Zguy28 Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Well isn't this a little strange twist to the whole Iraq ball-of-wax? Full article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060802/pl_nm/iraq_usa_haditha_dc_1 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. Marine suspected in the killing of 24 civilians in Haditha, Iraq, will sue Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record) for libel after the war critic made public comments about the case and accused the serviceman of murder, attorneys said on Wednesday... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Yeah, it is interesting - especially in light of this... http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/02/haditha.probe.ap/index.html "Evidence collected on the deaths of 24 Iraqis in Haditha supports accusations that U.S. Marines deliberately shot the civilians, including unarmed women and children, a Pentagon official said Wednesday." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Did Rep. Murtha ever name the Marine suspected of the killings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Yeah, it is interesting - especially in light of this...http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/02/haditha.probe.ap/index.html "Evidence collected on the deaths of 24 Iraqis in Haditha supports accusations that U.S. Marines deliberately shot the civilians, including unarmed women and children, a Pentagon official said Wednesday." You know that once lawyers are introduced into the situation that common sense goes out the window! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 You know that once lawyers are introduced into the situation that common sense goes out the window! Hey - was that a dig against me? :mad: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Well, this should be interesting. Time to put up or shut up Mr murtha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon_mikal Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 This whole thing is a huge mess. Personally, I don't believe they did anything wrong. The circumstances seem a bit odd to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 Hey - was that a dig against me? :mad: :laugh: I think that would have been a personal attack and as such prohibitted by the rules of this community...it was a dig against your chosen profession:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted August 2, 2006 Author Share Posted August 2, 2006 Yeah, it is interesting - especially in light of this...http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/02/haditha.probe.ap/index.html "Evidence collected on the deaths of 24 Iraqis in Haditha supports accusations that U.S. Marines deliberately shot the civilians, including unarmed women and children, a Pentagon official said Wednesday." This article is better than the original: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/02/haditha.suit/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted August 2, 2006 Author Share Posted August 2, 2006 Did Rep. Murtha ever name the Marine suspected of the killings?No, not personally. He was talking about the entire force that was at Haditha, of which this guy is one.Boy what a mess this whole incident is, no matter the verdict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 I guess that the strategy remains: "the best defense is a good offense." The guy's lawsuit is utterly meritless on its face, but that hardly matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 I guess that the strategy remains: "the best defense is a good offense."The guy's lawsuit is utterly meritless on its face, but that hardly matters. The intent is to get Murtha to name who it was the made the accusation from within the DoD long before any investigation began Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 The intent is to get Murtha to name who it was the made the accusation from within the DoD long before any investigation began That's what witness subpoenas are for, not libel complaints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 That's what witness subpoenas are for, not libel complaints. Yeah, Do you know if Murtha enjoys any imunity as a elected official? You know... with it being part of his job to rush to judgement to score political points. It's not like these guys lives and livelihoods are not affected. To recover in a libel or slander suit, the plaintiff must show evidence of four elements: that the defendant conveyed a defamatory message; that the material was published, meaning that it was conveyed to someone other than the plaintiff; that the plaintiff could be identified as the person referred to in the defamatory material; and that the plaintiff suffered some injury to her reputation as a result of the communication. http://www.answers.com/topic/slander-and-libel?ff=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedoc4454 Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 I heard today that there has been no examination of the bodies by either side. How in the world can you convict someone for murder if there is no forensic evidence?:2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 I heard today that there has been no examination of the bodies by either side. How in the world can you convict someone for murder if there is no forensic evidence?:2cents:There have been plenty of murder convictions even without ever producing a dead body, far less examining it. Not a normal situation, but its been done.Looks to be a PR move. From what I've seen Murtha never made an attempt to single out any Marine, so you've got a tough time proving any one person was defamed. He described an incident, not an individual. Unless the guy admits "He had to be talking about me since I was the one who shot them". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 That's what witness subpoenas are for, not libel complaints. Point being the Marines are hanging thes guys out to dry based on the testimony of a local civilian who was looking for a payout. These guys are sitting in the brig, based in part on Murtha getting on TV and essentailly convicting them in public before they have even been charged. Where did he get his information? And why did he feel the need to go on national TV, other than hating Bush and trying to dig at him via the military and their supposed misconduct? Someone in DoD gave him that info Also. reports from this guys lawyer also indicate that either a Col or Gen, I can't remember which, came to the brig recently and personally interrogated the guy without his lawyer present and after he had been read his rights, obstensively to intimidate him into incriminating himself Hell, I'm no lawyer, but even I'd have a field day with that. It's just a damn shame our own side won't take the word of our own over an Iraqi golddigger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Seems that with recent events in the past day or so. That suing a congressman appears to be the last of this young man's troubles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Seems that with recent events in the past day or so. That suing a congressman appears to be the last of this young man's troubles. Which events were that?...More unconfirmed leaks? Will these turn out like Murtha's charges of a official "cover-up" ? Quote Murtha" But I will not excuse murder. And this is what happened. There's no question in my mind about it. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1640030/posts Strong words for someone not present and before a complete investigation :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Ok, sue him. Then what happens if they are found guilty down the road? I didn't think the story from yesterday was a leak. http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/cst-nws-kill03.html Doesn't appear to be a leak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 Ok, sue him.Then what happens if they are found guilty down the road? I didn't think the story from yesterday was a leak. http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/cst-nws-kill03.html Doesn't appear to be a leak. That's a BIG if, glad my life ain't in your hands. :2cents: Unnamed sources isn't a leak??? The only named source has NO info to offer but that "investigation" is ongoing Ed Buice, spokesman for the Naval Criminal Investigation Service that is leading the probe. ''But it's impossible to predict how much longer the investigation will take. It is very much open and ongoing.'' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted August 3, 2006 Share Posted August 3, 2006 I said then go for it, and sue him. good luck with that. I think then everyday in every aspect of life, there are leaks then. Because plenty of people from the NFL to the Feds have unnamed sources for one reason or another. That doesn't make all of them a leak. Plus, I'm not saying he's guilty. I'm saying that it looks like he needs to focus on defending himself right now. I think he'll have a hard time if Murtha didn't say his name during that speech. I hear you on your life in my hands. I wouldn't want mine in yours, or a lot of the folks who get hard-ons for killing (not you) around here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Ahhh. Can't pin murder on them, because we have no proof. So let's charge them with assault to keep them in the brig:rolleyes: How laughable ASSAULT? In a war zone? :laugh: :mad: What's next, gonna charge every serviceman over there with assualt? I'm pretty ****in sure that we have all "assaulted" someone in the course of doing our jobs. I thought that was our job What a joke http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060804/D8J9GT980.html SAN DIEGO (AP) - An investigation into the death of an Iraqi civilian has led to assault charges against six Marines accused of injuring civilians in the village of Hamdania in April, officials said. Three of the men are already being held on murder charges in the death of 52-year-old Hashim Ibrahim Awad, an Iraqi civilian. Military officials said Thursday the assaults were uncovered during an investigation into the slaying. A seventh Marine, an officer, is expected to be charged next week in the assault case, said Lt. Col. Colby Vokey, the Marine Corps' defense coordinator for the western United States. The nature of the assaults was not described. Charged Thursday were Lance Cpl. Saul H. Lopezromo, Pfc. Derek I. Lewis, Lance Cpl. Henry D. Lever, Sgt. Lawrence G. Hutchins III, Cpl. Trent D. Thomas and Lance Cpl. Jerry E. Shumate Jr., officials said. Hutchins, Thomas and Shumate were among eight servicemen previously charged in the April 26 slaying of Awad, officials said. All six Marines in the assault case were assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division while in Iraq. They are currently assigned to the Headquarters Battalion, 1st Marine Division at Camp Pendleton. Attorney Joseph Casas, who represents Pfc. John Jodka III, one of the men charged in the Awad slaying, said that probe uncovered separate incidents in which Marines are accused of misconduct. Casas had not seen the latest charge sheets in the assault case, but is familiar with an almost 600-page investigation report compiled by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service. He said it details incidents where Marines are accused of extracting information from suspected insurgents, or "high-value individuals." "The charges are going to be about the nature and method with which these Marines obtained information," Casas said. "It will probably be that they used physical force." The seven Marines and one Navy corpsman charged in Awad's slaying are being held in the Camp Pendleton brig. Investigators allege that without provocation they went into Hamdania, took Awad from his home, tied him up, put him in a hole and shot him. After the killing, according to investigators, the troops placed an AK-47 assault rifle in Awad's hands and put a shovel in the hole to make it appear he was an insurgent planting explosives. In coming weeks, a military hearing will be held to determine whether the eight should face trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Ahhh. Can't pin murder on them, because we have no proof. So let's charge them with assault to keep them in the brig:rolleyes: Umm, as I read that article three of them ARE facing murder charges, and they are trying to pin assault charges on the rest of them. Or did I read it wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted August 4, 2006 Share Posted August 4, 2006 Umm, as I read that article three of them ARE facing murder charges, and they are trying to pin assault charges on the rest of them.Or did I read it wrong? I think that is part of why people are raising hell about this. Unless it was very recently, none of them have been charged with murder as of yet But assault in a war zone? Puuuulease Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.