The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: Pathfinder on August 17, 2008, 05:47:32 PM
-
If this doesn't convince you things have gone too far, what will?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,405164,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,405164,00.html)
Ex-Marine Questions Prosecution in Civilian Court
IRVINE, Calif. — A former Marine sergeant facing the first federal civilian prosecution of a military member accused of a war crime (emphasis mine-Pathfinder) says there is much more at stake than his claim of innocence on charges that he killed unarmed detainees in Fallujah, Iraq.
In the view of Jose Luis Nazario Jr., U.S. troops may begin to question whether they will be prosecuted by civilians for doing what their military superiors taught them to do in battle.
Nazario is the first military service member who has completed his duty to be brought to trial under a law that allows the government to prosecute defense contractors, military dependents and those no longer in the military who commit crimes outside the United States.
"They train us, and they expect us to rely back on that training. Then when we use that training, they prosecute us for it?" Nazario said during an interview Saturday with The Associated Press.
"I didn't do anything wrong. I don't think I should be the first tried like this," said Nazario, whose trial begins Tuesday in Riverside, east of Los Angeles.
If Nazario, 28, is convicted of voluntary manslaughter, some predict damaging consequences on the battlefield.
"This boils down to one thing in my mind: Are we going to allow civilian juries to Monday-morning-quarterback military decisions?" said Nazario's attorney, Kevin McDermott.
Others say the law closes a loophole that allowed former military service members to slip beyond the reach of prosecution. Once they complete their terms, troops cannot be prosecuted in military court.
Scott Silliman, a law professor and executive director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke University, says it has little to do with questioning military decisions and everything to do with whether a service member committed a crime.
"From a legal point of view, there is no difference in law between war and peace," he said.
The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act law was written in 2000 and amended in 2004 primarily to prosecute civilian contractors who commit crimes while working for the U.S. overseas. One of the authors contends prosecuting former military personnel was "not the motivation."
"I don't fault the Department of Justice for using what legal authority they have if a clear criminal act has been committed. But I do think that it would be preferable for crimes committed on active duty be prosecuted by court martial rather than in civilian courts," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.
"I think maybe what it says is we need to rethink the question of military personnel who are subject to prosecution."
Telephone messages for a spokesman in the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles seeking comment were not returned.
Nazario, of Riverside, is charged with one count of voluntary manslaughter on suspicion of killing or causing others to kill four unarmed detainees in November 2004 in Fallujah, during some of the fiercest fighting of the war. He also faces one count of assault with a deadly weapon and one count of discharging a firearm during a crime of violence.
The case came to light in 2006, when Nazario's former squadmate, Sgt. Ryan Weemer, volunteered details to a U.S. Secret Service job interviewer during a lie-detector screening that included a question about the most serious crime he ever committed. Weemer was ordered this month to stand trial in military court on charges of unpremeditated murder and dereliction of duty in the killing of an unarmed detainee in Fallujah. He has pleaded not guilty.
According to a Naval Criminal Investigative Service criminal complaint, several Marines allege Nazario shot two Iraqi men who had been detained while his squad searched a house. The complaint claims four Iraqi men were killed during the action.
The complaint states the squad had been taking fire from the house. After the troops entered the building and captured the insurgents, Nazario placed a call on his radio.
"Nazario said that he was asked, 'Are they dead yet?"' the complaint states. When Nazario responded that that the captives were still alive, he was allegedly told by the Marine on the radio to "make it happen."
Though Nazario and his attorneys declined to discuss the facts of the case with the AP, the former Marine has always maintained his innocence.
Fallujah was the scene of two Marine battles in 2004, the first of which was launched after insurgents killed four U.S. contractors in the city. That battle was aborted in April 2004 and the Marines launched Operation Phantom Fury in November of that year.
Nazario said he was on his first deployment when his squad entered Fallujah, which he described as a "high combat zone" with insurgents taking shots at troops at every turn — with everything from AK-47s to rocket-propelled grenades.
Thirty-three in his battalion were killed in the battle. The first, he said, was a man in his squad. Nazario later received the Navy-Marine Corps Commendation Medal with a "V" for valor for combat and leadership in Fallujah.
Though Nazario was not physically injured, he was later found to have post-traumatic stress disorder.
After leaving the military, Nazario worked as an officer with the Riverside Police Department and was close to completing his one-year probation. He said he knew nothing of the investigation until he was arrested Aug. 7, 2007, after being called into the watch commander's office to sign a performance review.
He said he was leaning forward to sign when he was grabbed from behind by his fellow officers, told he had been charged with a war crime and was turned over to Navy investigators waiting in a nearby room. Because he had not completed probation, the police department fired him.
Since then, he said, has been unable to find work.
"You're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty," he said. "I've put in applications everywhere for everything. But nobody wants to hire you if you have been indicted."
Without any income, Nazario said, he has been forced to move in with his parents in New York. He and his wife resorted to selling some of their household goods, such as electronics equipment, to a pawn shop.
His wife, once a stay-at-home mother to their 2-year-old son, has gone to work as a customer service receptionist, he said. She will be unable to attend his trial.
"She has to work. We need the money," he said, his eyes reddening as he blinked away tears.
Nazario said he has no regrets about being a Marine, only regrets about what has happened since.
"My faith in the system is shaken. There's no doubt about that," he said.
One of Nazario's defense attorneys, Doug Applegate, said he believes that ultimately the former Marine will be acquitted because of lack of evidence.
"There are no bodies, no forensic evidence, no crime scene and no identities," he said.
It is unclear what, if anything, Marines being subpoenaed to testify will say about the events in the house in Fallujah.
Another Marine, Sgt. Jermaine Nelson, 26, of New York is slated to be court-martialed in December on charges of unpremeditated murder and dereliction of duty for his role in the deaths.
Although he has not entered a plea in military court, Nelson's attorney has said his client is innocent.
Nelson and Weemer were jailed in June for contempt of court for refusing to testify against Nazario before a federal grand jury believed to be investigating the case. Both were released July 3 and returned to Camp Pendleton.
-
This Law is not Legal
-
It does fly in the face of everything we've been taught, but with the scotus, allowing non uniformed combatants trial in the US, who's to say. It's definitely not right!! I don't like NATO, World court or the Geneva convention, but at least We did sign the Geneva, which to my understanding, has rules of engagement and imprisonment for NUC's, They can be executed for just being what they are, and the rules make sense, If an american out of uniform joins in a firefight in a war zone, he or she is considered a spy and can be killed out of the heat of the moment. The scales are not balanced.
They will not be balanced until we throw the bums out, all elected officials who don't tow the line and do what they should, those justices who legislate from the bench etc... Regardless of party affiliation. The time is now, but how to get the rest of the US, to understand in this short period of time? Not going to happen. People like being undisturbed ( Fat, Dumb and happy ) . Oblivious to the real world.
-
"Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est."
Latin: "A sword never kills anybody; it is a tool in the killer's hand."
Seneca
Based on the article, Any Non-Military inquiries into a Soldiers conduct, should be left to the military. They take care of their own. Good, Bad or Ugly. I understand oversight, but this is a point where civilian courts Do Not Apply.
Civil litagation against a combat soldier?. Where is his defense? They should be screaming for a travesty of this land.
Sounds very U.N. to me. There was a time when people with names like Patton, Nimitz, MacArthur, would relish the chance to tell the 'civilians' what they could do with their "questions".
"They train us, and they expect us to rely back on that training. Then when we use that training, they prosecute us for it?" Nazario said during an interview Saturday with The Associated Press.
I defer to Seneca for interpretation.
-
I could be wrong. But I don't think the US signed the Geneva Convention. But we do abide by it.
-
I could be wrong. But I don't think the US signed the Geneva Convention. But we do abide by it.
Yes we did sign it and no we are not abiding by it. When the North Vietnamese tried captured pilots we screamed bloody murder, but at Gitmo we are either trying prisoners of war, or sticking the military with the chore of dealing with criminals. Either way it is wrong, if they are POW's lock them up for the duration, If they are murders try them in CRIMINAL court then execute them, If they are spies execute them, but quit trying to mix it all together.
-
Yes we did sign it and no we are not abiding by it. When the North Vietnamese tried captured pilots we screamed bloody murder, but at Gitmo we are either trying prisoners of war, or sticking the military with the chore of dealing with criminals. Either way it is wrong, if they are POW's lock them up for the duration, If they are murders try them in CRIMINAL court then execute them, If they are spies execute them, but quit trying to mix it all together.
HELL YEAH!!!!!!!!
-
Yes we did sign it and no we are not abiding by it. When the North Vietnamese tried captured pilots we screamed bloody murder, but at Gitmo we are either trying prisoners of war, or sticking the military with the chore of dealing with criminals. Either way it is wrong, if they are POW's lock them up for the duration, If they are murders try them in CRIMINAL court then execute them, If they are spies execute them, but quit trying to mix it all together.
Wasn't the rationale given by the Adminstartion on handling of prisoners at Gitmo that they were not prisoners of war but rather terrorists and not entitled to treatment as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention. Main reason for terrorist label being that the war was not being waged by a national entity but by a terrorist organization or groups. That since the terrorist were waging war against the US, it was appropriate that terrorist be held by the US military and tried by military tribunals. The Adminstrations actions were upheld by a US Court, don't remember if Court of Appeals or USSC. Rather see them tried by tribunals rather than civilain courts. Imagine the chaos created by lawyers and their million dollar paychecks.
-
Wasn't the rationale given by the Adminstartion on handling of prisoners at Gitmo that they were not prisoners of war but rather terrorists and not entitled to treatment as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention. Main reason for terrorist label being that the war was not being waged by a national entity but by a terrorist organization or groups. That since the terrorist were waging war against the US, it was appropriate that terrorist be held by the US military and tried by military tribunals. The Adminstrations actions were upheld by a US Court, don't remember if Court of Appeals or USSC. Rather see them tried by tribunals rather than civilain courts. Imagine the chaos created by lawyers and their million dollar paychecks.
This is what I remember as well, they are being held as terrorists and not as combatants.
-
This is what I remember as well, they are being held as terrorists and not as combatants.
Then, as much of a zoo as lawyers would turn it into, they should be tried in CRIMINAL court. The Constitution is supposed to safe guard against tribunals and other forms of "extralegal" justice. Next thing you know some asshole will be lobbying for govt. sanctioned death squads in America. While it may sound like a good idea, and I have some local suggestions for the first list, IT IS NOT WHAT AMERICA IS ABOUT.
-
Then, as much of a zoo as lawyers would turn it into, they should be tried in CRIMINAL court. The Constitution is supposed to safe guard against tribunals and other forms of "extralegal" justice. Next thing you know some asshole will be lobbying for govt. sanctioned death squads in America. While it may sound like a good idea, and I have some local suggestions for the first list, IT IS NOT WHAT AMERICA IS ABOUT.
That answers the question of "When is it time?....".
-
That answers the question of "When is it time?....".
I guess you are right. But who gets on the lists will decide which side I pick ;D
-
Update - there is justice . . . 8)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,413005,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,413005,00.html)
FTA:
Former Marine Acquitted of Iraqi Killings in Landmark Trial
Thursday, August 28, 2008
IRVINE, Calif. — A former Marine accused of killing unarmed Iraqi detainees was acquitted of voluntary manslaughter Thursday in a first-of-its-kind federal trial.
The jury took six hours to find Jose Luis Nazario Jr. not guilty of charges that he killed or caused others to kill four unarmed detainees on Nov. 9, 2004, in Fallujah, Iraq, during some of the fiercest fighting of the war.
The verdict left the 28-year-old defendant in tears. He cried so loud that the judge smacked his gavel to call for order. Nazario's family and friends also sobbed in the courtroom.
"It's been a long, hard year for my family," Nazario said outside the courtroom. "I need a moment to catch my breath and try to get my life back together."
Thursday's verdict marks the first time a civilian jury has determined whether the alleged actions of a former military service member in combat violated the law of war.
One of the jurors, Ingrid Wicken, hugged Nazario's sobbing mother, Sandra Montanez, without speaking after the verdict was read. "I watched her all week. She was being tortured every day," Wicken said later.
Wicken said the panel acquitted Nazario because there was not enough evidence against him.
"I think you don't know what goes on in combat until you are in combat," she said.
Nazario's attorney, Kevin McDermott, said he believes the verdict will curb faulty filings.
-
Great news on the verdict. Just think of the expense, disruption of his life and all that comes with being charged with a crime. I bet Murtha was pissed when he heard the verdict. Murtha is a disgrace to the Corps.
-
Great news on the verdict. Just think of the expense, disruption of his life and all that comes with being charged with a crime. I bet Murtha was pissed when he heard the verdict. Murtha is a disgrace to the Corps.
+100
-
You beat me to it Pathfinder, Juror Nicole Peters said "I don't think we had ANY BUSINESS doing this!"
"It's a very reasoned response from those jurors because they apparently recognized this was not something they were well-suited to determine," said Gary Solis, a former Marine Corps prosecutor and judge who teaches law of war at Georgetown University Law Center.
"In my view, it's going to cause the U.S. attorneys to give a second thought to prosecuting soldiers for acts that occurred in combat," he said.
http://newsmax.com/us/marines_fallujah/2008/08/29/126280.html
Again, all legal costs incurred by the defendant should be paid by the other dim-witted US attorneys who brought this to a civilian court. And since its San Diego, Kalifornia, punitive amounts should be paid to the defendant.