No evidence of ambush on MarSOC Marines found

[CommunityEditor]

Authorities found no evidence that a Marine unit was responding to an ambush last year when troops allegedly opened fire indiscriminately on Afghan civilians, killing as many as 19, a Navy investigator testified Monday.

But Navy authorities did not arrive on the scene until two months later and had only an hour to look at the site of the shooting, Marine Chief Warrant Officer Robert O’Dwyer cautioned.

“From a law enforcement standpoint, that’s ludicrous,” O’Dwyer said. He said that while one investigation later determined two civilians died and 23 were wounded, another concluded 19 died and 50 were wounded.

O’Dwyer’s testimony opened the second week of a Court of Inquiry, a rarely used administrative fact-finding proceeding investigating the actions of two officers involved in the shootings: company commander Maj. Fred C. Galvin, 38, of the Kansas City area, and Capt. Vincent J. Noble, 29, of Philadelphia, a platoon leader.

The court will recommend whether any charges should be filed against the officers, and whether any training should be changed.

O’Dwyer said Navy Criminal Investigative Service agents interviewed Afghan police and civilians, and members of an Army military police unit that arrived on the scene less than an hour after the shooting. He said none confirmed the Marine unit’s story that there was a coordinated ambush.

Lawyers for the officers have said the unit of about 30 Marines was ambushed just after a suicide bomber detonated an explosive-packed minivan near the second Humvee in their six-vehicle convoy. During the first week of testimony, nearly a dozen Marines told the court they heard small-arms fire after the explosion and that the convoy’s gunners did not fire until they were fired on.

Citing witness accounts, Afghanistan’s Independent Human Rights Commission concluded last year that the Marines fired indiscriminately at pedestrians and people in cars, buses and taxis in six different locations along a 10-mile stretch of roadway.

A Marine riding in the convoy testified last week that the convoy was shot at twice and Marines fired back over a span of roadway about 1.5 miles long. Navy investigators said the firing occurred over about six miles, O’Dwyer said.

The unit was on its first deployment following the 2006 creation of Marine Special Operations Command. After the shooting, eight Marines were sent back to Camp Lejeune, and the rest of the company was taken out of Afghanistan.

MarSOC commander Maj. Gen. Dennis J. Hejlik later said he disagreed with that decision and that the unit responded appropriately. Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway also criticized an apology issued by an Army brigade commander, calling it premature because an investigation remained underway.

The Marine Corps last used the administrative Court of Inquiry process in 1956, to investigate allegations of a drill sergeant marching a group of recruits into a South Carolina creek, where six died.


Article: http://www.militarytimes.com/news/20...nquiry_080114/

Well, they got the headline they wanted: " No evidence of 2nd ambush on MarSOC unit."

NCIS investigator Robt. O'Dwyer's testimony doesn't make a lick of sense. He said authorities didn't arrive on the scene until two months later and had only an hour to look at the site of the shooting. Why didn't he stay longer if necessary?

He also said NCIS agents interviewed members of an Army military police unit that arrived on the scene less than an hour after the bombing. He said none confirmed the Marine unit's story that there was a coordinated ambush after the bombing.

The following is an article about this report: Will O'Dwyer be brought up on perjury charges? Is this just a mockery of a court?



May 23, 2007 5:25 PM
by Rowan Scarborough, The Examiner

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - Investigators found convincing
evidence of a suicide-bombing, along with spent ammunition thought
to have been fired by the enemy, at the site in Afghanistan where
gun fire from members of an elite U.S. Marine unit killed civilians,
according to a secret military police report The Examiner obtained
Wednesday.

The discoveries, which were made 40 minutes after the incident,
could be a significant factor in the Marines' defense in an ongoing
criminal investigation, a source close to the probe said.

The source, who asked to remain anonymous because he was
discussing a classified document, said the evidence proves the first
special operations unit ever deployed by the Marines was under
attack at the time it returned fire. The Afghan government says 10
civilians were killed.

Some eyewitnesses have expressed doubt that any Taliban ambushers fired on the Marines last March
4 in Nangarhar Province, near the Pakistan border. Afghans accuse the Marines of firing at civilians
indiscriminately as they sped away after the bomb blast. The Marines contend they returned enemy
fire.

An Army officer in Afghanistan issued a formal
apology for the deaths. That brought a rebuke last
week from Gen. James Conway, the Marine
commandant.

Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai personally complained to the U.S. command about the civilian
deaths. Shortly afterward, the U.S. military recalled the entire 120-man company, which is based at Marine
Corps Forces Special Operations Command, Camp Lejeune, N.C.

A member of the 66th Military Police Company wrote the one-page classified document after it
secured the scene.

The report said police found a 120-yard "blast radius from the blast site. The SVBIED [suicide vehicle-
borne improvised explosive device] detonated in the east bound lane. The body of the vehicle was
disintegrated due to the blast .... A person was found approximately 50 [meters] from the blast site
with no head or limbs. Individual may have been in close proximity of SVBIED when the blast
occurred."

No Marine was killed.

The report also said police found casings along the roadside, including 7.62 shells, which are used in
AK-47 assault rifles, the Taliban's primary firearm.

The military police report also said, "Thirteen mortar bases were found near the blast site." The source
said this indicates that the Taliban had set up a base near the road.

rscarborough@dcexaminer.com

[imagio]

The Marine Corps never wanted the Marines to be part of SOCOM. They did not stand behind these Marines, and allowed defamatory and libelous information to be printed about them in the press. In fact our own military fed the media. The headlines: Marines accused of killing 19 civilians, came from Col. Nicholson. Accused of excessive shooting, came from the COI first witness Sgt. Travers. SpeOps Marines were not shot at, came from Gen. Kearney.

This Court of Inquiry is purely political, and they are desperately trying to find something to charge these Marines with or they will look ridiculous.

http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=282890




Published on Saturday, January 12, 2008

Taliban show media savvy

By Kevin Maurer, Staff writer

The Taliban has The Associated Press and Reuters on speed dial.

Elias Wahdat, a stringer for Reuters and BBC news services in Khost province, said that every time the Taliban launch an attack or American troops call in an air strike, he gets a text message.

The Taliban will give its version of what happened, often claiming that American bombs killed civilians. It may take officials with the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan hours to put together a news release for the press. In the meantime, the Taliban version is already circulating.

Lt. Col. David A. Accetta, the 82nd Airborne Division public affairs officer and chief spokesman for U.S. forces in Afghanistan, said it takes time to verify the facts.

“The major difference between us and the Taliban extremists is that they are not bound by any regulations, laws or policies,” Accetta said. “They do not have to tell the truth and are more likely to use propaganda than they are to put out true, verifiable, factual information.”

But the lag time is leading to propaganda victories for the Taliban, experts and military officers said this week.

The information defeats — along with growing concern about confirmed civilian deaths — have put U.S. forces under scrutiny whenever civilians die.

A case in point is the ongoing investigation into the actions of Marine special operations soldiers from Camp Lejeune alleged to have shot civilians while speeding away from the scene of a car bombing in March.

On Tuesday, a special tribunal started to examine the actions of unit commander Maj. Fred C. Galvin and platoon leader Capt. Vincent J. Noble. At the end of the inquiry, the panel will recommend whether the officers should be charged with a crime.

Unverifiable spokesmen

Accetta said the Taliban use numerous anonymous or unverifiable spokesmen to put messages out on the Internet and in a newspaper in Pakistan. But most times they call reporters directly.

“We monitor what they say but usually don’t ever consider it as being even close to the truth,” he said.

He is confident that the Afghan people are smart enough to recognize that it is propaganda.

But Marc Garlasco, a senior military analyst with Human Rights Watch, said the Taliban have been very successful at using civilian deaths as a part of their information war against the Afghan government.

“Every civilian death in Afghanistan leads to more calls for the democratically elected government to step down. That is clearly the driving force,” said Garlasco, who just finished a draft report on civilian casualties in Afghanistan.

Afghan civilians told Garlasco that Taliban fighters force residents to remain in their homes as shields or force them to accompany insurgents on operations. A NATO source told Garlasco that the Taliban will also “seed an area with civilian dead” to make it look like NATO and coalition forces killed them.

He found that at least 388 Afghan civilians — triple the number from a year before — were killed by airstrikes in 2006-07. According to U.N. figures, 314 civilians were killed by international and Afghan government forces in the first six months of 2007 — more than the 279 civilians killed by the insurgents.

That prompted President Hamid Karzai to plead with President Bush to suspend airstrikes.

One of the big problems facing NATO is that there is very little independent verification of the death tolls by reporters in Afghanistan, Garlasco said. Much of the fighting occurs in areas that are either too remote or too dangerous to reach.

The Taliban have filled the information void. There have been reports of multiple phone calls from the Taliban to news organizations in Kabul within moments of NATO airstrikes.

“It seems the Taliban are leveraging the time lag between event and verification,” Garlasco writes.

Col. Edward Reeder, former commander of the 7th Special Forces Group, said U.S. forces have about 90 minutes before a Taliban spokesman starts talking to the international press.

“What people need to understand is how good the Taliban are at information operations (and) what masters they are at disinformation,” Reeder said.

Reeder commanded the 7th Group for eight months in Afghanistan last year. He said the key in the information war was getting the facts out earlier. His soldiers also started to videotape airstrikes to prove that civilians were not in danger.

Accetta said the 82nd also uses the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police Public Affairs offices to counter the Taliban propaganda machine.

“Their press statements and releases often resonate more than information we provide and get out quickly as they use the native languages and we work through translators,” Accetta said.

Still, the U.S. military is often caught fighting a propaganda war with limited ammunition. And that can be costly in winning the support of Afghan residents.

“We’re in a sense winning the tactical battles,” NATO spokesman James Appathurai said in a CNN interview. “But we’re not focusing enough on the strategic battle, which is public opinion.”

Staff writer Kevin Maurer can be reached at maurerk@fayobserver.com or 486-3587









NCIS: No evidence of 2nd ambush on MarSOC unit
By Trista Talton - Staff writer

Posted : Monday Jan 14, 2008 21:23:06 EST
CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C. — An investigating officer said Monday there was no physical evidence to support that a Marine Special Operations platoon took small arms fire following a vehicle bomb attack last year in Afghanistan.

Chief Warrant Officer 2 Robert O’Dwyer, who was assigned to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, was part of the investigative team who went to Afghanistan nearly two months after the March 7, 2007 attack in Nangahar Province.

“I don’t believe a follow-on ambush occurred,” he said.

O’Dwyer testified the investigative team spent 60 minutes at the actual site of the attack on the six-vehicle convoy. He was the first witness of the day in the second week of the court of inquiry looking into the actions of Fox Company, Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command, who are alleged to have killed as many as 19 Afghan civilians according to some reports.

The inquiry is focused on the company’s former commander, Maj. Fred Galvin, and platoon leader Capt. Vincent Noble. Neither has been charged with a crime, but are suspected of conspiracy to make a false official statement, false official statement, dereliction of duty and failure to obey a lawful order.

Marines in the convoy who’ve testified so far have said they did not see anyone firing at them. But many have said they distinctively heard small arms fire.

Army military police, the first U.S. officials on the scene, arrived about 35 to 45 minutes after the attack, O’Dwyer said. He said they did not recover shell casings or other evidence to support a complex attack.

When NCIS investigators arrived in the country in May, they interviewed alleged Afghan victims in the attack.

“The interviews were pretty consistent,” O’Dwyer said. “Most said the same things in terms of the use of force.”

Those witnesses also said the firing came from the gun trucks. Witnesses also lied, but those primarily dealt with solatia payments, he said.

The court showed five separate lists compiled by various agencies tallying civilians allegedly killed and wounded in the attack. In those, the death tolled ranged from two to 26 while the number injured ranged from 23 to 77 people.

Fire and ammunition experts who examined bullet fragments collected near the site of the attack disagree on whether those fragments were fired from U.S. or enemy weapons.

Jerry Miller, an Army firearms expert, examined the driver’s side windshield of the second vehicle in the convoy. Miller said damage to that windshield was not caused by a bullet impact.

“You’ve got what appears to be sand,” he said. “It could have been a rock, something like that.”

He found a bullet impact in the second Humvee’s turret, but could not determine what type of bullet struck the turret. But he also identified fragments he examined as those from an AK-47 and a Dragunov, a Soviet sniper rifle.

Stacey Kerwien, a metals and ammunition expert with the Army criminal investigation lab, said the fragments she examined were likely were U.S. in origin. But she agreed on cross examination that it’s possible those fragments could have been fired from enemy weapons.

The Defense Department’s inspector general has opened an investigation into Gen. Kearney who ordered this entire 120 SpecOps Marine company out of Afghanistan. The probe will review whether Lt. Gen Francis H. Kearney III, deputy commander of Special Operations Command, exercised poor judgment and potentially compromised eventual legal proceedings. Instead of investigating who the suicide bomber was and the source of the weapons and mortar bases, Gen. Kearney ordered a criminal investigation of the SpecOps Marines who were attacked. Way to go, General!!

"The court of inquiry is an administrative fact-finding process, not a criminal proceeding. The three officers on the panel must examine the conduct of the convoy, the Marines' fire discipline, adherence to rules of engagement and other orders, how the incident was reported and documented and the climate within the company." If all our troops are scrutinized like this, there'll be no more Armed Services!

WASHINGTON — Republican Rep. Walter Jones has asked the Pentagon to open an investigation of a high-ranking Army official who is at the center of two probes involving possible wrongdoing by U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

Jones, of North Carolina, said he believes Lt. Gen. Frank Kearney has overstepped his authority in the investigations and in turn is hurting troops' morale.

"When men and women are asked to go to war for this country, then in my humble opinion they should be given every benefit of the doubt, and if there are any questions then they should not be handled in the press," Jones said in an interview with FOX News.

Two incidents in particular have caught Jones' attention. One involves a gunfight following a March 4 car bombing of a Marine convoy in Bandikot, Afghanistan, which ended with 19 Afghan civilians reported dead, and an Army colonel apologizing for the incident that he called "a stain on the forces' honor."

The colonel authorized payment of reparations to the victim's families before a military criminal investigation was complete.

Kearney, who at the time was major general in charge of Special Operations in Afghanistan, and has since been given a three-star general rank, ordered the unit pulled out of Afghanistan.

The Marines have since ordered their own investigation, which Kearney is not in charge of, although Kearney's involvement brought criticism for coloring the investigation before its completion. Kearney has said in the past that the hostile environment in Afghanistan meant the unit could no longer operate there and needed to be pulled out of theater immediately.

In a separate incident in October 2006, Kearney demanded reopening an inquiry into two Green Berets who killed an Afghan enemy combatant as Afghan police tried to take him into custody.

Afghan police in Ster Kheyl near the Pakistan border asked the Green Beret unit to help detain a known enemy combatant. The U.S. commander remained on a hill 100 yards from the combatant's home. The Afghan came out, identified himself and after a series of confused hand gestures from the Afghan police, the U.S. commander ordered his sniper to fire, killing the Afghan from 100 feet away, according to military reports.

The Green Berets were cleared of wrongdoing after two investigations. Kearney, however, demanded a third, in which the soldiers were cleared again.

Earlier this month, Jones sent a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates calling for the department's inspector general to look into Kearney's actions.

The father of one of the Marines accused in the March incident points to Kearney as the source of his son's problems.

"We believe there is quite a bit of evidence General Kearney committed lies against our men for his own purposes. I'm asking the American public to demand an investigation of what happened," said Jerry Olson, father of Christian Olson, the Marine executive officer in the unit removed from Afghanistan.

Christian Olson was not present during the shooting, but has been called before the Marine inquiry because of his status in the unit.

Jerry Olson said he believes overzealous scrutiny by Kearney is making the highly-trained Special Forces think twice about their military careers if they might be convicted of murder under increasingly strict rules of engagement.

Mark Waple, a lawyer representing the accused Marines, seconded the point.

"When they're dealing with enemy combatants and having to make the decision when and how to use lethal force, the concern is that that decision has to be made instantaneously, and it can't be debated, and you can't dial a lawyer or dial a JAG (judge advocate general) to determine if the trigger should be pulled," Waple said.

The military declined to allow Kearney to respond to questions in an interview. However, officials provided a statement he gave that said he was satisfied with his handling of the Green Beret incident, which is now complete. In the statement he refers to the investigation by its title in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

"The Article 32 investigation accomplished my intent. An experienced Special Forces officer provided an independent and thorough review of the facts in this case. The Article 32 investigation resolved the conflicting findings of the two previous investigations and the results demonstrate the effectiveness of the Military Justice system," Kearney said.

FOX News' Jennifer Griffin and Justin Fishel contributed to this report.

[jaymarine1775]

This wasn't an investigation, this was a circus. How can NCIS even be allowed to testify considering they arrived to investigate the alleged crime more than a month after it happened of course you are not going to find anything the area has already been cleaned up by Afgans and even insurgents who fired at the Marines. This isn't justice at work this is all political.

[KSMARINEMOM]

Sounds like we should court marshal the generals for not fighting. They are more frightened of the politicians back home than the enemy. The Court of Inquiry is purely political, and a circus at that. The question is who is the audience this circus is performing for? I have to wonder if the generals and those keeping the 3 rings going are trying to impress certain presidential candidates and think it may put a feather in their cap if they crucify these Marines for doing their job? The generals should have investigated who the suicide bomber was, where he got the van, where the explosives came from, and should not have PAID ONE PENNY OF MY TAXPAYER MONEY until they either gave up Osama Bin Laden or the bomb making facilities where this bomber packed his van with explosives. One story I read even said when an officer went back to the village to pay money to the "civilians" for damages he had 2 ceremonies with the Afghans where he had elaborate meals prepared and in addition to giving them money, gave them turbans!! Who gave them permission to spend my tax dollars that way? The Afghans should have been made to pay for the damage they did to the American Humvees and cost for medical care for the injured Marine, and for our cost of bullets expended in self defense BECAUSE OF THEIR CITIZENS ATTACKING US!! With the request approved for 3,000 Marines to go to Afghanistan, each parent or wife of Marines going to Afghanistan should be sent a letter stating what happened to these 120 special ops Marines before them so they know if they defend themselves they could possibly face charges! This is a travesty of the highest order. This is a sure way to lose the war in Afghanistan. I wrote my congressman and senators immediately when I read about it and told them: "MARINES ARE NOT THROWN OUT OF A WAR! This projects weakness. I also told them that instead of kicking them out of Afghanistan, they should be awarded medals and their tactics for getting out of the ambush alive should be taught to all deploying troops and at all the military academies!! The war in Afghanistan can't be won with such weak leadership and this action by Gen. Kearney could well be what loses the war for us. GOD BLESS THE BRAVE U.S. MARINES!!

[The Universal Curmudgeon_guest]

Originally Posted by CommunityEditor

Authorities found no evidence that a Marine unit was responding to an ambush last year when troops allegedly opened fire indiscriminately on Afghan civilians, killing as many as 19, a Navy investigator testified Monday.

Equally, they found no hard evidence that one didn't.

The lesson to be learned is "Don't wait two months before you secure the scene and do your investigation.".

The likely result is going to be that no one is charged with anything directly connected to the actual incident, but a couple of lower ranking officers are going to get their knuckles rapped for doing crappy paperwork.