Charges have now been dropped against 7 of the 8 Marines accused of massacring Iraqi civilians. John Murtha led the charge in condemning and judging the Marines guilty in the court of public opinion. So, is Murtha honorable enough to apologize to the Marines and admit he was wrong?
Will the people who said O.J. murdered his wife and lover finally once and for all apologize to O.J. because he was found innocent in a court of law? Sheesh, how many years has it been already? They should just say they are sorry to O.J. and that they were wrong for calling him a murderer before (and after) the trial because a court found him not guilty of murder.
Murtha used this situation to move public opinion to his favor. A case could be made that Murtha's public position may have contaminated a possible jury pool. At the very least it is an ugly tactic for a fellow marine to sell out his brothers. Very cheap and ugly and wrong! Did not NBC and Brokow lose a case to the falsly accused Alanta Olyimpic bomber, Richard Jewel. There is a higher level of responibilty for people and institutions of the public sphere. I believe the innocent marines are going to sue Murtha for libel
"A case could be made that Murtha's public position may have contaminated a possible jury pool." ??? How "not guilty" do they have to be found before the jury pool isn't contaminated? "I believe the innocent marines are going to sue Murtha for libel" Then you would be foolish. There is zero chance that a marine involved in that is going to sue and then have to be cross-examined. Zero. You prove that everybody's got an opinion.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/wait_whose_side_are_we_on_agai.html Now that foreign terrorist suspects have the right to habeas corpus, maybe U.S. Marines will be extended the courtesy of a trial before being smeared as cold-blooded murders. A surprising number of Americans are eager to believe the worst about our fighting men and women. In the case of the infamous Haditha "massacre," their motives are transparently political, ugly and deceitful. For power-hungry Pennsylvania congressman John Murtha, the tide of negative public opinion on Iraq made Haditha the perfect self-serving political opportunity. After all, other than being the focus of corruption investigations, Murtha had never been bequeathed such extravagant attention. And when Murtha, a former Marine, spoke about Haditha, he spoke with certitude -- and the national headlines mirrored it. Seven months before any charges were filed, the by-then ubiquitous congressman claimed that the massacre happened when troops not only "overreacted because of the pressure on them" but also that "they killed innocent civilians in cold blood." In some circles, Murtha's reputation remained unblemished after this unsubstantiated slur. Only a couple of months after his remarks, presidential candidate Barack Obama said of Murtha: "I would never second guess John Murtha . . . I think he's somebody who knows of which he speaks." "Never"? Really? This week, U.S. Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, a Colorado native, was the latest Marine to have all charges dismissed against him in relation to Haditha. That means seven of the eight charged for the massacre and "coverup" have been exonerated. (One case is still pending.) The judge declared that had it not been for the politics involved in the case, Chessani likely would not have faced any charges. Politicians have every right, even a responsibility, to bring cases of criminality to the attention of authorities. They don't, however, have the right to try the accused. Brian Rooney, a lawyer with the Thomas More Law Center, a Michigan-based conservative public interest law firm that has been defending the Haditha Marines, told me, "Everyone knows this massacre didn't happen. We know it was a complex attack and terrorists were hiding behind women and children." Even harder to believe is how this case is unfolding. Many of the accused Marines were ecstatic to get their day in court. First Lt. Andrew Grayson even refused a plea that would have reduced charges and kept him out of jail. "I was the one that had to look at myself in the mirror," he explained. "To take the easy way out, you are the one that has to live with that." Chessani, who has an exemplary military record and served three tours of duty in Iraq, didn't take the easy way out, either. And though he has already decided to retire after the trial, his persecutors are holding tough. Chessani's charges were dropped "without prejudice," meaning they could be filed again later. And the government has decided to appeal. Chessani may be re-tried. "We would hope that after years of litigation, they would look at their track record -- which is zero for 7 ... for the prosecution on this so-called massacre -- and they would say 'enough is enough,' " Rooney said. He also has said he is preparing to sue Murtha for libel. So while there may never be closure, there might be a little justice.
Of course not! He's a slug like all the rest. We'll see if anyone in the media has the balls to ask him.
Gee, that's just great. Our future President, an attorney, would never second-guess a politician's opinion of an issue that has not yet even gone to trial!!
Found liable in Civil Court for wrongful death. Try again, ZZZenutroll. Only an individual as morally bankrupt as the ZZZenutroll would attempt to compare a slimeball such as OJ Simpson with the Marines in the Haditha case. Not surprising, though....
Wednesday, June 18, 2008 The Marines Vs. Haditha Smear Merchants By Michelle Malkin Yet another U.S. Marine, Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, had charges dropped Tuesday in the so-called Haditha massacre -- bringing the total number of Marines who've been cleared or won case dismissals in the Iraq war incident to seven. "Undue command influence" on the prosecution led to the outcome in Chessani's case. Bottom line: That's zero for seven for military prosecutors, with one trial left to go. I repeat: Haditha prosecution goes 0-7. But you won't see that headline in the same Armageddon-sized font The New York Times used repeatedly when the story first broke. The Times, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa, and the rest of the anti-war drum-pounders who fueled the smear campaign against the troops two years ago should hang their hands in shame. They won't, of course. Perpetuating the "cold-blooded Marines" narrative means never having to say you're sorry. It means never having to look Lt. Col. Chessani (charges dismissed), Lt. Andrew Grayson (acquitted), Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum (charges dismissed), Capt. Lucas McConnell (charges dismissed), Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt (charges dismissed), Sgt. Sanick Dela Cruz (charges dismissed), Sgt. Frank Wuterich (awaiting trial) and their families in the eyes and apologize for the preemptive character assassination they all faced at the hands of the hyperventilating, noose-hanging press. Murtha and company applied Queen of Hearts ("Off with their heads!") treatment to our own men and women in uniform while giving more benefit of the doubt to foreign terror suspects at Gitmo. It is worth recalling, because the press won't do it for you, what they concluded about the now-crumbling Haditha case in the summer of 2006 before a single formal charge had been filed. -- MSNBC hangman Keith Olbermann, who couldn't wait to define the entire war in Iraq by a single moment about which he knew nothing, inveighed that the incident was "willful targeted brutality." Due process? For convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, of course. For our military? Never mind. -- Far-left The Nation magazine railed, "Enough details have emerged ⦠to conclude that ⦠members of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment perpetrated a massacre." The publication also judged the event "a willful, targeted brutality designed to send a message to Iraqis." Not content with hanging the troops, the Nation pinned blame on the president and a so-called "culture of impunity" that supposedly permeates the most accountable military in the world. -- Singing the same tune as The Nation, The New York Times spilled a flood of front-page ink on the case and took things a step further in a lead editorial blaming not just President Bush, but also top Pentagon brass for the "nightmare" killings in Haditha. Times reporter Paul von Zielbauer filed over 30 stories on the case, which the paper wishfully called the "defining atrocity" of the Iraq war. -- Hoping to facilitate a self-fulfilling prophecy, media tools around the world likened Haditha to the Vietnam War's most infamous atrocity -- from The Guardian ("My Lai on the Euphrates?") to the Daily Telegraph ("Massacre in Iraq just like My Lai") to the Los Angeles Times ("What happened at the Iraqi My Lai?") to The New York Times' Maureen Dowd ("My Lai acid flashback") and the Associated Press, which reached into its photo archives to run a 1970 file photo of My Lai to illustrate a Haditha article. -- And, of course, there's the permanent stain left by the slanderous propaganda of Rep. Murtha -- the stab in the Marines' backs heard 'round the world: "Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood." Relatives of the Haditha Marines have called for Congress to censure Murtha, who cuts and runs to the nearest elevator when questioned about the Haditha dismissals. He and the Haditha smear merchants have skated while the men and their families suffered global whippings on the airwaves and eternal demonization in print. Whose "culture of impunity"?
We could easily see civil trials against the soldiers for wrongful death, and if the litigants making a claim of wrongful death win the civil trial, will you apologize to Murtha? Those with a brain know that the rules of a law governing a murder trial in a public court, wrongful death suit in civil court, and what happens in a military court are not the same. In any case if you employ consistent thinking, you own an innocent man, O.J. an apology if your application of principle that innocence is determined in a court of law, not a civil proceeding.