THE MILITARY

Haditha Unraveled

In a report obtained by NEWSWEEK, the affair's investigator casts doubt on the prosecution's case.

The Washington Post-AP
Aftermath: A U.S. Marine inspects a roadside scene near Haditha, Iraq, where five unarmed civilians were killed in 2005
 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

SPONSORED BY
 

Lt. Col. Paul Ware can be blunt. As the investigating officer in the Haditha affair, he has the job of assessing how strong a case the prosecution has against Marines suspected of killing 24 civilians after being ambushed two years ago in western Iraq. Haditha is the highest-profile atrocity case since the start of the war. For more than a year, prosecutors have assembled evidence against four shooters in Kilo Company, including Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, 26. But in a painstaking, 37-page report written earlier this month and obtained by NEWSWEEK, Ware tells the military lawyers their case is weak: "The evidence is contradictory, the forensic analysis is limited and almost all the witnesses have an obvious bias or prejudice."

The Haditha case seems to be unraveling. Already, all charges have been dropped against two of the shooters. Marine Gen. James Mattis announced last week that a third Marine, Lance Cpl. Stephen Tatum, would face a court-martial for involuntary manslaughter, far less than the original murder indictment. And Ware has recommended a similar reduction in charges against Wuterich. (In a separate proceeding, a lieutenant colonel will be court-martialed for failing to accurately report and investigate the killings.) Until not too long ago, the case had the aura of an unambiguous revenge massacre: after losing a buddy in an IED attack, the Marines killed five unarmed men who pulled over and stood outside their car. Then the Marines moved from one home to the next believing they were under fire, and killed men, women and children.

But the sinister reality of insurgents' hiding among civilians in Iraq has complicated the case. And even in conventional wars, battle-zone murder charges can be hard to prove. Investigators did not start gathering evidence until months later, when Time Magazine published an account of the killings. By then, forensic and ballistic evidence was scant and autopsies weren't feasible; Iraqi families refused to let the military exhume the victims' bodies. Prosecutors were left to rely largely on the statements of the Marines. Earlier this year they gave immunity to two of the shooters in exchange for their testimony. But Ware suggests in his report that prosecutors immunized the wrong guys. Both witnesses, he writes, "have very low credibility," and he believes their accounts will not hold up in a cross-examination.

One of them, Sgt. Sanick Dela Cruz, told investigators under oath last year he opened fire on the five Iraqi men after the IED attack because they started fleeing. But he changed his story after getting immunity, testifying in a pretrial hearing in August that the men had not run and that Wuterich had done the shooting. Dela Cruz told the court he'd fired only at their dead bodies. Though Wuterich himself admitted to shooting the men in a "60 Minutes" interview earlier this year, conflicts in the sum total of testimony led Ware to recommend dropping the murder charge. As for Lance Cpl. Humberto Mendoza, the other witness, Ware describes his testimony as a "desperate attempt to cover up lies with more lies." (Ware declined to comment, but a lawyer close to the Haditha case confirmed his report's authenticity. Dela Cruz's lawyer declined to comment; Mendoza's attorney could not be reached.)

Why did Dela Cruz and Mendoza get immunity in the first place? A Marine spokesman refused to comment on the process. But a person close to the case, who did not want to be named so as not to prejudice its outcome, says it appeared investigators had marked Wuterich from the start as the instigator and the "guy to get." While still in Iraq, he alone among Kilo Company Marines refused to answer investigators' questions without a lawyer, a fact that might have heightened suspicion against him. Ware, more than a year later, predicts in his report that prosecutors will succeed in convicting Wuterich of nothing more than dereliction of duty. On the prospects of convicting Tatum on any of the charges, Ware says, "the evidentiary hurdles are too great."

Ware, described by colleagues as meticulous, shows sympathy for the Marines. He says Wuterich's suspicions regarding the five Iraqis standing outside their car were understandable: the Marines had been told by intelligence officers to watch for an IED attack followed immediately by a car bombing. Ware also says some training the Marines received conflicted with their rules of engagement and led them to believe that, if fired upon from a house, they could clear it with grenades and gunfire without determining whether civilians were inside. After the Haditha killings, the commandant of the Marine Corps himself clarified the discrepancies to his men. But by then, the sad legacy of Haditha had already been inscribed.

Label

Newsweek Top Stories
Al Gore's Climate-Change Evolution
Al Gore's Climate-Change Evolution

Using emotion to convince people to change.

Heaven Can Wait
Heaven Can Wait

A new book promises proof of eternal life.

The World's Biggest Foods
The World's Biggest Foods

Monster edibles from around America.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Aykee @ 03/28/2008 3:48:59 PM

    Put all the US GI's under arrest. They all have blood on their hands. Who killed all the 1 million civilians in Iraq? The time will come, when you will be judged. This US army is a bunch of criminals and there is nothing to be proud of these ruthless, immoral guys.

  • Posted By: QuestionEverything @ 11/13/2007 4:06:10 PM

    handapeye,

    These guys were not being fired upon at the time they were throwing grenades into these houses. According to Wuterich, they were shot at, earlier, from someone in the vicinity of the neighborhood. They were not defending themselves from an attack. At the time they were attacking these homes, no one was firing from any of the three houses. The first two houses had children, women, infants and NO WEAPONS (2 AKs were found in the 3rd house). Those Marines did NOT apply the rules of engagement and just started shooting in homes without knowing who was in them. Wuterich confirmed this on his 60 Minutes interview.

    This is not a case where US Marines were under fire (yes there was a roadside bomb that went off PREVIOUSLY and some small arms fire PREVIOUSLY) and reacted in the heat of battle like some would have you believe. These guys made a conscious effort, in a combat environment but not under direct fire, to not applying any Rules of Engagement, and just shoot into houses without knowing what they were killing. It's no surprise after this blatant disregard for any rules, that innocent children, infants, women, and potentially men (some may have been insurgents, who knows but they were unarmed ones) were murdered.

    If I was allowed to throw grenades or shoot into any house that I thought an insurgent might be, I could essentially start killing at will with no regard to anyone because insurgents could be anywhere. We don't fight by those rules. We hold ourselves to a standard and that standard is not killing anytime we feel like it.

    That's not the American Way. We're professionals (your son included). Our rules of engagement do not allow that. You have to ID a target or at least ID the threat shooting from the house that you are engaging. The first two houses had no weapons. They couldn't have been firing from those houses.

    Your son has an extremely tough job to do out there. I'm sure you're proud of him and want to see him come home. He may be caught in situations where he has to make a snap judgement and shooting at something while under fire is very likely and that might kill civilians. I doubt anyone will have any issues with someone in that situation who had to make a life or death decision and made the best call they could and some civs got killed.

    That is not this situation and I would caution anyone attempting to make it appear to be otherwise.

  • Posted By: handapeye @ 11/12/2007 3:42:35 PM

    I would like for QuestionEverything to tell me exactly our soldiers are supposed to IDENTIFY the terrorists? Does Q/E think they wear headscarves with a big red "T" on them? How many times have our men been fired upon from a house? or from a mosque? As far as I am concerned, if a terrorist fires at me from anywhere, it is fair game. If I am being ahot at from a house, I am shooting back at the place the bullets are coming from.
    All of these bleeding hearts have never given a thought to that the Iraqi civilians know who the terrorists are. They know when they come into their homes with their weapons, that they are going to be trying to kill someone. If you don't want to get shot, , , LEAVE, , , tell someone in authority WHO the killers are.
    I have a son in Iraq. As the old cliche' goes,, , , , , , , I would MUCH rather him be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

My Take

Customize the NEWSWEEK homepage
to feature your favorite columnists.

Customize Now