3rd U.S. G.I. Pleads In Iraq Murder Case
A Marine pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and conspiracy to obstruct justice before testifying that his squad executed a civilian he thought was an insurgent.
Lance Cpl. Tyler A. Jackson, 23, was the third serviceman to plead guilty to reduced charges in return for his testimony in the case in which seven Camp Pendleton-based Marines and a Navy corpsman were charged with killing 52-year-old Hashim Ibrahim Awad in the Iraqi village of Hamdania.
Jackson, who entered the pleas through his attorney, Thomas Watt, at a military court hearing, said the shooting occurred after the squad hatched a plan to kidnap an insurgent who was suspected of being responsible for several explosions, including one that killed four Marines.
Three members of Jackson's unit went into Hamdania on April 26 and returned with a prisoner who was then shot by the side of a road on the orders of squad leader Sgt. Lawrence G. Hutchins, Jackson said.
"Sgt. Hutchins ordered us to get on line," Jackson testified. "Everyone fired rounds, including myself, but I fired my rounds above him. I knew he was going to be shot, but I didn't want to be the one to do it."
Jackson said that to his knowledge the man was a known insurgent. He learned later that it was Awad, he said. He said another serviceman told him that if anyone asked about the incident, he should "stick to the story," Jackson testified.
Previously, two other servicemen testified that a shovel and AK-47 were placed near the body to make it appear Awad was an insurgent planting a roadside bomb.
"If we were ever asked about the incident or how it came about, we would tell the story of the man who was digging a hole on the side of the road," Jackson said.
Petty Officer 3rd Class Melson J. Bacos, a Navy corpsman on patrol with the Marines, was the first to make a deal in the case. He pleaded guilty to kidnapping and conspiracy and was sentenced to a year in prison. Last month, Pfc. John Jodka III pleaded guilty to assault and conspiracy to obstruct justice in the incident.
In their testimony, both Jodka and Bacos also singled out Hutchins as hatching the plan to kidnap the insurgent. Hutchins' attorney, Rich Brannon, has said he did not believe Hutchins did anything wrong.
Jackson had pleaded not guilty to murder, kidnapping, larceny, housebreaking and another charge of conspiracy earlier in the hearing. Those charges were later dropped as part of his plea deal after he gave his account of the attack.
Jackson, who has been in military prison since May, faces a maximum of 15 years in prison when he is sentenced on Nov. 16. The term will likely be reduced by the plea agreement.
His father declined to comment. A Web site set up by Jackson's family to raise money for his defense said Jackson was innocent.
"To send these men to war to do a job and then imprison them for doing it is absurd," the Web site states.
© 2009 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Lance Cpl. Tyler A. Jackson, 23, was the third serviceman to plead guilty to reduced charges in return for his testimony in the case in which seven Camp Pendleton-based Marines and a Navy corpsman were charged with killing 52-year-old Hashim Ibrahim Awad in the Iraqi village of Hamdania.
Jackson, who entered the pleas through his attorney, Thomas Watt, at a military court hearing, said the shooting occurred after the squad hatched a plan to kidnap an insurgent who was suspected of being responsible for several explosions, including one that killed four Marines.
Three members of Jackson's unit went into Hamdania on April 26 and returned with a prisoner who was then shot by the side of a road on the orders of squad leader Sgt. Lawrence G. Hutchins, Jackson said.
"Sgt. Hutchins ordered us to get on line," Jackson testified. "Everyone fired rounds, including myself, but I fired my rounds above him. I knew he was going to be shot, but I didn't want to be the one to do it."
Jackson said that to his knowledge the man was a known insurgent. He learned later that it was Awad, he said. He said another serviceman told him that if anyone asked about the incident, he should "stick to the story," Jackson testified.
Previously, two other servicemen testified that a shovel and AK-47 were placed near the body to make it appear Awad was an insurgent planting a roadside bomb.
"If we were ever asked about the incident or how it came about, we would tell the story of the man who was digging a hole on the side of the road," Jackson said.
Petty Officer 3rd Class Melson J. Bacos, a Navy corpsman on patrol with the Marines, was the first to make a deal in the case. He pleaded guilty to kidnapping and conspiracy and was sentenced to a year in prison. Last month, Pfc. John Jodka III pleaded guilty to assault and conspiracy to obstruct justice in the incident.
In their testimony, both Jodka and Bacos also singled out Hutchins as hatching the plan to kidnap the insurgent. Hutchins' attorney, Rich Brannon, has said he did not believe Hutchins did anything wrong.
Jackson had pleaded not guilty to murder, kidnapping, larceny, housebreaking and another charge of conspiracy earlier in the hearing. Those charges were later dropped as part of his plea deal after he gave his account of the attack.
Jackson, who has been in military prison since May, faces a maximum of 15 years in prison when he is sentenced on Nov. 16. The term will likely be reduced by the plea agreement.
His father declined to comment. A Web site set up by Jackson's family to raise money for his defense said Jackson was innocent.
"To send these men to war to do a job and then imprison them for doing it is absurd," the Web site states.
Popular on CBSNews.com
-
Photos: Underground shots of NYC's Second Ave. subway project New York City's Second Ave. subway was first conceived almost a century ago and when it is completed, it will extend all the way down the eastern side of Manhattan with 16 new stations. CBS News' Don Dahler reports on one of the most challenging public works projects in the country.
- Reporter Michael Hastings dies at 33
- Google asks FISA court to lift gag order on NSA requests
- Tornado briefly touches down on Denver airport runways
- Girl who lost feet in lawnmower gets prosthetics
- Scientists say shipwreck timber in Lake Michigan centuries old
- Taliban: We killed 4 U.S. troops at Afghan air base
- FAA approval sought for 650-foot-tall Vegas thrill ride
- Report: U.S. teacher training an "industry of mediocrity"















"I have yet to see the UN peace keepers accused of rape in Africa be brought to justice. I think this speaks volumes to the kind of people we our...Wrong is Wrong and you will pay for it."
Absolutely.
If you commit a crime, regardless of whether you are in uniform or not, you should be punished.
As with any crime, it needs to be thoroughly investigated before charges can be laid.
One would hope that in the case of the UN Peacekeepers, if there are charges to be answered, hopefully those involved will face a trial and the appropriate punishment.
However, don't presume that only the US punishes those responsible when a crime is committed - other countries do as well.
The crime committed by the US soldiers (and other recent cases) amount to war crimes - yet, they aren't being tried in an international court of law.
Why not?
These soldiers had one thing on their minds - they wanted not just to kill someone - but to execute them.
And it didn't matter whether they were an innocent civilian or an insurgent.
The murder of the iraqi man did not happen in a firefight, it was not self defence - it was murder - plain and simple murder.
While I feel for the situation these soldiers were put in (I do not think they should have been there at all), their actions can in no way be condoned nor sanctioned.
These particular soldiers are, if the charges are correct (and it increasingly appears that they are) kidnappers and murderers - they just happen to be wearing a uniform.
If these men came home and committed the same acts, they would be punished - like any kidnapper or murderer.
Those in uniform no that they cannot commit these crimes.
This should be no different.
I sure wouldn't. If I am ever on a jury and the prosecution asks me to convict based upon testimony from such a compromised witness, I would completely discount the evidence and be very suspicious of the whole case.
Why are we so gullible as to accept this kind of abuse of justice?
We have sent troops to Iraq that have been driven mad by what they have seen... estimates varying from 50 to 100 have committed suicide...
Necessary as it may be... war is an entirely unnatural environment for a person to find themselves in & in such a environment, as appalled as we may be, one cannot surprised to discover that people, who are essentially trained to kill, step over the line...
Let's also remember that when we switch on the six o'clock news we do not see war... war today is sanitised... we are spared the sight of body parts strewn over Baghdad's highways or of people hideously injured or wounded by the wanton violence & killing... war has become Nintendo... if we saw the reality of war... its obscenity... if we wretched and barfed at the sight of war... then we would view any decision to wage it very carefully indeed...
We don't know what war is... words ike: "surgical" strike create the impression that no-one really gets hurt in war.... except the bad guys.. whilst the appalling term: "collateral damage" is supplanted for human beings (men, women & children) killed or injured as a result of war-making.. even in death... the innocent are denied their dignity as human beings....
and:
This war in Iraq is EXACTLY what the experts (the CIA, Pentagon) said it was going to be.
Fools rush in and that is what we did going into Iraq, so calling the people wanting this war stupid or arrogant fits the bill just fine.
GW Bush has nothing to do with the way the military is going to employ tactics.
The military commanders AND SOLDIERS do not want unnecessary deaths, but right now, they are on the ground in Iraq, by order of the President. People are dying all around our troops and they cannot do much about it. They do not know why they are there, or why the people in Iraq started killing each other.
If the experts said it would be this way, why did we not take the time to create a better plan? I think I know part of the reasons: "politics". The party wanting this war needed it to BEGIN quickly or it might never come to pass.
How unfortunate for our brothers and sisters in the military that they can be wasted along side of Iraqi people without a known, true and just cause.
Please vote the cursory Republicans out today.
It's not the troops fault they were put there and it's not their fault for following orders. So many of our troops are killed everyday and sometimes we don't even know if it's the insurgents or if it's the Iraqi people themselves. My brother-in-law is in Iraq right now. And when he heard about this all he said was, "I know it's wrong, but I know why they did what they did" So I wonder what else is happening over there that we here in America don't know about. Why the heck is this war so freaken secretive.
I grew up with Melson, I know he's a good person. I don't care what happens we will support him. I know it's not his fault, and I know he was just doing what he was told.
Why is it that our troops are punish for following orders.