Marine Acquitted in Charges Related to Haditha Killings

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 01:27:05 PM EST
Tags: Haditha (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

1st Lt. Andrew Grayson was acquitted yesterday by a military juy on charges he covered up information from the Haditha killings.

He was accused of telling a sergeant to delete photographs of the dead from a digital camera and laptop computer.

Grayson, of Springboro, Ohio, was acquitted of two counts of making false official statements, two counts of trying to fraudulently separate from service and one count of attempt to deceive by making false statements. He would have faced as many as 20 years in prison if convicted of all counts.

Grayson was the first to go to trial. Other trials will follow. [More...]

Four enlisted Marines initially were charged with murder and four officers were charged with failing to investigate the deaths. Charges were dropped against five of the Marines.

Still to face court-martial are [Staff Sgt. Frank ]Wuterich, of Meriden, Conn., whose charges include voluntary manslaughter, and Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, of Rangely, Colo., who has been charged with dereliction of duty and violation of a lawful order on allegations he mishandled the aftermath of the killings.

Wuterich was originally charged with 12 counts of murder.

Two dozen Iraqi men, women and children were killed in in the 2005 Haditha raid in Iraq. Four marines were charged with murder, and several more with other crimes.

In 2007, the Washington Post obtained eyewitness accounts indicating Marines gunned down unarmed Iraqis after the 2005 roadside bombing.

Here's more background and all of our posts on Haditha are accessible here.

There were two live children found among the dead. Survivor accounts are here.

< Prosecutor Wants More Death in Mississippi | A War Based on Lies >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Marine Acquitted in Charges Related to Haditha Killings | 32 comments (32 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

This looks like a slam dunk for the board. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by wurman on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 05:14:03 PM EST

If the lieutenant had standing orders that images of the dead are forbidden, then his actions must have seemed obvious to the members of the court martial board.

Destroying digital images of dead civilians did not eliminate evidence because there was already no doubt that civilians had been killed. It strains my imagination to figure out why it may have been useful to retain images of dead people, against standing orders, when everyone connected to the situation was well aware that there were 24 dead civilians.

Reading the five accusations, without the actual UCMJ violations listed, seems silly on the face of it.

two counts of trying to fraudulently separate from service

From Associated Press, via WTOP Radio (link):

Grayson's life was thrown into turmoil. He was barred from leaving the Marine Corps until the case was adjudicated. He had been scheduled to get out in June 2007.

This charge is nonsensical "throw the book" by prosecutors who had little else to work with.

It reminds me of ye ancient & honorable New Yawk City 3rd degree vagrancy charges, often added in with robbery, carrying a weapon & mopery. Grayson was due to get out, so when he tried to get out the prosecutors claim he violated Article 84 because he should have known that he was under investigation & pending court martial--which would have made him ineligible to get out, had he known about it & besides he knew we were investigating anyway . . . .

I've not been around UCMJ stuff for a long time, but this looks like one of those situations where the prosecution would have to have proved that something that violates The Code actually took place before accusing an officer of covering it up. Cart meet horse.

And, finally, how can the defendant make false statements, or lie, about an event that he had absolutely nothing to do with & wasn't even there. This whole court martial makes no sense.

This particular case is not actually about what happended at Haditha. It's an effort to prove that there was a cover-up & then reach higher into the command structure with prosecutions.

Apparently, the reach fell way short.

How were the Marines in question (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Dark Avenger on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:35:06 PM EST

'goaded' into killing the civilians at Haditha?

Pretty sad

That you can't live up to your self-aggrandizing monicker?

I completely agree.

Hey, Genius (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Dark Avenger on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:52:38 AM EST

You know, willfully violating the most basic rules of war so that any justified retalliation would cause as many civillian casualties as posssible.

During the Revolutionary War, the relatively 'few' atrocities by the Hessian forces on the American population were used by the Patriots to great effect, so there is nothing new in the concepts you seem to think I don't comprehend judging by the condescending tone you've infused in your posts here so far.

You still haven't related the use of this strategy to the events at Haditha, unless you think that it 'explains' the unjustified retaliation that took place at Haditha.

Of course, we could do what the Japanese did to my Mother Avenger's family during WWII in Shanghai, move the 'enemy non-combatants' into a "Civilian Relocation Camp", perhaps that's more up your sleeve, oh wise one.

BTW

You should use SeaMonkey, as your browser, you've made two spelling mistakes in your last reply, so I'd go easy on the anatomical references, unless you need to have your own recto-encephalic issues on the table as well.

At least you've stopped with the anatomical (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by Dark Avenger on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:01:17 PM EST

references, so there is hope for you after all.

if terrorists in civillian dress kill a Marine then run into a civilain house, the efforts to capture and/or kill them will likely end in civillian casualties. The terrorists purposely try and create confusion between who the bad guys are and who the innocents are. No matter how much restraint and professionalism you display, that situation cannot end well. Whatever happens, it is not the fault of the Marines, they did not pick the battlefield. According to you this is old hat so any attempts to disregard it must be intentional on your part.

Funny you use the word disregard, when I've asked, and it remains open until you can honestly answer the question DO YOU THINK THE SCENARIO YOU OUTLINE IS WHAT HAPPENED IN HADITHA, YEA OR NAY OR SOMETHING INBETWEEN?

It also interresting that the same site that has so many commenters crying over the treatment of a creature as vile as Kallid Sheik Mohammed has so many clinging so desperately to discredited accusations agains America's heroes.

They aren't America's heroes like the Army soldiers who were the first friendly faces my mother and her family saw after the surrender of the Japanese empire.

I repeat, in case you missed it the first time:

Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one.
Friedrich Nietzsche
German philosopher (1844 - 1900)

The reason to treat "Kallid" as a fellow human being is for the sake of our humanity, in spite of his having engaged in actions of brutality and inhumanity for the sake of his version of Allah.

As for what I know, my grandfather used to steal from the Japanese before he was interned after they invaded Shanghai.

I assure you that if he'd been caught, I probably wouldn't be here writing these posts, so spare me your concern and handwringing over my state of mine, Homie don't play that one.

TTFN

They're Aliiiiiiive! (4.50 / 2) (#1)
by QuakerInABasement on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 02:26:19 PM EST

Since no one murdered the victims, they must still be alive, right?

I mean, it's either that or those unarmed women and children had it coming.

As TL is staunchly a criminal defense site, (3.00 / 2) (#2)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 02:39:04 PM EST

shouldn't we be congratulating the defense?

Is this the kind of justice situation which ICC (3.00 / 2) (#4)
by jawbone on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 02:57:59 PM EST

(International Criminal Court) was set up to ajudicate? A situation where the country with responsibility for bringing charges somehow can't find it within their judicidal system to find guilt for certain crimes?

: Last time I checked (none / 0) (#9)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 05:21:27 PM EST

we haven't signed up with ICC.
Of course your man Obama may decide to trash the Constitution and do so.

[ Parent ]

wow .. TL must be overjoyed .... (1.00 / 1) (#5)
by narius on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 03:27:48 PM EST

another would-be criminal acquitted.

Congrats... (none / 0) (#3)
by Maise7 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 02:42:50 PM EST

They got away with it...IMO.

What a horror, and yet what happened in (none / 0) (#6)
by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 04:40:15 PM EST

Haditha that day and the story making it to press changed so much. I was really shocked when a Major said to me at his farewell party about a week ago that anything went in Iraq that first year and a half. My husband didn't come home okay from that first tour though he is alright now. More mature, nothing wet behind his ears other than the occassional sweat. There were fights though in Iraq and a few soldiers refusing to fire in certain situations while others went in blazing for anything and everything and the Bush administration didn't care one way or the other. They unleashed white phosphorous on Fallujah and things were in general NUTS and then photos of children with bullet holes in their skulls changed a lot of things. There's rules now for everyone to follow in the combat zones, two years too late in my opinion but there are rules now. It took carnage beyond the American imagination to find its way to the American media but it did and I know there is a win in there somewhere but I can't find it very well yet. I suppose there's too much blood on everything.

WellTracy (none / 0) (#8)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 05:19:17 PM EST

It is nice to see you still here with your "military" background bad mouthing the troops.

Let's look at a few things.

Rules of Engagement existed from day 1. The Major, if he actually exists, knows that, and if he has knowledge of anyone breaking them then he is duty bound to bring them forward.
There always situations were some soldiers freeze and others don't. But what does "others went in blazing" mean? Are you now an expert on house to house combat? No? Didn't think so.

3.So you think they used white phosphorus? I have seen no proof and I don't think you have. But speaking frankly, so what? War is hell and the point is to win. We lost 58,000 in Vietnam because of such blathering claptrap about what weapons to use.

So keep up the good work. Nothing like dissing the troops to work an appetite, eh??

[ Parent ]

No white phosphorus? (none / 0) (#10)
by bobbski on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:24:21 PM EST

Proof:

BBC News Link

Wednesday, 16 November 2005, 11:25 GMT

US troops used white phosphorus as a weapon in last year's offensive in the Iraqi city of Falluja, the US has said.
[snip]

I would think that before you make an absolute statement regarding the US use of white phosphorus in Faluja, you would at least avail yourself of The Google. In that way you wouldn't look quite so uninformed.

[ Parent ]

Perhaps you missed (none / 0) (#11)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:21:12 PM EST

the last part of my comment.

But speaking frankly, so what? War is hell and the point is to win. We lost 58,000 in Vietnam because of such blathering claptrap about what weapons to use.

(emphasis added)

And I will give myself an F for not noting that my comment was in regards to Tracy's claims that we were attacking children.

Now go worry about the health and welfare of our enemy. I'll continue to worry about our trooops.

[ Parent ]

PPJ same as he ever was (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:24:00 AM EST

Telling the Truth = Bad mouthing the troops. A very undemocratic principle......lying about war atrocity to create the desired national will, loyalty, and dedication. Yawn..........whatever, I'm a different sort of active duty family member. I don't mind having to actually have to earn and be accountable for the back slapping.

[ Parent ]

: Wasn't it Sherman who said (none / 0) (#15)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:42:06 AM EST

"War is hell."
The winners write the history, not the losers.

[ Parent ]

PPJ doesn't seem to have much (none / 0) (#14)
by rhbrandon on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:16:24 AM EST

patience with the law of war. Nor with noncombatants.

Loser.

[ Parent ]

War has one rule. (1.00 / 0) (#16)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:43:48 AM EST

Win.

In this case, all the non-combatants were given an opportunity to leave.

[ Parent ]

Typical PPJ (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Dark Avenger on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:32:23 PM EST

excuses evil with a slight rhetorical flip of the hand.

Lets' hear another side of the story, from someone who has seen combat, instead of us armchair strategists:

Comments by Representative Murtha
On May 17, 2006, Democratic Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a retired Marine colonel and critic of the war, stated at a news conference that an internal investigation had confirmed the story.[55][56][57] He was quoted as saying:
There was no firefight, there was no IED (improvised explosive device) that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.[58]
On August 2, 2006, Marine Corps staff sergeant Frank D. Wuterich, who led the accused squad, filed suit for libel and invasion of privacy. The filing states Murtha "tarnished the Marine's reputation by telling news organizations in May that the Marine unit cracked after a roadside bomb killed one of its members and that the troops "killed innocent civilians in cold blood." Murtha also said repeatedly that the incident was "covered up."[59] Wuterich was charged with 13 counts of murder on December 21, 2006.

and

In the course of Article 32 hearings, conflicting testimony has been presented, some of it rebutting the case made by prosecutors and widely cited in the media. The investigating officer has told the prosecution so far, "The account you want me to believe does not support unpremeditated murder." He conceded that the central issue was who is to be believed and that he was disinclined to recommend a trial when he thought it was unlikely any Iraqi would agree to come to the U.S. to testify.[8]

But, hey, he should've moved out of a war zone if he was a non-combatant, so he probably be lying

On 9 August, LtGen James Mattis dropped the charges against Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt, who had been accused of murder, and against Capt. Randy Stone, accused of failing to investigate the incident.[9] On 23 August, the investigating officer recommended charges against Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum be dropped as well[10] but on October 19th, his commanding officer decided the charges should be lowered to involuntary manslaughter, reckless endangerment and aggravated assault.[11]


[ Parent ]

I repeat (none / 0) (#18)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:29:27 PM EST

In this case non-combatants were told to, and given ample time to leave.

Monsters?

You are a funny man.

Enjoy this one.

[ Parent ]

Just because you repeat nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Dark Avenger on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 06:05:17 AM EST

doesn't make it true, no many how many times you asert an unsourced claim as you've been of wont to do lately here.

This is closer to what you're about and what you enjoy:

There are many reasons, from short-term electoral ones to long-term economic designs[2] but the most important undergirds the whole wingnut kulturkampf: Neoconmen hate Americans, they see us as soft, decadent, unpatriotic, impious, anarchic. War, they think (and not without reason), will rectify these faults and make Americans into a more perfect people. So long as there's war and a plausible boogeyman (beware, Teh Muslim is lurking under your bed, just waiting for you to tire of the long vigil so that he may throw acid in your wife's face, shoot your dog, ban pork chops, park camels in your garage, and suicide bomb your children's school bus!), Americans will fear. And as long as Americans fear, they are extremely pliable to the manipulations of the rightwing which always sees itself as the "loyal party." Inculcate fear, then aggression and paranoia are sure to follow (which, in turn, nicely reinforces pro-war sentiment which begets more fear, etc.) until, hopefully, a critical mass of bats** insanity is achieved. The endgame, of course, is the militarization of society, in which a cowed people embrace the most cornball-yet-Satanic 1950s bourgeois-McCarthyite values. Thus, neoconmen will accept, if they must, a return of Eisenhowerian tax rates, "big government," etc., as long as it means they get to keep their new Cold War. F*** the Iraqis' lives[3], it's the American people's character they're trying to "save;" and it's John "Permanent Occupation" McCain who's mostly likely to deliver the desired result.

Looking for traitors? Say no more:

The new Senate Intelligence committee report presents more evidence that the U.S. government under the Bush administration has been uniquely vulnerable to the foreign policy freelancing and intelligence schemes of discredited individuals and deemed fabricators such as Manoucher Ghorbanifar, and potentially even counterintelligence threats of an Iranian or other nature. It details how top officials in the Bush administration endeavored to permit such an ill-advised channel, took affirmative measures to cover it up in order to bypass the professional intelligence service, and then took steps to protect their role in the matter by shutting down the counterintelligence investigation launched by the Pentagon and to stall the Senate probe. The report also documents that Ghorbanifar has been able to influence US policy and intelligence channels in particular through Ledeen's contacts within Cheney's office and the Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz Pentagon.
"The questions is: is information from Ledeen and Ghorbanifar still going to the vice president's office, and is it affecting them?" a former senior CIA offiicial said. "It's a logical assumption. That is what is known in the intelligence business as circular reporting: the same information, coming through the same source, peddled through different channels, slightly altered to make it look like it's coming from multiple sources. And it's one of the biggest dangers in the intelligence business. That is what Iraq Niger was all about." [...]

Yep, just another thing to give you the giggles.

[ Parent ]

Yawn (1.00 / 0) (#20)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:29:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]

If you're sleepy this early in the morning (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Dark Avenger on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:38:13 AM EST

We'll leave the Postum on the nightstand, turn on the Faux Snews, and check for Muslims under the bed before you turn in.

TTFN.

[ Parent ]

Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn (none / 0) (#22)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:02:32 PM EST

Please, you are boring me to death.

[ Parent ]

Didn't know that JM (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Dark Avenger on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 02:35:50 PM EST

appointed you the boredom monitor.

I would say that you would qualify for that high post from your years here as a 'practitioner' in that area.

[ Parent ]

Snoreeeeeeeee (none / 0) (#26)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:37:03 PM EST

That's the most intelligent thing (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Dark Avenger on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:45:21 PM EST

you've written today.

yadda yadda yadda (none / 0) (#32)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:41:46 PM EST

As you've said here a few times (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by Dark Avenger on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 07:14:54 PM EST

There is, of course, an old Southern saying that goes:
The hit dog always barks.

Although to compare your recent activity here to anything done by any Canis lupus familiaris would libel the latter.

[ Parent ]

yawnnnnnnn (none / 0) (#36)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:46:57 PM EST

: YAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWN! (none / 0) (#37)
by Dark Avenger on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:58:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Haditha isn't a false case done by the enemy (none / 0) (#25)
by Dark Avenger on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 04:57:47 PM EST

and you're a useful idiot for bin Laden, et al.

I'm sure he'd send you 40 pieces of silver for your work instead of a bomb if he knew where you lived, o Gehirn-Besitzer.