Haditha Prosecutors Are 0 for 7

LTC Jeffrey Chessani had charges against him related to the “Haditha massacre” dropped on Tuesday due to “undue command influence” on the prosecution (read: head hunting under pressure from certain Congressman . . . and I mean you, Mad Jack).  LTC Chessani becomes the sixth person whose charges have been dismissed and the seventh found not guilty overall.  (At trial, 1LT Andrew Grayson was acquitted by a jury of his peers.)  That leaves only one Marine still awaiting trial: SGT Frank Wuterich who was in tactical command of the Marines in question on the night of the Haditha events. 

The complete vindication of the Marines in a court of law (as opposed to the court of public opinion) proves that “fog of war” is still a valid defense.  No matter how we might try, mistakes will still be made in war.  I’m not saying that the Marines made a mistake or killed the wrong people.  The fact is we will probably never know for certain.  That’s why it is called the fog of war and not the near virtual to within a thousandth of a percentage certainty of war.  Despite our best efforts, wars are still fought by men, often not even yet twenty, who must make life-and-death decisions in fractions of milliseconds on the battlefield.

In the course of the events surrounding Haditha, I have had several discussions with many people, most especially a Marine corporal who spent the better part of 2006 in Anbar Province, Iraq with a civil affairs unit.  He is of the opinion that the prosecution of these Marines was wrong and would ultimately be detrimental to morale and combat efficiency.  While I can see his point, I believe (and I think that the 0 for 7 record backs me up) that the prosecutions were necessary, though probably unjust and certainly unfair..

The prosecutions were important for several reasons:

1. Civilian Control of the Military.  Constitutionally and traditionally, military commanders are subservient to the President as Commander-in-Chief and the Congress, which has an oversight role in the conduct of the affairs of the executive branch (of which the military is a part).  For the military to ignore the concerns of Congress, even with political cover from the President, would permanently damage civil-military relations.
2. A Fair Trial vs. Demonization in the Press. As Michelle Malkin has recounted here, most Democratic Congressman and their lapdogs in the press had already all but publicly executed the “Haditha Eight” before the facts were even known.  That makes an investigation and prosecution even more essential. 
3. The Military’s Own High Moral Standards.  The United States’ military maintains one of the highest codes of conduct in the world.  Our leaders, both civilian and military, believe that this code of conduct is what separates us from other militaries.  They tend to believe that the American way of war, with all of its affiliated baggage, is why we always come out on top.  For some, failing to investigate and prosecute would entail a betrayal of the American way of war.
4. The “Fog of War” Defense Demands Testing.  This idea that, in war, bad things happen to people because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time must be tested.  Much like the “mental defect” or “insanity” defense of a civilian court, “fog of war” is too convenient and too amorphous to allow it to go unchallenged.

Of course, the prosecutions are likely to many consequences, mostly outside of the military and none that I think we need worry too heavily about.  The media have not backed down on the assertion that the incidents of Haditha constitute a massacre and a war crime.  To retract that narrative would prove that a worse travesty of justice occurred after Haditha.  It would also greatly damage the anti-war narrative that the media has spent so much cultivating.

That being said, however, I do not believe the alleged massacre at Haditha changed very many minds.  Both sides had already invested too much time and effort trying to convince the American people, and the American people had already joined one or the other of the camps.  So, from the viewpoint of lasting impact, Haditha merely reinforces pre-existing conceptions of soldiers and the media. 

Haditha has shown no discernable effect on recruitment and no measurable change in the behavior of the American soldier on the urban battlefield of Iraq.  Haditha proves the difficulty of fighting an insurgent force, a force that by definition blends into the population and is indistinguishable from it.  Haditha also shows the relative strength of the American people.  Polling shows a higher correlation between support for the war and military success than the reporting of alleged atrocities to reduced support for the war.  The American people were willing to wait for the truth to come out at trial before jumping to conclusions.

Obama Is Horrifically Wrong

Apparently, 9/11 never happened.  Barack Obama believes that we were all horribly wrong to conduct the GWOT.

Here’s a transcript of his ideas for fighting terrorists from ABC News:

”And, you know, let’s take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks — for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.

“And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, ‘Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims.’

“So that, I think, is an example of something that was unnecessary. We could have done the exact same thing, but done it in a way that was consistent with our laws.”

Obama is advocating a return to Clinton Administration’s law enforcement approach to combating global terrorism.  Three problems with this line of reasoning immediately spring to mind.

1. Khalid Sheik Mohamed was indicted, but never arrested, and remained at large until his capture, which was brought about by the very policies Obama opposes.  In the meantime, Mohamed went on to plan the 9/11 attacks.  This is an excellent example of the limits of a law enforcement approach.  You can indict whoever you want, but if you can’t find them or arrest them, then they are free to kill again.
2. Law enforcement is necessarily reactive, instead of proactive.  By its very nature, law enforcement seeks to punish after the fact.  Therefore, the terrorists must hit us again . . . and again and again before we will do anything about it.  The fact of the matter is that Obama is deliberately putting American citizens (not to mention legal residents, illegal aliens, and random tourists) at risk with a law enforcement approach. 
3. IT’S A WAR, DAMMIT!!!  Everyone else sees that.  Why can’t Democrats?!?  Using Obama’s rationale, FDR never should have declared war on Japan.  He should have had Admirals Nagumo and Yamamoto indicted, tried and convicted in an American court.  Sorry, son, that’s not how war works.  It’s a bloody business and democratic sensibilities do not apply!!

Also, Obama is deeply wrong about the status of prisoners at Guantanamo and the Geneva Conventions.  He is as wrong as the five-man junta currently sitting in judgment over this nation.  They are not entitled to challenge their status as unlawful combatants.

The Geneva Conventions are actually four separate treaties: the first two treaties deal with the treatment of battlefield casualties, while the third deals with prisoners of war and the fourth treatment of civilians.  At all times, it deals specifically with wars and conflicts between nation-states and, under the Conventions, one is either a combatant or a civilian.  There are no other categories.

The problem is that unlawful combatants fall into a legal gray area.  They are not soldiers, since they don’t fight under any flag, in any identifiable uniform, nor do they observe the generally accepted laws of warfare.  They are also not guerilla or insurgents since they are not citizens of the countries that they are fighting in.  Generally accepted international practice is that they should be treated as prisoners of war.  Under international law (and to the best of my knowledge U.S. law until last week), prisoners of war cannot challenge their incarceration once they have been captured.  They must be repatriated once hostilities cease and may be tried for any crimes they have committed.  Beyond that, their rights are severely limited and do not include the right of habeas corpus.  They are not criminals in the sense that Democrats and the Supreme Junta see them.  They are soldiers and repatriating a soldier before the war is over returns to the enemy a full-trained, rough-and-ready soldier ready to carry on the fight.

In war, the rules of civilized conduct often do not and should not apply.  All Barack Obama (and his friends on the Supreme Junta) has done is to ensure that more Americans will die because, apparently, the Constitution is a suicide pact made with the Devil (or radical Islam, depending on one’s bent).

Freedom of Speech Is Paramount To A Free Society

Recently, a “human rights tribunal” in British Columbia Canada heard arguments in the case of the Canadian Islamic Congress v. Maclean’s, a Canadian newsmagazine.  Maclean’s has been accused of perpetuating flagrant Islamophobia that “subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt.”

The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and others like it were founded by Canada to ferret discrimination in all of its forms within the Dominion of Canada.  Unfortunately, the law has allowed these star chambers to make a mockery of the legal and constitutional standards of Canada.  In the past, these tribunals have found that there is no guarantee of free speech or a free press, despite an explicit right to both in Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms*.  They are run by left-wing political hacks with little, if any, legal training and the defendants are specifically told that the truth is not a defense; in fact there is no defense.  The inquisitors make up the rules as go along and the rulings are arbitrary. 

Oh . . . and if you’re found guilty (and you will be; a 100% conviction rate insures that), your punishment will be severe.  You will not be allowed publish in Canada ever again.  You will be hit with severe monetary penalties.  You may even be sent to a “reeducation program.”

If you find it hard to believe that Canadians would stand for this, then consider that right here in America, we stand for it on a daily basis.  Oh, we don’t have human rights tribunals . . . well, that’s not strictly true.  There is the U.S. Commission on Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission at the federal level and virtually every state and most large cities have human or civil rights commissions.  They shares many of the same functions as the Canadian tribunals, but generally cannot impose sanctions or monetary penalties.  Functionally, however, they serve the same purpose.  You may need to bring a civil suit in a real court with a real judge, but once you’ve been “convicted” by the EEOC or some other state or local administrative body, the conclusion is pre-ordained.

All is not lost, of course.  Canadians are in a pickle because of choices they made in the past.  The Canadian constitution, and the Charters of Rights, only date to 1982.  That’s because Canada, much like Great Britain and a few other Commonwealth countries, have a common law tradition.  That is to say, Canadians didn’t need a constitution or a bill of rights because they had 800 years of tradition dating back to before the Magna Carta that defined their rights.

We have the opportunity to hold the line by specifically nominating and confirming Supreme Court justices and appellate court judges who will strictly interpret the Constitution in accordance with what it says and how it was understood by those who wrote it.  Justices like Scalia and Thomas or Alito and Roberts.

Unfortunately, this nation is on its way to atoning for past sins by electing Barack Obama President of the United States.  In doing so, we consign our fates to the Ruth Bader Ginsburgs and the Anthony Kennedys of the legal world, who blithely ignore the Constitution or reinterpret it to mean what they want to mean.  A little thing like freedom of speech isn’t going to stop the thought police in this country . . . anymore than it stopped them in Canada.  

 

* This explicit right is circumscribed somewhat by Section 1 which  states that these freedoms (and all other in the Charter) are subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law that “can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”