previous post next post  

More military justice news.

By The Armorer on October 20, 2007 | | Comments (6)

Legal affairs seem to be the order of the day around here of late.

Lance Corporal Tatum and Lieutenant Colonel Chessani are going to stand trial over Haditha.

Lance Cpl. Stephen B. Tatum, was ordered to face a court-martial on charges of involuntary manslaughter, reckless endangerment and aggravated assault. He is one of four Marines originally charged with murder in the killings.

The decision by Lt. Gen. James Mattis to send Tatum to court-martial comes after the investigating officer said last month that the evidence was too weak to prosecute him. But Tatum will not be tried on the murder count he originally faced.

Tatum, of Edmond, Okla., shot and killed civilians, but "he did so because of his training and the circumstances he was placed in, not to exact revenge and commit murder," Lt. Col. Paul Ware wrote last month in recommending he not face court-martial.

Lieutenant Colonel Chessani is facing the charges for Haditha that I think Colonel Karpinski should have faced for Abu Ghraib:

Lt. Col. Jeffrey R. Chessani faces charges of dereliction of duty and violation of a lawful order on allegations that he mishandled the aftermath of the Nov. 19, 2005, shootings, which followed a roadside bombing that killed a Marine driver.

Not surprisingly, Chessani's defense attorney is not happy:

Chessani's civilian defense attorney, Brian Rooney, told The Associated Press he was disappointed with the general's recommendation.

"I can tell you this decision by Gen. Mattis today is going to have a negative affect on all officers, including battalion commanders," he said, adding it would undermine the trust between commanders and their troops. "Are they going to be able to trust the word of their junior officers, senior enlisted and junior enlisted?"

I disagree with him, but admittedly from the safety of knowing I'm never going to be in the position Chessani found himself in. I think the net effect will at most be that commanders are more careful in that type of investigation - if for no other reason than because their JAGs will pressure them to be. That said, what a different story has emerged in the time since Representative Murtha used the event to slag his Corps. First Rule of Combat: The First Report Is Always Wrong. One reason (after having been burned myself in my blogging) that I don't always jump right on to something when it occurs. Part and parcel of why I won't be a Big Pundit, either. Because no one pays for sober analysis two weeks after the fact, they pay for Screaming Headline and Moralistic Posturing Right Now. Okay, I can sometime get caught up in the whole moralistic posturing thing.

There is an error in the article, since we're here. Chelsea Carter asserts...

He is the second colonel to be court-martialed over actions in Iraq. Army Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan of Fredericksburg, Va., was convicted of abusing detainees at Abu Ghraib prison, said Tom Umberg, a retired Army colonel and former military prosecutor

That would be the third. As mentioned in this space yesterday, there is the case of LTC Steele and what MajMike terms, the 'ham sandwich."

Moving on to the other bit of legal news... there is the courtsmartial of Staff Sergeant Alberto Martinez for the 2005 fragging of Captain Philip Esposito and 1st Lieutenant Louis Allen.

The first and last paragraphs of the article frame things nicely.

FORT BRAGG, N.C. - Before leaving for Iraq, an Army supply sergeant charged with killing two of his superior officers had a heated argument with his company commander, a West Point graduate who brought an active duty sense to urgency to their relaxed National Guard unit, colleagues of both men said Friday.

....


"There were soldiers who weren't happy with the command at all, a lot," Rodriguez testified. "He was your typical active duty captain. When he spoke, he expected it to be done."

There is a *lot* of unit culture wrapped up in that statement.

H/t, NetBrad.

Share This Article:

Categories:

6 Comments

By Trias on October 20, 2007 10:06 AM
By the time things have passed the gauntlet of ego, fear, law and media I don't hold out much hope for any truth at all no matter where the coin falls. My policy is to accept the judgment pronounced at court as good enough for me. Perhaps if i had investigative experience I would view things differently. Does this mean 2 years in a military or civilian slammer? In this guy's case sloppiness certainly is something that seems to resonate of lot.
 
By Cassandra on October 20, 2007 12:21 PM
I expect I'll get covered in abuse for saying this, but let's not forget that going to trial does *not* mean Chessani's guilt is a foregone conclusion. It simply means the Article 32 investigation raised enough questions that a trial needed to be held to *establish* his guilt or innocence. That is, after all, the purpose of a court martial. He is not being persecuted or turned into a martyr. A trial can clear the accused as well as convict. One of the virtues of an open legal process is that everyone sees the Marine Corps is serious about upholding the rule of law and prefers to hold senior officers accountable rather than taking the easy path and frying junior enlisted when something goes wrong (unlike certain other scandals that have occurred). This is placing the onus and the burden of leadership where it belongs. *cough* The wisdom (or unwisdom) of the charging statute is another business entirely and beyond the purview of the commanding officer. Rules are rules. If Marines fry because of an unwise rule, that becomes an object lesson in why it never made sense, as well as a compelling argument for changing it. Sadly, that is the way we humans learn... ...more often than not, after the fact: by dint of that all important 20/20 hindsight. /ducking to avoid the hail of cabbages, rotten tomatoes and other vegatables coming her way
 
By J.M. Heinrichs on October 20, 2007 1:46 PM
"March in the guilty bastard!" Thing were formerly less esoteric. Cheers
 
By John of Argghhh! on October 20, 2007 4:59 PM
Hey - I *never* said the man was guilty. That's for the panel to decide. I *said* my, how the story has changed. And that Karpinski should have faced (and defended against - because in her book she condemns herself) the same charges Chessani faces. I have long said around here - you think you got a case, let's take it to trial, and see what the panel thinks. And why would you get covered in abuse 'round here, Cassie?
 
By Cassandra on October 21, 2007 3:09 PM
I have long said around here - you think you got a case, let's take it to trial, and see what the panel thinks. That was my point, John. And I didn't expect any argument at all from you; in fact I took that to be your default position. You and I (and Beth, for that matter) tend to see things from about the same perspective. I may have been oversensitive. I've just gotten pounded on other forums for saying I don't think the Haditha Marines were being intentionally persecuted by the Marine Corps, just as I didn't think Pantano was intentionally targeted. The Corps is a trusted institution precisely BECAUSE it doesn't say (when it is accused) "Talk to the hand - we are the Marines - just trust us, we don't need no stinking investigations!". If they ever get to the point where they start stonewalling when allegations are made, I will lose confidence in them as an institution. Yes, some unfairness to individuals results when charges are made against people. Yes, it sucks when rules or laws appear to be unwise and charges appear to be politically motivated. But this is how people and societies learn - by experience and object lessons. I wish we were smarter, but we're not. And the purpose of the trial is to LEARN the truth. Trials and investigations are not perfect vehicles either, but they are the best we can do and there does need to be some transparency. I don't like one bit what these Marines and families were subjected to. It is heart wrenching. I also don't like that the Marine Corps was accused of murdering women and children in cold blood. That kind of accusation can and must not go unanswered.
 
By MR T's Haircut on October 22, 2007 1:48 AM
This is a dangerous precedent. Marines exist to close with the enemy and destroy them. They have to make split decisions. As Gen Sherman said, "War is Hell". I will not judge them, I was not there. I respect and trust that my leadership will provide me with clear Rules of Engagement and will back me when I am forced at the squad level to make a decision. This does not appear to be the case. If we are "placed" on admin leave for shooting our guns at the bad guys, we will be no different than police officers worried about the bad press, we will lose our effectivness as Warriors.