Sickening wrote on Aug 7, 2007 6:45 PM:"military experience, relative rank and position of authority". What does this have to do with killing someone? The more I read about this, the more I'm embarrassed to be an American. Why don't they just let all the criminals in jail join the armed services. They are already criminals. From the sounds of it they would be good soldiers.

To Gen Mattis, wrote on Aug 7, 2007 8:44 PM:Thank you for releasing Shumate and Jackson, now please let Rob Pennington out, as he was convicted of the same charges as Cpl. Thomas who has been free for a few weeks.

To Sickening wrote on Aug 7, 2007 9:10 PM:Then leave the good ol USA, and don’t let the border fence hit ya on the way out. PS, these are Marines, not soldiers. Get your branches of services straight!

Danielle wrote on Aug 7, 2007 10:10 PM:I am glad Mattis is the Marine leader I would want my family to make scarafices for. Thank you General Mattis for taking control in an out of control situation. Hopefully the Hutchins family and also the Pennington family see some releif as well. We all know there is a classified part of the story and I can accept that I do not know the details. I hope that all americans can allow the military to make war decisons while the politicians can make political ones. War should not be run by politics and Mattis has shown that in his Marine Corps he will lead.

JUST CURIOUS wrote on Aug 7, 2007 10:11 PM:SERVICES: I wonder if the Iraqi victim cared who was killing him-soldier or Marine?

Sure; wrote on Aug 8, 2007 4:49 AM:Pardon the whole lot of them. They didn't do anything wrong. Killing is their job.

Reardon wrote on Aug 8, 2007 4:51 AM:There is a difference between those who protect and those who are protected. Those who protect are not necessarily the people you want living next door because to protect you they must be willing to crawl through slime to cut a throat. It would be great is everyone could hold a drink at a cocktail party one day, and if war comes cut a throat the next with equal aplomb, but those whom we ask to "Man The Pass" against the Hun must be of a different sort -- few people are willing and able to do it and almost none of them are equally comfortable at a tea dance and in combat. Boy Scouts Do Not Win Wars -- and you simply do not want to send the Salvation Army to defend you. Social workers are best doing social work -- warriors do the dirty work you will not -- indeed, cannot do. You handicap them unnecessarily at your peril. Even within the military, we have planners, and fighters. Fighters are willing, sometimes anxious to “close the enemy.” Thank them, because you can’t do it!

Good News! wrote on Aug 8, 2007 5:11 AM:What these guys did was wrong, absolutely, and they knew it. But the extenuating circumstances and their motivations must be taken into consideration regarding sentencing. Two juries knew that, convicted their accused and set them free with time served. The other jury recognized the additional culpability of rank, but it is Mattis' right to balance the prosecution's desire to 'send a message' with his own message that his Marines, our Marines, though not excused, are understood by those in command.

To Danielle wrote on Aug 8, 2007 5:53 AM:The war in Iraq has been political since the day the inteligence was altered and bent to justify the invasion. The whole charade before the UN, visits to the CIA by Dick Cheney to pressure them to misinterpret the news; Generals have been assigned and dismissed based on the politics, It Has All been political. The surge and the timing of the report...all political. If Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld had let the military men run the war it would have been over....at least 4 maybe 5 years ago. This political war will now run at least thru this administration and it will be up to the next President to bring it to an end.

Some Justice wrote on Aug 8, 2007 6:50 AM:six free two to go!!!!!!!!! Thank you Gen. Mattis

Bob wrote on Aug 8, 2007 6:55 AM:It's great our soldiers were released. They were political prisoners. This is a war, not a tea party.

sickening wrote on Aug 8, 2007 7:52 AM:" Then leave the good ol USA, and don’t let the border fence hit ya on the way out. PS, these are Marines, not soldiers. Get your branches of services straight! " Is this the best response you can come up with? Wrong is wrong is wrong no matter what. It seems that the Marines have a warped reality of what is right and what is wrong. How would the rest of the world view this? This is my point. The USA can't be a world leader with these types of ideals.

Set them free... wrote on Aug 8, 2007 8:34 AM:"Charging a man with murder in this place was like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500." - Apocalypse Now

To Sickening wrote on Aug 8, 2007 9:44 AM:What is wrong is that these guys were not treated as civilians would be. The testimony of the NCIS investigators would have been tossed out in civilian courts. There are so many things that occurred during the event tha the public is not aware of. Nor should they be aware of it. As for the USA being the world leader, who cares? We are the most generous country in the world. We are asked to help every country in the world, shoulder a huge financial burden for the UN and still try to be the world's moral authority. Look at every other country in the world and how they deal with both their internal problems and international dealings. We are not a perfect country, but this is still the best place to live. So go ahead, Sickening. Be embarassed to be an American. The door you walk out to leave the U.S. is the same door illegal aliens who want to live here will walk through.

To: Sickening... wrote on Aug 8, 2007 9:56 AM:You obviously have never served in the Armed Forces. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice even if a serviceman has been convicted of a capital crime this one act does not skew the good he/she may have done in the TOTAL military career. As strange as it may seem it should be the standard which civillian sentences are handed out. The one random act of a man / woman is not the whole of who they are. Besides we train them to kill. It would be hypocricy to treat them as if they're some tree hugging civilian.

Bucky wrote on Aug 8, 2007 9:57 AM:Gen. Mattis, OUTSTANDING JOB !

Mockery of Justice wrote on Aug 8, 2007 10:05 AM:The general thumbed his nose at those serving on the juries, and the legal system. His actions make him no better than the enemies we seek to destroy. I was taught, during my 28 years of service in the Corps, that there is no such thing as an "ex-Marine", but I've decided today, that I am now an X, not having anything to do with what the organization has been transformed to under the likes of the General.

to Mockery wrote on Aug 8, 2007 10:24 AM:If you are now choosing to be an X Marine, you were never a Marine to begin with.

To Mockery wrote on Aug 8, 2007 10:26 AM:Good riddance to you. I'll bet your name is Murtha, isn't it? The actions of the General puts him well above those enemies we have who are intent on destroying our way of life. With an attitude like yours, I am surprised that you were able to last 28 years in the Corps. I'll bet you're the type of guy to take your ball and bat home because you didn't like the way the game is played. In your view, I guess you just wasted 28 years of your life. Wow, it must be hard being you.

esteban wrote on Aug 8, 2007 10:37 AM:To Sickening....... WE are embarrassed that YOU are an American. the likes of YOU gives us brave Americans a bad name. Go to Iran and live since you HATE America and its citizens. You will be welcomed there, but you are certainly not here.

Mark wrote on Aug 8, 2007 10:54 AM:When people oppose war based on its brutality, Bush/Pentagon wage a propaganda campaign to show how civilized our troops are and how we have things under control with a fair legal system that detects and punishes wrongdoing. This proves that's a farce. Those who want them freed say "war is hell, these killings are expected". This means the anti-war people are correct, and that the US fully expects to brutalize civilians and shouldn't rush into wars of choice like Iraq.

Well, well, wrote on Aug 8, 2007 11:13 AM:It's clear to me that the Marine Corps of our daddies is not the Marine Corps of today. This "war" has been so ill defined that it is hard to apply the values of our military institutions to it. While I totally disagree with the sentences handed out (too lienient), and what the General has done (no backbone), I can understand why. One of the reasons our country is so great is that the military is directed and overseen by the politicians. That ensures that the voice of the people will always be heard. It is also the reason that we sometimes get really monstrous results, like this one. Will the Marine Corp restore it's greatness? Probably, but not any time soon, or not until Iraq is over with. These Marines done wrong, and everyone knows it, and everyone also knows they were put in untenable situations to begin with, and therein lies the quandry.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Aug 8, 2007 11:49 AM:To Mockery: You have it backwards. The "panel" thumbed its nose at the legal system and, in the case of the Sergeant, was vindictive and nothing close to being JUST. They were admonished to find guilt only "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt" and they ignored it. There was so much doubt and no proof of anything other than those who made plea deals would testify against their Sergeant. At least Jodka testified that he was coerced and went into more depth. Oh! But that part was conveniently ignored. As a civilian I'd think that only another fellow Marine being persecuted by higher ranking Marines who couldn't live up to their own oath, could cause you to lose any pride in being a Marine. At the same time; the days I spent at Camp Pendleton were educating. It is another world apart from the civilan's. There is organization, discipline, and respect; even when none is due. Every day every Marine made sure that they opened the door for me, every Marine waited if I was slow and held the door for me. Guess who did NOT have the courtesy to do the same? The Prosecutor!!! Mrs. Hutchins and I were behind him as he went into the room, he smiled and let the damn thing go right in our faces. And before you argue...YES! I would take a polygraph on my remarks and would love to tell him to his face what I thought of him. I can't imagine any Marine giving up on the Corps. It is this Congress and the Pentagon Brass where the problem lies. If "anyone" should have given these Marines the benefit of the doubt and stood by them, and taken the time to see through the BS, it "should" be a United States Marine. Any loss of pride lies within your self, NOT your brothers. And for the ludicrous, gutter-sniping remark about the General and your reference to him vs the enemy; you definitely ARE an EX-Marine!

Citizen wrote on Aug 8, 2007 11:57 AM:I think Mattis' mercy here is pretty easy to understand and not that big of a sign he's backing off this prosecution: these other guys had a few months to go on their sentences and they did the same thing as their peers who were freed. I see Pennington getting his 8 years cut for this same reason. As for Hutchins, who led his men down the path of perdition, I think any more cuts would be surprising. The whole point, incidentally, of a separate military justice system is that historically it was much harsher than the civilian system on account of the need for stronger discipline than civilian society. This was true of everything from desertion and dereliction of duty to things like war crimes. Death sentences were handed out like candy canes in WWI and WWII for raping, robbing from, and killing civilians in Italy, France, and North Africa. With the advent of the volunteer force and the greater divergence of civilian and military culture, the "us v. them" feeling is more pronounced than ever. The moral intuitions of civilian society over things like harming noncombatants are less easily expressed in the military court martial panels. This has tended to make the military not too harsh but too solicitous of its accused war criminals; as a consequence, pressure for reform and the introduction of civilian juries/accountability will increase. This won't be good. The military must police its own who abuse Iraqis harshly or its independence as an institution will be threatened. Not only is this the right thing to do, but it's necessary for the military's long-run reputation as an institution worthy of respect. Honor is more than killing people together and bonding. That is mere loyalty, no different than the loyalty of fighting clans throughout the ages. Honor requires high standards and chivalry, and the essence of that honor in the western world is not deliberately harming those who have surrendered and who are civilians.

to Mockery wrote on Aug 8, 2007 11:58 AM:Don't forget to return your retirement check since you aren't having anything to do with the current organization.

to sickening... wrote on Aug 8, 2007 12:15 PM:don't hold your breath...the worst thing that could happen to this country is to leave it, as you want us, and to leave it in the hands of those who share your view...it is as much our country as it is yours...we have a better idea, we're going to stay and we're going fight to restore this country to the beacon of justice and liberty that it should be...I hate to shatter your illusions, but your neanderthal perspective that being a Marine is a license to kill those whom we purport to protect is not an indication that you love the "the good old USA" more than we do.

Sickening wrote on Aug 8, 2007 12:48 PM:Great responses. Narrow minded and out of touch with the rest of the world. Everything from "Get out if you don't like it" to "You never served...how would you know". Again, you missed my point. Mockery of Justice seems to understand my view. He understands that our standards and ideals apply to ALL not just to some. This great country must uphold justice above all. That is my point.

Leniency for Hutchins wrote on Aug 8, 2007 12:50 PM:I trust that General Mattis will make the right decision. I am assuming he has access to the classified information and clues to the possible real identity of the Iraqi man. None of this would have stood up in a civilian court. No body, no family members, no witnesses, no access to the alleged crime scene, the entire case tottering on the weak legs of coerced statements and heresay. The majority of American combat veterans would probably be convicted for something they did in a combat zone under these circumstances.

WVJ wrote on Aug 8, 2007 12:52 PM:OUTSTANDING, Marine !

Lee wrote on Aug 8, 2007 1:19 PM:General Mattis and others agreeable to no code of conduct- Shame on all of you. You disgust me with your utter lack of integrity or valor. My great uncle, a decorated, proud Marine and Sharpshooter is turning in his grave.

Citizen of the US and the World wrote on Aug 8, 2007 1:20 PM:Even in war, we Americans have standards of conduct and recognize the basic tenets of humanity. This was not a firefight, this was a preplanned murder of a "suspected" insurgent. A jury of their peers found them guilty. If we allow murder based on suspicion and hearsay, we undermine our justice system, which is the backbone of our society. It is a truly sad day if America condones torture or murder to dominate and subjugate. We cannot lower ourselves to the level of terrorists and use their tactics. Every Iraqi is an equal human being to us and deserves respect and a chance at a happy and safe life. I hope that "Mockery of Justice" reconsider and not disavow the sister/brotherhood of the Marines, for the vast majority serves the Corps and our country honorably and well. We need retired and active servicepeople of her/his mind to help us to see other perspectives. Thank you for the courage to speak out to defend our American ideals.

WOW wrote on Aug 8, 2007 1:46 PM:THIS ONLY TELLS THE REMAINING CORPS THAT IT IS OKAY TO STAB YOUR BROTHER IN THE BACK...BECAUSE YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH IT. THOSE THAT TOOK PLEA BARGAINS LEFT THEIR BROTHERS TO PAY THE PRICE OF THEIR LACK OF ... HOW FAIR IS THAT? THESE MEN THAT REMAINED STUCK TOGETHER WITHOUT SELFISH THOUGHTS, AND ARE NOW FREE. THE OTHERS SHOULD BE FORCED TO DO THEIR AGREED UPON TIME.

o2cool1 wrote on Aug 8, 2007 2:04 PM:At last someone with the balls to do something right. I've said it time and time again, I doubt seriously a retired Iraqi police officer who had been in the employ of Saddam Hussein could be called innocent, if he was not planting IED's you can bet he knew who was.My son served two tours in Iraq and lost a few friends to IED's and came close himself at least 3 times to being the victim of one as well. The insurgents can only succeed in planting these devises with the co-operation of locals, locals who know where the IED's are and who planted them.Do they come forward and warn our troops? NO they do not, as far as I'm concerned those that know and keep silent are just as guilty those planting road side bombs that kill and maim U.S. soldiers and Marines.

Brother Of Pennington wrote on Aug 8, 2007 2:06 PM:Here's what I find terribly sad about people going overboard in highlighting this as some atrocity. Many of you are quick to knock the shortcut these men took to saving Marine lives on the battle field, meanwhile, none of you seem to pay attention to the treatment of these Marines since the start of these investigations. Out of one side of your mouth you say, "these guys weren't in a firefight, and they killed this guy, and who cares how the government goes about prosecuting them, since we know their guilty. Throw'em in the cage forever and break the key in two." So just to sum up your point of view, it's not okay for the Marines to take an offensive position in an insurgent rich town, bringing about saved Marine lives and limbs, as supported by the fact multiple Marines testified in court to the fact that attacks went down to nearly nothing after this attack, however, it is okay for the government to prosecute a case in which these men have their rights violated, placed in jail without bail before they were even convicted, and the list goes on and on. This on top of what "Leniency for Hutchins" wrote. You dissenters to the Pendleton Eight speak long and hard about how horrible these young men are, while at the same time pay no attention to the misdeeds of the NCIS and the Prosecution. Again just trying to wrap my head around the hypocrisy. It's not okay for Marines to take a shortcut that might save their lives and other Marines lives, but it's okay for the government to take every shortcut it wishes to ensure these Marines have their lives destroyed. Nice logic, and a nice way to be even-handed.

Borther Of Pennington wrote on Aug 8, 2007 2:17 PM:To To: Sickening, thank you, you hit the nail right on the head. My Brother was an honor student taking pre-college courses in high school before he became a Marine. His record was spotless, and he never been arrested or even accused of a crime. So does anyone think 3 tours in hell, endless amounts of fire fights, being a victim to multiple IED attacks, having best friends blown to pieces, one living months afterwards with only parts of him left, might have, among many things, contributed to this situation when you extrapolate the similar experiences of the other Marines in the group?

Sick of Sickening wrote on Aug 8, 2007 2:43 PM:“Narrow minded and out of touch with the rest of the world”, Oh PHLZ, we’re narrow minded because we don’t agree with you?-how un-American of you. You go on to blow any chance of redeeming your credibility by referring to Mockery of J as having the same point of view as you – nuff said. Dude, this is still America and I still have the right to express my opinions, and your retort of ”narrow mindedness” tells me that you have no clue how to relay an intelligent thought. Now I’m concerned of what the rest of the world will think if they read your posts here. Read up on the facts of the P8 case please and stop the emotional tirade of “what will people think”, Who cares. Mattis did the right thing, so far. Let Pennington Out NOW!

Go Figure wrote on Aug 8, 2007 3:28 PM: To AW4: WHAA WHAA, if the truth hurts then get off the Blogs, you still have not offered any proof Awad was an insurgent or orders came from higher ups. All you have are allegations from guess who defense attorneys who are paid to put up smoking mirrors in attempt to confuse the members (jury), convicted felons who want to blame anybody but themselves. Which they did a good job of confusing you. So you attended the trial good for you but I think there could be a video of them murdering Awad and it still would not convice you they murdered an incident person. (Here we go again they are heros and they can not do any wrong war is hell and all laws are thrown out the window) Since when did Hutchins ever become investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury and executor. Your blogs reminds me of my teenager who is questioned on her reasoning on a specific topic going on at school. Can you say that Thomas, Magincalda and Hutchins are convicted felons because they will always have that label next to their names. I have no knowleged of a missing thumb drive or computer, if the thumb drive and computer were really missing I'm sure there would have been an big issue and it would have been reported in the paper/news. Once again I think you have taken the word of a defense attorney who will say anything to get their client off. Come on AW4 get into reality... "

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Aug 8, 2007 4:04 PM:The military must police its own? Did I read that one correctly? Good Gravy; the military has policed its own into the ground and far beyond what is expected. The military has gone 'out of bounds', so to speak, with its "policing". There's nothing a Marine can do anymore without being "policed". When he does what he believes to be right he is condemned and "made" a criminal by the "policing" of the military; with, of course, the push by a few members of Congress and some PO'd Iraqi's who could care less whether our troops are sacrificed; just as long as "they" get their sadistic jollies from seeing our troops persecuted. There is nothing solicitous about a 15 year sentence without consideration for time served. THAT is NOT Justice. It is vindictive, arrogant, and disgraceful. America was not founded to suck up to a people who NO one can tell whether friend or foe, or to suck up to a people who feed on the drama, the turmoil, and the blood; especially if it's the blood of an American. Tell it like it is and stop the tearjerking bull about an Iraqi Insurgent. He is/was the enemy. Courtroom testimony that this squad was sent to "capture or kill" insurgents. NOT a Crime. It's called WAR! 4cryinoutloud!!!

VERITAS ET EQUITAS wrote on Aug 8, 2007 4:16 PM:It appears that the General has balanced some of the punishments but has not yet completed the process. Beyond General Mattis is the Military Court of Appeals for the Armed Services and then the Supreme Court. A Presidential pardon or commutation is also a possibility, based on the extremely mitigating factors of these cases and the extenuating circustances. I think the weakest link is the total lack of consistency and balance in the verdicts of the various juries in these cases. Another possible basis of appeal to the Supreme Court is the denial of these defendant's Constitutional rights as set forth in the 6th Amendment to the U.S. Consitution. It is questionable that these juries were indeed "impartial" as guaranteed by the Constitution. There is no right of voir dire in courts-martial which well could be unconstitutional.

Figure this one out wrote on Aug 8, 2007 4:18 PM:Brother of Pennington, first off you have no history of really knowing what the actions of your brother a convicted murderer had in Iraq. I suspect the murder of Awad has maybe convince his children and other family members to assist the insurgents. Because the Marines will pull you out of your house tie you up and the kill you. Again show me the proof in writing the killing of Awad saved lives not lip service. The Marines who testified in the court martials I suspect were friends of the P8 and would say anything to help their friends out. I hope that your brother learns from this and can put his life back together but he commited a crime and needs to do the time.

To Brother wrote on Aug 8, 2007 4:22 PM:First off, the ends never justify the means. The US military do not pull people from houses and shoot them in the street - period. If the military pulls anyone from a house, there is a reason, and they are interrogated as an intelligence asset. Second, courts martial are run by very different rules than civilian courts. I think Citizen covered that one. As for any perceived "misdeeds of the NCIS and the Prosecution", well, that's why the General has the ability to adjust the outcome. So I really don't see much hypocrisy here. What I do see is that the supporters of the "Pendleton 8" are very zelous in their advocacy, and I think that's great. If I somehow put myself in that situation, I would very much enjoy that kind of advocay and support. But that zealousness clouds objective judgement, so you cannot possibly see or want to understand another point of view. You may see it upon introspection in 20 or so years, or you may never see it. Doesn't matter - you want your bro's out! This is why we have jurys and check and balances.

to General Mattis wrote on Aug 8, 2007 4:27 PM:Do the right thing General. You've made a good start, but go the whole way and set aside all of these sentences or at least greatly reduce them and balance them. You know in your heart of hearts that that's the right thing to do. You know the facts now, so let your conscience be your guide. Semper fi General. Semper fi.

To Figure this wrote on Aug 8, 2007 5:11 PM:Did you not read the above story, or have been following the case these past 15 months, Pennington was not convicted of murder. He admitted his part in Hamdania, and was convicted of same charges as Cpl. Thomas, but Cpl. Thomas is out and Pennington is serving 8 years for same crime, that’s not justice. “Again show me the proof in writing the killing of Awad saved lives not lip service", well Marines from 3/1 and 3/5 testified to this at trials, and as soon as the USMC ever de-classifies their evidence against the 8 you just might get your proof. Pennington has served his time and then some.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Aug 8, 2007 5:12 PM:To Figure tis one out: Hee Hee! Have you applied for a position with CNN or TIME or the Post yet? You've got the "Spin" down pat.

To Go Figure wrote on Aug 8, 2007 5:21 PM:I bet ya proof could be produced, oh sorry no it can’t since the laptop of a certain LT mysteriously disappeared, hmm. Also, I’d like to know why so much of the prosecution’s evidence remained classified at Hutchin’s trial, if you have evidence then produce it and don’t hide behind the “classified” excuse. The prosecution finally did acknowledge that they don’t know who the body was, an innocent grandfather or insurgent, and the big question-where is Saleh Gowad today and what did the Marine brass do with him?

Yat-Yas wrote on Aug 8, 2007 5:55 PM:To the General, as a former marine and now a civilian marine, I stand at attention and salute you for your rank, your integrety, and above all...AS THE MAN YOU ARE. OOHRAH! Sempre Fedis Sir!

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Aug 8, 2007 5:58 PM:To the post at 4:22PM: So what is your expertise as to what the military does or does not do? Or as to what the military sanctions or does not, or at least, does not confess to sanction? Are you employed by the Pentagon and have inside info? Please feel free to share. There is a Freedom of Information Act. You said "perceived misdeeds" of NCIS? Where have you been ? The Pentagon should have informed you that NCIS has a "history', a "pattern" of NO proof of their allegations. It is in the GAO report. A long read but you should be able to do it since you seem to be all wise and all knowing of what the military does. I just don't see how they missed informing you of that. Let's turn your comment around. It is backward. The objective judgment of supporters of the P8 is NOT clouded by zealousness. The supporters of the P8 are zealous for several reasons: They are either relatives or friends who know these men and believe in them. They are Americans who give the benefit of any doubt of anyone's guilt; of which there is much, to these Marines. They have NOT pre-judged these men. They have researched and kept up on every or most every article, hearing, and trial for over a year and have witnessed the questionable practices of NCIS, the prosecution's sly and effective effort to "create" a crime where there was none. They have witnessed the coercion and psychological torture these Marines were forced to endure for months in order to get plea deals and to break those who made them. They have studied the UCMJ or have first hand knoledge of it and its failure to guarantee the accused their Constitutional rights, which were denied in Iraq and continued here in the states. If you don't think that all of us have "considered" others point of view or other scenarios, you're ignorant of all of us who will stand by these Marines and do whatever it takes to help them. We have the greatest respect for their service to this ungrateful country and respect for the strength of one man who would NOT grovel for any judgmental, self-righteous citizen, or panel member in a courtroom. We have respect for one man who stood by his belief that he did was expected of him and has been persecuted and condemned for it. As for your 20 year or so introspection...Don't bet any money on any of us agreeing with your arrogant point of view. Checks and balances? Well, I hate to tell you but the Earth must be off its axis because there have been NO checks and balances in these whole proceedings. Had there been, NCIS' UNPROVEN, UNCORROBORATED farce of an investigation and coercive interrogations would have been stopped in May 2006. You were correct about one thing though. Those of us who support the P8 are, and will remain ZEALOUS until we have seen true JUSTICE for these Marines.

Friend of the Pennington family wrote on Aug 8, 2007 6:26 PM:Please, General Mattis, let Robert Pennington go. It would be a shame to dprive the world of such a fine, honorable citizen of the USA. Someone I am proud to say protected me and my country.

Sickening wrote on Aug 8, 2007 7:17 PM:TO: Sick of Sickening. When the predominant stance is "free our brothers" regardless of what the courts found, it is clear that there is a divide here. Think about it...many here want these people freed regardless of what they did. Why? Because they serve in the military...right? So, the same laws that govern civil society do not apply to marines. Am I correct?

Veteran wrote on Aug 8, 2007 7:23 PM:OORAH!! Sombody still has a pair in this country.

Sickening wrote on Aug 8, 2007 7:43 PM:I want to make one thing clear. I understand why people in the armed services band together as brothers. They have to. They are true brothers standing together and fighting in war. This is what I see here. It spans age and wars. I admire that and don't question it one bit. All I am asking is whether we keep the same standards as we do in civil life in the armed services. Anyone? Anyone?

To Sickening wrote on Aug 8, 2007 8:32 PM:Go back to your inflammatory first post and then re-read your last post at 7:43. Now you write like you're some kind of victim. And then think of your blog name of Sickening. You've had responses to your question. Move along.

MARINE/SOLDIER wrote on Aug 8, 2007 8:54 PM:Just wondering as a former Paratrooper with the 501st of the 82nd Airborne. When we had Anbar province and Fallujah under our control we had one KIA and 90 casualties. the Marines relieved us and during the same time frame everything went to ... nearing now over 1000 dead and untold casualties. Still our infantry outfits in the ARMY Patrol the same areas and percentage wise based on proportionate numbers we have less casualties yet all I keep hearing is how much better Marines are than Soldiers. Seems they get killed with the same bullets we do and yet they keep dropping faster keep up the good work You'' all be the "Few and the not so Proud" sooner than you think.

To AW4 5:58 wrote on Aug 8, 2007 9:53 PM:Maybe I'm wrong here, but I doubt that my military service would impress you to such a degree that you would agree to my post of 4:22. That said, you sure as heck made my point for me! As I said before, if I ever got myself in a situation like this, I would hope I have someone like you watching by back!

to MARINE/SOLDIER wrote on Aug 8, 2007 10:11 PM:Just wondering...what part of the U.S. are you from because your writing doesn't make sense? What the "..." is your point? P.S. Your comments are anti-American and anti-military. How dare you say "they keep dropping faster". Your callous comments towards our Marines make you look like the enemy and so does your writing.

Webster wrote on Aug 9, 2007 6:30 AM:Obviously the person who posted at 10:11 PM did get the point! Didnt like it but no problem in communication!

To MARINE/SOLDIER wrote on Aug 9, 2007 7:30 AM:The reason the Marines took a lot of casualties in the area is because the Army didn't do the job properly in the first place. The Army did not get out and do the same number of patrols as the Marines did. Maybe if you got out of your armored vehicles or protected compounds, you would have been successful and the Marines wouldn't have had to replace you out there.

Citizen wrote on Aug 9, 2007 7:57 AM:AW4 you are so histrionic and prone to "taking offense" and pulling the you're-not-in-the-military card it's really quite ineffective. Consider how many times you've been accused of being overly emotional, annoying, angry, etc. Here's the thing: this is a democratic republic. The people get to rule. The military, honorable as it is, is still an instrument of the state, and the state is supposed to be an instrument of the people's will. They do not have a right to set their own agenda. They do not have a right to break the law that is an expression of the people's will. They are PUBLIC SERVANTS at the end of the day. The people, not the military, is sovereign. If you or your buddies think it's too onerous to fight a war under the law of war and the UCMJ then don't volunteer; no one is required to do so. But the people get to make these decisions through our elected representatives. Finally, the rules are pretty basic: don't kill prisoners, don't kill unarmed civilians who are not clearly combatants. It's no more burdensome than the cop who can't just burn down a housing complex because he knows lots of people there deal and use drugs. It's called individual (as opposed to collective) punishment. It's a basic western value. Go read a book and learn about your civilization; don't confuse your extreme loyalty to the military--whether right or wrong--as patriotism or good sense or realism. It's not. It's crude, primitive, the stuff of Nuremberg Rallies and My Lai Massacres.

Citizen wrote on Aug 9, 2007 8:33 AM:PS, AW4 keeps talking about reasonable doubt and a lack of evidence and the jury's malfeasance. This is all an unpersuasive distraction. If someone in court testifies: "I saw that guy over there kill someone. Here's how it happened. I was there." And if the jury also believes that testimony, that's more than enough for a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. So few murder convictions benefit from eyewitness testimony as to motive, means, etc. These cases are much stronger than average, even though there clearly was a bit of "nullification" taking place for obvious reasons (youth, war zone, command influence by the Sgt. etc.) The plea-bargained testimony is not unusual either; that's SOP in so many criminal cases, civilian and military, when a conspiracy is involved. SO this suggestion of inadequate evidence is bogus. It doesn't even matter if Awad was actually Awad or was an insurgent, because of the circumstances of his death. He was tied up, and therefore a detainee who could not be lawfully killed based on his prior combatant status (if any). Once you've surendered, you can't be killed based on your status. That's a basic (and common sense) rule. Finally, as Magincalda revealed in Thomas' trial, the "we were coerced thing" was just a lie made up after some of the guys were pissed off at the others for telling the truth to NCIS. As for this mystery Lt. thing: guess what, you can't follow an unlawful order, so it does not matter. And if it's Lt. Phan, they should say so. Otherwise, it's out of their chain of command. Even so, since you can't kill detainees even under orders from a Lt., it's what an appellate court would call "harmless error." Sorry y'all. This is a standard "undisciplined dirtbags got caught doing a crime" storry. Nothing to see here. Carry on. And quit pretending it's anything more significant than that.

Brother Of Pennington wrote on Aug 9, 2007 10:38 AM:To Marine/Soldier, or Paratrooper or whatever you were. Exactly when was it that your Army controlled Fallejuah? If memory serves me correct in regards to that town, after the invasion of Iraq, the town was left to its own devices, and they decieded to turn it into a central HQ for terrorist activities in Iraq, while literally burning contrators alive. Not until Operation Phantom Freedom was that city cleared out. Granted there was a small contingent of Amry involved in the attack, however, it was the Marines who had to the majority of the door to door clearing of every home and building in the town. I had also heard that the Marines kept having to clear the few houses that the Army did supposedly clear, because they didn't do a very good job of it. At what time, Mr. Paratrooper was the Army solely responsible for security in Fallejuah?

Brother Of Pennington wrote on Aug 9, 2007 10:56 AM:To "Figure this one out", wow, you really do have a high opinion of Marines don't you. So these multiple Marines who testified that the death of this insurgent saved Marine lives, you're telling me these men with upstanding records, would commit perjury in a court of law when they have nothing at stake in the matter? Do any Marines get the benefit of the doubt with you, or are all of them just bloodlusting killers to you? The facts of the matter is that getting "proof" that anyone is an insurgent in a war zone is a somewhat difficult undertaking, to the point of lunacy. I know you try and place police methods on Marines, but that's a bit like shoe-horning a size 15 foot into a ladies sive 5, it isn't going to fit. These enemies are innocuous, and gaining evidence, much less, pursuing a trial in a faltering Iraqi penal system is a joke. Why do you think a guy who guys by the nickname, "Prince of Jihad", still roams the streets of Iraqi free as bird, despite the fact he had been arresseted 3 times as the head of the insurgent infrastructure in the town of Hamadania. You know "go figure" the proof that would absolutely give us the final answer in regards to whether The P8's actions saved lives remains classified. IED and Sniper attacks are meticulous recorded by the military. They have records of all attacks, and a simple study of attacks prior and after this incident would probably give us that clear evidence that you need. Of course, this remains among other classified items that the government wasn't interested in being allowed in the courtroom during the trials. Why? I dunno, maybe you can tell me.

Brother Of Pennington wrote on Aug 9, 2007 11:12 AM:To Brother, I understand where you're coming from, and as posted by others following your post, we have taken a long look at this situation. I've spent hours transcribing every word of The P8's coerced statements, I've looked at the autopsy photos, and read, and reread the medical examiner's report. I've looked at every piece of evidence the government possessed(At least that they'll allow us to see), and only after thinking long and hard did I come the conclusion that what my brother and his brothers did saved lives, and in war isn't that point? To outlive the person, people, trying to kill you. I have a couple of questions for you, Sir. First off, who has the role in providing checks and balances for the NCIS. You had mentioned checks and balances in regards to our Marines and their sentences, but you didn't mention the fact that the NCIS has none. Sure the FBI could investigate them, but I've been unable to find any investigations conducted by the FBI in the last few years in regards to NCIS missteps. So who is it that's making sure they walk the line? There's certainly a long and distingushed list of service members who have crossed paths with NCIS, and they'll tell you just how little our goverment is watching that entity. My other question is, if the ends don't justify the means, then, you would have rather we fought the "right way" in Hamandania, and more of our Marines came home dead, because that would've happened, as proven by the high-character Marine witnesses who testified in the trial stating as much. You don't get to have your cake and eat it to. In the town, we either continued sending out patrols whose mission it seemed was to go out on their own and wait to be blown up or fired upon, or, The P8 did what they did, taking out a leg of the terrorist infrastructure in the town, while saving Marine lives as the attacks decreased substantially. Saying this incident caused the people in the town to revolt against our troops is a joke, since their has been testimony to debunk this, and also, the town was already against us, putting down IED attacks daily, and taking pot shots at our boys using Snipers whose fighting style seemed to be, fire once and flee.

Hoyt wrote on Aug 9, 2007 11:18 AM:If there was any justice or fairness, they would all have served time of about 5 years for conspiracy to murder, with the sargent who had responsibility doing perhaps 8-10 and all having a dishonorable discharge. That would have been equitable; but it is all botched up now. I don't think society is at risk of any repeat of this crime here in America. Family members will probably suffer abuse; bar fights will probably occur and some of the conspirators will probably have mental health problems or substance abuse issues to deal with depression. Lessening the sentences for some is like the kings men trying to patch up Humpty Dumpty.

Oh Brother: wrote on Aug 9, 2007 12:23 PM:Of course we think Marines commit perjury; these particular 7 Marines have lied, retracted and sworn again and again to their everchanging cover-up and minimizations. Perjury thy name is Marines!

to Brother of Pennington wrote on Aug 9, 2007 12:33 PM:The NCIS needs to be held accountable for leaking faulty (at best) or misleading information to the media early on. Example, the whole "innocent Iraqi man story". It came out through the court hearings that noone can give a positive identity to the body. It is very possible he was an enemy combatant. The whole case sounds like a big government botch job. The are letting our Marines dangle in the wind while they cover their butts. I hope General Mattis reviews all the facts (of which there appears to be few or none) and throws out the verdicts and cases on lack of verification.

Hey Hoyt wrote on Aug 9, 2007 12:53 PM:Hoyty Toyty Hoyt, wow your not passing judgment here are you? “If there was any justice or fairness here” you ask, well if there was any fairness then these 8 young Marines would never have found themselves in the situation of Hamdania, and if there was justice in all this then they would never have been charged with a crime spearheaded by the Politically Correct crowd in D. C., a crowd that has sadly infiltrated the modern day USMC. News Flash, these guys have PTSD, who wouldn’t after 3 tours in Iraq. Of course you wouldn’t be aware of this, since you haven't seen much combat action on the couch. OORAH armchair warrior.

Citizen wrote on Aug 9, 2007 1:12 PM:There are two major checks and balances against the NCIS. First, the adversary system itself. They can give evidence to indict, but the JAG must pursue it and an independent court martial panel must ultimately convict. That conviction is then reviewed by the convening authority, the Navy/Marine court of criminal appeals, and the appeals court for the armed forces, and then the Supreme Court. Second, if they truly abused anyone's constitutional rights, they can be sued under the federal equivalent of 42 USC Sec. 1983. There is a famous case on this matter: Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Narcotic Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 US 388, 91 SCt 1999, 29 LEd2d 619 (1971). So if you want to sue after the fact (particularly if acquitted, which no one has been here (yet) then it can be done. There are checks. But the NCIS ability to abuse its authority is not much different than police, FBI, or any other overzealous law enforcement agency. Much of what they do that is unseemly--generous plea agreements, long interrogations, a pursuit of convictions--is par for the course for all law enforcement, sadly. I don't buy the corruption theory here, though, not least because of the convictions and the revelation from Magincalda that the idea of alleging coercion was made up by the group after they realized some of them had told the NCIS the truth. There is no evidence of innocent here. It "saved Marines" does not fly as a defense, if, in fact, this guy was killed the way those who pled out said he was. We don't allow murder of Ted Bundy, OJ Simpson, or any other scumbags. In a war zone we don't allow killings of unarmed detainees. That's a rule that everyone here knew and that's the reason Hutchins declared with great hubris that "Gents, we just got away with murder." There is nothing to see here other than guilty guys and their blood relations spinning anything and everything to avoid the obvious fact they committed a murder. Brothers, aunts, blood relations, paid defense attorneys opining about facts not in evidence, and folks who declare they don't care what happened have no credibility in this matter.

AW4cryinoutlod wrote on Aug 9, 2007 1:26 PM:To Citizen: Not worth the trouble. I decided to stop responding to total stupidity.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Aug 9, 2007 1:38 PM:To 'Oh Brother': Blame it on NCIS. They couldn't get their own statements for their coerced plea deals correct. But it worked, nevertheless, for the prosecution in Hutchins trial. The panel wasn't allowed to hear everything it needed to make a Just decision. Perjury, thy name is NCIS. Perjury, thy name is Iraqi insurgent, Perjury, thy name is McGirk, Perjury, thy name is Murtha.

To Brother 11:12 wrote on Aug 9, 2007 3:15 PM:The decisions that Gen. Mattis is making currently as it relates to these trials is a perfect example of checks and balances. Your second question is a good deal tougher, and I'm afraid has no real answer. I'm not sure what you mean by "the right way", but my guess is that it's not the right way either. My feeling is that the military should never have been asked to fight this "war". This "war" was better fought by the politicians. As Gen. Powell said to Bush, "You break it, you own it". I'm not sure there is or has ever been a "right way" to fight this thing. So I guess I can't really answer your question. The real scary thing is that the military either can't answer that question or the political wing won't let them!

Webster wrote on Aug 9, 2007 3:34 PM:What is "total stupidity" to one person is "perceptive commentary" to another. Isn't it a response to label someone else's comment "total stupidity"; by stopping to label Citizen's comment AW4 makes a lie of her own response.

AW4cryingoutloud wrote on Aug 9, 2007 3:36 PM:America was not founded to suck up to a people who NO one can tell whether friend or foe, or to suck up to a people who feed on the drama, the turmoil, and the blood; especially if it's the blood of an American. That's why I advocate using nuclear weapons on this rotten enemy. H-Bombs. Bomb them back into the stone age. Wipe out every Iraqi in one fell swoop. I may be old and live in a trailer park, but by cracky I know what's right!

Ben wrote on Aug 9, 2007 3:37 PM:I believe Murtha is perhaps one of the more corrupt pols in Washington; but on matters related to the military I believe he is right on and sincere and a voice to be listened to. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Rock wrote on Aug 9, 2007 3:39 PM:Mattis' actions don't do anything to alter the facts of the case. We still have 8 men who conspired to commit murder. The inability of the USMC to allow justice to be fulfilled doesn't altar those facts.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Aug 9, 2007 3:40 PM:America was not founded to suck up to a people who NO one can tell whether friend or foe, or to suck up to a people who feed on the drama, the turmoil, and the blood; especially if it's the blood of an American. That's why I believe it's time to use nuclear weapons on the rotten enemy and bomb them all back into the stone age. I may be old and live in a trailer park and get welfare, but I still know what's right!

I'm so confused wrote on Aug 9, 2007 4:15 PM:I never know if it is the real AW4 or the crazy one or the imposter or the jihadist.

C’mon Citizen wrote on Aug 9, 2007 4:32 PM:This is where I gotta question your knowledge on this matter: "Hutchins declared with great hubris that Gents, we just got away with murder." Hutchins NEVER said that statement, so your claim that “the revelation from Magincalda that the idea of alleging coercion was made up by the group after they realized some of them had told the NCIS the truth: is not worth diddly here. Are you part of the NCIS or Prosecution? You know who they are the corrupt NCIS and USMC Prosecutors who tried their case in the media by releasing false info before any of the Article 32s even happened. Let’s settle this once and for all, de -classify the evidence (the evidence withheld from the defense, try doing that in a civilian court) and release the trial transcripts so we ALL can read from the same documents.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Aug 9, 2007 5:31 PM:To I'm so confused: Don't feel bad. "I" almost thought it was me. I have to admit though; he or she has a sense of humor this time. I'm just lovin' that I apparently make this person so miserable. Normally I wouldn't feel that way but, in this instance, I think it's warranted. And twice within 4 minutes. Hee Hee. I love it! Oh; FHI: Not old and no trailer park. This person should be careful, he's going to PO those who live in trailer parks because anything he says to misrepresent me is meant as an insult. I love it! Trailer Park Seniors Unite! Protest the Insurgent Blogger.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Aug 9, 2007 5:41 PM:That's a good idea at 4:32AM. It should help General Mattis. If anyone has a need to know, it would be him.

to Ben wrote on Aug 9, 2007 6:34 PM:Murtha is as former a Marine as Marsha Brady is! When he mentions matters having to do with the military everyone should hit the "mute" button. His comments help the enemy by belittling our military and in the Ole' School thats called traitorous.

to AW4 wrote on Aug 9, 2007 6:58 PM: From your previous comments and historical references I figure you must be about 65 to 70; but I doubt you live in a trailor park. But it really doesnt matter. Even in a trailor park you are safe from being dragged out by Marines and shot in a hole in the road and having the cover story being that it saved lives. At least for now.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Aug 9, 2007 7:54 PM:To the post at 6:58PM. You have too much animosity for an American who is just annoyed by another who says what she believes or defends Marines. As for your comment about my historical references; I thought you were the one who did a lot of reading or perhaps you are the Antique here. No, I don't live in a trailer park. I live in an igloo. Oh! And I'm terribly ugly. A real Tire Biter! I'm 7' tall and weigh about 350 pounds. I'm aware that I can be irritating but, one thing I never do is to threaten someone or wish them harm. You and James trash talk a little too much. You are coward's!

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Aug 9, 2007 8:07 PM:To Citizen at 8:33AM: My Goodness. You're just the gift that keeps on giving aren't ya? And you have the nerve to say "I'm a pain? Just when I thought it was safe, there you are with a PS. Geeze; where's the Return counter?

Go Figure wrote on Aug 9, 2007 9:10 PM:To Citizen you have a lot of common sense and your blog is well stated. To bad that fork tongue AW4 and John1 can't provide meaningful information like you stated in your blog at 1:12. Of all the blogs put together by AW4 and John1 they contain misinformation or allegations that never can be proven. I have no respect for individuals who want to make excuses for the actions P8 did. I think they took a lesson from some of the P8 and what to blame everyone but the person who did the murder. If there was no murder there would not have been an investigation nor a prosecution. Who is at fault here. According to AW4 and John1 NCIS, the prosecution and the members who served as the jury are criminals. AW4 and John1 it is part of the court record Magincalda was upset with some of the younger X- Marines telling NCIS the truth so he came up with the idea of coercion. Magincalda sure showed his true colors. I want to say thank you to NCIS and the prosecution for doing their jobs and making USMC better..

6:58PM wrote on Aug 9, 2007 9:23 PM:I wish you no harm. I never meant to wish harm on you. Just the opposite. I can't find a comment from "James" so I don't know if he did or didnt. I said that you were safe from the brutality that the Pendleton 8 inlicted on their victim. God Bless, I hope such barbarism never is experienced by an American. The last time I remember reading of such an atrocity in America was in Jasper Texas.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Aug 9, 2007 11:45 PM:To Citizen: Do you and Go Figure have a dictionary of insulting words? You guys never seem to run out of them. Although, I think Go Figure is ahead of you. He thinks that John1 and I misinform. Well, of course he does. You've both been so misinformed that you're unable to even consider anything else. If you can't take the time to research NCIS and to read the complaints throughout these hearings and trial, it's sad because there is so much. Today General Mattis dropped the prosecution's request to take 2 Marines, accused by the same NCIS in Haditha, to trial. There's a reason for that. I watched the panel members and heard their reasons for their decision on Sgt. Hutchins. Did you? If not, don't give an opinion as it would be futile. I'm sure that General Mattis will be able to discern the discrepancies of the hearings and trials. He seems to be a fair man. Time will tell. NCIS doesn't need your thanks. They pat themselves on the back and get promotions for ruining the lives of our troops. Another notch in the old belt. That's all it takes. Oh! Before I stop, I'd like to apologize for the "stupidity" comment earlier. Webster made me realize that I'm only lowering myself to the "insults" pattern and I'm not comfortable with that. Too easy to fall into. I responded to you around 5:10PM but haven't seen it. I'll try again tomorrow if not posted. I know you just can't wait.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Aug 9, 2007 11:59 PM:To 6:58PM: It was the last 4 words of your comment where you said, "at least for now". Go to article: Attorney: Family of Marine Convicted in Iraq Slaying Lobby for Leniency. James at 12:04AM on the 7th. I don't know why NCT ever posted it. I made a printout. I'm not familiar with whatever happened in Jasper Texas. AW4.

Citizen wrote on Aug 10, 2007 6:49 AM:There was testimony of at least two witnesses that ex-Marine Sgt. Hutchins' made the statement, "Gents we got away with murder." Whether he actually said it is impossible to know. We don't have a time machine. All we can go on is the evidence and the totality of the circumstances. Eyewitness testimony from squad-mates appears very believable to me, not least when it accords with earlier statements to NCIS. As for the coercion defense, according to the NC Times article on Magincalda's trial, "He was angry at us," Shumate testified of Magincalda's reaction to the news some had admitted criminal acts. "He said we all should have gotten lawyers, and that we should all say that NCIS coerced false statements from us." It's reasonably clear to me what happened here. The murder took place according to the outlines of the prosecutor's theory, as did the cover up. Bacos, Thomas, and Jodka revealed this in some form (confession or informally) to NCIS agents early on. That's where the basic outlines of what happened emerged. Then, facing these confessions and testimony in open court, the defense pulled out all the stops: they blamed PTSD, they said the victim was an insurgent, they said the confessions were unreliable and coerced, they blamed irrelevant facts such as pro forma congressional pressure for an investigation, and they generally tried to kick up dust and ignore the facts. Someone died. Eyewitnesses testified he was killed unlawfully, because he was not properly identified, he was flex-tied and not escaping or a threat, he was a detainee entitled not to be killed under the law of war, and the subsequent cover-up reinforces the guilty minds of the perpetrators. I would like to see the full transcripts and all of the relevant classified evidence. I agree this stuff is useful; however, if it's not used in court and if it does not tend to exonerate, there is no prosecution duty to share with the defense. This is SOP. It's basically that way in the civilian world too. I repeat: EVEN IF THE EVIDENCE SHOWED AWAD WAS NOT AWAD AND/OR WAS AN INSURGENT THAT DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY PERMIT HIM TO BE EXECUTED IN THE FASHION HE WAS. It is no defense to killing him in the unsavory manner in which he was killed. For the record, I am not affiliated with the prosecution or defense and have no stake in this case, other than my desire to shoot down the insulting propaganda of some of the P8's defenders. They have impugned the honor of the NCIS and the prosecutors, but it is the defense lawyers who have not kept their promises and proffered testimony they said earlier they would never provide.

TXguy wrote on Aug 10, 2007 7:38 AM:I was under the impression the families of the 8 Marines didn't care for General Mattis. Does this change things?

Go Figure wrote on Aug 10, 2007 9:13 AM:Where are AW4, John1 and Brother of Pennington blogs now that Magincalda spoke to an AP reporter and admitted his role in the kidnapping and murder of Awad. That makes 7 out of the 8 who have admitted their role in the murder. When is Hutchins going do the same. AW4, John1 and Brother of Pennington stop blaming NCIS, Prosecution and the members who were the jury. The blame stops at the P8. Stop making excuses for their actions. Again you don't have any proof.

Google wrote on Aug 10, 2007 10:14 AM: