LibriumArcana.Games

Posted: **Wed Jul 18, 2007 7:58 pm**

SAN DIEGO, California (Reuters) - The military officer overseeing the case against a U.S. Marine charged with murder in the November 2005 killings of 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha has recommended that the charges be dropped.
ADVERTISEMENT

Lt. Col. Paul Ware, who heard evidence against Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt during a five-day hearing in June, made the recommendation in an 18-page report to Lt. Gen. James Mattis released late on Tuesday.

Mattis, the top commander of the Marines fighting in Iraq, will decide whether or not Sharratt must proceed to court-martial, the military version of a trial.

"Whether this was a brave act of combat against the enemy or tragedy of misperception born out of conducting combat with an enemy that hides among innocents, Lance Cpl. Sharratt's actions were in accord with the rules of engagement and use of force," Ware said in the recommendation.

Sharratt, 22, is one of seven Marines charged in the Haditha killings. He was part of a squad traveling through the town when it was hit by a roadside bomb that killed a well-liked Marine and injured two others.

Sharratt was charged with the murder of three Iraqi brothers. He testified that he shot them during a confrontation inside one house where two of them had AK-47 rifles.

Three Marines and four officers were charged in the killings. Sharratt and two others face murder charges, while four officers were charged with dereliction of duty and filing false reports of the incident.

Sharratt's attorneys issued a written statement praising the decision and criticizing the "hysteria of some elements of the press and certain members of Congress."S. Marine charged with murder in the November 2005 killings of 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha has recommended that the charges be dropped.

Lt. Col. Paul Ware, who heard evidence against Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt during a five-day hearing in June, made the recommendation in an 18-page report to Lt. Gen. James Mattis released late on Tuesday.

Mattis, the top commander of the Marines fighting in Iraq, will decide whether or not Sharratt must proceed to court-martial, the military version of a trial.

"Whether this was a brave act of combat against the enemy or tragedy of misperception born out of conducting combat with an enemy that hides among innocents, Lance Cpl. Sharratt's actions were in accord with the rules of engagement and use of force," Ware said in the recommendation.

Sharratt, 22, is one of seven Marines charged in the Haditha killings. He was part of a squad traveling through the town when it was hit by a roadside bomb that killed a well-liked Marine and injured two others.

Sharratt was charged with the murder of three Iraqi brothers. He testified that he shot them during a confrontation inside one house where two of them had AK-47 rifles.

Three Marines and four officers were charged in the killings. Sharratt and two others face murder charges, while four officers were charged with dereliction of duty and filing false reports of the incident.

Sharratt's attorneys issued a written statement praising the decision and criticizing the "hysteria of some elements of the press and certain members of Congress."

Some are gonna claim this is a political cover up. Fuck you, this ain't no Vietnam Army bullshit this is the fucking Marine Corps. We hang our murders or we did until you PC assholes made up start putting them to sleep like they were overused pets.

As for "certain members of Congress" MURTHA THAT'S TWO YOU OWE ME ASS!

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:44 am**

Didn't one of the Marines confess to his shrink? And that's what started the ball rolling on this whole thing, or am I thinking of another incident.

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:58 pm**

Confessions to a mental health professional are at least nominally protected, and are seriously suspect. People suffering from shock related to their actions in combat are liable to regard themselves guilty for crimes that they were fully innocent of. Another case is of the infamous Richmond Jewelry Store Robbery back in the early 90's where two heavily armed robbers entered a jewelry store--to find it backed with about 20 weapons which the owners had distributed around the store (both of whom were there)--with instructions to fight back. Almost a hundred rounds of ammunition were exchanged and both the robbers were killed. The next day one of the store employees called up to "confess" that he'd murdered someone: He'd fired into the head of one of the guys when he was on the ground and seemed to be twitching for the gun that had been fallen by him. Actually he was already dead and those were just death spasms. Even if it hadn't been, it was still perfectly justified and the police assured him as much.

The same thing has bluntly taken place here. These "murders" were nothing of the sort, and that's now becoming clear. It'll be nice to see these very much innocent men cleared though their careers and lives have been pretty much ruined.

*chuckles dryly* Our problem in Iraq has never been an excess of brutality. Quite the opposite, actually--we're utter lunatics to think it's possible to conquer a country without breaking heads. Of course this isn't supposed to be a conquest when it obviously is, so we're utter lunatics in the first place.

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:17 pm**

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Confessions to a mental health professional are at least nominally protected, and are seriously suspect. People suffering from shock related to their actions in combat are liable to regard themselves guilty for crimes that they were fully innocent of. Another case is of the infamous Richmond Jewelry Store Robbery back in the early 90's where two heavily armed robbers entered a jewelry store--to find it backed with about 20 weapons which the owners had distributed around the store (both of whom were there)--with instructions to fight back. Almost a hundred rounds of ammunition were exchanged and both the robbers were killed. The next day one of the store employees called up to "confess" that he'd murdered someone: He'd fired into the head of one of the guys when he was on the ground and seemed to be twitching for the gun that had been fallen by him. Actually he was already dead and those were just death spasms. Even if it hadn't been, it was still perfectly justified and the police assured him as much.

The same thing has bluntly taken place here. These "murders" were nothing of the sort, and that's now becoming clear. It'll be nice to see these very much innocent men cleared though their careers and lives have been pretty much ruined.

*chuckles dryly* Our problem in Iraq has never been an excess of brutality. Quite the opposite, actually--we're utter lunatics to think it's possible to conquer a country without breaking heads. Of course this isn't supposed to be a conquest when it obviously is, so we're utter lunatics in the first place.

No there not. If you confess to a crime they have to report it. Especially murder. That was spelled out in black and white to me on my first visit to my psychologist and psychiatrist. Other things they have to report include imminent threat of suicide or homicide, suspected or known child abuse and if they have to testify in court they have to break confidentiality.

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:34 pm**

I apologise. I didn't realise that you said nominally protected, thereby implying the conditions that they have to break confidentiality.

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:34 pm**

Cpl Kendall wrote:
No there not. If you confess to a crime they have to report it. Especially murder. That was spelled out in black and white to me on my first visit to my psychologist and psychiatrist. Other things they have to report include imminent threat of suicide or homicide, suspected or known child abuse and if they have to testify in court they have to break confidentiality.

Interesting. In the United States that is not the case in all jurisdictions--numerous of which provide at the least limited protections in physician-patient confidence.

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:14 pm**

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
Interesting. In the United States that is not the case in all jurisdictions--numerous of which provide at the least limited protections in physician-patient confidence.

In Canada the conditions I laid out are in place across the country both for military and civilian practioners. Although I believe that the crimes aspect of the oath is only for serious crimes such as rape, murder, etc. If you shoplift they don't report that.

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2007 4:59 pm**

*chuckles dryly* Our problem in Iraq has never been an excess of brutality. Quite the opposite, actually--we're utter lunatics to think it's possible to conquer a country without breaking heads. Of course this isn't supposed to be a conquest when it obviously is, so we're utter lunatics in the first place.

I would say our biggest mistake was in believing that elections and a democratically elected government would fix everything.

Let me explain, democrat government in my view is a good thing or at least better then any other form of government we've tried (Winston Churchill agreed that's why I've pretty much stolen and chopped up his quote). It's not a clean method of governing but it's worked for my country at least for over 200 years. But Democracy alone isn't enough, in fact democracy alone can be the most horrible thing you have ever done to a group of people. Let's put this way, if 9 men vote to rape 1 women, haven't they practiced a rather evil form of democracy? What if 100 people vote to murder 25 other people based on their skin color? Or if 1000 people vote to imprison 200 people for their political views?

Athens during it's war with Sparta often voted to wipe out entire cities to the last man, women and child. Sparta did the same but without voting to be fair.

What stops this from happening in the West and other 1st world nations? Well I suppose I could play semantics and say it's the fact we're not democracies but that's not really an answer is it?

The answer is Rule of Law. We have failed to establish that I think in Iraq and the body count among the citizens of Iraq, who I do not view as our enemies but rather has our dependents, is brutal proof of that. Looking back at it we held elections to soon and did not do enough to enforce a set of laws.

We set up elections in Iraq in 2005, roughly 2 years after the invasion. In Germany after WWII the first federal government wasn't formed until 1949, 4 years after the end of the war.

Elections without Law don't seem to help much.

LibriumArcana.Games

Marine recommends dropping Haditha charges

#1 Marine recommends dropping Haditha charges

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8