A wrote on Jul 1, 2008 1:30 PM:Hmmm, it sounds legitimate to me. The 24 year old marine was on his 4th tour of duty and had experience dealing with insurgents, so if he sincerely felt there was a threat then I say let him go. I think these soldiers have gone through so much to only find that when they come home their country is turning on them too.

Stop the Military Witch Hunts wrote on Jul 1, 2008 1:53 PM:I can't believe only 1 comment has been posted on this. Our troops deserve our support, respect, admiration and thanks for the difficult, unrewarding and difficult jobs they are doing overseas. They shouldn't have to worry about whether to shoot or not shoot because they might have to face charges when they are shipped home. That attitude only serves to get more of our troops killed - and the body count & number of injured troops is already way beyond acceptable levels. These charges and trials are merely the latest type of witch hunt by people who think wars should be fought without killing anybody. Get real people! You weren't there - you can't tell after the fact whether or not these troops felt their lives were in danger or those Syrians represented a threat. If the witch hunt is allowed to continue, all of our troops in whatever foreign theater they are in should be brought home & let the rest of the world look out for itself. Rules of engagement, indeed.

DESERT BUG wrote on Jul 1, 2008 2:36 PM:Bear in mind that this is only a hearing under Section 832. Article 32, Uniform Code of Military Justice. Most of us are familiar with the string of prosecutions of Marines for something that happened in combat and the injustice of it all. But think positive. From the thrust of this article, Sgt Winnick was justified in what he did. I have to believe that Captain King will agree and recommend that all charges be DROPPED. This is only a preliminary hearing, NOT A COURT MARTIAL. Ultimately, we need to know the truth and nothing but the truth behind all of these prosecutions. They are unprecedented in their number and to my mind are part of an image enhancing gimmick by some fat heads in DOD. I hope that some day soon there will be a Congressional hearing on this whole fiasco and that the truth will emerge in detail leading to punitive action against the politicos and bureaucrats who have caused it.

AWcryinoutloud wrote on Jul 1, 2008 5:06 PM:From a military site: "ROE must evolve with mission requirements and be tailored to mission realities. ROE should be a flexible instrument best designed to support the mission through various operational phases and SHOULD REFLECT CHANGES IN THE THREAT." Are the investigators and prosecutors not aware of this? "ROE are defined as "directives issued by competent military authority which elineate the circumstances and limitations under which United States forces will initiate and/or continue combat engagement with other forces encountered." "ROE differ in wartime to REFLECT THE INCREASED JUSTIFICATION FOR USING FORCE." The Army Lawyer, November 2000: "Therefore, jurisdiction-specific standards on the use of force should comply with the law to the maximum extent practicable WITHOUT FORFEITING THE INHERENT RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE. In any area where the military conducts activity, the law of the local jurisdiction ordinarily applies. The Force Standing ROE and Rules of Deadly merely establish policy; they do not supercede law. Nonetheless, they imperil the liberty of military personnel by authorizing force that does not comply with the law, exposing them to criminal liability and severe penalties. Consequently, legal review procedures should determine the legal basis for the use of force, compare the law to the military rules,AND MODIFY THE RULES ACCORDINGLY. Alternatively, if the rules do not incorporate the law, then U.S. policy should articulate the fact that CERTAIN U.S.INTERESTS OUTWEIGH THE RISKS OF VIOLATING THE LAW. More importantly, THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SHOULD INFORM MILITARY PERSONNEL OF THE PERSONAL CRIMINAL LIABILITY RISKS IMPOSED ON THEM BY A POLICY THAT DOES NOT FOLLOW THE LAW." This was written 8 years ago and yet the military, to this day, chooses to create war criminals of decent Marines like Sgt. Winnick and others. The military has no right to accuse men like Winnick, Chessani, Wuterich, Hutchins, and many others of committing war crimes. Murtha and those who have leaked unauthorized information for the past two years "should" be held accountable and Senior military leaders should be held accountable for writing rules of war and persecuting those who believe they're following them. When they make an honest decision or judgment call, they make them as they see them at the time. They have every right to do so. It does not warrant criminal scrutiny by anyone, military or civilian.

Dude wrote on Jul 1, 2008 5:15 PM:Don't think I could have said it any better than the 3 posters above. This stuff (not my first choice of words) MUST stop!

Stryker Mom wrote on Jul 1, 2008 5:18 PM:Desert Bug - I hope you are spot on with your analysis!

LET HIM wrote on Jul 1, 2008 5:44 PM:GO........FREE

bob wrote on Jul 1, 2008 7:21 PM:i'm sorry but just because he's marine doesn't mean he gets off the hook so easily. If he's guilty he needs to pay the price. This is the "job" he chose in life and this is what comes with it. If he really murdered these people wrongfully then he shall be punished rightfully so.

Oy Vay wrote on Jul 1, 2008 7:34 PM:I read No negative comments to this story---none today allowed ? Only positive remarks printed. Also Winnick'picture that accompanied the article earlier in the day has been removed on my computer. All the usual positive posters that post are today printed-you know the names by now. They all basically the same, one says him go- the other cries injustice- another says drop the charges- and another says no right to accuse. How boring.

To Oy Vay wrote on Jul 1, 2008 9:19 PM:Pleeeeaass.....If it were your son or husband or friend or fellow Marine who KNOWS this person...you might feel differently and maybe wouldn't be so bored. If you are so bored with comments that are not negative and military bashing enough for you...then shove off and find something else to do!

bob re-evaluate the facts wrote on Jul 1, 2008 9:49 PM:this is clearly not a murder trial and if you read the "facts" stated within the article you would realize you have no grounds to make such an accusation!Johnny is a decorated war hero and a wonderful person-- who made the correct choice with the circumstance he was presented with.

Dave wrote on Jul 2, 2008 6:28 AM:I cant believe all this is going on, it was a combat situation, i think he should be receiving a medal for what he did, and to all of those who are posting neg. comments maybe you have to put yourself in that situation and get off your nice little comfy desk jobs and think about what our troops are doing for us...

jon wrote on Jul 2, 2008 7:21 AM:Reading these comments and listening to the general gung ho trigger-happy mentality in this country I now realise why the US armed forces never won a war on their own and most likely never will, let alone against an industrialised nation.

An undisciplined foolish army always gets defeated.

Murder is murder whetehr committed in war or not. The fact that the Marine Corp lets its men commit crimes just shows how it will always march on to defeat.

Ask wrote on Jul 2, 2008 8:29 AM:Would much rather this team to have killed the rebels than 5 of our men killed by an IED, maybe even more killed.

So sad. Wonder how long the presiding judge served in country? Would be interesting.

SkinnyMan wrote on Jul 2, 2008 8:31 AM:To jon:

The only conflicts the U.S. forces have lost were lost because politicians felt they had to direct every aspect of it.

Let's see wars against industrialized nations - would you put Japan in that category?

No amount of facts will stop you from demeaning our troops.

You want to take shots at politicians, go right ahead, but leave my troops alone!

Alastair wrote on Jul 2, 2008 9:50 AM:"The truck they fired on disappeared from the intersection a couple of days after the shooting and was never fully searched, Wazenkewitz said."

-This is something I heard from the beginning that really bugged me. Also, I hadn't heard it mentioned in any articles thus far. I think this is pretty important, yes?

The man is out with his squad, and eliminates what he feels to be a threat. That is not murder. Oh and by the way, Johnny's seen firsthand what IED's have done to marines, so you can be darn well sure he's not going to let one be planted while he's right there.

MarineGunner wrote on Jul 2, 2008 10:24 AM:To jon: Let me guess... you live in a place called Utopia right? You have a unicorn in your backyard and faeries in your garden, little blue birds eat out of your hand while a satyr plays you a lovely melody. Please, wake up and smell those roses dude. The Marine Corps in no way 'lets its men commit crimes'. These charges are bogus and anyone with half a brain can tell that this is nothing more than a liberal/socialist agenda aimed at discrediting our troops and undermining the morale of both the men and women that serve this country. Oh, and don't ever forget that we are the ones that allow you maintain the right of free speech that you are so adept at exercising.

DESERT BUG wrote on Jul 2, 2008 10:36 AM:To AW: Thanks for publishing the ROE and I say Amen to your analysis of them. I have posted the following before, but thought I'd offer it once more for those who insist that our persecuted Marines have been treated fairly. "CAMP PENDLETON -- A Carlsbad attorney blasted military officials Monday for leaking information about an ongoing investigation of 11 Camp Pendleton Marines and a Navy Corpsman for the alleged April 26 kidnapping and killing of an Iraq man.

David Brahms, who said he is representing one of the Marines under investigation, said the men from Kilo Company of the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment are being charged, sentenced and executed in the media because of reports from unnamed military sources.

"The bastards who leaked the information should be hung in a public square," said Brahms, who declined to identify his client. "My Marines are being thrown under the goddamn bus.""
[NCT June 7, 2006]
Another little tidbit for those who might think the persecuted Marines have been treated fairly. This is just one of a jillion instances where the persecutors were dirty.

To jon wrote on Jul 2, 2008 11:03 AM:The phrase “trigger happy” is everything a Marine sniper is not. To act impulsively without analyzing is exactly what you just did when you “shot off” your mouth without investigating Sgt. John Winnick – the Marine, the leader, and the man. Had you bothered to research him, instead of just stereotyping him, you would have learned that he is a person of integrity and humility. We all make decisions in life; some more difficult than others. But that’s just it. We are in a country where we CAN make our own decisions. I applaud Sgt. Winnick for his sacrifice to our country and his courage in defending it

jon wrote on Jul 2, 2008 11:49 AM:To SkinnyMan:

The overwhelming bulk of the Japanese Imperial army was fighting the Chinese and later the Soviets on the Asian Mainland in the Second world War, and also the british in SE Asia.
The fact is the US has a poor record in warfare, starting in the Revolution where only the presence of the French army defeated the Britis and continuing to at best 'average' performances in WW2.

If the Germans had not been fighting on two fronts the US would have been very quickly dealt with. They almost knocked you out at the Bulge and only 'lost' due to being completely overwhelmed.

Stop acting like the whole world holds you in awe-when they most certianly do not.

MarineGunner wrote on Jul 2, 2008 1:24 PM:to jon:

Japan fought on 2 fronts as well, by their own doing. They were already engaged in the plunder and occupation of China and the Phillipines when they attacked Pearl Harbor and brought us into the war. Did you forget that lil piece of history?

The IJA was on land, that is where an ARMY fights. Yeah, that aspect of their armed forces were engaged in land battles in China etc. I would hardly say it was the "overwhelming bulk" of the entire Imperial Japanese forces though. We were engaged with the IJN, That is the NAVY as we were executing the 'island hopping' campaign which covered vast stretches of WATER. I would say that we faced the "overwhelming bulk" of that branch of their forces though. How many IJA could the IJN land on an atoll in order to take it or occupy it? Why do you skew fact in order to make unrealistic assertions that support your claims?

"If the Germans had not been fighting on two fronts the US would have been very quickly dealt with. They almost knocked you out at the Bulge and only 'lost' due to being completely overwhelmed."

I notice your use of the word 'you'. Apparently, 'you' are not American...

It was also Hitlers choice to open a war on 2 fronts, not ours. 'Woulda-coulda-shoulda' does not win wars. Had he not done that(opened a 2nd front against the Soviets) then I doubt we would have landed at Normandy and push into the Bulge when we did. Don't forget that Patton was coming up through Italy from Africa after dealing with Rommel. You cannot rewrite history based on "what ifs", nor can you ignore the reality of what happpened.

Oh, WE also fought that war on 2 fronts that were far more spread out than the one Germany or Japan faced...and won both.

Please, forget the revisionist garbage.

Say Marine Gunner wrote on Jul 2, 2008 2:11 PM:As late as 1943 the American Joint Chiefs of Staff had not adopted a clear strategy for winning the war in the Pacific. Early in the war they assumed that the burden of the land fighting against Japan would fall on Chinese forces. The bulk of Japan's army was deployed in China, and Chinese leaders had an immense manpower pool to draw on. But supplying and training the Chinese Army proved to be an impossible task. Moreover, fighting in China did not lead to any strategic objective.

Instead, the hard-won successes in the Solomons and Papua and the growing strength of MacArthur's and Nimitz's forces gave the Joint Chiefs the means to strike at the Japanese in the Pacific. They decided to launch two converging offensives toward the Japanese islands. Using Army ground forces, land-based air power, and a fleet of old battleships and cruisers, MacArthur would leapfrog across the northern coast of New Guinea toward the Philippines. Nimitz, using carrier-based planes and Marine and Army ground forces, would island-hop across the central Pacific.

MarineGunner wrote on Jul 2, 2008 2:50 PM:to Say Marine Gunner:
Yep, MacArthur had left the Phillipines in 03/42 and went to Australia to regroup. It wasn't until after Guadalcanal (08/42-02/43) that we actually got the opportunity to impliment a realistic strategy. Thanks to the airstrip there we could fly CAP and CAS missions over the slot to protect our shipping more efficiently.

In 03/43 Mac launched the offensive at the capture of a major Japanese base:Rabaul. It took until 10/44, after the Battles of Luzon and Leyte Gulf for him to get back to the Phillipines though.
Gotta love military history, You can learn so much from doing a bit of study of human nature.

TO JON wrote on Jul 2, 2008 3:28 PM:I have no idea what country you reside in, but your knowledge of history, especially WWII history, is woefully inadequate. Laughable would actually be a better word. The facts regarding WWII would only serve to confuse you.

Your lack of any knowledge regarding how the U.S. Military trains or disciplines its own proves you hail from somewhere other than this great nation. Without doubt, the U.S. fighting force is by far the best trained and the greatest the modern world has ever known. Without this nation's military and dedication to freedom, much of the civilized world would live in tyranny.

Your envy is understandable. Your sheer ignorance is inexcusable.

HEY JON wrote on Jul 2, 2008 3:55 PM:Perhaps you are confusing the United States military with the French.

AWcryinoutloud wrote on Jul 2, 2008 4:41 PM:To Jon: You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time, so quit trying 4goodnessake!

jon wrote on Jul 2, 2008 4:41 PM:"Perhaps you are confusing the United States military with the French."

Ony an american could make a comment like this.

The french have a much better record in warfare than you do-when they were a superpower they actually won most of the wars they fought, and beat serious enemies such as Germany, and of course England in 1782, and even occupeid Mosocw-you can barely occupy Baghdad-and were only beat when the rest of the world ganged up against them.
Google 'Verdun' and you'll see what I mean abut the calibre of the French soldier.
They only gave up in Vietnam when hopelessly outnumbered-unlike a certain other country (with 200 mill people and an enormous military budget) we all know.

Senior Bob wrote on Jul 2, 2008 5:21 PM:I would just love to know who actually files charges against the Marines who are blamed for these alledged crimes. Any help from anybody would be appreciated in obtaining the names of these tormented,despictable POS.

cursory wrote on Jul 2, 2008 7:58 PM:"cursory search of the trailer" - what kind of search is "cursory"? Someone dropped the ball, and it wasn't Winnick. If the man has been through 3 deployments and was on his fourth, he knows exactly what to look for. His action that day saved lives.

war hero SGT WINNICK wrote on Jul 2, 2008 8:03 PM:re: little jon

let's get back to the issue: SGT JOHN WINNICK II - a war HERO - this little jon is just a wannabe trying to get attention - ignore him, he'll go play somewhere else

MarineGunner wrote on Jul 2, 2008 8:28 PM:jon: I don't know why I am bothering to do this but...alas:
Verdun?? You 'actually' brought Verdun into this? Well, golly, let me see here: Oh! I have 2 words for you. Maginot Line.

AWcryinoutloud wrote on Jul 2, 2008 11:15 PM:To Jon: I've been enjoying the history lesson. Not from you but from MarineGunner. You are so far out; you might want to check the oxygen level in your spacesuit. You gave yourself away when you said "Only an American could make a comment like this." Good Grief, where did you receive your education? Whatever country you're from has failed you. Like I said before, you can't fool all of the people all of the time. You sure as heck aren't fooling MarineGunner. And, as for your tough insurgents......Let's see them get out there and fight OUR Marines, abiding by the same ROE's. Let's see them go one on one with OUR Marines. I'd bet all I have on a United States Marine any day in the week before I'd put a penny on a bunch of cowards who torture and behead innocent people, who don't have the guts to stand and fight like men but run like frightened women and children until they can find some poor weak soul to hide behind. Yeah! Only an American could make a comment like this.

RedWhiteBlue wrote on Jul 2, 2008 11:55 PM:Jon, google in shortest book in the world. You will get "Great French Victories."

Jeff wrote on Jul 3, 2008 12:00 AM:This marine was placed in an unwinnable situation with no clear rules or clearly identifyable enemies by an idiot from Texas, Praise him for his service and leave him alone. Have not the Marines sacrificed enough for Dubya's folly?

Mom wrote on Jul 3, 2008 12:01 AM:From the bottom of my heart, thank you to all of you who serve and keep us free. You are prayed for and appreciated more than you will ever know.

You are the reason we enjoy the freedoms we have in this great land.

God bless our troops!