by Nathaniel R. Helms |
September 15, 2011
______________________________________________________
Here in the United States, Marine Corps
Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich is waiting for court-martial. He has
been waiting five years. In Baghdad, State Department officials
negotiating a new Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqi government
need “talking points” to convince them that our country is all about
prosecuting service members accused of crimes against the Iraqi
people.
Frank Wuterich is a talking point. He first came
to the attention of official Washington when he was accused of leading
a fireteam of Marines on a rampage through Haditha, Iraq on November
19, 2005. He was indicted a year later for multiple murder and related
offenses. Wuterich has been in limbo at Camp Pendleton, Calif. ever
since. He can’t get promoted, he can’t get out and he can’t catch a
break.
Last Thursday State Department official Michael
McClellan, Spokesman/Counselor for Public
Affairs at the American Embassy in Baghdad, wrote Defend Our Marines
publisher David Allender seeking assistance exploring our archives for
information concerning the number of Marines and soldiers accused,
tried and convicted of crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. “This email is
UNCLASSIFIED,” the correspondence said.
"I spent much of this
afternoon going through your excellent website as it is the best – and
only! – website that has truly comprehensive information about trials
of U.S. service members accused of crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan,"
Mr. McClellan wrote. "We are most
interested in the Iraq-related trials, as this is relevant to on-going
talks about a post-2011 U.S. presence here.”
Flattery is a
wonderful thing. The United States government’s official mouthpiece in
Baghdad seeking help from humble Defend Our Marines. Most reporters
can count on the fingers of one hand how many times the government has
reached out to them for special consideration when they weren’t
getting indicted.
At the risk of looking
a gracious gift horse in the mouth the request raised a couple of red
flags with David. Why does the Department of State need anything from
Defend Our Marines. And why does the State Department need to talk
about the young men and women already convicted, sentenced and serving
time? We thought we should try and find out.
DOM saddles up
Within the parameters
of the curious netherworld we live in Counselor McClellan seemed an
amiable enough fellow. We exchanged a few e-mails and shared a few
stories before the Counselor for Public Affairs for the American
Embassy in Baghdad sent DOM to the Department of State in Washington,
D.C. for comment.
“Actually, what we
were looking for was simply a database – how many trials, how many
convictions/acquittals, sentencing, etc.,"
Mr. McClellan explained. "The info
on your website up to 12/2006 was actually very helpful and gave us at
least some numbers to compile. This is really about having the facts
at hand in case questions come up relating to SOFAs, immunities, etc.
Our interest is not so much in particular trials, but the overall
picture of trials and the results thereof. Does that make sense?”
It didn’t so DOM asked
him to explain.
“As for the talks, we
are not making any comment at this time beyond what comes out of
Washington, so just watch the news every night,” Mr. McClellan wrote.
“Thanks again for your help – your website is a very valuable resource
as – believe it or not – those data simply do not exist anywhere else
that I have been able to find.”
It sounded like more
grease.
Taking the gentleman’s
advice anyway we contacted the Department of State (DOS) where another
friendly gentleman named Harry Edwards works as a department
spokesman. Edwards used to be a navigator on a B-52. He garnered
international attention providing the official U.S. response to an
e-coli outbreak in Europe. Killer cucumbers! Another time he explained
the State Department usually didn’t talk about bounties, in this case
$25 million reward for the head of Osama bin Laden. Definitely not a
light weight.
“I have made contact
with a DOD source that says he will put you in contact with his
experts who may have more info. I have nothing from my experts on any
of this. You will need to talk to DOD,” Mr. Edwards wrote in a
subsequent email.
A winding trail
Talk about red flags.
The State Department asks DOM for information intended for treaty
talks apparently being conducted by the Department of Defense. It
didn’t make sense! We couldn’t imagine the Department of Defense
conducting treaty negotiations the State Department didn’t know
anything about.
Taking Mr. Edwards’
advice we hooked up with Maj. Christopher Perrine, a Public Affairs
Officer for the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The good major was
a Marine tank officer before he was a PAO. He was quick to remind me
that he was not speaking for the Corps. He was on detached duty to the
OSD.
The reason the OSD was
handling the inquiry instead of DOS was because the treaty being
negotiated wasn’t really a treaty, it is an “agreement, ” Maj. Perrine
explained. The Department of Defense apparently can negotiate
agreements.
We rushed to the
dictionary. A “treaty” is “a formal contract or agreement negotiated
between countries or other political entities.” An “agreement” on the
other hand is a “contract or arrangement, either written or verbal and
sometimes enforceable by law,” at least according to the Encarta
Dictionary.
“If we are going to
have a continued presence in Iraq they (service members) have to have
the legal protection of a SOFA,” Maj. Perrine said. The “SOFA” he was
talking about is the new Status of Force Agreement to base troops in
Iraq after the current agreement expires on Dec. 31, 2011. It is the
unpopular “agreement” the Iraqi government has been sitting on for two
years.
In 2008 the Iraqi
government, under considerable financial and military pressure from
the United States, adopted a temporary agreement based on the premise
all US forces would be out of Iraq by the end of the 2011. The long
name is the “Agreement Between the United States of America and the
Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq
and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary
Presence in Iraq."
Things got so heated
during the negotiations one Iraqi reporter threw a shoe at former
President George W. Bush after the agreement was grudgingly adopted by
the Iraqi Parliament. The agreement provides a legal framework for
American operations inside Iraq until December 31, 2011.
SOFA: No sticks
So what does all this
have to do with SSGT Frank Wuterich? Nothing and everything! Wuterich
is an embarrassment to the U.S. negotiators. They really can’t use
his prosecution as a shining example of American military
jurisprudence despite the fact the so-called “Haditha Massacre”
indictments were arguably the most publicized criminal cases to come
out of the Iraqi War. The usually stingy Marine Corps even built a $3
million “Justice Center” at Camp Pendleton to make sure justice was
applied in appropriate style. In it seven of the Marine staff
sergeant’s co-conspirators indicted for murder, massacre and cover up
were either exonerated, had their charges dismissed, or were found
“not guilty.” One Marine general officer and two colonels were
cashiered by the Secretary of the Navy for failing to adequately
inform the press what really happened there. Many other careers were
destroyed. Wuterich is the last man standing and he is far from a sure
bet.
“I don’t think that
helps them at all,” Maj. Perrine said.
Being a former
enlisted man this reporter has a very narrow view of the entire SOFA
arrangement. For the ordinary service member the local SOFA is what
protects them from prosecution by foreign governments without at least
the appearance of due process. How and when they are arrested, by
whom, and how they are treated while being held for crimes against the
host nation are all laid out in black & white. Any veteran who served
overseas anywhere heard all about the local SOFA the day they arrived
in the host country. In the more amenable countries comfortable with
legal due process there is a reasonable assumption the service
member’s hosts will provide enough protection to allow the accused a
realistic expectation of fair play.
For example foreign
jailers are not supposed to beat jailed American service members with
sticks or other damaging objects while incarcerated. Stick beating is
a favored form of corporal punishment in Iraq. A Marine lieutenant
testified during the investigation that at Haditha he twice had to
take a stick away from an Iraqi soldier beating his fellow citizens
with it after the alleged massacre. Why Americans should expect better
treatment was not discussed.
The Major held up
Japan as a shining example of a good SOFA partner.
“We will do the same
thing in Iraq,” Maj. Perrine explained.
That brought us back
to talking points. SSGT Frank Wuterich is not the issue confronting
the U.S. officials urging the Iraqi government to adopt a SOFA that
allows the U.S. to base American troops in Iraq “beyond” 2011, Maj.
Perrine said.
It is merely one tiny
issue among hundreds, the biggest objection being the many Iraqis want
us to leave and don’t understand why we don’t want to go. Those
vehemently opposed to a continued U.S. presence are using the Haditha
Massacre, the alleged murders at Fallujah in 2004 by Marines from the
same platoon, and a laundry list of other cases that were dismissed,
reduced or later thrown out in American courts to demonstrate how
callous the U.S. is to the sensitivities of the Iraqi people. This is
the same guys Maj. Perrine says we are depending on to provide “due
process” to American service members and civilians charged with crimes
in Iraq.
The real issue is
apparently finding common ground for keeping American service members
in Iraq beyond 2011. Who and when the Iraqis can imprison Americans is
a big sticking point. The Iraqis insist on having original
jurisdiction in the prosecution of U.S. service members. Essentially
they want a free hand in prosecuting and imprisoning American troops
stationed in peaceful Iraq after the U.S. finishes pulling out its
combat forces after Christmas. Maj. Perrine said that U.S. troops in
other countries that have status of forces agreements are often handed
over to the hosts for trial and punishment once the ground rules have
been established.
Unfortunately, any
agreement will likely be unenforceable once the U.S. pulls its combat
troops out of Iraq before the new year. That means the U.S. is going
to have to depend of the tender mercies of the Iraqi government to
protect our citizens and ensure justice is done.
The current number of troops, that can expect
fair play in Iraq after 2011, is about 3,000, a number South Carolina
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) announced as official on Fox News last
week. Moqdr al Sadr of Sadr City, the radical Sunni cleric who really
doesn't like Americans at all, says he will "dismantle" the current
government if it succumbs to U.S. pressure to keep "any" troops in
Iraq. Sadr's political cronies represent about 10 percent of the Iraqi
Parliament, according to the Iraqi government. Sadr recently announced
in the world press he was halting his follower's attacks against
withdrawing U.S. troops so they can all leave.
So if it isn’t 3,000,
how many troops do we intend to keep in Iraq beyond December 31, 2011?
“That has not been
established yet. No decision has been made,” Maj. Perrine said.
When asked what would
happen if the U.S. doesn’t obtain a new SOFA, he said, “I don’t have
anything on that.”
So I said, “You don’t
have any information at all?”
Maj. Perrine said,
“When we say we don’t have any information on that, it doesn’t mean we
don’t have any information, it just means we don’t have any
information we are going to tell you.”
Transparency in the 21st
Century.
_________________________________________
Nathaniel R. Helms
Defend Our Marines
15 September 2011
Note: Nat Helms is a Contributing Editor to Defend Our
Marines. He is a Vietnam veteran, former police officer, war
correspondent, and, most recently, author of
My Men Are My Heroes: The Brad Kasal Story (Meredith Books, 2007).
