It's Our Cage, Too
Torture Betrays Us and Breeds New Enemies
By Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar
Washington Post, Thursday, May 17, 2007; A17
Fear can be a strong motivator. It led Franklin Roosevelt to intern tens of thousands of innocent U.S. citizens during World War II; it led to Joseph McCarthy's witch hunt, which ruined the lives of hundreds of Americans. And it led the United States to adopt a policy at the highest levels that condoned and even authorized torture of prisoners in our custody.
Fear is the justification offered for this policy by former CIA director George Tenet as he promotes his new book. Tenet oversaw the secret CIA interrogation program in which torture techniques euphemistically called "waterboarding," "sensory deprivation," "sleep deprivation" and "stress positions" -- conduct we used to call war crimes -- were used. In defending these abuses, Tenet revealed: "Everybody forgets one central context of what we lived through: the palpable fear that we felt on the basis of the fact that there was so much we did not know."
We have served in combat; we understand the reality of fear and the havoc it can wreak if left unchecked or fostered. Fear breeds panic, and it can lead people and nations to act in ways inconsistent with their character.
The American people are understandably fearful about another attack like the one we sustained on Sept. 11, 2001. But it is the duty of the commander in chief to lead the country away from the grip of fear, not into its grasp. Regrettably, at Tuesday night's presidential debate in South Carolina, several Republican candidates revealed a stunning failure to understand this most basic obligation. Indeed, among the candidates, only John McCain demonstrated that he understands the close connection between our security and our values as a nation.
Tenet insists that the CIA program disrupted terrorist plots and saved lives. It is difficult to refute this claim -- not because it is self-evidently true, but because any evidence that might support it remains classified and unknown to all but those who defend the program.
These assertions that "torture works" may reassure a fearful public, but it is a false security. We don't know what's been gained through this fear-driven program. But we do know the consequences.
As has happened with every other nation that has tried to engage in a little bit of torture -- only for the toughest cases, only when nothing else works -- the abuse spread like wildfire, and every captured prisoner became the key to defusing a potential ticking time bomb. Our soldiers in Iraq confront real "ticking time bomb" situations every day, in the form of improvised explosive devices, and any degree of "flexibility" about torture at the top drops down the chain of command like a stone -- the rare exception fast becoming the rule.
To understand the impact this has had on the ground, look at the military's mental health assessment report released earlier this month. The study shows a disturbing level of tolerance for abuse of prisoners in some situations. This underscores what we know as military professionals: Complex situational ethics cannot be applied during the stress of combat. The rules must be firm and absolute; if torture is broached as a possibility, it will become a reality.
This has had disastrous consequences. Revelations of abuse feed what the Army's new counterinsurgency manual, which was drafted under the command of Gen. David Petraeus, calls the "recuperative power" of the terrorist enemy.
Former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld once wondered aloud whether we were creating more terrorists than we were killing. In counterinsurgency doctrine, that is precisely the right question. Victory in this kind of war comes when the enemy loses legitimacy in the society from which it seeks recruits and thus loses its "recuperative power."
The torture methods that Tenet defends have nurtured the recuperative power of the enemy. This war will be won or lost not on the battlefield but in the minds of potential supporters who have not yet thrown in their lot with the enemy. If we forfeit our values by signaling that they are negotiable in situations of grave or imminent danger, we drive those undecideds into the arms of the enemy. This way lies defeat, and we are well down the road to it.
This is not just a lesson for history. Right now, White House lawyers are working up new rules that will govern what CIA interrogators can do to prisoners in secret. Those rules will set the standard not only for the CIA but also for what kind of treatment captured American soldiers can expect from their captors, now and in future wars. Before the president once again approves a policy of official cruelty, he should reflect on that.
It is time for us to remember who we are and approach this enemy with energy, judgment and confidence that we will prevail. That is the path to security, and back to ourselves.
Charles C. Krulak was commandant of the Marine Corps from 1995 to 1999. Joseph P. Hoar was commander in chief of U.S. Central Command from 1991 to 1994.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
President Intervened in Dispute Over Eavesdropping
NY TIMES May 16, 2007
By DAVID JOHNSTON
WASHINGTON, May 15 — President Bush intervened in March 2004 to avert a crisis over the National Security Agency’s domestic eavesdropping program after Attorney General John Ashcroft, Director Robert S. Mueller III of the F.B.I. and other senior Justice Department aides all threatened to resign, a former deputy attorney general testified Tuesday.
Mr. Bush quelled the revolt over the program’s legality by allowing it to continue without Justice Department approval, also directing department officials to take the necessary steps to bring it into compliance with the law, according to Congressional testimony by the former deputy attorney general, James B. Comey.
Although a conflict over the program had been disclosed in The New York Times, Mr. Comey provided a fuller account of the 48-hour drama, including, for the first time, Mr. Bush’s role, the threatened resignations and a race as Mr. Comey hurried to Mr. Ashcroft’s hospital sickbed to intercept White House officials, who were pushing for approval of the N.S.A. program.
Describing the events as “the most difficult of my professional career,” Mr. Comey appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee as part of its inquiry into the dismissal of federal prosecutors and the role of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales. Several lawmakers wanted to examine Mr. Gonzales’s actions in the N.S.A. matter, when he was White House counsel, and cited them to buttress their case that he should resign.
Mr. Comey, the former No. 2 official in the Justice Department, said the crisis began when he refused to sign a presidential order reauthorizing the program, which allowed monitoring of international telephone calls and e-mail of people inside the United States who were suspected of having terrorist ties. He said he made his decision after the department’s Office of Legal Counsel, based on an extensive review, concluded that the program did not comply with the law. At the time, Mr. Comey was acting attorney general because Mr. Ashcroft had been hospitalized for emergency gall bladder surgery.
Mr. Comey would not describe the rationale for his refusal to approve the eavesdropping program, citing its classified nature. The N.S.A. program, which began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks and did not require court approval to listen in on the communications of Americans and others, provoked an outcry in Congress when it was disclosed in December 2005.
Mr. Comey said that on the evening of March 10, 2004, Mr. Gonzales and Andrew H. Card Jr., then Mr. Bush’s chief of staff, tried to bypass him by secretly visiting Mr. Ashcroft. Mr. Ashcroft was extremely ill and disoriented, Mr. Comey said, and his wife had forbidden any visitors.
Mr. Comey said that when a top aide to Mr. Ashcroft alerted him about the pending visit, he ordered his driver to rush him to George Washington University Hospital with emergency lights flashing and a siren blaring, to intercept the pair. They were seeking his signature because authority for the program was to expire the next day.
Mr. Comey said he phoned Mr. Mueller, who agreed to meet him at the hospital. Once there, Mr. Comey said he “literally ran up the stairs.” At his request, Mr. Mueller ordered the F.B.I. agents on Mr. Ashcroft’s security detail not to evict Mr. Comey from the room if Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Card objected to his presence.
Mr. Comey said he arrived first in the darkened room, in time to brief Mr. Ashcroft, who he said seemed barely conscious. Before Mr. Ashcroft became ill, Mr. Comey said the two men had talked and agreed that the program should not be renewed.
When the White House officials appeared minutes later, Mr. Gonzales began to explain to Mr. Ashcroft why they were there. Mr. Comey said Mr. Ashcroft rose weakly from his hospital bed, but in strong and unequivocal terms, refused to approve the eavesdropping program.
“I was angry,” Mr. Comey told the committee. “ I had just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me. I thought he had conducted himself in a way that demonstrated a strength I had never seen before, but still I thought it was improper.”
Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Card quickly departed, but Mr. Comey said he soon got an angry phone call from Mr. Card, demanding that he come to the White House. Mr. Comey said he replied: “After what I just witnessed, I will not meet with you without a witness, and I intend that witness to be the solicitor general of the United States.”
Mr. Comey said he reached Theodore B. Olson, the solicitor general, at a dinner party. At the White House session, which included Mr. Olson, Mr. Gonzales, Mr. Comey and Mr. Card, the four officials discussed the impasse. Mr. Comey knew that other top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, wanted to continue the program.
Mr. Card expressed concern about mass resignations at the Justice Department, Mr. Comey said. He told the Senate panel that he prepared a letter of resignation and that David Ayres, Mr. Ashcroft’s chief of staff, asked him to delay delivering it so that Mr. Ashcroft could join him. Mr. Comey said Mr. Mueller was also prepared to quit.
The next morning, March 11, Mr. Comey went to the White House for a terrorism briefing. Afterward, he said Mr. Bush took him aside for a private 15-minute meeting in the president’s study, which Mr. Comey described as a “full exchange.”
At Mr. Comey’s urging, Mr. Bush also met with Mr. Mueller, who emerged to inform Mr. Comey that the president had authorized the changes in the program sought by the Justice Department.
“We had the president’s direction to do what we believed, what the Justice Department believed, was necessary to put this on a footing where we could certify to its legality,” Mr. Comey said. “And so we set out to do that and we did that.”
Mr. Comey said he signed the reauthorization in “two or three weeks.” It was unclear from his testimony what authority existed for the program while the changes were being made. Mr. Comey said he shelved his resignation plans that day when terrorists set off bombs on commuter trains in Madrid.
Mr. Comey left the Justice Department in August 2006, saying publicly that he had never intended to serve through the end of Mr. Bush’s second term. Privately, he has told friends that he grew weary of what he felt was increasing White House influence on the agency.
Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, deflected questions about Mr. Comey’s testimony, but defended the N.S.A. program. Mr. Snow also noted that the Justice Department placed the program under the supervision of a special intelligence court earlier this year, which department officials said placed the program on an even firmer legal footing.
“Jim Comey can talk about whatever reservations he may have had, but the fact is that there were strong protections in there,” Mr. Snow said. “This is a program that saved lives, that is vital for national security, and furthermore has been reformed in a bipartisan way that is in keeping with everybody.”
Spokesmen for Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Mueller, and the Justice Department declined to comment. Mr. Card did not respond to a reporter’s inquiries.
By DAVID JOHNSTON
WASHINGTON, May 15 — President Bush intervened in March 2004 to avert a crisis over the National Security Agency’s domestic eavesdropping program after Attorney General John Ashcroft, Director Robert S. Mueller III of the F.B.I. and other senior Justice Department aides all threatened to resign, a former deputy attorney general testified Tuesday.
Mr. Bush quelled the revolt over the program’s legality by allowing it to continue without Justice Department approval, also directing department officials to take the necessary steps to bring it into compliance with the law, according to Congressional testimony by the former deputy attorney general, James B. Comey.
Although a conflict over the program had been disclosed in The New York Times, Mr. Comey provided a fuller account of the 48-hour drama, including, for the first time, Mr. Bush’s role, the threatened resignations and a race as Mr. Comey hurried to Mr. Ashcroft’s hospital sickbed to intercept White House officials, who were pushing for approval of the N.S.A. program.
Describing the events as “the most difficult of my professional career,” Mr. Comey appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee as part of its inquiry into the dismissal of federal prosecutors and the role of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales. Several lawmakers wanted to examine Mr. Gonzales’s actions in the N.S.A. matter, when he was White House counsel, and cited them to buttress their case that he should resign.
Mr. Comey, the former No. 2 official in the Justice Department, said the crisis began when he refused to sign a presidential order reauthorizing the program, which allowed monitoring of international telephone calls and e-mail of people inside the United States who were suspected of having terrorist ties. He said he made his decision after the department’s Office of Legal Counsel, based on an extensive review, concluded that the program did not comply with the law. At the time, Mr. Comey was acting attorney general because Mr. Ashcroft had been hospitalized for emergency gall bladder surgery.
Mr. Comey would not describe the rationale for his refusal to approve the eavesdropping program, citing its classified nature. The N.S.A. program, which began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks and did not require court approval to listen in on the communications of Americans and others, provoked an outcry in Congress when it was disclosed in December 2005.
Mr. Comey said that on the evening of March 10, 2004, Mr. Gonzales and Andrew H. Card Jr., then Mr. Bush’s chief of staff, tried to bypass him by secretly visiting Mr. Ashcroft. Mr. Ashcroft was extremely ill and disoriented, Mr. Comey said, and his wife had forbidden any visitors.
Mr. Comey said that when a top aide to Mr. Ashcroft alerted him about the pending visit, he ordered his driver to rush him to George Washington University Hospital with emergency lights flashing and a siren blaring, to intercept the pair. They were seeking his signature because authority for the program was to expire the next day.
Mr. Comey said he phoned Mr. Mueller, who agreed to meet him at the hospital. Once there, Mr. Comey said he “literally ran up the stairs.” At his request, Mr. Mueller ordered the F.B.I. agents on Mr. Ashcroft’s security detail not to evict Mr. Comey from the room if Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Card objected to his presence.
Mr. Comey said he arrived first in the darkened room, in time to brief Mr. Ashcroft, who he said seemed barely conscious. Before Mr. Ashcroft became ill, Mr. Comey said the two men had talked and agreed that the program should not be renewed.
When the White House officials appeared minutes later, Mr. Gonzales began to explain to Mr. Ashcroft why they were there. Mr. Comey said Mr. Ashcroft rose weakly from his hospital bed, but in strong and unequivocal terms, refused to approve the eavesdropping program.
“I was angry,” Mr. Comey told the committee. “ I had just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me. I thought he had conducted himself in a way that demonstrated a strength I had never seen before, but still I thought it was improper.”
Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Card quickly departed, but Mr. Comey said he soon got an angry phone call from Mr. Card, demanding that he come to the White House. Mr. Comey said he replied: “After what I just witnessed, I will not meet with you without a witness, and I intend that witness to be the solicitor general of the United States.”
Mr. Comey said he reached Theodore B. Olson, the solicitor general, at a dinner party. At the White House session, which included Mr. Olson, Mr. Gonzales, Mr. Comey and Mr. Card, the four officials discussed the impasse. Mr. Comey knew that other top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, wanted to continue the program.
Mr. Card expressed concern about mass resignations at the Justice Department, Mr. Comey said. He told the Senate panel that he prepared a letter of resignation and that David Ayres, Mr. Ashcroft’s chief of staff, asked him to delay delivering it so that Mr. Ashcroft could join him. Mr. Comey said Mr. Mueller was also prepared to quit.
The next morning, March 11, Mr. Comey went to the White House for a terrorism briefing. Afterward, he said Mr. Bush took him aside for a private 15-minute meeting in the president’s study, which Mr. Comey described as a “full exchange.”
At Mr. Comey’s urging, Mr. Bush also met with Mr. Mueller, who emerged to inform Mr. Comey that the president had authorized the changes in the program sought by the Justice Department.
“We had the president’s direction to do what we believed, what the Justice Department believed, was necessary to put this on a footing where we could certify to its legality,” Mr. Comey said. “And so we set out to do that and we did that.”
Mr. Comey said he signed the reauthorization in “two or three weeks.” It was unclear from his testimony what authority existed for the program while the changes were being made. Mr. Comey said he shelved his resignation plans that day when terrorists set off bombs on commuter trains in Madrid.
Mr. Comey left the Justice Department in August 2006, saying publicly that he had never intended to serve through the end of Mr. Bush’s second term. Privately, he has told friends that he grew weary of what he felt was increasing White House influence on the agency.
Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, deflected questions about Mr. Comey’s testimony, but defended the N.S.A. program. Mr. Snow also noted that the Justice Department placed the program under the supervision of a special intelligence court earlier this year, which department officials said placed the program on an even firmer legal footing.
“Jim Comey can talk about whatever reservations he may have had, but the fact is that there were strong protections in there,” Mr. Snow said. “This is a program that saved lives, that is vital for national security, and furthermore has been reformed in a bipartisan way that is in keeping with everybody.”
Spokesmen for Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Mueller, and the Justice Department declined to comment. Mr. Card did not respond to a reporter’s inquiries.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Padilla was Al Qaeda trainee, prosecutor says
By Jeff St. Onge, Bloomberg News May 15, 2007
MIAMI -- Jose Padilla aided terrorists and went to Afghanistan to train with Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network, a prosecutor said yesterday in opening the trial of the US citizen once accused of plotting to explode a radioactive "dirty bomb."
Padilla, 36, was arrested in 2002 and held in military custody without charges as an enemy combatant for more than three years. The dirty bomb allegation was dropped when he was charged in criminal court with supporting terrorism in late 2005.
"Jose Padilla became an Al Qaeda terrorism trainee, providing the ultimate form of material support, himself," prosecutor Brian Frazier told the jury of seven men and five women yesterday in US District Court in Miami. "Padilla got on a plane, went to the Middle East, and joined a terrorist training camp," Frazier said.
Padilla, a former Chicago gang member, and two codefendants are charged with conspiring to murder people in a foreign country and being part of a terror cell that provided money, equipment, and recruits to Islamic extremists such as Al Qaeda. The first charge carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. The three men aren't accused of committing any violent acts or being involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"The government has constructed a totally false picture," Jeanne Baker, a defense lawyer for codefendant Adham Amin Hassoun, told the jury and six alternates. "This case is not about Al Qaeda."
The defense contends that Padilla and the other two men supported legitimate groups aiding civilians in the conflicts in Bosnia and Chechnya, and that they did not aid Al Qaeda as the government alleges. Padilla's lawyers are scheduled to make opening statements later.
Among the prosecution witnesses, Frazier said, will be a US citizen who was part of a terror cell based near Buffalo and who attended the same training camp as Padilla.
That witness will testify about the type of training Padilla received and "just how rare it is for a US citizen to get to the heart of the Al Qaeda network," Frazier said. The prosecutor didn't identify the witness or give further details.
Padilla arrived in the Al Qaeda camp July 24, 2000, Frazier said. The indictment says Padilla filled out a "Mujahideen Data Form" that month. Other prosecution evidence will come from wiretaps of telephone conversations among the men dating to the mid-1990s, bank checks, and faxes.
Padilla and co defendants Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi are accused of supporting terrorist activities from 1993 to 2001.
"The defendants were part of a secret organization known as a terrorism support cell based right here in South Florida," Frazier said. "The common thread is the defendants' support for a violent jihad, or holy war, against the people they perceived as the enemy of Islam."
Padilla attended yesterday's opening statements wearing a suit and tie. His mother sat in an area reserved for spectators along with a male companion.
The trial may last into September, US District Judge Marcia Cooke has said.
Cooke previously ruled that prosecutors can mention the Sept. 11 attacks "in the most limited fashion" during the trial, though they cannot suggest any involvement by Padilla.
The judge ruled in February that Padilla is mentally competent to stand trial, rejecting his lawyers' argument that he was unable to assist in his defense because of abuse he alleges he suffered while in military custody.
His lawyers said that, while he was held in a US Navy prison in South Carolina, authorities drugged him, filled his cell with noxious fumes, and threatened him with severe injury. The government denies abusing Padilla.
Criminal evidence rules prohibit use of statements Padilla made to interrogators while he was in military custody because he wasn't allowed to have a lawyer present.
Padilla was arrested May 8, 2002, at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport after arriving from Pakistan. President Bush declared him to be an enemy combatant, and Padilla was held by military authorities for more than three years while his lawyers challenged his detention in the court system.
The Bush administration maneuvered to prevent the US Supreme Court from reviewing his case. After Padilla filed his appeal, prosecutors got an indictment in civilian court in November 2005.
The government then told the Supreme Court that Padilla's case was moot because the government no longer needed to hold him as an enemy combatant.
The Supreme Court rejected his appeal in April 2006.
MIAMI -- Jose Padilla aided terrorists and went to Afghanistan to train with Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network, a prosecutor said yesterday in opening the trial of the US citizen once accused of plotting to explode a radioactive "dirty bomb."
Padilla, 36, was arrested in 2002 and held in military custody without charges as an enemy combatant for more than three years. The dirty bomb allegation was dropped when he was charged in criminal court with supporting terrorism in late 2005.
"Jose Padilla became an Al Qaeda terrorism trainee, providing the ultimate form of material support, himself," prosecutor Brian Frazier told the jury of seven men and five women yesterday in US District Court in Miami. "Padilla got on a plane, went to the Middle East, and joined a terrorist training camp," Frazier said.
Padilla, a former Chicago gang member, and two codefendants are charged with conspiring to murder people in a foreign country and being part of a terror cell that provided money, equipment, and recruits to Islamic extremists such as Al Qaeda. The first charge carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. The three men aren't accused of committing any violent acts or being involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
"The government has constructed a totally false picture," Jeanne Baker, a defense lawyer for codefendant Adham Amin Hassoun, told the jury and six alternates. "This case is not about Al Qaeda."
The defense contends that Padilla and the other two men supported legitimate groups aiding civilians in the conflicts in Bosnia and Chechnya, and that they did not aid Al Qaeda as the government alleges. Padilla's lawyers are scheduled to make opening statements later.
Among the prosecution witnesses, Frazier said, will be a US citizen who was part of a terror cell based near Buffalo and who attended the same training camp as Padilla.
That witness will testify about the type of training Padilla received and "just how rare it is for a US citizen to get to the heart of the Al Qaeda network," Frazier said. The prosecutor didn't identify the witness or give further details.
Padilla arrived in the Al Qaeda camp July 24, 2000, Frazier said. The indictment says Padilla filled out a "Mujahideen Data Form" that month. Other prosecution evidence will come from wiretaps of telephone conversations among the men dating to the mid-1990s, bank checks, and faxes.
Padilla and co defendants Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi are accused of supporting terrorist activities from 1993 to 2001.
"The defendants were part of a secret organization known as a terrorism support cell based right here in South Florida," Frazier said. "The common thread is the defendants' support for a violent jihad, or holy war, against the people they perceived as the enemy of Islam."
Padilla attended yesterday's opening statements wearing a suit and tie. His mother sat in an area reserved for spectators along with a male companion.
The trial may last into September, US District Judge Marcia Cooke has said.
Cooke previously ruled that prosecutors can mention the Sept. 11 attacks "in the most limited fashion" during the trial, though they cannot suggest any involvement by Padilla.
The judge ruled in February that Padilla is mentally competent to stand trial, rejecting his lawyers' argument that he was unable to assist in his defense because of abuse he alleges he suffered while in military custody.
His lawyers said that, while he was held in a US Navy prison in South Carolina, authorities drugged him, filled his cell with noxious fumes, and threatened him with severe injury. The government denies abusing Padilla.
Criminal evidence rules prohibit use of statements Padilla made to interrogators while he was in military custody because he wasn't allowed to have a lawyer present.
Padilla was arrested May 8, 2002, at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport after arriving from Pakistan. President Bush declared him to be an enemy combatant, and Padilla was held by military authorities for more than three years while his lawyers challenged his detention in the court system.
The Bush administration maneuvered to prevent the US Supreme Court from reviewing his case. After Padilla filed his appeal, prosecutors got an indictment in civilian court in November 2005.
The government then told the Supreme Court that Padilla's case was moot because the government no longer needed to hold him as an enemy combatant.
The Supreme Court rejected his appeal in April 2006.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Ex-Guantanamo officer accused of passing detainee information in Valentine’s card on trial
Boston Herald, May 14, 2007
NORFOLK, Va. - A Navy lawyer accused of passing secret information about Guantanamo Bay detainees sent a human rights lawyer their names and other classified personal information tucked into a Valentine’s Day card, prosecutors said Monday.
Lt. Cmdr. Matthew M. Diaz’s actions endangered the lives of the detainees and of American troops on the front line in the war on terror, prosecutor Lt. James Hoffman said during opening statements as Diaz’s court-martial at Norfolk Naval Station.
"This case deals with the deliberate, intentional, conscious release of classified information," Hoffman told the jury of seven Navy officers.
But defense attorney Lt. Justin Henderson said the information was not marked classified and that Diaz had no reason to think that the document "could be used to injure the United States."
"We don’t expect the evidence will show that Diaz made the right decision. We don’t expect the evidence will show he made a wise decision," Henderson said. "He made a decision that was less than forthright, but he did not make an unlawful decision."
Diaz was near the end of a six-month stint at the U.S. military base in Cuba when he went to his office on a Sunday night in January 2005 and used his classified computer to log onto a Web-based database with information about the detainees, Hoffman said.
Diaz printed information including the names of 550 detainees, their nationalities and other information about them, Hoffman said.
Diaz then "cut that document into 39 sheets so that the nation’s secrets fit inside this card," Hoffman said as he held up to the jury a copy of the card, with a big heart and a Chihuahua on the front.
Human rights attorney Barbara Olshansky testified that the document in "this weird valentine" she received in early 2005 was not marked classified.
At the time, Olshansky worked for the Center for Constitution Rights. She said the nonprofit legal group was suing the federal government to obtain the names of detainees because the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that the detainees had the right to challenge their detention.
Olshansky tried to give the document to the judge in that case but the judge sent a security officer to pick it up, and eventually the Justice Department and FBI investigated.
Olshansky also testified that she never had met or spoken with Diaz.
Diaz, 41, of Topeka, Kan., worked as a staff judge advocate at Guantanamo Bay, where he provided counsel to the military command in charge of the detention center but was not involved in detainees’ cases, the Navy said. The U.S. military has held foreign citizens it suspects have terrorist ties at the base since 2002.
Diaz is charged with failing to obey a lawful general regulation, engaging in conduct unbecoming an officer by wrongfully transmitting classified documents to an unauthorized person, and turning over to an unauthorized person secret information related to national defense.
He originally faced 36 years in prison if convicted but some charges have been consolidated and the maximum punishment now is 24 years, Navy spokesman Kevin Copeland said.
NORFOLK, Va. - A Navy lawyer accused of passing secret information about Guantanamo Bay detainees sent a human rights lawyer their names and other classified personal information tucked into a Valentine’s Day card, prosecutors said Monday.
Lt. Cmdr. Matthew M. Diaz’s actions endangered the lives of the detainees and of American troops on the front line in the war on terror, prosecutor Lt. James Hoffman said during opening statements as Diaz’s court-martial at Norfolk Naval Station.
"This case deals with the deliberate, intentional, conscious release of classified information," Hoffman told the jury of seven Navy officers.
But defense attorney Lt. Justin Henderson said the information was not marked classified and that Diaz had no reason to think that the document "could be used to injure the United States."
"We don’t expect the evidence will show that Diaz made the right decision. We don’t expect the evidence will show he made a wise decision," Henderson said. "He made a decision that was less than forthright, but he did not make an unlawful decision."
Diaz was near the end of a six-month stint at the U.S. military base in Cuba when he went to his office on a Sunday night in January 2005 and used his classified computer to log onto a Web-based database with information about the detainees, Hoffman said.
Diaz printed information including the names of 550 detainees, their nationalities and other information about them, Hoffman said.
Diaz then "cut that document into 39 sheets so that the nation’s secrets fit inside this card," Hoffman said as he held up to the jury a copy of the card, with a big heart and a Chihuahua on the front.
Human rights attorney Barbara Olshansky testified that the document in "this weird valentine" she received in early 2005 was not marked classified.
At the time, Olshansky worked for the Center for Constitution Rights. She said the nonprofit legal group was suing the federal government to obtain the names of detainees because the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that the detainees had the right to challenge their detention.
Olshansky tried to give the document to the judge in that case but the judge sent a security officer to pick it up, and eventually the Justice Department and FBI investigated.
Olshansky also testified that she never had met or spoken with Diaz.
Diaz, 41, of Topeka, Kan., worked as a staff judge advocate at Guantanamo Bay, where he provided counsel to the military command in charge of the detention center but was not involved in detainees’ cases, the Navy said. The U.S. military has held foreign citizens it suspects have terrorist ties at the base since 2002.
Diaz is charged with failing to obey a lawful general regulation, engaging in conduct unbecoming an officer by wrongfully transmitting classified documents to an unauthorized person, and turning over to an unauthorized person secret information related to national defense.
He originally faced 36 years in prison if convicted but some charges have been consolidated and the maximum punishment now is 24 years, Navy spokesman Kevin Copeland said.
Marine Says His Staff Misled Him on Killings
NY Times, May 11, 2007
By PAUL von ZIELBAUER
CAMP PENDLETON, Calif., May 10 — The general who led a division in charge of the marines who killed 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha in 2005 testified Thursday that he was kept from weighing accusations that the killings were illegal because his subordinate officers withheld information for nearly three months.
The officer, Maj. Gen. Richard A. Huck, the Second Marine Division commander in Iraq at the time, testified in a military hearing here that he had learned that women and children had been killed within hours of the attack, on Nov. 19, 2005.
But he said he had believed that the deaths were the unfortunate but unavoidable result of combat with Sunni Arab insurgents.
General Huck said he had not learned until February 2006 about inquiries into the deaths by Time magazine because his own chief of staff and regimental commander kept him in the dark.
The chief of staff, Col. R. Gary Sokoloski, and the regimental commander, Col. Stephen W. Davis, had learned of the Time reporter’s questions in late January 2006, General Huck testified. But, he said, they and all the other officers in his chain of command failed to tell him.
“It had been alive for three weeks without my being aware of it,” General Huck said of Time’s inquiry.
General Huck testified on the third day of a hearing for one of four marine officers charged with dereliction of duty for failing to investigate properly the civilian killings. Three enlisted men are charged with their murders.
General Huck said he had first become aware of accusations that the civilians were unjustly killed when his superior, Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the day-to-day commander in Iraq at the time, sent him an e-mail message on Feb. 12 to ask what he knew about the reporter’s inquiry.
General Huck said he was “pretty irritated” with Colonel Sokoloski for not telling him earlier about the reporter’s questions. “What am I, the last guy to find out in this organization?” he said he had asked Colonel Sokoloski the morning after receiving the e-mail message.
General Huck said that until he received the message, he had never considered the killings a violation of any kind because they had occurred during a combat operation and it was not uncommon for civilians to die in such circumstances.
“In my mind’s eye, I saw insurgent fire, I saw Kilo Company fire,” General Huck testified, via video link from the Pentagon, where he is assistant deputy commandant for plans, policies and operations. “I could see how 15 neutrals in those circumstances could be killed.”
General Huck said he had made a list of all the officers and enlisted men who could have reported the Haditha killings as a possible law of war violation but did not. They ranged from senior officers to sergeants and radio operators who heard reports from the field that day.
Fielding questions from lawyers for Capt. Randy W. Stone, a battalion lawyer charged with failing to investigate the deaths, General Huck gave what seemed to be contradictory answers about whether he should have investigated the deaths, given what he knew at the time.
For instance, he said he had learned within hours of the episode that women and children had been killed, and acknowledged that his own rules required investigation when a “significant” number of civilians died in actions involving marines. But later he said he saw no reason to look into how a “big” number of civilians had died in Haditha.
General Huck pointed out that his superiors — including General Chiarelli and his predecessor, and Maj. Gen. Steve Johnson, the top Marine commander in Iraq at the time — had received many of the field reports about the Haditha civilian deaths that he had received, and that none had opened an inquiry until the Time reporter, Tim McGirk, started asking questions.
Statements from General Huck’s bosses in Iraq at the time seem to confirm his testimony.
General Johnson, for instance, told military investigators looking into how the chain of command had responded to the Haditha episode that he had been more concerned at the time about the enemy’s use of a lethal roadside bomb — known as an improvised explosive device, or I.E.D. — than about the civilians who died that day.
“In my way of thinking as the commander, at that point in our time in Iraq, 15 people killed as a result of an attack, in a built-up area that involved I.E.D.’s and a coordinated attack, I still think that probably my reaction was, ‘That’s too bad, but they got caught somehow,’ ” General Johnson told investigators in a sworn statement obtained by The New York Times from someone familiar with the case.
“Our thought process would have been that, ‘Hey, if the enemy hadn’t done it, those people wouldn’t have got killed.’ ”
But as Thursday’s other main witness testified, the reporter’s questions seemed to provoke far more disdain — for the reporter and for Haditha’s civilian leaders — than curiosity about whether the marines had done anything wrong that morning.
The day’s first witness, First Lt. Adam P. Mathes, the Company K executive officer at the time, said he and the battalion commander and the battalion executive officer had collectively dismissed Mr. McGirk’s questions because they had considered them “sensational” and politically motivated.
“The questions were questionable,” Lieutenant Mathes said, testifying by video link from Kuwait, where he is stationed. “It sounded like bad, negative spin. We tried to weed out the grievances that Mr. McGirk had against the Bush administration.”
He said Mr. McGirk had seemed to have an antiwar agenda. “This guy is looking for blood,” Lieutenant Mathis testified, “because blood leads headlines.”
By PAUL von ZIELBAUER
CAMP PENDLETON, Calif., May 10 — The general who led a division in charge of the marines who killed 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha in 2005 testified Thursday that he was kept from weighing accusations that the killings were illegal because his subordinate officers withheld information for nearly three months.
The officer, Maj. Gen. Richard A. Huck, the Second Marine Division commander in Iraq at the time, testified in a military hearing here that he had learned that women and children had been killed within hours of the attack, on Nov. 19, 2005.
But he said he had believed that the deaths were the unfortunate but unavoidable result of combat with Sunni Arab insurgents.
General Huck said he had not learned until February 2006 about inquiries into the deaths by Time magazine because his own chief of staff and regimental commander kept him in the dark.
The chief of staff, Col. R. Gary Sokoloski, and the regimental commander, Col. Stephen W. Davis, had learned of the Time reporter’s questions in late January 2006, General Huck testified. But, he said, they and all the other officers in his chain of command failed to tell him.
“It had been alive for three weeks without my being aware of it,” General Huck said of Time’s inquiry.
General Huck testified on the third day of a hearing for one of four marine officers charged with dereliction of duty for failing to investigate properly the civilian killings. Three enlisted men are charged with their murders.
General Huck said he had first become aware of accusations that the civilians were unjustly killed when his superior, Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the day-to-day commander in Iraq at the time, sent him an e-mail message on Feb. 12 to ask what he knew about the reporter’s inquiry.
General Huck said he was “pretty irritated” with Colonel Sokoloski for not telling him earlier about the reporter’s questions. “What am I, the last guy to find out in this organization?” he said he had asked Colonel Sokoloski the morning after receiving the e-mail message.
General Huck said that until he received the message, he had never considered the killings a violation of any kind because they had occurred during a combat operation and it was not uncommon for civilians to die in such circumstances.
“In my mind’s eye, I saw insurgent fire, I saw Kilo Company fire,” General Huck testified, via video link from the Pentagon, where he is assistant deputy commandant for plans, policies and operations. “I could see how 15 neutrals in those circumstances could be killed.”
General Huck said he had made a list of all the officers and enlisted men who could have reported the Haditha killings as a possible law of war violation but did not. They ranged from senior officers to sergeants and radio operators who heard reports from the field that day.
Fielding questions from lawyers for Capt. Randy W. Stone, a battalion lawyer charged with failing to investigate the deaths, General Huck gave what seemed to be contradictory answers about whether he should have investigated the deaths, given what he knew at the time.
For instance, he said he had learned within hours of the episode that women and children had been killed, and acknowledged that his own rules required investigation when a “significant” number of civilians died in actions involving marines. But later he said he saw no reason to look into how a “big” number of civilians had died in Haditha.
General Huck pointed out that his superiors — including General Chiarelli and his predecessor, and Maj. Gen. Steve Johnson, the top Marine commander in Iraq at the time — had received many of the field reports about the Haditha civilian deaths that he had received, and that none had opened an inquiry until the Time reporter, Tim McGirk, started asking questions.
Statements from General Huck’s bosses in Iraq at the time seem to confirm his testimony.
General Johnson, for instance, told military investigators looking into how the chain of command had responded to the Haditha episode that he had been more concerned at the time about the enemy’s use of a lethal roadside bomb — known as an improvised explosive device, or I.E.D. — than about the civilians who died that day.
“In my way of thinking as the commander, at that point in our time in Iraq, 15 people killed as a result of an attack, in a built-up area that involved I.E.D.’s and a coordinated attack, I still think that probably my reaction was, ‘That’s too bad, but they got caught somehow,’ ” General Johnson told investigators in a sworn statement obtained by The New York Times from someone familiar with the case.
“Our thought process would have been that, ‘Hey, if the enemy hadn’t done it, those people wouldn’t have got killed.’ ”
But as Thursday’s other main witness testified, the reporter’s questions seemed to provoke far more disdain — for the reporter and for Haditha’s civilian leaders — than curiosity about whether the marines had done anything wrong that morning.
The day’s first witness, First Lt. Adam P. Mathes, the Company K executive officer at the time, said he and the battalion commander and the battalion executive officer had collectively dismissed Mr. McGirk’s questions because they had considered them “sensational” and politically motivated.
“The questions were questionable,” Lieutenant Mathes said, testifying by video link from Kuwait, where he is stationed. “It sounded like bad, negative spin. We tried to weed out the grievances that Mr. McGirk had against the Bush administration.”
He said Mr. McGirk had seemed to have an antiwar agenda. “This guy is looking for blood,” Lieutenant Mathis testified, “because blood leads headlines.”
Sergeant Urinated on Body in Haditha
NY Times, May 10, 2007
By PAUL von ZIELBAUER
CAMP PENDLETON, Calif., May 9 — A marine sergeant testified on Wednesday that he urinated on the bloody remains of one of five unarmed Iraqi men whom his squad leader had fatally shot in late 2005 moments after a roadside bomb had killed one of their comrades in Haditha.
The marine, Sgt. Sanick Dela Cruz, said at a hearing here that he had urinated on the dead Iraqi’s head out of anger that Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, known as T.J. was killed by the bomb, planted by Sunni Arab insurgents in a region of Anbar Province that American forces were battling to control.
“I know it was a bad thing what I done, but I done it because I was angry T.J. was dead,” Sergeant Dela Cruz said in a monotone. Under oath and with a grant of immunity from the prosecution, he testified that his squad leader, Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, had ordered the five unarmed Iraqis out of a car and fired six to eight rounds into them as they stood with their arms raised over their heads.
“I watched him shooting, sir, at the Iraqis,” Sergeant Dela Cruz said. He walked around the car to inspect the bodies, he said. “They were dead.” From 10 feet away, he said, he sprayed the bodies with automatic fire from his service rifle and then urinated on the bullet-ripped head of one man.
Sergeant Dela Cruz said that Staff Sergeant Wuterich had told the squad, “If anybody asks, they were running away, and the Iraqi Army shot them.”
Staff Sergeant Wuterich’s lawyers have said that he had fired on the five civilians after they ran from the car and defied his order to stop.
The Iraqis — four of military age and one a taxi driver — had driven up to where a Marine convoy was struck by the roadside bomb, drawing instant suspicion from Staff Sergeant Wuterich and his men, military investigators have said. But they were carrying no weapons when they were stopped, ordered out of the vehicle and fatally shot.
Marine prosecutors charged Staff Sergeant Wuterich, Sergeant Dela Cruz and two other marines in December with murder in the killings of a total of 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha on Nov. 19, 2005.
Last month, in exchange for Sergeant Dela Cruz’s testimony against the other marines, prosecutors dropped all five counts of unpremeditated murder that he faced.
Four Marine officers are also charged in the case, accused of failing to properly investigate the civilian deaths. Wednesday’s proceedings was the second day of a hearing for one of those officers, Capt. Randy W. Stone, a military lawyer, to determine if enough evidence exists to refer the charges against him to court martial.
By PAUL von ZIELBAUER
CAMP PENDLETON, Calif., May 9 — A marine sergeant testified on Wednesday that he urinated on the bloody remains of one of five unarmed Iraqi men whom his squad leader had fatally shot in late 2005 moments after a roadside bomb had killed one of their comrades in Haditha.
The marine, Sgt. Sanick Dela Cruz, said at a hearing here that he had urinated on the dead Iraqi’s head out of anger that Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, known as T.J. was killed by the bomb, planted by Sunni Arab insurgents in a region of Anbar Province that American forces were battling to control.
“I know it was a bad thing what I done, but I done it because I was angry T.J. was dead,” Sergeant Dela Cruz said in a monotone. Under oath and with a grant of immunity from the prosecution, he testified that his squad leader, Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, had ordered the five unarmed Iraqis out of a car and fired six to eight rounds into them as they stood with their arms raised over their heads.
“I watched him shooting, sir, at the Iraqis,” Sergeant Dela Cruz said. He walked around the car to inspect the bodies, he said. “They were dead.” From 10 feet away, he said, he sprayed the bodies with automatic fire from his service rifle and then urinated on the bullet-ripped head of one man.
Sergeant Dela Cruz said that Staff Sergeant Wuterich had told the squad, “If anybody asks, they were running away, and the Iraqi Army shot them.”
Staff Sergeant Wuterich’s lawyers have said that he had fired on the five civilians after they ran from the car and defied his order to stop.
The Iraqis — four of military age and one a taxi driver — had driven up to where a Marine convoy was struck by the roadside bomb, drawing instant suspicion from Staff Sergeant Wuterich and his men, military investigators have said. But they were carrying no weapons when they were stopped, ordered out of the vehicle and fatally shot.
Marine prosecutors charged Staff Sergeant Wuterich, Sergeant Dela Cruz and two other marines in December with murder in the killings of a total of 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha on Nov. 19, 2005.
Last month, in exchange for Sergeant Dela Cruz’s testimony against the other marines, prosecutors dropped all five counts of unpremeditated murder that he faced.
Four Marine officers are also charged in the case, accused of failing to properly investigate the civilian deaths. Wednesday’s proceedings was the second day of a hearing for one of those officers, Capt. Randy W. Stone, a military lawyer, to determine if enough evidence exists to refer the charges against him to court martial.
Officer Says Civilian Toll in Haditha Was a Shock
NYT, May 5, 2005
By PAUL von ZIELBAUER
CAMP PENDLETON, Calif., May 8 — The only Marine Corps officer who was in Haditha, Iraq, when American troops killed 19 civilians in their homes in 2005 testified at a military hearing on Tuesday that he was “shocked” to find only unarmed people, including women and children, among the dead. But he said the marines had not violated any law of war.
The officer, First Lt. William T. Kallop, said that soon after the killings, he inspected one of the homes with a Marine corporal, Hector Salinas, and found women, children and older men who had been killed when marines threw a grenade into the room.
“What the hell happened, why aren’t there any insurgents here?” Lieutenant Kallop testified that he asked aloud. “I looked at Corporal Salinas, and he looked just as shocked as I did.”
Lieutenant Kallop, a platoon leader, was the first witness called by lawyers for Capt. Randy W. Stone, one of four Marine officers charged with dereliction of duty for failing to properly investigate the deaths of two dozen civilians in Haditha on Nov. 19, 2005. The hearing, in a Marine Corps courtroom here, is meant to determine whether there is sufficient evidence against Captain Stone to refer the charges to a general court-martial.
As Captain Stone and his three lawyers sat quietly at the defense table, a Marine prosecutor spent most of the day cross-examining Lieutenant Kallop about the actions of Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, the Marine squad leader whom Lieutenant Kallop had ordered to “clear” an Iraqi home in Haditha after a roadside bomb had killed a Marine lance corporal earlier that morning. Sergeant Wuterich is charged with multiple counts of murder in connection with the killing of the civilians that day.
“Did he tell you that he had left two wounded children in that house?” the prosecutor, Lt. Col. Sean Sullivan, asked Lieutenant Kallop, referring to Sergeant Wuterich. “Did he tell you that he had killed a child? Did he tell you that there was a woman at the bottom of the stairs that they had killed?”
Lieutenant Kallop, who is not charged in the case and testified after being given immunity from prosecution, replied to each question with a firm “No, sir.”
“Did he say anything,” Colonel Sullivan later asked, “about the five children in the back bedroom being killed on the bed” in the second house?
Lieutenant Kallop again answered no.
A hearing for Sergeant Wuterich, who was not present, is more than a month away.
In addition to Captain Stone, the other Marine officers charged in the case are Capt. Lucas M. McConnell, the company commander; First Lt. Andrew A. Grayson, a Marine intelligence officer who inspected the scene of killings; and Lt. Col. Jeffrey R. Chessani, the battalion commander, who sent an electronic slide show presentation of the killings to his superiors.
None of the four officers was present during the explosion of the roadside bomb and the subsequent civilian killings by marines.
Despite the number of civilians killed by marines that morning in Haditha — five men who ran from a car, and then another 19 people in their homes after Lieutenant Kallop arrived — he testified Tuesday that he believed his men had acted appropriately and according to their training.
He said Sergeant Wuterich had told him that they had killed people in one house after approaching a door to it and hearing the distinct metallic sound of an AK-47 being prepared to fire.
“I thought that was within the rules of engagement because the squad leader thought that he was about to kick in the door and walk into a machine gun,” Lieutenant Kallop said. “Corporal Salinas told me the same thing.”
Later he added, “I had no doubt in my mind that they were telling the truth.”
Moreover, Lieutenant Kallop, who arrived in the town after the roadside bomb had killed Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, said his platoon had been told that Haditha was “an insurgent-controlled-and-occupied city.”
CAMP PENDLETON, Calif., May 8 — The only Marine Corps officer who was in Haditha, Iraq, when American troops killed 19 civilians in their homes in 2005 testified at a military hearing on Tuesday that he was “shocked” to find only unarmed people, including women and children, among the dead. But he said the marines had not violated any law of war.
The officer, First Lt. William T. Kallop, said that soon after the killings, he inspected one of the homes with a Marine corporal, Hector Salinas, and found women, children and older men who had been killed when marines threw a grenade into the room.
“What the hell happened, why aren’t there any insurgents here?” Lieutenant Kallop testified that he asked aloud. “I looked at Corporal Salinas, and he looked just as shocked as I did.”
Lieutenant Kallop, a platoon leader, was the first witness called by lawyers for Capt. Randy W. Stone, one of four Marine officers charged with dereliction of duty for failing to properly investigate the deaths of two dozen civilians in Haditha on Nov. 19, 2005. The hearing, in a Marine Corps courtroom here, is meant to determine whether there is sufficient evidence against Captain Stone to refer the charges to a general court-martial.
As Captain Stone and his three lawyers sat quietly at the defense table, a Marine prosecutor spent most of the day cross-examining Lieutenant Kallop about the actions of Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, the Marine squad leader whom Lieutenant Kallop had ordered to “clear” an Iraqi home in Haditha after a roadside bomb had killed a Marine lance corporal earlier that morning. Sergeant Wuterich is charged with multiple counts of murder in connection with the killing of the civilians that day.
“Did he tell you that he had left two wounded children in that house?” the prosecutor, Lt. Col. Sean Sullivan, asked Lieutenant Kallop, referring to Sergeant Wuterich. “Did he tell you that he had killed a child? Did he tell you that there was a woman at the bottom of the stairs that they had killed?”
Lieutenant Kallop, who is not charged in the case and testified after being given immunity from prosecution, replied to each question with a firm “No, sir.”
“Did he say anything,” Colonel Sullivan later asked, “about the five children in the back bedroom being killed on the bed” in the second house?
Lieutenant Kallop again answered no.
A hearing for Sergeant Wuterich, who was not present, is more than a month away.
In addition to Captain Stone, the other Marine officers charged in the case are Capt. Lucas M. McConnell, the company commander; First Lt. Andrew A. Grayson, a Marine intelligence officer who inspected the scene of killings; and Lt. Col. Jeffrey R. Chessani, the battalion commander, who sent an electronic slide show presentation of the killings to his superiors.
None of the four officers was present during the explosion of the roadside bomb and the subsequent civilian killings by marines.
Despite the number of civilians killed by marines that morning in Haditha — five men who ran from a car, and then another 19 people in their homes after Lieutenant Kallop arrived — he testified Tuesday that he believed his men had acted appropriately and according to their training.
He said Sergeant Wuterich had told him that they had killed people in one house after approaching a door to it and hearing the distinct metallic sound of an AK-47 being prepared to fire.
“I thought that was within the rules of engagement because the squad leader thought that he was about to kick in the door and walk into a machine gun,” Lieutenant Kallop said. “Corporal Salinas told me the same thing.”
Later he added, “I had no doubt in my mind that they were telling the truth.”
Moreover, Lieutenant Kallop, who arrived in the town after the roadside bomb had killed Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, said his platoon had been told that Haditha was “an insurgent-controlled-and-occupied city.”
Photo, Associated Press: Capt. Randy Stone, charged with failing to properly investigate the deaths of 24 civilians in Haditha, Iraq, arrived at his hearing Tuesday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
