Pendleton 8 Exposed, Part 3

A multi-part series on the Marines of Hamdania, Iraq, who experts say were coerced and forced into giving self-damning testimony.

In this chapter we’ll be talking about the actual information that could (and should) free these men. Military judges have cited national security concerns. The defense asked for a jury made up of people with the appropriate clearances already in place. However, doing this would take away the government’s excuse for hiding anything exculpatory. The result is that the defense attorneys can only sit and watch as the truth gets buried.

Please be reminded that at no point in this story will I or any other person involved with the independent investigation of this case release information that could harm our troops on the ground. It will not happen. Period. That being said, the rest of it is all fair. This is war, after all. June 12, 2007: Marine’s Defense Team Wants Jury to Hear Classified Info.

At issue is the legal relevance of the material to defend Sgt. Hutchins. The article states that the jury could have been made up of people with security clearance. Why wasn’t it?

On the stand an intelligence officer said, “There’s a plethora of items there that would threaten national security.” He also testified that disclosing the information would reveal “our capability to find the enemy.” If there was a ‘plethora’ of items that would threaten national security, and those items were necessary to defend Sgt. Hutchins but were not allowed, then he was denied his right to the fair and impartial trial that General Mattis claimed to assure each of the accused.

General Mattis’ expresses his frustration over the media’s negative portrayal of our troops. He said when civilians are mistakenly killed by U.S. forces, the media portrays it as examples of severe ethical failings. “A (insurgent) bombing is reported like it was an act of God.”

General Mattis said the insurgency counts on negative portrayals of U.S. forces in Iraq and in the U.S. He added that he believes the battle for hearts and minds is being played out in news reports.

“This enemy has decided the war, the real war for them, will be fought in the narrative in the media.”

With this admitted knowledge of the enemy’s strategy, the crime of this war is not in the hearts, minds, or rifles of the military personnel unjustly accused or convicted of false war crimes, for they have done nothing more than what they were trained to do in time of war.

The real crime is in the decisions made by senior commanders that betray junior men and affect our ability to wage war.

July 9, 2007: GCM for Cpl. Thomas Begins. NCTimes, Mark Walker, in reference to Thomas’ CNN interview, stated that Thomas had pled guilty in January and said he took part in the plot. But when Thomas withdrew his guilty plea in February he told the court he was following Sgt. Hutchins’ orders. His defense attorney said they weren’t sure about the ‘genesis’ of the orders, or what they were.

July 11, 2007 : Troops Detail Hamdania Killing: Men Who reached Plea Agreements Describe SLaying of Iraqi Civilian.” LT Col. David Jones ruled that prosecutors can refer to the man as Awad even though prosecutors had not proven to his satisfaction that the man was indeed Awad.

The decision would affect sentencing if there should be a guilty verdict : “the prosecution could not use statements from Awad’s family to get a tougher sentence…Unless prosecutors can prove that the man killed by Marines was Awad, that information will never reach the military jury.”

Not in Reality! The prosecution counted on these statements so they could get tougher sentences. The results of NCIS’ investigation in Iraq, and the information they gave the prosecution to build its case, “initially” came from Awad’s family and was used by the prosecution for over a year preceding Sgt. Hutchins GCM. The media dwelled on it, ad nauseum, in every report during those 14 months. The seed was planted.. The judge was aware of it and should have protected the right of the remaining defendants to a fair trial.

July 12, 2007: Identity of Iraqi Victim is Unproven. The article states that NCIS agent Stan Garland testified that on May 16, 2006, (in Iraq) Thomas told him Awad was a terrorist and that it was a good shoot.

Note : On January 18, 2007, Thomas told military judge, Lt. Col. Tracy A. Daly “that neither he nor any other member of the squad had any information that Awad had ties to insurgents.”

Thomas’ testimony changed “after” he returned to the states where plea deals were made with the prosecution. July 13, 2007: Marine’s Attorneys Assert Executed Iraqi Was Insurgent.

One of Thomas’ defense attorneys said they believe the person killed was extremely likely to be an insurgent. After months of claiming an innocent man named Awad was killed, the prosecutors took the name off of the charge sheet and replaced it with “an unknown Iraqi man.” Lead prosecutor, Lt. Col. John Baker said he has DNA and other evidence proving Awad was the person killed. Military judge, Lt. Col. Jones had not ruled on which version of events could be admitted as evidence.

The prosecutors took the name of the deceased off of the charge sheet because they could not prove the identity of the deceased, yet they claimed to have DNA evidence. They were caught in a lie! They had no such evidence. The military judge knew it, yet couldn’t decide which version to allow as evidence? The mere fact that information on Awad was classified by the government and disallowed for the defense in every instance, would give any judge pause as to the validity of the prosecution’s “version”. (July 13, 2007 Cont.)

A Marine’s future was at stake and a judge couldn’t decide which version to allow as evidence: the one he learned could not be proven, or the one that could do irreparable harm to a defendant.

Three weeks later Sgt. Hutchins was convicted and given a “tougher sentence” for killing a ‘specific’ person whose identity was unproven, an Iraqi man Thomas had said was a terrorist.

Eugene Fidell said that if the defense assertions are true they could “color the proceedings.”

Jurors, especially combat veterans, might sympathize more with Thomas if they thought he went after a suspected enemy combatant instead of Awad, a disabled grandfather. Defense attorney Melissa Epstein said the man was not Awad, but Hashem Gowad, cousin of Saleh Gowad and also a suspected insurgent. She said the military waited until 11 days ago to give her team documents suggesting the identification problem.

Note : The following month, August 10, 2007, Magincalda’s attorney, Joseph Low, who had traveled to Hamdania, said he had uncovered evidence suggesting Awad likely was an insurgent, including that he was identified on a Marine suspects list as being a marksman nicknamed the “Karma Sniper”. Magincalda said he would never know for sure who died.

In a fair and impartial trial, with a genuine search for the truth, this information would have been presented in Sgt. Hutchins’ defense.

July 15, 2007: Marine : ‘Soft’ Unit was pressured . Corporal Says Brass Sanctioned Violence.

Marine Corporal Saul Lopezromo testified that “higher-ups” questioned the unit’s (Platoon’s) toughness. He stated, “We were told to ‘crank up the violence level’”.

He explained the practice of shooting dead or wounded suspected insurgents, a practice known as “dead checks.” (The “practice” that Special agent Connolly professed to know nothing about.)

Lopezromo also testified that a procedure called dead-checking was “routine.”

July 20, 2007: Court-Martial for Cpl. Magincalda Begins. July 21, 2007: Marine Gets No Prison Time for Iraqi’s Death. (SignOnSanDiego.com).

Thomas expressed no remorse for his actions, saying “I believe we did what we needed to do to save Marines’ lives.”

The panel members at Sgt. Hutchins’ trial gave him a severe sentence and allowed him no relief for fourteen months of unjust imprisonment. Their reasoning was that he showed no remorse. Sgt. Hutchins, like Thomas, also believes he did what he needed to do to save Marine’s lives. Cpl. Thomas walked out of the courtroom a free man. Sgt. Hutchins was given 15 years.

July 24, 2007: GCM for Sgt. Hutchins Begins. Associated Press states that “Prosecutors say Hutchins’ Squad hatched a plot…”

“Hutchins’attorney, Rich Brannon, said he believes Awad was an insurgent who was killed with the tacit approval of Hutchins’ commanding officers.”

Pvt. John Jodka testified that government investigators pushed him to include falsehoods in parts of his statement about what happened.

Jodka said that NCIS agents encouraged him to include lies in a statement he gave when he agreed to describe the details of the plot and what had happened to Awad. Judge Lt. Col. Jeffrey Meeks asked Jodka if NCIS “with their heavy-handed tactics” convinced him to make the statement. Twice, Jodka agreed that NCIS had falsely shaped pieces of his statement.

Jodka said he adopted the falsehoods because agent Kyle Casey inserted information that “would look better in the story. ” Among the falsehoods was a statement that there was division in the squad about going along with the slaying plot.

Jodka testified that they were under orders to apprehend an insurgent, and the ROE included the use of deadly force if the man could not be ‘captured’. They brought the body to the police station. It did not match the body of the supposed man they killed. All had orders from above. Before the mission they were all asked if they wanted to back out due to the danger of the mission.

(Free Republic) Jodka told the court he was pressured into making statements (in Iraq) he knew were false, to include all charges against him and Sgt. Hutchins, and that 90% of the statement he signed was written by NCIS!

John Jodka Sr. stated, “JJ was pressured and resisted for a time, but eventually signed the NCIS-typed statement which was designed around hanging Hutch out to dry as well as implicate Phan. When his legal counsel investigated and discovery was discussed, JJ (and all the others) informed their respective counsel the NCIS statements were tainted and inaccurate.”

The court disregarded Jodka’s testimony, and the other defendants, that NCIS coerced them and falsified statements. Yet, NCIS’ testimony was accepted as gospel!

July 30, 2007: Thomas Testifies for Magincalda : “According to Thomas, Hutchins presented the squad with the idea to kill an insurgent. The rest of the squad agreed to be in on it, and even helped shape the details.”

In January Thomas testified that he took part in the plan. In February he said he was ‘ordered’. July 30th he testified he agreed and helped shape the plan. Thomas’ testimony was less than trustworthy. As it was, it aided the prosecution and damaged Sgt. Hutchins chances at any chance for a fair or impartial trial.

July 31, 2007: Juries to Get Cases of Marines Accused of Murder of Iraqi Man.

Prosecutor Lt. Col. John Baker, read from a statement Sgt. Hutchins initially gave investigators, that he put him out of his misery by firing three rounds in his head.

This is the statement that Agent Connolly admitted was not suspect in Iraq, yet the prosecution used it as a confession. Sgt. Hutchins fate was pre-ordained by deals prosecutors made with coerced, frightened defendants. The court-martial made a mockery of the military judicial system.

Baker said Hutchins actions were premeditated because he hatched the plot, got his unit’s buy-in, and oversaw the execution.

False! Lt. Col. Baker’s statement is misleading and bordering on criminal. Sgt. Hutchins did not oversee or order an execution. He waited for his men to bring a man to him to be identified. His men shot the man. They never gave the Sergeant a chance to identify the man.

August 2, 2007: Sgt. Hutchins Convicted of Unpremeditated Murder. Magincalda Pleads for Mercy ; Credited for Time Served and Walked Free.

Magincalda said he ‘failed the junior Marines in his squad by encouraging them to go along with what their leaders were doing (leaders - plural; Not Sgt. Hutchins ; their leader(s) , even though he also told them the actions of the leaders were wrong.’ (the actions of the leader(s).

August 3, 2007: ‘Marine (Sgt. Hutchins) Gets 15 Years ; Comrade Demoted But Not Imprisoned.

“Two military juries handed down vastly different sentences for essentially the same crimes.”

The sentence was not consistent with the disposition of the charges in the cases of the majority of Sgt. Hutchins’ co-defendants.

Auday Arabo, an Iraqi-American lawyer from San Diego said, “At least there was a conviction, and at least the ringleader was brought to justice.”

Arabo noted that in many other countries, it would be unthinkable to charge a service member for killing someone during wartime.

Yet, the United States persecutes American service members, creating war crimes and making war criminals of them. It would seem that “many other countries” protect their countrymen. We don’t.

“Their officers complained they weren’t tough enough. One officer (Lt. Phan) may have inadvertently planted the idea of an execution by talking loosely about killing Iraqis…”

Inadvertently (?) planted (?) the idea of an execution by talking loosely (?) about killing Iraqis…” False : Lt. Phan had several meetings with Sgt. Hutchins where he laid out the plan for the mission. If not specific orders were given to Sgt. Hutchins, a junior leader, by his senior leader, Lt. Phan, through Commander’s Intent.

“Military prosecutors suddenly weren’t all that sure about the victim’s identity or background after having repeatedly called him a retired policeman and doting grandfather. By the end of Hutchins’ trial, prosecutors had taken to calling the victim “an unnamed Iraqi male.” In final arguments to jurors the prosecutor “tried some damage control, asserting that the real victim in the case was the Marine Corps, which had to pull a squad away from the battlefield because of the investigation.”

Unbelievable that the prosecution was allowed to get away with such a ludicrous statement.

‘To all three juries, Pennington said that the killing…may have acted as a deterrent to insurgent attacks. (Marine officials say records show that insurgent attacks around Hamdania declined after the killing, but those records are classified and were not part of the trials.’)

With the panel members having security clearances why were they not allowed to hear information that could help the defense? Answer : Denying records into evidence helped the prosecution.

Bing West, author of two books about Marines in Iraq said he was sure the jurors were sick at heart at having to vote to convict one of their own.

Bing West didn’t see the head juror laughing gleefully after the trial. Sick at heart? Remorse ? No! August 10, 2007: General Mattis Grants Pennington Clemency.

This is relevant in the Hamdania case in that it is a blatant example of unlawful command Influence and abuse of power. Lt. Col. Riggs “advises” the Convening Authority on matters concerning both, Haditha and the Hamdania cases.

Lt. Col. Bill Riggs, senior legal adviser to General Mattis, recused himself from Lance Cpl. Tatum’s case (Haditha) after he contacted Lt. Col. Ware, the investigating officer who reviewed Lance Cpl. Sharratt’s case, in which Ware stated, “The government version is unsupported by independent evidence. To believe the government version of facts is to disregard clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.”

Lt. Col. Riggs allegedly criticized Ware for being too harsh in assessing the prosecution’s case against Sharratt. After Ware filed his report, General Mattis dismissed charges against Sharratt. In an August Email to several attorneys, Ware wrote, “I viewed Lt. Col. Riggs’ comments as inappropriate and imprudent….I was…offended and surprised by this conversation.”

Riggs recused himself from the Tatum case “to make sure there was no appearance of impropriety”.

UCMJ Art. 37. Unlawfully Influencing Action of Court: “No authority convening a general, special, or summary court-martial, nor any other commanding officer, may censure, reprimand, or admonish the court or any member, military judge, or counsel thereof, with respect to the findings or sentence adjudged by the court, or with respect to any other exercises of its or his functions in the conduct of the proceedings. No person subject to this chapter may attempt to coerce or, by any unauthorized means, influence the action of a court-martial or any military tribunal or any member thereof, in reaching its findings or sentence in any case, or the action of any convening, approving, or reviewing authority with respect to his judicial acts.”

Lt. Col. Riggs’ attempt to manipulate the judicial process was not only improper, it was unlawful under the UCMJ. Even so, the Appearance of improper influence, rather than actual Misconduct, was cited . At the same time, the military had no qualms about throwing every charge possible at Junior service members while protecting Senior service members.

For months the media reported unauthorized leaks by government officials. Congressman John Murtha’s unauthorized , inflammatory statements against Marines in Hamdania and Haditha;

RE: Hamdania incident (Answers.com : Shooting Death of Hashim Ibrahim Awad, ABC television interview : “Congressman John P. Murtha explained, “some Marines pulled somebody out of a house, put them next to an IED, fired some AK-47s so they’d have cartridges there, and then tried to cover that up.”)

“Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military, are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled, or hanged.” (President Abraham Lincoln)

Next: The conclusion of the timeline…but then we start getting to the meat of this story–the documents that form the foundation of innocence for the Marines–and the color of the curtain the government used to hide its dirty little secret.