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.