TIGMOTHER wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:37 AM:Dear me. Tigmother is certainly heartened and encouaged to know that the prosecution is working zealously and assiduously to bring these cases to justice. Indeed so.

Bo wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:41 AM:Why aren't Bush. Cheney, Rumsfield, and Rice ordered to testify? These fine young men were just looking for the WMD that the White House sent them to look for!

Massachusetts Democrat wrote on Mar 17, 2008 10:11 PM:"I have determined that Lance Corporal Tatum's videotaped oral evidence deposition is necessary and mandated under the extraordinary circumstances of this case and I order him to appear," Lt. Gen. S. Helland wrote.

With respect general, the only extraordinary circumstance in this case is the fact that it's being allowed to go forward.

Mom of a Marine wrote on Mar 17, 2008 11:03 PM:To NCTimes: Thanks again for the censoring! Your claws are showing. To Mass. Dem...EXACTLY!!! To tig: YOU, of course, would be heartened by what you think is zealous and assiduous work... But that does not surprise me one bit coming from you. Did you even READ the whole article. It continues to be unveiled that the prosecution never had a case to begin with. Now at the end with only a few guys left...they try to bring out their fishig polls. They should go on vacation to a lake. They'd do better there!

Mom of a Marine wrote on Mar 17, 2008 11:54 PM:More sensoring. As I said, but it was removed from my post...what tig mistakes for zealous and assiduous work is at best incompetent and unscrupulous work. tig must be ONE SICK PERSON to get such a thrill out of seeing someone trying to destroy someone elses' lives. And pardon the typo...that's FISHING POLES! T'was probably NCTimes in their editing.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Mar 18, 2008 12:14 AM:Who gives a fig what TIGMother thinks. He might be better served joining radical Islam; unless he's already taken that path. Whatever happened to "investigative" journalism? Today it seems the press, whether willingly or unwillingly, follows in the shadow of the government, doing its bidding and aiding it in its persecution of our troops. One day someone will report the "whole" story of what's been going on in the courtrooms and those who failed to may have some explaining to do.

TIGMOTHER wrote on Mar 18, 2008 7:15 AM:Tigmother predicts: Tatum will provide testimony facilitating the conviction of Wuterich. Wuterich will be sentenced to a term similar to that of Hutchins, possibly more. Tatum will be discharged. Cases closed. Tigmother notes with a pardonable glee the hysterical rants of the AW4 thing and the M of M thing. Tigmother chortles and chuckles heartily at such ignorant diatribing.

TIGMOTHER wrote on Mar 18, 2008 12:35 PM:Tigmother must hasten to add that the REAL patriots are those who condemn war zone atrocities but who honor our brave men and women who so valiantly defend our country. Military criminals are a tiny minority of our great military service. Let them be judged and dealt with by a jury of their peers, just as the P8 were. Military criminals are anathema to true patriots. The groupies who support them are of the same feather as the groupies who are titilated and entranced by the inmates of death row. Further, Tigmother sayeth not at this juncture.

TIGMOTHER wrote on Mar 18, 2008 2:34 PM:"Hutchins' lawyer suggested the inspiration, perhaps even the idea, came from higher up the chain of command. But a jury of five officers and four enlisted men convicted him nonetheless. Every juror had served at least one tour of duty in Iraq. Some earned medals for valor." Quoted from NCT editorial, August 7, 2007. Tigmother completely agrees. Mark Tigmother's words: Just such a jury will render just such justice in the Wuterich case. And in the Tatum matter also, should that prove necessary. Tigmother and all reasonable observers will respect the decision of such a jury rather than the rampant ramblings of the groupie twins.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Mar 18, 2008 5:03 PM:I've heard it said that Ignorance is Bliss. It must be true. TIGMother is a fine example.

Mom of a Marine wrote on Mar 18, 2008 7:58 PM:Again more censoring...Hey tig...what happened to (your statement - "Further, Tigmother sayeth not at this juncture.") Of course, you had to say more. One more time...you call us "groupies who are titilated and entranced by the inmates of death row." What the ---- are you talking about. It is clear that you are certifiably ill! I will from now on ignore your ignorance.

TIGMOTHER wrote on Mar 19, 2008 10:25 AM:Tigmother retracts the groupies label and applies groupy. It is now apparent to Tigmother that AWthing and MMthing are but one thing. Tigmother gufaws and giggles delightedly at the antics of the things.

To Tig wrote on Mar 19, 2008 12:17 PM:Well you are as wrong as you are pathetically ignorant. So gufaw, giggle, chortle, and chuckle heartily all you want. Everyone here who knows anything about these cases, knows that you are flat out WRONG!!!

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Mar 19, 2008 6:03 PM:Thou Doth Protest Too Much. TIGMOTHER doth chortle and chuckle too much. Reason? Truth be known, he's miserable.

Steve wrote on Mar 20, 2008 8:39 AM:To aw4 and mom, "Dear me. Steve is certainly disheartened and discouraged to know that the prosecution is working zealously and assiduously to bring these bs cases to trial. Indeed so." Did I just talk in the third person??? Man I guess I was just trying to sound more intelligent than I really am.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Mar 20, 2008 10:56 AM:To Steve: Yes, AW4 is also disheartened at the prosecution's ability to unceasingly distort the facts and scare the bajeebers out of the coerced. AW4 is also disheartened at the ability of the Judges and CA's (plural) abilities, to ignore the idiocy of plea deals. AW4 believes that if the average American can understand that plea deals are made to save one's butt, how can the CA,s be ignorant of it? AW4 will answer that; they can't! AWgee! I'm starting to like this talking in third person. Just think Steve, we amy actually begin to get along with the TIGthing...?...Naaaah! AW4 says it will be a frosty day in the lower bowels of Mother Earth before that happens. Oh! AW almost forgot; these are totally AW4's opinions and not those of NCTimes. AW4 says thanks!

Mom of A Marine wrote on Mar 20, 2008 11:48 AM:To Steve: ROTFLMAO...either that or stuck in a Shakespeare Play!! Ha Ha

TIGMOTHER wrote on Mar 20, 2008 3:42 PM:Tigmother is constrained to join the stevething with the groupietwins, all a twinkletoed troika to make. Ah, but Twigmother takes sublime solace in knowing that justice will prevail; sending yet another miscreant to the hoosegow, aka the rock pile, aka Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Indeed. There, or elsewhere, waits the lamentable Larry, alas and alack.

Bill3 wrote on Mar 20, 2008 9:35 PM:Looks like some people here don't trust the Marine Corps to faily prosecute this case. But let's not pretend to be shocked at the way the judicial system works. Here's the drill: The prosecutors always feel the evidence points to a slam dunk case while the defendant's attorneys always feel their client has been wrongfully accused. Thankfully, the presiding military judge is the one who weighs the mountain of evidence presented by both sides and has the final say. That's the way democracy works. I'll accept whatever the ultimate verdict is. Will you?

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Mar 20, 2008 9:53 PM:To Bill: NO! Live it up close and personal and then ask that question.

Bill3 wrote on Mar 21, 2008 1:20 AM:To AW4cryinoutloud: What's your experience with the Marine Corps judicial system?

Steve wrote on Mar 21, 2008 5:22 AM:Bill, unfortunately I can not. I do not think it is a Marine Corps issue though. It is my belief that Murtha is being protected for some reason. Maybe someone that leaked that false information to him is alot further up the food chain, and by putting him on the stand will put him/her in jeapordy. Not being able to face your accusers is a violation of all we know as democracy. P.S. Did someone let TIG out of the Bagdad brothel again?

Bill3 wrote on Mar 21, 2008 8:16 AM:To Steve: If what you say is true about the Marine Corps being ready to throw Tatum and Wuterich under the bus simply to protect Murtha, then our Constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on. If you are right that someone at the top of the food chain is deliberately trying to undermine the system to protect Murtha, then it's unbelievable that no one at the White House, Attorney General's office, or in Congress has stepped in to investigate this over the past two years. Tatum and Wuterich are standing trial in the Marine Corps court system. If as you say, the outcome is already preordained due to backroom deals, it will definitely make me think twice about what democracy truly is in our country.

Steve wrote on Mar 21, 2008 1:47 PM:And Bill...Sorry, it has got me thinking about democracy for our soldiers, it seems the rights of our citizens of this country are more than the rights of the soldiers fighting for it, otherwise niether of these cases would even have made it to trial.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Mar 21, 2008 4:20 PM:To Bill: In answer to your question at 9:53PM, all I can say is much More than I ever in my wildest dreams, as an American, thought I'd ever become involved in. I'm a friend of Sgt. Hutchins, his family, and many Marines who "know" of the injustices in all of these hearings and courts-martial. As you will see by reading TIG's comments at 3:42PM, he is well aware of it and likes to "Cut and Run" with his remarks. What someone like him doesn't understand is that all of us were prepared for it. In the end you just consider the source and that is very comforting because it drowns out the hate filled idiocy of his comments. ALL of the Marines, both in Haditha and Hamdania, have been thrown under the bus. By the way, your terminology is very familiar. Could it be you know more than it may seem? But, in case I'm wrong, I'll disagree with you when you say we should be thankful the military judge is the one who weighs the evidence and has the final say. I'm not thankful. Sgt. Hutchins is not thankful and there will be others who will not be thankful. Who picks the military judge, is commander over all of the Marines, picks panel members, negotitates plea deals, and makes All decisions? Who do they work for? Who brings charges against the accused? Who does the prosecution represent? You do the math! I'll respectfully disagree with you on one other thing; You say our Constitution may not be worth the paper it's written on. Therein we disagree. Our Constitution is our National Treasure, worth more than most Americans can ever conceive. The problem does not lie with our Constitution; it lies with those who do not abide by it, who try to re-write its meaning and destroy the principles on which it was founded. You say it will make you think twice about what democracy truly is in our country. I can tell you what it is; It's something the enemy is trying to take from us through propaganda and making us turn on our own. It's something to fight for!!!

Bill3 wrote on Mar 21, 2008 5:04 PM:Steve: I couldn't agree more that our fellow countrymen who put their lives on the line on a daily basis to give democracy a chance in Iraq deserve every right afforded to our citizens. But let's be clear, the reason these cases made it to trial was because the US Military filed charges and the Marine Corps investigating officer said the evidence warranted criminal proceedings. If Tatum and Wuterich are innocent of all charges, then I trust the Marine Corps judicial body will deliver that verdict. When I say I'll accept whatever the ultimate verdict is, it's because a wrongful conviction would basically mean the Marine Corps justice system is corrupt. The judicial panel is composed of active duty military judges. There would be far-reaching implications if active duty military judges can be bought off in some way.

Steve wrote on Mar 21, 2008 6:18 PM:P.S. Well said AW4, I truly think Bill has good intention, and is just trying to get more information. If he truly gets involved, and learns all the information available I think he will start to learn the answer to the questions he seeks. I am sorry, being a Marine vet, it was really an eye opener for me. But I truly believe the answer our questions are above the USMC and unfortunately they may be buried by the Kennedy files, marked as "National Security". But there are a lot of veterans watching this case closely. ... Enough rambling for now...

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Mar 21, 2008 7:30 PM:To Bill3: Apologies! I keep leaving the 3 off of your name. Not intentional. I wish I had the confidence that you have but Sgt. Hutchins was innocent and look what happened. Judge Meeks, Wuterich' judge was also Hutchins'. Evidence allowed 2 others was not allowed for Hutchins. I don't have to verify it for NCTimes. They were there. The reason you mentioned for a wrongful conviction, Hmmmmm! Sometimes life is like a jidsaw puzzle; if you have the patience, eventually all the pieces will fit.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Mar 21, 2008 10:24 PM:To Bill3: Yea! I got the number in there this time! My typing sucks; jidsaw puzzle is supposed to be jigsaw puzzle. AW4.

Bill3 wrote on Mar 22, 2008 1:10 AM:Steve & AW4cryinoutloud: I genuinely appreciate your input. I must confess that after reading your own experiences, I have heightened concerns about the path the people in power are potentially leading us down. It’s one thing that our enemies our trying to divide us through any means possible. But from what you say, there seems to be an entire hierarchy of corruption within our own government. If military judges, the Marine commander, and whoever they answer to are all willing to throw innocent men under the bus, something has gone horribly wrong on all levels. Like I say, the Attorney General's office, the White House, and every member of Congress has the power to step in at any time to make sure the basic principles of the Constitution aren't being trampled on. Life may sometimes be like a jigsaw puzzle, but if we can't trust our military and government, then our country is slowly becoming a democracy that isn't worth fighting and dying for anymore.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Mar 22, 2008 12:18 PM:To Bill3: Hi, you had me until the last few words of the last sentence. We're not on the same page there because I believe this country and the principles on which it was founded are all worth fighting for. There needs to be change in this judicial system to put a stop to abuse of power and unlawful command influence. Our troops rights need to be guaranteed the same as in civilian courts. My God, they're giving their lives for this country. It's about time we gave something back. I've said it before; the government gets the goldmine and the troops get the shaft.

Bill3 wrote on Mar 22, 2008 2:29 PM:To AW4cryinoutloud: I believe in the same principles you do. My point is that we need to be able to trust our government and military, plain and simple. If it gets to the point where we don't, then big changes are needed or else we risk losing everything. I want to be able to trust active duty Marine Corps judges to make sure fellow Marines get a fair hearing and justice prevails. If a Marine didn't commit a crime, an innocent verdict is justified. If he did commit a crime, a guilty verdict should be rendered. What both Steve and you are saying is troublesome about the possibility an active duty Marine judge can be unduly influenced by someone higher up the chain of command. Doesn't the Marine Corps have a system of checks and balances to deal with all of this?

TIGMOTHER wrote on Mar 22, 2008 3:31 PM:"Thankfully, the presiding military judge is the one who weighs the mountain of evidence presented by both sides and has the final say." Bill3: Tigmother recommends that you study the UCMJ, particularly Sections 851 and 852. The judge rules on the law, but the military jury "has the final say," not the judge. In fact the jury can overrule the judge on points of law, if his/her ruling is challenged. That said, Tigmother repeats that in the case of EX-Sgt L. Hutchens, e.g., the Jury convicted and sentenced him, NOT the judge. The AW4 thing ignorantly agrees with your mistaken understanding of the law. But then again, her pretences of factual and legal knowledge in all these cases are as phony as she is.

Bill3 wrote on Mar 22, 2008 4:18 PM:Tigmother: I stand corrected. The final verdict is rendered by a military jury of Marines, not by the active duty Marine Corps judge. My overall point remains the same. Simply put, in the end justice prevails. If a Marine didn't commit a crime, he's found innocent. If he did commit a crime, he's found guilty.

TIGMOTHER wrote on Mar 22, 2008 4:54 PM:Tigmother thanks Bill3 for his polite reply and agrees wholeheartedly with Bill3's conclusion, to wit, "If he did commit a crime, he's found guilty." And so it transpired with Hutchins and the other P8 convicts ~ drummed out of the Corps in disgrace; the honor of the Corps RESTORED.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Mar 22, 2008 11:06 PM:To Bill3: Here's some advice for you. I don't know how old you are but am sure you're old enough to think for yourself, so, don't take anyone's word. Read it for yourself. Then, after you do get back to me and tell me exactly where it says the military judge can be overruled on points of law. It doesn't. Subsection (d) says that subsections a,b, and c, do Not apply to a court-martial composed of a military judge "only"; which is what Larry's court-martial was. "The military judge of such a court-martial shall determine ALL questions of law and fact arising during the proceedings, and, if the accused is convicted, adjudge an appropriate sentence." As for 852: It concerns sentencing. 852,3c, says that all other questions to be decided by the members of a GCM shall be decided by a majority vote, etc. Neither 851 nor 852 state that the jury has the final say. TIGMOTHER is a legend in his own Mind. If TIGM was so all-knowing why didn't he take it one step further and advise you that the Convening Authority has the Absolute Power over these cases. It can have be halted at any time by one word from any one of the CA's at Pendleton. A CA attains his rank because of his intelligence and his honorable service to this country; but also because of his political expertise among the higher echelon of the military and the civilian elite. Everyone is accountable to someone. You do the math!

TIGMOTHER wrote on Mar 23, 2008 2:48 AM:Tigmother's hilarity knows no bounds when reading the jumbled and confused retort of the AW4mess. The court martial consists of its members with a military judge. The members decide the guilt or innocence of an accused, and thus have "the final say." The only exception is where an accused has elected to have a judge alone decide. The only purpose of the court martial is to decide guilt or innocence. The Manual for Courts Martial is the President's implementing regulation and should be read to fully understand these matters as well as voluminous case law. Further, the convening authority can be any person in the chain of command from the President down to field commander level. Further, the convening authority does NOT have "absolute power over these cases." Nonsense. There is a Court of Military Appeals and beyond that the Supreme Court. In these short blogs a course in military jurisprudence is not possible, but accepting the baloney of somebody like AW4 is beyond ridiculous.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Mar 23, 2008 11:42 AM:AW4cryinoutloud TIG. Who do you think you're kidding? You said the jury can overrule the judge on points of law. You used 851 as your source. 851 states that the judge shall determine ALL questions of law and fact. RE: the Convening Authority; you say he doesn't have absolute power. Who do you think you're kidding? He is the Senior Commander in the Marine's and Sailors' chain of command. He alone decides whether or not a Marine will be charged with a crime, whether he'll face court-martial or be granted a lesser punishment. He decides how much access the defense may have to evidence!!! He chooses the military judge who presides over the GCM. He hand picks the panel members. He negotitates plea deals with the accused and the prosecution. He has the authority to drop the charges if he sees an accused is not bein granted his right to a fair and impartial trial. He has the power to lessen a sentence of he believes it's too severe. When the military judicial system fails an accused, as in the case of my friend Sgt. Hutchins, HE, the Convening Authority, has the power to rectify it by granting clemency or lessening the sentence. POTUS only pardons drugdealers, check forgers, etc. Oh! And politicians who get themselves in trouble. Who's next in line TIG? Only GOD has absolute power over all else. Here on Earth, all of that amounts to absolute power within the military NONjudicial system. What's the problem TIG, are you afraid people like Bill3 will learn the Truth? That's the only reason for your snide, gutter sniping insults to me and for this juvenile 3rd person BS routine. You can 3rd person your way to Iraq and back but it won't change the truth, the facts, or the knowledge that more and more people are gaining about what's being done to their own countrymen. Nice Try!

TIGMOTHER wrote on Mar 23, 2008 11:00 PM:Tigmother notes the continued ignorant, tiresome blather of AW4mess. Section 851 (b), UCMJ, provides, inter alia: "Unless the ruling is final, if any member objects thereto, the court shall be cleared and closed and the question decided by a voice vote as provided in section 852 of this title (article 52), beginning with the junior in rank." As ANYONE with even a modicum of knowledge of military jurisprudence knows, the military judge's ruling is NOT FINAL until the conclusion of the courts martial. Thus if a judge's ruling on a point of law is not challenged during the trial, there can be not retroactive overruling by the panel (jury). Such ruling would then be subject to review through the appelate process, however. Section 822, UCMJ defines the convening authority as any commander in the chain of command from the President to the division or brigade commander. Subsection IX, UCMJ, provides appelate layers ABOVE the convening authority, up to and including the United States Supreme Court. Those are "next in line." In addition the President has the power of pardon. Military Law 101. AW4mess's legal qualifications consist of a background of hanging around court rooms, schoozing with the defendant's families and swooning ...

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Mar 24, 2008 1:27 AM:To TIG: R U Serious? 851 Subsection (d) states that YOUR (b) does Not apply. The rest of your conmments are gibberish. I don't give a rat's fuzzy WHO a CA can be. That was not the point 4goodness sake. The point was that the CA, no matter who it is, has absolute power. AFTER the CA makes his decision...IF he does not grant clemency or relief, Then Appelate Review, Then Presidential Pardon; which you surely, in all your bluster trying to profess some sort of omnipotent wisdom, must know ain't gonna' happen unless, possibly, public outcry might have some influence. While we're at it, Cease and Desist the lowlife remarks concerning Sgt. Hutchins and Marines. This young man is like a son to me, so I'll ask you nicely, for now, to cut out the cheap, harrassing, personal insinuations or I'll see if NCTimes editors will intercede for me. Insult me if you must but do it without putting yourself in the gutter. FYI, I'm printing each and every one of them. AW4!

TIGMOTHER wrote on Mar 24, 2008 9:42 AM:"(d) Subsections (a), (b), and (c) do not apply to a court-martial composed of a military judge only. The military judge of such a court- martial shall determine all questions of law and fact arising during the proceedings, and, if the accused is convicted, adjudge an appropriate sentence. The military judge of such a court-martial shall make a general finding and shall in addition on request find the facts specially. If an opinion or memorandum of decision is field, it will be sufficient if the findings of fact appear therein." Tigmother is highly amused with the utter inability of the AW4mess to read. 851(d) states clearly that it applies when "a court-martial composed of a military judge only" is applicable. That is, there is NO jury (panel) and the accused has waived the right to trial by jury. Sheesh. Why is that so hard to understand???? OF COURSE, a jury (panel) could not overrule the judge IF THERE IS NO JURY. Your pedantic recital of the authority of the CA is childish and merely a laundry list of the obvious. As for your personal feelings regarding Hutchins, I will respect that. The fact remains that he was convicted by a jury of his MARINE peers. And as for your whimpering about personal insults your retorts are mostly just that: insults. Tigmother observes that your blogonym renders you anonymous and thus no condemnation attaches to a distinct person. So forget about the silly threats and grow up. Tigmother observes that AW4MESS can dish it out, but blobbers when there is a return in kind.

Steve wrote on Mar 24, 2008 2:04 PM:Sgt. Hutchins was convicted on the evidence presented. The destroyed files, drone video, autopsy, etc. is what I am looking for...and without knowing the identity do you know it wasnt an insurgent? Was it the same body? Then what was the cause of death? I will tell you...it was all information not made available to the defense, which would have exhonorated all eight. "Some " would say they were just "bad apples". I find it a cop out for any one to say that. You have hundreds of thousands of Marines, but we hand picked eight bad apples and put them in the same squad. Please....If it smells like crap, tastes like crap, looks like crap..you get the idea. Steve chortles at the amusement of others today!!!

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Mar 25, 2008 12:08 AM:To TIG: Well, I replied earlier today but nothing here so will try again. I had told you that you were correct on (d) and that you'd believe it if I told you how it happened other than the fact that the flu and being sick of you at the same time were part of it. I think I may have referred to you as obnoxious; not sure and feel too crappy to care. After wading through your excessive use of ridiculous terminology I told you that "childish" is when one speak straight out to another. Please don't tell me you actually talk like that to people. If you happen to notice them walking away; take a hint. Childish is referring to another in unhuman terms such as MMthing, The AWthing, AWmess, etc. It's kind of cowardly also. I don't see your problem with my remarks about the CA other than the fact you were wrong on that and wish to detract from it. An adult can admit a mistake. Achild hides it. As for your BS routine that my blogonym renders me anonymous, thus no condemnation attaches to a distinct person; why are you so obssessed with my particular blogonym? You might want to attach yourself to someone else or you mock yourself. I made no threat; I stated a fact. FYI, I don't complain about personal insults unless they cross the line. You crossed it. You could do some growing up and take responsibility. I'm curious. Speaking of peronal insults, what was the rest of the sentence to me (23rd at 11PM) that NCT felt they had to replace with dots?

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Mar 25, 2008 12:21 PM:To TIG: I left a word out of a sentence. You'll know which so don't get your knickers in a twist. Time for Pepto Bismol. Later AW4.