On the conviction of the Pendleton Eight

Removing the bad apples so that the rest of the USMC barrel may remain ripe (Or, "five down, three to go").

By Jeff Emanuel Posted in | Comments (16) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

On April 26, 2006, in Hamdania, Iraq, seven Marines and a Navy corpsman (the term for an enlisted medical specialist) allegedly kidnapped Hashim Ibrahim Awad, a 52-year-old Iraqi civilian, from his home. Tying up the disabled Iraqi police officer (who was reportedly a known supporter of coalition activities in Iraq) and dragging him away from his rural village, they shot him several times, and then planted a shovel and AK-47 near his body to create the appearance that he had been caught in the act of setting up an Improvised Explosive Device, or IED.

Shortly after the incident came to light – through a complaint lodged with Marine authorities by Awad’s family, which sparked the initial investigation – the soldiers were returned to Camp Pendleton, CA, were they were placed in confinement while awaiting further action.

Amidst the specters of Abu Ghraib and Haditha, the media held up these troops as yet another example of the lawless rogues which they continuously portray the American military to be. However, unlike those involved in the previous scandals, the “Pendleton Eight,” as they would come to be known, elicited as loud and as forceful a response from troop supporters as they did from those who have made a habit of being maligners of America’s forces.

Pro-military demonstrators took root at the entrance to Camp Pendleton shortly after the troops’ arrival there, holding signs that read “Free our Marine POWs,” “God bless our heroes,” and “Liberate the Pendleton 8,” and protesting the physical treatment of the confined soldiers, which included being shackled while in prison. “[We] feel it's not right to shackle Marines,” said one protester. “They are caged like animals when we don't even know what happened yet.” Said another, “I think they should all be freed – it’s unjust what's happening to them.”

Read on...

Kit Jarrell, of the milblog “Euphoric Reality,” penned a passionate defense of the eight troops, and appealed for donations to help support their families and pay for their legal defenses. “The seven Marines and Navy Corpsman...are innocent,” wrote Jarrell. “I believe this with all my heart, and the upcoming courts-martial will vindicate these heroes.”

Such a show of support for America’s troops in the face of the anti-war, anti-military protests, which those who risk their lives for our freedom have had to face since the Iraq war began, is extremely good to see. Our soldiers receive precious little benefit of the doubt as, on a daily basis, their every action is deconstructed and condemned by media, “human rights” groups, anti-war liberals, and Democrat members of Congress – a most unfortunate fact, as it seems that, even if we can offer nothing else, the benefit of the doubt should be afforded by a grateful nation to those who give their lives for it.

Unfortunately, it now appears that the faith placed in these troops, by those patriots who rallied to their defense, was misplaced. In June, kidnapping, conspiracy, and murder charges were filed against the seven Marines and the sailor. Six eventually entered plea agreements, and last Saturday a 22-year-old Marine lance corporal became the fifth of the eight to be convicted and sentenced. Under the terms of the plea bargain (which included a reduction in charges to conspiracy and kidnapping, and a reduction in sentence to eight years in prison), the Marine will testify against his three remaining comrades, “two of whom plan to fight murder and conspiracy charges.”

The testimony offered in this trial shed a great deal of light on the grim reality of the situation and, unfortunately, showed that the course of events which many supporting the troops had hoped would be resolved as a misunderstanding, or as a defensible action, was, in fact, neither.

Apparently on a mission to apprehend a suspected insurgent in Hamdania on April 26, the Marines, “sick of suspected insurgents slipping through the justice system,” made the decision that, “if [the squad] could not capture a suspected insurgent, [they] would seize and kill someone else.” If an insurgent couldn’t be found, then the next-best thing was to “kill another military aged male in the town,” the lance corporal testified. “We felt that capturing them was an exercise in futility...they would just be released a few days later.”

It appears, tragically, that Mr. Awad was in the wrong place at the wrong time, with understandably frustrated – but inexcusably murderous – soldiers in the area and looking for a victim. Three of the Marines, the lance corporal’s testimony continued, “led Awad from his home. When Awad asked them what was happening, [he was told that] he was being taken to Abu Ghraib prison for the night and would be returned the next day.”

The Marine lance corporal said that he “helped force Awad into a roadside hole and tried to silence the protesting victim by holding his hand over his mouth.” Only minutes later, the shooting – all done by the Americans – began, and Awad was dead, and the cover-up began, leading to the present point.

“I want to help [my son] come back to life and be the good person I know he is,” said the lance corporal’s teary-eyed mother Saturday, following his sentencing. “I wish he could come home today.”

That feeling is doubtless shared by Awad’s eleven children who, due to the actions of the “Pendleton Eight,” will never again see their father, as well as his four grandchildren, who forever lost their grandfather at the hands of those who had been sent to Iraq to protect them.

This episode was tragic on many counts. First and foremost, an innocent man was dragged from his home and murdered in cold blood. Second, the American military, which is made up of some of the finest men and women this nation has to offer, and which has long been fighting against the negative image which the media, Congressional Democrats, and so many others have been attempting to label it with, has received another unfortunate black eye at the hands of eight deplorable individuals. Also extremely unfortunate is the message this sends to those who rushed to the defense of these bad apples, and who, after this, will be less likely to rush to the support of the troops in future situations.

In light of this, it is important that a point be reemphasized here: the vast majority of our armed services are honorable, heroic men and women who deserve every benefit of the doubt, and, while the negative actions of the few will always reflect on the many, it is important to remember that a small number of bad apples, removed from the barrel, do not spoil the entire crop, and, while the seven Marines and one sailor involved in this action may not have been worthy of the impassioned support offered them by the American patriots who came to their aid, the actions of those few should not detract from the support given the rest of the military in the future.

« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto ThreatComments (17) | The true meaning of Heroism, part IVComments (3) »
On the conviction of the Pendleton Eight 16 Comments (0 topical, 16 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

should be given to those who wear the uniform and protect us, soldiers, cops and firemen alike. But there comes a time for judgment to be pronounced on the evidence. And no mercy should be given to those who dishonor that uniform.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

thank you. of course I agree 100% - the actions of a few bad actors should do nothing to diminish the goodness of the troops and the mission. we shouldn't have to feel the need to jump out ahead of a story and defend a small number to try and defend the worthy whole, but the serial maligners and misinformers don't help matters. the border patrol agents is a similar story for me - let's get all the facts, and not feel the need to stake the whole issue on one case.

(btw, is Presidential wannabe Michael Savage still screaming "Free the Pendleton 8!"?)

Jeff,

I appreciate your coverage of the issue. I think that there is much more at stake than the idea of a few "bad apples," namely, the knowledge--and hardcore proof--that the case was mishandled by the government from day 1. I'm not talking about them being in shackles, either. I'm talking about the fact that the NCIS agent running the investigation has a long, provable history of cover-ups in other cases, for starters. We're talking forged confessions, lies to federal authorities, you name it. There is a huge undercurrent of corruption here. One JAG attorney, when I asked about the cover-up in the case, said, "You think that's bad? You should see some of the other ones I've worked on."

Sorry for the long comment.

I think this would have been one occasion when both pro- and anti-war sides would have been better off keeping quiet and letting the military investigators do their job. Why were these people so certain when they had no idea what the true facts were? That's not benefit of the doubt, it's just blind faith.

Can you blame them for feeling these people would be railroaded ? Someone had to shout out in defense just to make certain they didn't get railroaded.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I think Ed54 has it right in (part of) his comment below: "Trust the system to determine guilt or innocence, and express your support for all the troops and their mission."

Don't you think it would be rather contradictory for conservatives to argue "trust the military" and then add the caveat "except when soldiers are being investigated for serious crimes"?

If the system works correctly it doesn't matter.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

The real message should be not to jump to conclusions in either direction. Let due process work. The serial maligners are always wrong; that is a given. But folks who insist the accused are innocent, with no basis other than reflexive patriotism, are not helping either; they are just adding to the noise. Trust the system to determine guilt or innocence, and express your support for all the troops and their mission.

A recent blog on this site asserted that conservatives decide based on rational consideration of facts and logic, while liberals rely on feel-good emotionalism. Liberals value intentions; conservatives value results. I think that principle is instructive in this case.

"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus

Aren't you contradicting yourself? The "they're innocent" brigade were surely acting on the basis of "feel-good emotionalism" rather than "rational consideration of facts and logic" (so does this make them liberals, by your analysis?). Also, why do you claim that "the serial maligners are always wrong" when the outcome of this case shows very clearly that they were right to call it a crime? You should have just stuck to your first and third sentences and avoided tying yourself up in knots with the rest. :-)

Aren't you contradicting yourself? The "they're innocent" brigade were surely acting on the basis of "feel-good emotionalism" rather than "rational consideration of facts and logic"

No. That's the point.

so does this make them liberals, by your analysis?

No, it means they were thinking like liberals, and they should stop.

"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus

Were these 8 bad apples or were they 8 soldiers frustrated by overly restrictive rules of engagement as they watched their fellow officers blown to pieces by IEDs?
These are frightened young men who are seeing their comrades killed in awful ways. They are not all professional soldiers--there is a hodgepodge of national guardsmen from 50 states who thought the most action they'd ever see is maybe a riot. While I don't condone their action, I cannot condemn them.

I cannot condemn them.

They dragged a man out of his house, murdered him and then tried to cover it up. There is NO excuse that anyone can give for 8 people working together to not know that this was wrong (not just against the law, but flat out wrong).

Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey

There is so much factually wrong in this post I can't let it all go by:

1. ROE in Iraq are not overly restrictive.

2. They weren't frightened, they were angry. Fear would not motivate them to sneak out of their base on an 8-man night patrol.

3. They were not guardsmen or reservists. They were Marines, and in all probability they were eager for action when they joined.

Before they went on their little raid, they agreed that if they couldn't find the insurgent they wanted, they would get someone else. Not finding their target, they went next door and pulled a disabled police officer and father of 11 out of his home. They drug him into the street, put him in a hole, and executed him. If you can't condemn that, you have a broken moral compass.

I'm a professional soldier; I've served in Iraq and will again. These kind of crimes anger the rest of us in uniform, because they would bring disgrace upon everyone who is trying to do their job right and return with honor. They also make our job much harder, by giving propaganda to the enemy and our own domestic detractors. Do not excuse them out of misplaced empathy.

"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus

1) I would tend to disagree with your first point (regarding ROE's for conventional troops, at least), but will defer.

2) I apologize for the overuse (and, in actuality, 100% misuse) of the term "soldiers" in this piece. The problem is, while "soldier" is technically incorrect, there are very few synomyms for "Marine" - and the old standbys of "jarhead" and "devil dog" just didn't seem proper for the tone of this post.

1. ROE in an insurgency fight is a tough challenge for commanders. Obviously the rules shouldn't be too restrictive. However, they must not be too loose either. Excessive use of force within a civilian population ultimately increases support for the insurgents. This is well established counterinsurgency doctrine.

In my personal view, we started out a bit loose, and we killed a lot of innocent people because we didn't have solid procedures. We put guys on checkpoints and convoys in a bad position, where they had make the decision to shoot or die in a split second. Families and civilians died as a result, and we lost some support with parts of the population that were inclined to support us.

I think we have the balance about right now. You can never get it exactly right in a tough situation like Iraq, but the ROE as they exist now have been refined over 3 years of trying to strike that balance. Escalation of Force (EOF) incidents are under control, and you can see the population starting to view our role more as protective than threatening.

2. No sweat, there are several soldiers accused of similar crimes. The whole thing could be written generically and your points would still be valid. My point in noting they were Marines was to dispel the notion that they were frightened children trying to avoid a fight. That ain't the Marines, God love 'em.

"If all men were just, there would be no need of valor."
- Agesilaus

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service