Court Of Inquiry

posted by Jennifer Hlad on Jan 10

In case you are coming into this a little late (in which case I am sure you are confused!), here is a copy of a story I wrote before the inquiry began, giving some background on what is going on. After this story was published, the start date was moved to Monday (Jan. 7)

There is also a link at the right you can follow to find more stories about the proceedings.

Please also feel free to e-mail me with any questions, and I will try to post some more detailed background soon.

Inquiry into Afghan shootings begins at Camp Lejeune

BY JENNIFER HLAD

January 3, 2008 - 8:53PM

DAILY NEWS STAFF

CAMP LEJEUNE — A court of inquiry into the shooting of civilians in Afghanistan last year will convene Tuesday morning at Camp Lejeune.

The inquiry will examine what happened March 4 in the Nangahar Province in Afghanistan, when Army officials say a Marine special operations unit opened fire on the crowd along a roadway, killing as many as 19 civilians and injuring 50 others.

Proceedings will begin at 8 a.m Tuesday and are expected to last two weeks.

The court of inquiry will consider whether the Marines followed rules of engagement, as well as examining the conduct of the convoy, fire discipline, reporting and documentation of the incident, and the command climate in the company, according to a Marine Corps press release.

Three senior commissioned officers with combat experience will make up the court, and the officers will consider evidence gathered by Naval Criminal Investigative Service investigators and other sources, according to the release.

The officers will specifically examine the roles of Maj. Fred C. Galvin, who was the company’s commander at the time of the shootings, and Capt. Vincent J. Noble, the platoon commander at the time.

The court of inquiry is a fact-finding process designed to determine what happened and where responsibility may lie, according to the press release. It is not a criminal proceeding, and none of the Marines have been charged with violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The court will present its findings to Lt. Gen. Samuel Helland, commander of U.S. Marine Corps Forces Central Command, who will make a decision about how to proceed.

posted by Jennifer Hlad on Jan 8

Staff Sgt. Jose Queiro, who was the gunner in the vehicle Capt. Nobles and Travers were in during the convoy and shootings, testified this afternoon.

On the road from the base to the Torkham Gate (the convoy’s first destination that day, an area near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border), Queiro said the weather was rainy, muddy and cold, but he remembers that most of the vehicles were pulling to the side of the road and “no one was impeding our movement, which surprised me.”

On the way back toward the base, Queiro said more vehicles were refusing to yeild to the convoy, forcing the Marines to wave them over or throw rocks to get them out of the way.

Queiro was facing north – looking between houses by the side of the road to ensure no one would come out unexpectedly — when, out of the corner of his eye, he saw one of the biggest explosions he has ever seen.

“This thing was loud, huge and a big, big fireball,” he said.

Travers told Capt. Nobles “vehicle two is gone,” because he could not believe that anyone survived the blast.

No one was firing at the vehicle he was riding in, he said.

“I’ve been IED’d, I’ve been shot at, I’ve been mortared,” he said, explaining that he’d know if someone was shooting at him.

Queiro does not remember seeing anyone in the riverbed, but said that twice after the explosion there were people standing in the middle of the road, trying to impede the convoy’s movement.

Other men were standing on the side of the road, “watching the show like it was a reality show, a TV show,” he said.

Though Queiro did not see where the small arms fire was coming from, he said he knows that the three Marines who did fire would not have done so indiscriminately.

“I know if we fired back, we took bullets first,” he said. The men would not shoot “just for the hell of it.”

“It was controlled fire,” Queiro said. “There’s no doubt in my mind.”

posted by Jennifer Hlad on Jan 8

The last time the Marine Corps used a court of inquiry was in 1956 after a drill instructor marched a platoon of recruits into Ribbon Creek — so not everyone is clear on the logistics of a court of inquiry.

For clarity and background, public affairs officer Lt. Col. Sean Gibson provided a document explaining the differences between a court of inquiry and an Article 32 hearing.

“An article 32 investigation hearing is a judicial proceeding that takes place after criminal charges have been preferred against an individual. A court of inquiry is not a criminal proceeding,” the document reads.

“A court of inquiry is an administrative fact-finding body. It is not a criminal or judicial proceeding and it is important to remember that nobody has been accused of a crime. A panel of three or more officers (three in this case) is charged with examining into and inquiring into an incident, and when directed by the convening authority, provide findings of fact, opinions and recommendations about the incident.”

In this case, the court of inquiry will provide their findings to Lt. Gen. Samuel Helland, commander of U.S. Marine Corps Forces Central Command, who then will make a decision about how to proceed.

The investigating officer in an Article 32 hearing makes recommendations about possible administrative or disciplinary action against the accused person, according to the document provided by Gibson. But the recommendations by the panel after a court of inquiry can range from “recommendations about corrective action related to tactics, training and procedures,” or other recommendations in addition to administrative or disciplinary action.

So why is the Marine Corps using a court of inquiry for this incident?

According to the release from Gibson, “the convening authority wanted the facts and evidence available to be evaluated by a panel of senior officers with combat experience in order to get as complete an understanding as what occured and where responsibility may lay before making any further decisions.”