I don’t know what the trouble is with your comments, and I don’t have time right now to look into it or read what you left on the other post. However, I am very interested and would like to discuss the topic with you (and whoever else wants to) but it will have to be later on in the day.
So let this post be a place holder for that discussion. I will update it with content later.
Knock yourself out Rick 
******************
I finally had the time to think about it and figured out that Rick’s comments were trapped in Akismet Spam. (I don’t know why I couldn’t figure it out last night — sorry.) I released all of them and it shouldn’t happen any longer.
This discussion started over on Greenwald’s blog at Salon the other night. Rick posted a letter from the attorney defending one of the men who stand accused in relation to the deaths of Iraqi civilians in Haditha. Rick has suggested that I email him, and I will, but I want to see if I can put the comments he made about that topic on other posts of mine on this post. (I am interested in having it all in one place. Additionally, I’d rather have his argument in his own words than writing a summary here.) If he agrees, I put it together in a post.
It’s all below the fold.
This all started the other night when I was reading the comments on a Greenwald post. It’s all about what happened in Haditha, when 24 Iraqi civilians were killed. Since its occurence became public, there have been a great number of people who have called Murtha a traitor. What is often neglected is that another congressman — John Kline from Minnesota — said much the same thing as Murtha, but he was never accused of treason. Of course, at the time the Republicans were in control of congress.
Rick posted an email from one of the Marine defendants in the case which included a website which has been set up for him. What set me off was what Rick wrote in the preface to the email:
Those who read Glenn’s work at Unclaimed Territory may remember the slander lawsuit filed against Rep. John Murtha regarding the war crimes alleged to have occurred at Haditha, Iraq.
Nevermind that Murtha is looking out for the troops. Leave that out of everything you post here or anywhere. From the beginning, Murtha has said that these troops shouldn’t be put in a situation where something like Haditha or other atrocitites (sic-ack!) would happen. Murtha was TAKING UP FOR THEM. He is still holding to the military in what he is proposing. If anything, the so called lefty traitor blogosphere should denounce Murtha. But wait! We’re not. And never have. (I chopped off the last bit because it wasn’t directly related to this topic, but rather another commenter who was yammering about the topic of the thread.)
Then Rick went nuts on the comments here. Ok, his comments were caught in the spam filter and it took me a while to release them. I’ll let Rick fill in the rest from his comments:
Please note that I did not go back to review any of the posts and comments at Unclaimed Territory related to SSgt. Wuterich’s slander suit prior to posting tonight.
SSgt. is one of the accused Marines in the Haditha incident.
With that said, as I recall, you are indeed correct that Glenn pointed to similar comments made by Rep. Kline in subsequent posts. IIRC, as a result of these posts, Mr. Zaid in fact sent a letter to Rep. Kline demanding an apology and a retraction of Rep. Kline or be added to the slander suit. To my recollection, Rep. Kline provided the apology and retraction requested and was not added to the suit. However, the best evidence of what transpired is archived in those posts.
Michele, if I’m misreading your reaction, I apologize, but you seem to be projecting anger regarding this subject onto me and/or assuming that I am advocating a position on this matter. This also happened in the prior posts. It was wrong then and it is wrong now. As I did before, I am merely forwarding the e-mail/information at Mr. Zaid’s request. Now, as I did previously, I have intentionally tried to leave my opinion out of the post.
My problem has always been that Kline’s comments are always left out. I spent months on a now-shut-down right-winger blog reminding the commenters and the hostess that Kline had been briefed at the same time as Murtha had and had made comments at the time similar to Murtha’s. It’s the fact that you, too, focused on Murtha and left out Kline that moved me to respond to your comment on Glenn’s blog.
Full disclosure: Mr. Zaid and I have corresponded numerous times since those posts on various topics. Other than agreeing to distribte this e-mail, I am intentionally neither supporting Mr. Zaid here nor condemning him. If you think that taints me or my opinion, so be it. But his e-mail stands or falls on its own.
New comments now: When Glenn originally wrote about the lawsuit, there were a lot of comments about Zaid’s intentions in filing the suit.
If you recall, there had recently been a huge stink by the right-leaning blogs about the NYT’s(?) publication of photos of, I believe, Rumsfeld’s and Cheney’s homes near D.C. In preparing his post on this subject, Glenn simply e-mailed the reporter to ask for information about the story. The reporter indicated to Glenn that she had official permission to publish the story and the related photos.
I took my lead from Glenn’s tactic and contacted Zaid directly through his e-mail listed, IIRC, on the slander complaint that he filed. I don’t recall exactly how it started, but I asked him if Glenn’s allegations of a political motive were true. Zaid said he was motivated solely to effectively represent his client. He provided a lot of information to me that I posted on Glenn’s site. Personally, I tend to believe him. This is not a firm opinion on his motivations because I don’t know him other than through our correspondence. With some experience in criminal law (I was a public defender from 1990-1993), however, his arguments and tactics make sense to me.
I figured that my motives would be questioned, but what I stated above is all there is to it.
In another comment, Rick includes an email (I’m not sure of the context, but that may not be important):
My opinion only, but I think he filed the suit to counter the continuously-repeated statements (and not just from Rep. Murtha) that a massacre had in fact occurred. This appeared to be a strategic move by an attorney involved in the criminal defense of an accused to get exposure to the fact that the defendant has only been accused of a war crime, that noone had been convicted and there may be actual defenses to the charges.
I also think that Rep. Murtha was supporting the military with the argument that “when you put these troops in the situation created by the (administratively bungled) occupation, shit happens (I don’t intend to belittle by using this phrase), so get them the hell out so this shit doesn’t keep happening.
Every army in every war has had soldiers that commit war crimes. And when you put good people into hell, some of those good people will unfortunately do bad things. Just another reason that was should be the last resort.
Personally, I think that if a soldier commits a war crime, he should pay the appropriate consequences, if properly convicted (and not scapegoated). The commission of war crimes is not to be excused even if the war is unjustified or wrong. At the same time, the administration also is responsible for creating the situation if the war is unjustified or wrong. Noone should get a pass for their actions.
My bias as a former public defender is to the defense in this case. Zaid is battling more than just the military prosecutor in this case and I applaud his efforts as a defense attorney. Hopefully, justice will prevail for all parties.
Rick, I agree with this completely. I’ve said as much in comments on other blogs. The point is that those 24 Iraqis are dead and the Marines in question killed them. It’s now a matter of the courts martial to determine if what the Marines did was allowed under the Rules of Engagement or not.
At this point, I’ll stop with this post and continue any discussion in the comments.
13 responses so far ↓
RicK // February 23, 2007 at 9:16 pm |
Michelle, move whatever posts you like. Once they’re published on your site, they’re yours.
One thing I love about ‘the Internets’ is the ability to instantly respond to various authors and bloggers. I’ve had numerous conversations with GG, Mark Zaid (SSgt. Wuterich’s attorney), you (now) and others.
Unrelated comment: my 2-year old decided this very night that she no longer wants to sleep in her crib. Her mom just said that she (Mom) is not ready for her (daughter)
to be able to get out of bed on her own.
RicK // February 23, 2007 at 9:23 pm |
I meant to start my prior comment with this: I’m flattered to have a post named Haditha, Murtha, and Kline (formerly “Open Thread for Rick”), even though I’ve now been parenthically second-billed. I did like the original, shorter title better since it was all about me.
michelle // February 23, 2007 at 9:48 pm |
Rick, let’s get this straight from the get-go: I won’t use anything anyone posts here unless I have permission. I’ll do what I can to make it clear and accurate.
wrt to your little girl — good for her
you guys need to figure that all out on your own — I can claim expertise in kittens and pups only — little girls are only my joy. My nieces are a joy to me. I try, though I only see them every month or so, to tease out their special-ness. I love those girls.
And with that, we can now talk about more serious matters — even though your little girl and those same little girls I always think about — focus what I do and where I stand.
I only changed the title because I thought you would feel exactly opposite. My bad.
RicK // February 23, 2007 at 9:56 pm |
“let’s get this straight from the get-go: I won’t use anything anyone posts here unless I have permission.”
I understand that there seems to be a rule of netiquette to not re-publish something unless permission is granted. I don’t understand the rule, personally. Its like Tim Russert said in the Libby trial: He assumes that all conversations are off the record or not for publication unless he and the person he’s talking to agree to go on the record. In my world, if someone doesn’t want something repeated, then they shouldn’t put it in writing and send it. It’s that law thing again, I suppose.
michelle // February 23, 2007 at 10:18 pm |
This may be one of those instances that your perspective is very different from mine.
I just spent the last 6 and 1/2 weeks teaching my students not to claim someone else’s writing as their own.
The post I promised will go up in the morning.
RicK // February 23, 2007 at 11:00 pm |
I’m not talking about plagiarism: that’s fraud. I’m talking about republishing, such as posting someone’s e-mail. Two different things altogether.
michelle // February 24, 2007 at 7:18 pm |
Gees RicK (I just noticed the capital K at the end) I was just trying to be considerate.
Anyway, I added to the post (finally — I’m seriously lazy after finals).
RicK // February 24, 2007 at 8:30 pm |
I figure that anyone who publishes something in writing has to be aware that a record has been created and there is a better than fair chance of that document being seen by someone else. When I write something, I assume that it will be read by someone other than its intended audience. I think a difference between your writing style and mine is that your writing is generally more passionate while my style is more ‘clinical’.
When I added my first post on the Haditha marines the other day, I was trying to be precise with what I wrote. Since my post was off topic (with site owner’s prior permission), the first sentence was intended to identify the comment as a separate topic and to jog readers’ memories about the subject matter of the prior posts. If you look at what I wrote:
I think you have to admit that the sentence does just that. It is also factually accurate. There was no suit filed against Rep. Kline, only Rep. Murtha, and the suit is a slander suit regarding statements Rep. Murtha made about the Haditha incident.
Here’s where we mis-communicated:
I think you assumed I was presenting a position on the subject although I was trying to write an introduction to a subject without interjecting any personal opinion. I posted the e-mail that I had sent to someone on your site to give you my personal opinion. [And I hope you're happy now that you drove that guy from the blogosphere.]
Same thing happened last year when I was posting the e-mails from Mark Zaid (SSgt. Wuterich’s counsel). I was anticipating it this time and just reacted.
And so we come to this:
Then we really don’t disagree on this. [And you didn't close the italics tag.]
The capital K started as a way to distinguish me from another Rick, at either David Corn’s site or Glenn’s. My last name starts with a K so I just capitalized the K in Rick. I liked it so I kept using it. Seems that most people never notice.
RicK // February 24, 2007 at 8:43 pm |
I forgot to add (there’s no preview option) that in the case of the Haditha incident, I sense an attempt to scapegoat these Marines. I also don’t agree that Zaid’s exclusion of Rep. Kline was an effort to focus on Murtha. Zaid’s duty is to his client in this matter. It was Rep. Murtha’s comments that were being published in the papers, and his interviews that were being played on the news shows. (I’m not attacking Rep. Murtha here, just setting the scene.) Rep. Murtha was getting the press on this subject, not Rep. Kline. From a defense attorney’s perspective, the issue is the negative publicity tainting the jury and causing incorrect public opinion. Bluntly, Zaid wanted Rep. Murtha to shut his mouth, whether his intentions were honorable or not. Since Rep. Kline was basically in the background, he was already effectively muzzled.
Glenn was justified in raising the issue and reviewing the facts. On it’s face, the suit did appear to be politically motivated. After reviewing the matter and my discussions with Zaid, I reached a different conclusion. IIRC, Glenn changed his opinion as well.
michelle // February 24, 2007 at 9:09 pm |
I think a difference between your writing style and mine is that your writing is generally more passionate while my style is more ‘clinical’.
Thanks for not saying “emotional” I guess.
. . . the first sentence was intended to identify the comment as a separate topic and to jog readers’ memories
My point was that you focused on Murtha, not the actual case, which was what the email was about. Either put both names or neither.
I posted the e-mail that I had sent to someone on your site to give you my personal opinion. [And I hope you’re happy now that you drove that guy from the blogosphere.]
Could you clarify this for me, please? I’m the only someone on this site ever. While I have tried to drag a couple of my friends into the 21st century, they have mostly resisted. And unless you are familiar with the website I referenced, why do you think I drove that person from the blogosphere?
[And you didn’t close the italics tag.]
One way to get on my bad side is to conclude that I failed to do something technical instead of considering that WORDPRESS screwed something up. My freaking boss did that for years wrt the department’s website (that I manage) until I showed her the proof that what I had submitted was different from what got posted. Do you really think all of this technology is perfect?
My recent anger management clearly didn’t work.
(That’s a joke.)
(there’s no preview option)
cry me a river, RicK
RicK // February 24, 2007 at 11:58 pm |
“your writing is generally more passionate while my style is more ‘clinical’”
Do you disagree with my conclusions?
“My point was that you focused on Murtha, not the actual case, which was what the email was about.”
You misread the comment, then. I merely mentioned the suit to identify the subject matter. It’s the same as saying the Libby perjury case.
“Either put both names or neither.”
Rep. Kline was never a part of the suit. The issue Glenn raised was about Zaid’s intentions in filing the suit against Rep. Murtha. The evidence that Rep. Kline was not a defendant suggested that the suit was a political manuever. It was never about Rep. Murtha’s or Rep. Kline’s intentions in making their comments.
Your clarification: You stated: In another comment, Rick includes an email (I’m not sure of the context, but that may not be important):
I was explaining that was my personal opinion instead of the GG posts where I was omitting my personal appeal.
These were ______(your adjective here) jokes.
why do you think I drove that person from the blogosphere?
[And you didn’t close the italics tag.]
“Do you really think all of this technology is perfect?”
It’s not?
michelle // February 25, 2007 at 9:03 pm |
This proves it. I typed a reply and “poof” it’s gone.
That’s life on the internets.
grannitiork // August 13, 2009 at 11:46 pm |
This looks cool so far, what’s up people?
If there’s anyone else here, let me know.
Oh, and yes I’m a real person LOL.
Later,