sergeant Hutchins conviction and sentencing are a miscarriage of justice and should be overturned and he should be set free and honored as one of the Proud and the Few ~ a true Warrior ~ a real Marine!

Citizen wrote on Sep 9, 2007 11:59 AM:Should everyone in every prison in America who has been convicted on the basis of plea-bargain testimony be released? This list includes such distinguished figures as Jeff Skilling of Enron, Paul Cicero (the bad guy in Goodfellas), and numerous drug dealers, murderers, etc. I don't think so. It's true, I make an argument by analogy, but here you had multiple testifiers, the plea deals of which could be known in every case by the court martial panel. Plea bargains are an important part of our criminal justice process and the jury, the cross examination process, and the rest seem to do the job. Just asserting it's a "travesty" etc. does not exactly persuade me because the context is that such testimony is commonplace.

DESERT BUG wrote on Sep 9, 2007 1:17 PM:Here "Citizen" is again with the same old tired argument. It reminds me of the old refrain, "If it was good enough for grandpa

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Sep 9, 2007 2:17 PM:To How Do You Plead: Why are you so obssessed with Michael Vick? You use different blog names when you include me in your stupid Michael Vick comments. Make up your mind who you want to be. Obviously, the 'big defender' of Michael Vick is yourself; most certainly not me. I told you before I could care less about an overpaid, over idealized athlete. He is nothing to me. You may have him. PLEASE! Take him and keep him and leave me out of the relationship. Thanks!

DESERT BUG wrote on Sep 9, 2007 2:18 PM:..."Citizen" repeats himself and claims that certain notorious convicts are now in prison "on the basis of plea-bargain testimony." That's just as false as his reasoning. Yes, such tainted testimony was allowed, but the convictions did not rely SOLELY or even substantially on such testimony. The truth is that plea bargain testimony is testimony procured by coercion and as such is virtually worthless. To allow it as evidence is disgraceful and a scandal of our system of jurisprudence. To say that this practice is "commonplace" and is therefore acceptable is about as logical as saying that because it is commonplace for dogs to crap on lawns that it's OK for that to happen. "Citizen" claims experience as a criminal defense lawyer in order to establish his own credibility and as a backdrop to his argument. It is also interesting that he adds that he represented "accused service members." If he does have that background, which I do not believe for a minute, then I feel sorry for those he represented. His logic is shallow to say the least. In addition, he shows his personal animus toward Sgt Hutchins by characterizing Hutchins as "cocky." Tell me "attorney" Citizen, would that adjective be allowed in your closing argument and based on WHAT evidence? Sgt Hutchins is proud and assertive and aggressive, but "cocky" he is not. The words attributed to him by a jailhouse snitch is a case of putting words in the defendant's mouth.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Sep 9, 2007 3:00 PM:I'm getting dizzy from the spin. Example: Citizen says that "the plea deals of which could be known in every case by the court martial panel." AH! Therein lies the spin; the operative words being, "could be known". So; were they known by every panel member of every court martial? Citizen, according to Zeke, has the expertise and experience so please inform us as to whether all of the panel members at all of the courts-martial "knew" of all of the plea deals or only "could have known". FYI: "Could Have Known" doesn't get it. Doesn't prove zilch. Bottom line is that Sergeant Hutchins, was sacrificed, made a scapegoat. Basically, screwed over. Plea bargains are only important to those who can save their butts by making them. I don't care if they're poor or rich. Those who benefit from plea deals are NOT always the innocent or the less culpable. Since Citizen is unaware of this it gives me reason to doubt his experience or expertise.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Sep 9, 2007 3:14 PM:To Desert Bug: You Rock!

Citizen wrote on Sep 10, 2007 6:25 AM:There was other evidence in this case including confessions to NCIS agents and the autopsy results. The panel knew of the deals if the defense did their job; the contents of these deals were reported to have been brought up on cross examination in various accounts of the trials. It would be major malpractice for any of the defense attorneys not to. I only said "could have" because I didn't have the actual transcripts in front of me. This is hardly a "gotcha" moment, AW4. Use some common sense. And, yes, I do think plea testimony is worth introducing because when there is a conspiracy and an eyewitness to a crime--itself an unusual occurrence in the case of homicide--such testimony is extremely useful to the fact-finder. I would not shield this from the fact-finder because the alternative is not to have this evidence. This case hinged on the defense of justification and not on the fact of homicide, so if there were conversations, surrounding circumstances, post-crime coverup attempts, etc. that is eminently important as to what happened and whether it was justified. It could only come from the accused since none of these sorry excuses for service members backed out until faced with prosecution, not even Bacos. Nothing prevented Hutchins from getting on the stand and contradicting this version of events; he did not and only spoke at his sentencing. It would be nice to have Mother Theresa as a witness in criminal cases, but instead usually it's other people accused. That's how criminals role. In this case, because this was not an ordinary "street crime," I think the five accused service members have more credibility than the usual plea-bargaining drug dealer. And yes, I think the fact its used in other cases is useful insofar as we're told something unusually bad is afoot in this case, when instead it's really quite typical of our entire criminal justice system. But who among you wants to lead the charge to get Jeff Skilling released?

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Sep 10, 2007 4:45 PM:To Citizen: I just read your comments. Let me repeat what I said before. I doubt your expertise and/or experience in the judicial system; especially military. It's apparent that you know nothing of the UCMJ, much less what occurred at the court-martial. The most absurd statement you made was that none of the accused backed out until faced with prosecution. Not even Bacos. Bacos? OMG! He squealed like a goosed pig In IRAQ. According to your opinion they "backed out" In IRAQ because THAT is where they were coerced, denied counsel, threatened with prosecution, threatened with the death penalty, and threatened with never seeing their families again. Thank you for admitting the obvious. As for the rest of your comments; definitely NO experience and NO expertise. Only jabbering on and on with words that have no legal justification. Your attempt to portray yourself as knowledgeable is...is...overwhelming. You said you didn't have the actual transcripts in front of you. Geeze! Tell me it isn't so!

Citizen wrote on Sep 11, 2007 7:29 AM:You are confused, as usual. First, the "backing out" referred to the conspiracy itself, the killing. None said: no way, I'm not doing this, and if you all do I'm going to the CO/JAG, whoever. Bacos "squealed" as you say when he was interrogated. In other words, he told the truth when he was confronted with an authority figure and an interrogation. Isn't it funny he, Pennington, and Jodka and others all said the same story to NCIS when interrogated. Second, I am an attorney and have engaged in criminal defense (including on UCMJ matters) but if you don't believe me that's fine too. I think it's apparent to disinterested observers that I know what I'm talking about and that you and your buddies are unhinged. More important, like a good attorney, I know that my arguments should speak for themselves; they do not depend on an appeal to authority or credentials or secret conversations I've had with anyone or whatever other nonsense you spew daily AW4. Finally, and all too typically, you focus on the trees and ignore the forest. You know as well as anyone the panel heard about the plea deals, yet you made a big semantic point to the contrary above. Now you forget that whole line of conversation. Also the credibility of the plea tesitmony was enhanced I said by the fact these guys were in the service, even if they lost good discipline in the field. Do you disagree with that as compared to a normal drug-dealing plea bargainer? We're told this is bad and worse than the civilian system; would you all prefer a civilian jury a civilian US Attorney prosecutor and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines?

Bugged wrote on Sep 11, 2007 3:06 PM:Rock On Citizen! You can do more than Google, you can actually think and reason and communicate.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Sep 12, 2007 6:52 PM:Well; Here I go again! I don't think there's anything wrong with my computer. I've tried to post on this article since yesterday. Others take just fine. I think NCT may want to check and see if this moderator is ok. I mean conscious. Unless it's just this particular page. So! I'm givin' it another go. I've been trying to tell Citizen that someone seems ignorant of the smorgasbord of knowledge that comes from Googling. Factual info rather than pseudo reasoning where there is no verification. I tried to tell Citizen that what he refers to as lack of comprehension is merely DISagreement. I guess that may be impossible for him to grasp. I don't believe Bacos' statements were truthful. Even the female agent admitted that she lied to them to get them to turn. Unless he was there, Citizen has no way of knowing what stories the accused told NCIS. There "were" discrepancies in testimony at the hearings. Certainly enough to cause DOUBT. I replied to Citizen that I do not beleieve he is an attorney. He lacks the self-confidence and knowledge of the UCMJ; else he would back up his comments with verification or corroboration. I'm sure he's heard of those terms. He says that I and my buddies are "unhinged". That's a bit of an insult now isn't it? Certainly one beneath the level of a professional attorney. Citizen does not represent well. Why should his arguments speak for themselves? I have no reason to trust them. His remark to me about "spew"ing is highly unprofessional and a tad childish. I totally differ with him on his comment that "the credibility of the plea testimony was enhanced by the fact the accused were in the service". Citizen is grasping. These Marines were coerced BECAUSE they were in the service and had NO control or power because those who did abused it. That is MY opinion and not that of NCT. I could care less about drug dealers. There is absolutely NO comparison. We are talking about UNITED STATES MARINES! Citizen asked if I'd prefer a civilian jury and prosecutor. AFFIRMATIVE! It never would have gone to trial what with all the unauthorized leaks, failure to Mirandize, failure to provide counsel when requested, failure to prove identity of the person who was for one year referred to as an innocent yet was later testified to be an insurgent, to the extent that the court no longer allowed the deceased' name in court. He was called "an Iraqi man". In a Civilian court Nifong made up his own rules as he went along. He presently seeks new employment. Federal Sentnecing Guidelines? Personally speaking; I felt that I witnessed a self-absorbed, vindictive lack of compassion for the Sergeant , his child, his family, and most reprehensible of all....NO credit given for 15 months time served in the Brig. Yeah! I'd most definitely prefer a Civilian system of justice to what the UCMJ has done to each and every one of these Marines. That was all I wanted to say.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Sep 12, 2007 9:14 PM:To Moderator: Thank God you're OK. AW4.

Canderson wrote on Oct 4, 2007 11:30 AM:The way these Marines were treated was a travesty of justice. These men have put their own lives on the line and go to the harsh hostile environment of a foreign country, leaving their families behind, while all we have to complain about is work hour traffic and a late day at work. Many of these Marines have done multiple tours, each time risking their lives and missing major chunks of their family's lives. They are fighting an enemy that uses civilians to hide behind and among, knowing that our people are far more humane and judgemental of harming civilians in most cases. These guys are expected to make split second decisions that if incorrect could mean their own death or their fellow soldiers. From what I have read, Haditha was an enemy stronghold and the enemy choose to hide and attack from civilian homes without uniforms to identify themselves, as well. I would bet a million bucks if most of these liberals who have verbally crucified these men were in their shoes, they would have done the same thing. I suggest the liberal readers watch the PBS series "The War" and see what war is like...it is not pretty.-