Why would military commanders share details of an ongoing criminal investigation with a Congressman?

On May 18th, Democratic Congressman Jack Murtha held a press conference where he accused U.S. soldiers of killing Iraqi civilians “in cold blood.”

Murtha was referring to an incident that took place last November in Haditha, approximately 150 miles north of Baghdad.  U.S. Marines are alleged to have murdered at least 15 civilians, including women and children, in retribution for a roadside bomb attack on a humvee carrying Marines from the Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, which resulted in the death of one Marine.  It was initially thought that the 15 civilians had died as a result of the roadside bomb and an ensuing firefight with Iraqi insurgents.  Time magazine reported the story in March.  Prior to going public with the story, Time informed military officials in Baghdad in January of the information they received from Iraqi civilians concerning the alleged actions of U.S. Marines.  After conducting an initial inquiry, jurisdiction was handed over to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) in March.  As of this writing, the NCIS is still conducting an Article 32 investigation into these serious allegations.  No one has been charged with an offense or has stood trial before a military court.

Yet this did not prevent Jack Murtha from rendering a verdict on the matter.  Murtha told reporters at his press conference:

It’s much worse than reported in Time magazine.  There was no fire fight.  There was no IED that killed those innocent people.  Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood.  And that’s what the report is going to tell.

Now, you can imagine the impact this is going to have on those troops for the rest of their lives and for the United States in our war and our effort in trying to win the hearts and minds.

During a question and answer period, Murtha went on to state that the Marines had killed about twice as many civilians as reported by Time.  When asked by a reporter if he had read the report, Murtha admitted that he had not read it but added, “I’m basing it on information that I’ve gotten from – all the information I get.  It comes from the commanders.  It comes from people who know what they’re talking about.”

Really Congressman Murtha?

Why would military commanders share details of an ongoing criminal investigation with a Congressman?   Especially one who has been so vocal in advocating immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.  The only reason I could see Murtha being advised of the investigation’s details would be because some of the commanders in question might have similar reservations about the mission in Iraq.  Whatever the reason, the integrity of the investigation would have been compromised.  The last time I checked Americans are presumed innocent until proven guilty – even Marines who are fighting in an increasingly unpopular war.

Yet I cannot help but be skeptical about Murtha’s remarks.  He has a clear agenda and everything he says is directed toward the fulfillment of that agenda.  He has become so single-minded in his mission to withdraw our armed forces from Iraq that he would say anything for that to come to pass.  Even if it means slandering and sullying our brave armed forces in the process.

Subsequent to the press conference, Murtha issued a press release to clarify his remarks.  After making a few perfunctory remarks about his experience in Vietnam and his visits with wounded soldiers at Bethesda and Walter Reed Medical Center, he proclaimed:

As I’ve said, I understand the fog of war and the confusion of battle.  But we are a nation  of laws, including the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice).  The United States of America has never condoned, nor should it ever condone, indiscriminate, deliberate killing of civilians.   When we do that, we become no better than the enemy we are trying to eradicate. 

Further, to ignore this incident, which happened six months ago and has now been publicized around the world, is to invite criticism that the United States does not practice what it preaches.  That will severely undermine our goals of promoting democracy, as did the Abu Ghraib scandal.  Again, the United States does not condone the deliberate killing of civilians.

The representative from Pennsylvania’s 12th District is being disingenuous.  The United States would be no better than our enemy if it sanctioned the sort of behavior of which the Marines are accused and had not bothered to conduct an investigation into this matter.  Just because the NCIS has not that the involved cold-blooded killing does not mean Jack Murtha should.  It also does not mean Jack Murtha should conclude that we have ignored this incident because it happened six months ago.  On the contrary, what did military officials in Baghdad do when presented with this information by Time?  They opened an investigation and concluded that it warranted further attention by the NCIS.  Certainly, this process takes time.  Perhaps too slow for Murtha, who wants our troops out of Iraq this very second.    But investigations of matters this serious must be conducted scrupulously and thoroughly before leaping to ill-advised and inaccurate conclusions.

But what if Murtha is right?  What if the U.S. Marines killed Iraqi civilians in cold blood?  What if they killed 30 civilians in cold blood as opposed to 15 civilians?  Well, you can be sure the Marines involved would be subject to general court martial and, if found guilty, possibly spend the rest of their lives in a military prison.  Or they could even be executed.  Unlike Saddam’s Iraq, those who massacred innocent civilians will be held responsible for their actions.  In Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, massacres of innocent civilians were the order of the day.  In Saddam’s Iraq, the families of the murdered had nowhere to petition their grievances lest they too be murdered by his tyrannical regime.   

Even if the U.S. Marines are found guilty of murdering innocent civilians it is not sufficient grounds to withdraw our troops from Iraq.  Again, Murtha’s ongoing agenda to see our troops removed compromises his statements on this matter and limits their value.  So long as U.S. troops are in Iraq they have an obligation to protect Iraqi civilians from al Qaeda terrorists and anyone else who would do them harm.   If our soldiers breach this protocol and deliberately harm those they were sent to protect, they will be dealt with in the harshest manner possible so as to send a message to both U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians alike.  If anything it ought to build confidence amongst Iraqis in the promotion of democracy even if it does so slowly.

As for now, the NCIS has not completed its investigation.  No soldier has been charged with a crime.   Even then our soldiers ought to be given the benefit of the doubt until it is proven they were complicit and responsible for the loss of life.  To do otherwise would be un-American.  Jack Murtha has done otherwise.  For that I say shame on Jack Murtha.  Again.