Marine tells of order to execute Haditha women and children

US Marine was ordered to execute a room full of Iraqi women and children during an alleged massacre in Haditha that left 24 people dead, a military court heard Thursday.

The testimony came in the opening of a preliminary hearing for Marine Sergeant Frank Wuterich, who faces 17 counts of murder over the Haditha killings, the most serious war crimes allegations faced by US troops in Iraq.


Wuterich, dressed in desert khakis, spoke confidently to confirm his name as the hearing to decide if he faces a court martial began at the Marines' Camp Pendleton base in southern California.

The 27-year-old listened intently as Lance Corporal Humberto Mendoza recounted how Marines had responded after a roadside bomb attack on their convoy in Haditha on November 19, 2005 left one comrade dead.

Mendoza said Marines under Wuterich's command began clearing nearby houses suspected of containing insurgents responsible for the bombing.

At one house Wuterich gave an order to shoot on sight as Marines waited for a response after knocking on the door, said Mendoza.

"He said 'Just wait till they open the door, then shoot,'" Mendoza said.

Mendoza then said he shot and killed an adult male who appeared in a doorway.

During a subsequent search of the house, Mendoza said he received an order from another Marine, Lance Corporal Stephen Tatum, to shoot seven women and children he had found in a rear bedroom.

"When I opened the door there was just women and kids, two adults were lying down on the bed and there were three children on the bed ... two more were behind the bed," Mendoza said.

"I looked at them for a few seconds. Just enough to know they were not presenting a threat ... they looked scared."

After leaving the room Mendoza told Tatum what he had found.

"I told him there were women and kids inside there. He said 'Well, shoot them,'" Mendoza told prosecutor Lieutenant Colonel Sean Sullivan.

"And what did you say to him?" Sullivan asked.

"I said 'But they're just women and children.' He didn't say nothing."

Mendoza said he returned to a position at the front of the house and heard a door open behind him followed by a loud noise. Returning later that afternoon to conduct body retrieval, Mendoza said he found a room full of corpses.

In cross-examination, however, Major Haytham Faraj suggested a girl who survived the shootings had identified Mendoza as the gunman, sparking an angry reaction from prosecutors.

"The girl in question already identified another Marine," Sullivan stormed. "This is completely unethical, inappropriate and has no basis in fact."

Mendoza had given similar testimony during a preliminary hearing against Tatum earlier this year.

Investigating officer Lieutenant Colonel Paul Ware, who is presiding in Wuterich's hearing, last week recommended dropping murder charges against Tatum, describing Mendoza's evidence as "too weak".

Prosecutors allege Marines went on a killing spree in Haditha retaliation for the death of their colleague in the bomb attack.

Defense lawyers will argue that Wuterich followed established combat zone rules of engagement.

A total of eight Marines were initially charged in connection with the Haditha deaths.

Four were charged with murder while four senior officers were accused of failing to properly investigate the killings.

Of the four Marines charged with murder, two have since had charges withdrawn, while allegations against Tatum are also expected to be dismissed.

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Marine_tells_of_order_to_execute_Ha_08302007.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I doubt anyone will receive more than a slap on the wrist. Now if they were Iraqi troops shooting 24 American women and children and civilians dead in exactly the same way, it would be another story.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The real problem, I suspect, is that the accounts of the incident sound so confused. Clearly the Marines are trying to do the right thing, it doesn't sound like there is any ongoing military "cover up" and the trial is evidently open to the press. If there were some conspiracy to make this go away, they could hide it far better than they seem to be doing.

That said, western trials (even in military courts) have a tendency to procedurally favor the accused. If the accounts of what happened are contradictory (and given the lack of, or lack of an ability to collect, physical evidence at the scene) it can be hard to meet the needed evidentiary standards.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is likely that the sentences will not be sufficient to placate all who are outraged by this tragedy, but there are way too many mitigating circumstances to the crime to stand a chance at getting something like the death penalty. The Mahmudiya killings, on the other hand...

I have no idea what the Iraqi Army's internal justice system would do to some IA soldiers who summarily murdered American civilians during a combat deployment to a war-torn United States after their convoy was hit by a VBIED, so I'm not sure what your point is.

 

:roflmao:

clearly.

peace.

 

And he says he's no conservative :crazy:

 

You'd prefer what, that there be no trial? Perhaps skip right to sentencing?

The Marine Corps is holding a trial of those involved and the press is allowed to see and report on those proceedings. Short of assuming that the men are all guilty, what more do you think the Marines should be doing?

 

How about the rest of the story;

and the trial isn't over, and all of the evidence isn't in.

 

The anti-American ilk on this site scour the news for bad news about America and immediately leap to whatever conclusion panders to their viewpoint, Pandaemoni, regardless of logic or the facts of the matter. This is just another example.

You're right in stating that: "accounts of the incident sound so confused." They are. And they have been. The problem is the initial media reports were filled with heresay and rampant speculation that primed the pump for a slam-dunk My Lai, style incident in the mind of the sort of people who eagerly anticipated such an attrocity. When subsequent facts and investigations made such a parrallel impossible, the anti-American crowd, still foaming at the mouth from the initial reports, immediately leapt to their standard cover-up and Bush administration/Pentagon-is-lying position.

 

very few people on this site are anti-american. there are alot who are critical of america and it policeys under bush but that is not the same as being anti-american

 

What the fuck? Knock on the door and then shoot the guy who opens it?

...

Mendoza's story is clearly missing something. He says he said "but they're just women and children", and that was the end of it. He doesn't try to be clear with the other guy not to take action? And then he hears a door open "a loud noise" (like he couldn't be more specific, sounds like he was trying to play ignorant by not saying it was gun fire). And he doesn't check it out until later in the afternoon? Sounds like BS.

And then

So WHO was it...?

 

Why do Conservatives think they "own" America? I posted that because my American ass hates this foolish war. I'm motivated by the fact that there's more harm being done then good, and for what? The 10,000 aerial sorties we executed after the first Iraq war was enough to keep Saddam contained. That's why the weapons inspectors didn't find anything. Because our high tech bunker busting munitions left no stone unturned, and no bomb making factory intact. So it's not UN AMERICAN for me to present examples that support my position.

The Pat Tilman case and many others have proven that the Pentagon can't be trusted.

Here's something you need to read, and internalize count.

Seventeen congressmen file suit against Clinton to end war
By Ted Barrett/CNN

April 30, 1999
Web posted at: 5:17 p.m. EDT (2117 GMT)


WASHINGTON (April 30) -- Seventeen U.S. congressmen filed suit against President Bill Clinton Friday seeking an end to military strikes against Yugoslavia.

The representatives, 15 Republicans and 2 Democrats, say the hostilities violate the 1973 War Powers Act which requires Congress to declare war or otherwise vote in favor of the military action.

The suit charges that "Defendant William Jefferson Clinton is unconstitutionally conducting an offensive military attack against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia without obtaining a declaration of war or other explicit authorization from Congress and despite Congress' decision not to authorize such action."

In a series of votes earlier this week, the House of Representatives failed to muster the votes to either declare war or support the ongoing airstrikes against Yugoslavia.

The suit argues that the War Powers Act requires troops be removed from military action 60 days after hostilities begin -- in this case May 25th -- unless congress okays their continued involvement.

Filing the suit are Ohio Democratic Reps. Dennis Kucinich and Marcy Kaptur. They joined Republican Reps. Tom Campbell (California), Bob Barr (Georgia), Roscoe Bartlett (Maryland), Dan Burton (Indiana), John Cooksey (Louisiana), Philip Crane (Illinois), Walter Jones (North Carolina), Donald Manzullo (Illinois), Charles Norwood (Georgia), Ron Paul (Texas), Tom Petri (Wisconsin), Marshall Sanford (South Carolina), Joe Scarborough (Florida), Bob Schaffer (Colorado), and Thomas Tancredo (Colorado).

U.S. District Court Judge Harold H. Greene has been assigned the case.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/04/30/war.suit/

***CRICKETS****

 

no i didnt say that, i was laughing at you saying the marines were "clearly only trying to do the right thing"

slaughtering nearly 30 women and kids in cold blood is right nowdays?

peace.

 

I meant the Marine Corps, not the Marines in question. I can't figure out who did what to whom during the incident in question.

 

I'm sure they will ultimately decide it was all an al Qaeda conspiracy or that the American troops had been Iranians in disguise. I'm not holding my breath for accountability here, let alone justice.

 

But aren't you assuming "justice = conviction?" I don't see any room in what you've written allowinf for the fact that you can't convict simply because he "might" be guilty. I don't know what the evidentiary standard is in a military court, but if it's "beyond a reasonable doubt" that is a very high threshold in the face of conflicted and confusing evidence.

If the defendant's guilt is in fact the baseline assumption (as it does seem to be from what you've posted), why even have trials? Why allow him a lawyer? Why allow him to proffer any defense and waste everyone's time? At that point, the trial is just for show.

Maybe you know so much about this case that his guilt is obvious (in which case this would be just a meaningles show trial), but I've been hearing various accounts of what happened since the story first broke...and, as I wrote above, I have no idea who did what to whom in the incident under scrutiny.

 

personally i believe they did kill innocent woman and shildren but i think the true blame has to go on bush sticking our troops in this hell hole for no good reason and then not supporting them creates the kind of atmashpere that these kinds of things happen expeccailly when you add the dehumanizing of the enemy in war. i think it is a testemant to our guys and girls training that there is not more of this happening

 

Personally I strongly suspect it too. The very fact that they are holding the trial makes me suspect it, but my suspicion isn't evidence. Were I on the jury, I would hope I'd be able to put my suspicions aside and vote based on the evidence presented at trial alone.

 

Do they have the testimony of the surviving witnesses?

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/05/29/960/03439

 

I don't know, and I agree that they should, but you can't assume the surviving witnesses will point the finger at the accused any more than one can assume they'd back up his version of events.

If the witnesses aren't there, I would wonder why (though the answers might range from the nefarious "The military excluded them because their testimony would have been too damaging to the defense" to the benign "The witnesses moved out of the shot-up homes and, Iraq being Iraq, could not be found"--serving a subpoena in Iraq must be difficult).