The North County Times has a new article out on the Camp Pendleton 8 (i.e., Hamdania incident).

Attorneys for accused troops say Marine Corps hampering defenses

By: MARK WALKER – Staff Writer

CAMP PENDLETON —- Attorneys for two of seven Marines charged with premeditated murder in the shooting of an Iraqi civilian in April accused the military Thursday of refusing to provide basic information necessary to prepare their defenses.

They also complained that the Marine Corps has denied a request that they be allowed to hire an independent investigator to travel to the scene of the incident.

“The government had no problem sending my client over there three times in defense of our country’s freedoms and liberties,” said attorney Joseph Low, who represents Cpl. Marshall Magincalda. “Therefore, they should have no objection to sending an investigator over there once in defense of those rights that he risked his life for.”

Lt. Col. Sean Gibson at Camp Pendleton said it would be premature to send an investigator to Iraq before hearings are held later this summer to determine whether the charges against the seven Marines and one Navy corpsman stand.

This is outrageous.  Lt Col. Gibson seems to lay this assertion out there as if it is an objectively verifiable truth.  In reality, the statement could have read: “The United States Marine Corps wants to give full opportunity for discovery and evidence-gathering throughout the duration of the process, and so we have approved several visits for defense counsel.”  It would have made more sense.  The statement taken by itself is nonsensical.  It lacks any backdrop, explanation or substantiation.  It certainly does not appear to be legally required, and if it is not, then for what reason would the request of defense counsel be “premature?”

But as outrageous as this is, there is this stunning little nugget of gold couched in the article:

Attorney Jane Siegel, who represents Pfc. John Jodka III of Encinitas, also said the Marine Corps has told her it does not intend to produce any Iraqi witnesses at the hearings.

This obviously refers to the Article 32 hearing.  But continuing:

Gibson said there is no assurance that any of Awad’s relatives or any other witnesses interviewed in Iraq would come to the U.S. for the hearings or any subsequent trials.  “There is no mechanism in place to compel them to testify,” Gibson said.

If there are no witnesses who can give reliable, substantial, compelling and consistent testimony, then the whole ordeal is over and the Marines (and Corpman) should be set free immediately.

I am no lawyer, and so I cannot speak to the legal rules of evidence.  But I did spend some time studying in seminary, and have done some thinking about the Biblical requirements for evidence.  Yes, the Bible does have quite a lot to say about this.  I will post on this in the near future.  The post will focus on the moral requirements for evidence rather than the legal requirements.  In other words, I will focus on God’s expectations for evidence rather than the expectations of the UCMJ or military protocol (this is after all my web site and I can do what I want).  Stay tuned.  Oh, by the way.  Just as a teaser for this future post, the use of confessions in a trial is a throwback to ancient middle eastern protocol.  In western civilization (i.e., Europe and the U.S.) we have historically disallowed confessions in trials due to the Christian influence on our system of law, and this is unique in the world (although this is changing as we give more weight to confessions).  And the reason?  Confessions can be forced or coerced.

I know this sits hard with many of you; especially police.  But I had to deal with this in seminary when I studied it (in Biblical Ethics), and I intend to post what I believe to be the truth on this subject.

Tighten your belts and stay tuned.

**** SCROLL FOR UPDATES **** 

I posted earlier on the Battle for Baghdad Coming, but missed an analysis over at the Council on Foreign Relations entitled “The Battle in Baghdad” which I have copied below:

While the world’s attention shifts toward the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, Baghdad, as one popular Iraqi blogger puts it, is burning. Outside the bunker-like Green Zone, the Iraqi capital remains a hotbed of sectarian mayhem. A recent wave of tit-for-tat violence between Sunnis and Shiites has left hundreds dead (LAT). Infrastructure is crumbling and municipal services continue to perform below prewar levels. Foreign journalists rarely roam the streets, for fear of kidnappings or worse. According to a new UN report, civilian deaths have climbed to over 100 per day, and “the overwhelming majority of casualties were reported in Baghdad.” This new Backgrounder assesses efforts to stabilize the Iraqi capital.

A much-touted security clampdown in the capital, which coincided with the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, “has not produced the results I expected so far,” admitted U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad in a recent speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Part of the problem, argues Kenneth M. Pollack of the Brookings Institution, is the Iraqi government is trying to secure Baghdad with half the number of troops necessary to bring order to a city of six million inhabitants.

Khalilzad has outlined a strategy of “focused stabilization operations” meant to restore order to Iraq’s urban areas and root out sectarian militias while building municipal institutions, improving governance, and jump-starting the local economy. Much of that approach was spelled out by Andrew Krepinevich—who famously called it an “oil-spot strategy”—last fall in Foreign Affairs. In this recent podcast, Krepinevich assesses the implementation of his strategy one year later and finds it working but requiring more time.

Some of the blame for the recent bloodshed in Baghdad has been placed on Moqtada al-Sadr, a radical Shiite cleric whose militia, the Mahdi Army, has carried out reprisal killings against Sunnis and lures many of its recruits from Sadr City, a Baghdad slum. Yet the so-called Sadrists, despite their spoiler status, “cannot be reduced to an unruly mob, fired up by a populist leader,” says Peter Harling, an International Crisis Group senior analyst. “It is a phenomenon with deep roots in contemporary Iraq and expressing a large number of justified grievances.” Opposing them is a collection of insurgent fighters and suicide bombers who remain capable of devastating attacks (AP).

As they say in NASCAR, the U.S. better “tighten the belts and get up on that wheel — the last 25 laps there’s going to be rubbin’ and racin’!”  Seriously, keep the troops in your prayers.  We must succeed in Baghdad.  Defeat is not an option.

**** UPDATE ****

The Strategy Page has this on the situation in Iraq:

July 20, 2006: The Maliki “Diplomatic Offensive.” The Israeli-Hizbollah war, with its implied threat of ever widening hostilities, may actually help further the cause of a more stable Iraq. With most Arab governments, largely Sunni in religious orientation, almost all blaming the conflict on Hizbollah, and by implication its Shia Iranian backers, Iraq’s Shia Prime Minister, Nouri al Maliki, seems to be stepping up a personal “diplomatic offensive” which has already seen him meeting the leaders of several Arab countries (Saudi, Qatar, Kuwait, etc.), with more to come (notably Jordan). While Sunni Arab leaders are not necessarily thrilled over a Shia-dominated Iraq, a stable Iraq (with protection for the Sunni minority), would be a bulwark against Iranian ambitions in the region.

The “war” in Iraq has come down to a competition between Sunni Arab and Shia death squads, to see who can rack up the highest body count. While most Iraqi Sunni Arabs fear for their lives, and continued ability to live in Iraq, the Shia radicals fear only Sunni suicide bombs. The bombing attacks increasingly target radical Shia militias, mainly those loyal to Muqtada al Sadr. Lacking the equipment and trained personnel to carry out an efficient counter-terror operations, Sadr has ordered his guys to just go out and kill lots of Sunni Arabs, any way they can, each time an Sunni bomb goes off in a Shia neighborhood. This has been going on for the last three months, leaving nearly 10,000 civilians dead. The Sunni terrorists and Shia death squads stay away from Iraqi and foreign troops and police. Even with al Qaeda crippled, there are still several Sunni Arab groups, mainly driven by a radical religious views (“Shia are heretical scum”), who believe that the Shia can still be terrorized into submission. Or, as some believe, a “civil war” can be triggered. This, so the myth goes, will arouse the Sunni Arab masses. Some radicals believe that the Sunni Arabs are actually the majority of Iraqis (actually, they are less than 20 percent, closer to 15 percent these days as more of them flee the country). Other radicals believe that, if Shia death squads kill enough Sunni Arabs, the Sunni Arab nations will be forced to invade and crush the upstart Shia once and for all. It’s left rather vague exactly what the U.S. forces would do if Syrian, Jordanian, Kuwaiti and Saudi troops suddenly entered the country.

The government knows that there are only a few dozen, at most, gangs involved in all this killing. The current deal is for the Sunni Arab community to shut down their thugs, while the government takes out the Shia militias. The government has started carrying out their end of the deal, but the Sunni Arabs have moved more slowly. This is because the Sunni Arab thugs are paranoid, quick on the trigger, and willing to murder prominent Sunni Arabs. The Sunni Arabs fear trapped, caught between their own radicals, and the majority of Iraqis (Kurds and Shia Arabs), who would just as soon see Iraq free of Sunni Arabs. The hatreds go deep, Saddam’s decades of brutality against Kurds and Shia Arabs saw to that. While pundits go on about Iranian desires to dominate Iraq, the reality is more about vengeance against Sunni Arabs for past sins. Nothing too complicated, but it’s a fire that’s very difficult to put out.

It looks as if Israel has come to the conclusion that they cannot effect the change in Hezbollah and their presence in southern Lebanon without a ground campaign.

Israel massed tanks and troops on the border Friday and warned civilians to flee Hezbollah-controlled southern Lebanon as it prepared for a likely ground invasion to set up a deep buffer zone.

But as Jeff Jacoby points out, Iran is still the real enemy, and the war will not be won until this enemy is defeated.  The prime mover in all of this is still Iran:

We will never win this war, Ledeen and others argue, until the Iranian theocracy is brought down. That does not have to mean military action. Our aim instead should be to empower Iran’s restive population, which is largely pro-Western and moderate. Give them as much support as possible, much as the Reagan administration did for Lech Walesa and Solidarity in Poland – and let them find the means to reclaim their government for themselves.

Israel may be able to inflict a punishing defeat on Hizbullah, but regime change in Tehran will require American resolve. Will we muster that resolve before – or only after – the mullahs get the bomb?

I think Jacoby is correct on Iran being at the center of the storm, but dead wrong on his plan for Iran.  I do not see the population as being capable of overthrowing the regime in Iran.  Remember?  All of this talk about empowering the restive population to overthrow the regime was going on with our plans for Iraq, too (back in the Gulf War).  But as I have pointed out in my post “The Iran War Plans,” an all-out ground invasion of Iran would be costly (and is highly ill-advised).  I have a different idea — another plan for the battle for Iran.  I will post soon on my plans for war with Iran.  In the mean time, the war in southern Lebanon with Hezbollah is a war by proxy.  Israel is fighting Iranian troops by fighting Hezbollah.  War with Iran is inevitable, so we may as well begin forging a viable set of plans for it now rather than later.  Time is running out.

Haaretz.com is reporting:

Hezbollah bunkers are well-hidden and discernible only from a close distance, said Gantz. “The operation is challenging, difficult and complex. Unfortunately, there is the price of casualties, but the other side, unlike us, doesn’t report their casualties,” he added.

Thousands of Israeli troops are operating in south Lebanon where they are targetting Hezbollah positions. Among their activities, they are searching for tunnels dug by Hezbollah militants. According to the army, Hezbollah fighters have taken refuge inside these tunnels – often dug under homes in villages – along with their rockets, and that they occasionally emerge to fire one into Israel.

From the AP:

BAGHDAD, Iraq – Bombings and shootings soared by 40 percent in the Baghdad area in the past week, the U.S. military said Thursday. An American general said extremists were preparing “an all-out assault

Here is a sobering commentary from Haaretz.com.  After discussing the well-intentioned air campaign, the commentary says that an exclusive air campaign will fail to end Hezbollah, and ends thusly:

Israeli leaders who have not considered this will discover in the coming days the disadvantages and limitations of the aerial offensive. Then they will be faced with a tough dilemma: Should they finish off the aerial operation with a diplomatic process, which is liable to rehabilitate Hezbollah, or should they finish it off with a ground operation that could involve heavy losses and entanglement in Lebanon?

One way or the other, the illusion of a magic solution is about to burst. The Israel Air Force is trying – but not succeeding – to do all the work on our behalf.

**** SCROLL FOR UPDATES **** 

The Counterterrorism Blog has a good rundown of Hezbollah activities on U.S. soil (Hizballah Activity in North America).  You will notice after studying the incidents cited in their blog that while some of the activities seem to be rather spurious regarding location (L.A., Charlotte), others are not and seem to point to a center for Hezbollah fundraising and militancy.  The case in point is Dearborn, Michigan.

Courtesy of Jihad Watch, an interesting piece on Imam Elahi comes to us from CBN.com.  In part it says:

Debbie Schlussel, a Detroit-based columnist and attorney, was the first to call attention to Elahi’s ties to Iranian government officials.

“Mr. Elahi, I believe, is an agent of the government in Iran. Not only does he have sympathies for them, but he did work for them. And I believe he’s still working for them,

I consider this to be the equivalent of human shields:

The IDF has found that Hizbullah is preventing civilians from leaving villages in southern Lebanon. Roadblocks have been set up outside some of the villages to prevent residents from leaving, while in other villages Hizbullah is preventing UN representatives from entering, who are trying to help residents leave. In two villages, exchanges of fire between residents and Hizbullah have broken out. (Hanan Greenberg)

There isn’t a Nickel’s worth of difference between pulling a child in front of you to block a bullet and what Hezbollah is doing right now in Lebanon.  It is all the same.  They are cowardly, villainous scoundrels and they deserve to die.

I consider this to be the equivalent of human shields:

The IDF has found that Hizbullah is preventing civilians from leaving villages in southern Lebanon. Roadblocks have been set up outside some of the villages to prevent residents from leaving, while in other villages Hizbullah is preventing UN representatives from entering, who are trying to help residents leave. In two villages, exchanges of fire between residents and Hizbullah have broken out. (Hanan Greenberg)

There isn’t a Nickel’s worth of difference between pulling a child in front of you to block a bullet and what Hezbollah is doing right now in Lebanon.  It is all the same.  They are cowardly, villainous scoundrels and they deserve to die.

On July 16 I posted “Are we Prepared for Hezbollah Attacks in the U.S.?”

I followed up with “Hezbollah Reiterates Threat to Attack U.S. Interests Around Globe.”

The Counterterrorism Blog has a good entry by Walid Phares entitled “To Repeat: Are we Ready for Hizbollah Attacks in the U.S.”

Blogs of War has a piece entitled Hezbollah in America.

Michelle Malkin has more on this developing story with pictures of militant rumblings in San Francisco.

It looks like Israel is trying to destroy Hezbollah’s capabilities with a sanitized air campaign (it will fail).  It also looks like the U.S. is blinking and giving Israel another week.  If this happens, Hezbollah will come out on the other end of this whole thing politically stronger, and we will face down Hezbollah not just in the middle east, but on our own home soil.  We will not close down our borders because the Senate lacks the will, and we will have no defense against Hezbollah cells in the U.S. before the real battle begins.  The attacks on 9/11 by Al Qaida were just a prelude to the coming battle with radical Islam.  Al Qaida was the bench team.  Hezbollah is the first string.

You think the U.S. will wake from our slumber before the war begins?

Editorial Remark: Edited to correct typographical error in title line from “Treat” to “Threat.”  Hmmm … Hezbollah … trick or treat indeed.