Did you see that Disgusting Display by Paul Hackett our DU HERO!!!

Unbelievable! He's on with Noron O'Donnel on Hardball defending Haditha and trashing Robert Watadi the father of a serviceman who said he WILL NOT serve in Iraq because it's an ILLEGAL WAR...but he is proud to serve anywhere else in the Military i.e. Afghanistan, Kosovo...wherever.

Paul Hackett constantly trashed the son for making comments that Bush "lied us into war" and he acted like some RW War Monger. Hackett also says he's defending a Marine who was involved in Haditha and he said: "..in war mistakes are made and when you where the uniform you are obligated to follow the Commander in Chief no matter where they send you." Watadi replied that the UN's Kofi Annen had said he thought the war was illegal and that the military code says you are not obligated to follow illegal instructions." Hackett came back and said "When you wear the uniform you can't complain about your orders...the time to do that is when you come back and take off the uniform."

I had High Hopes for Hackett but it seems he's been "TURNED" and is looking for a job on MSNBC as a Military Analyst for the Right Wing.

It was just dreadful...DID ANYONE SEE IT!!!

I liked him... still do even though he says some things I don't agree with, but I am glad Brown is the OH nominee.

I now think Hackett must be mentally imbalanced. He shouldn't be given a platform as a 'Democrat' to tear at our core.

The Lt. says he'll accept the consequences of his actions. All this symbolism, with the uniform and all, is silly boys-club nonsense.


June 08, 2006
TACOMA, Wash. - 1st Lt. Ehren Watada, who joined the Army in March 2003, said he researched the reasons behind the U.S. involvement in Iraq and concluded the war is illegal and immoral.

"We have violated American law," Watada said. "We can't break laws in order to fight terrorism."

Watada said he would submit another request to resign but added, "I feel it is inevitable ... I will be charged and I will be punished." He said he could face prison time for failing to deploy.

Watada said he would be willing to serve in Afghanistan or elsewhere, but he said he believes intelligence on whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was manipulated "to fit a policy that was already implemented prior to 9-11," and he cited "mistreatment of the Iraqi people," saying it was "a contradiction to the Army's own Law of Land Warfare."

"I know that my case has brought a lot of attention and scrutiny on me by my superiors," Watada said. "I'm probably very unpopular, if not the most unpopular person on Fort Lewis. But I know out there are people who believe in what I'm saying."

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,100416,00.html

Could be the same thing. But, he took on a client.

He should of had better judgement. Kiss politics goodbye Paul.

that Sherrod Brown got the support of the party.

Hackett is far more conservative than people realized, which was why I was very glad to see one of my personal heroes, Sherrod Brown, become the senatorial nominee. Brown is a perfect nominee. I'm glad I'm out of Ohio now, but I sure wish I could vote for him. All my family and friends in OH sure are going to do so.

He never made any secret of it either, people merely heard those parts of his spiel which they liked.

were concerned with was keeping Mean Jean Schmidt the hell out of congress. In that respect, Hackett would have been far preferable to that witch.

might have given "hard earned" dollars to the guy and he turns out to be a toad in a jacket made by the Bushies...

He's got one helluva uphill climb to get his defendants off. It will be a miracle if he manages.

He's gotta be more military than thou to seed the perspective ahead of their courts-martial. If he comes off as pinko limpo he's screwing his clients.

He's going on the "only following orders" defense, it would appear.

very different -- he is doing his job.

There once was a small criminal defense firm in Pittsburgh, headed by two lawyers. Both lawyers were voted as among the Best Lawyers in Pittsburgh in a local monthly magazine. Upon being interviewed, one lawyer was asked how clients could choose between which of the two top lawyers to choose. He laughed, and said, "If you're guilty, I'm the best; if you're innocent, my partner's the best."

I clerked briefly in law school for a criminal lawyer who advertised on the law school bulletin board for a student to do some constitutional law research (he didn't mention his criminal law practise). Turned out he was the lawyer for the local porn/prostitution interests. This guy had graduated from Harvard Law with the noble intent to defend the poor from being railroaded into jail. He told me his first year of practise he had about 400 clients and couldn't even pay his office expenses. Told me he figured out that the only way to be a successful criminal attorney was to represent SUCCESSFUL CRIMINALS.

Criminal lawyers demand huge retainers up front. They don't ask where that money came from. So you get caught holding up one 7-11; hold up another one to get the $$$ to pay your criminal lawyer.

My point is that Hackett damn well knows the Geneva Convention and that "just following orders" is no defense for violating it. He's claiming as a defense that "mistakes were made". So he's saying yeah they did it, but it was a mistake, not a crime. He's seen all the evidence and reports - he knows what his client did. I would respect Hackett if he raised as a defense that the soldier had been driven insane by the circumstances of the war - and this case would give Hackett a great platform to attack the conduct of the war and Rumsfeld and Bush. But Hackett has chosen to argue that such a massacre was justified. Hackett is a legal whore by his own choice. I have only contempt for him.

what's contemptible is to judge him for doing the very best he can for his client.

it's what is at the very heart of adversarial law system.

he didn't make the rules -- but he is playing by the rules the very best he can for his client -- you would want him to do the same for you or for any loved one in the same circumstance.

ultimately this is bush's fault -- but that's not what is at stake here -- the only concern hackett has or is supposed to have is his client's defence.

That's from my personal Code of Ethics.
Lawyers' Codes of Ethics dance all around this one, particularly that you cannot allow your client to perjure him/herself, i.e., lie on the stand, including during cross-examination. This basically allows lawyers to mislead the juries and imply innocence while they refuse to let their client/ defendant take the stand. Are they hiding guilt? Damn right!

As to whether I would want a crim. atty. to get me or my loved ones off if we were guilty, No, I would not want this. To that end, I don't commit crimes. As to my "loved ones", maybe the reason my kids turned out really super people is that when they messed up as kids, they had to face the consequences.

I see enabling parents excuse their kids' rotten behavior starting as todlers and carrying right through into the "kids'" 30's & 40's. Even after said "kids" are convicted of the 3rd felony and doing hard time at a maximum security prison, Mom is calling up her elected officials and asking for them to influence a parole board because her little boy would NEVER have done anything wrong. (And bottom line, Mom was depending on that nice income Sonny Boy was bringing in with his drug dealing.) It's not just criminal lawyers who prostitute the justice system by getting guilty people off scot free. Corporate attorneys and big law firms representing white collar criminals do the same. Play golf with the judges and suddenly you're getting all kinds of favorable procedural rulings for your clients.

Our criminal justice system reeks of injustice because the poor are pressed to plea bargain even when innocent and our public defenders' system is underfunded and overworked. But criminals who will guarantee their attys. either top dollar or lots of face time and publicity (as is the case with Hackett) get the kind of bright but sleazy attys. who can beat the system. The O.J. Simpson case is one of the more eggregious examples.

which in turn COULD get you jailed if it turns out you were incompetent defending your client.

he is being a lawyer working for his client -- however distasteful that might be to you -- it IS his obligation to leave no stone un turned trying to do his best job.

the prosecuter will in turn do the same.

the rest of your story is anecdotal --

I don't think you have a clear understanding of the nuances of legal ethics, or even the difference between civil and criminal actions. I practised civil law, but that included some defense on lawyer malpractise cases. If lawyers are incompetent, they may get sued by their clients. Civil courts can impose fines; they do not imprison people. Lawyers also may have actions filed against them with the licensing authorities of their respective state bars or federal courts or adminstrative agencies, and subsequently be fined, penalized or disbarred. Again, they are not jailed - even though some of them may well deserve it, unless it's for something like embezzling from their clients, i.e, the lawyer directly committed a criminal act. (If that happens, the lawyer is charged in criminal court.) They do not get jailed for failing to raise a defense, or for urging their client to admit guilt and plea bargain.

I could work as a prosecutor in criminal actions, and have no problem recognizing and respecting all the constitutional rights of the accused. What I could NEVER do, is accept fees I knew to come from criminal activities, or play all the angles to let a criminal get by with no punishment, and back on the streets to continue their criminal activities. This whole thread started in consideration of attorneys defending soldiers accused of cold-blooded murder of civilian men, women and children, and/or then covering up the crime. If the accused are guilty - and the reports from the Pentagon's own investigations make it extremely likely that they are, and Hackett succeeds with his novel "shit happens in war" defense, what does it say to the rest of the soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan? What does it say in particular to the Aryan Nation skinheads whom we just learned are being recruited by the hundreds and are now in the war zones? Need I spell it out for you? It says, you can rape and murder civilians under the most eggregious circumstances, and get by with it. Pissed off cause your buddy got killed? Just head for the nearest civilian village and start blowing them away!

Why did the involved soldiers lie about receiving fire from the houses, and therefore firing back at the houses? Again, I will spell it out for you. They lied because they KNEW their actions were criminal.

Did you read the military's own investigation? Shots were fired only inside the houses. Women, old men and children were shot point blank in the head. I know a lot of fine military lawyers and Judge Advocates. And they don't go with the "shit happens" defense. To do so would violate the Geneva Conventions. It is not a legitimate defense. It is even LESS legitimate than the invalid, "I was just following orders."

And I suggest you sharpen your debate skills and invest in a dictionary. You seem to believe that by labeling information as anecdotal, you destroy it's validity. An anecdote is a short account of an interesting incident. My examples were factual, and based on over 20 years of practise as a civil attorney/govt. attorney/law professor teaching trial advocacy.

According to my personal code of ethics (and when I label it "personal", that means that I apply it only to myself) any lawyer who gets a guilty, violent criminal acquitted by playing the system, is personally responsible for the subsequent murders, rapes, child molestations, spouse battering, etc., which that criminal subsequently commits during the time they would have been incarcerated. Too bad those lawyers can't get jailed for the evil and violence they knowingly unleash upon society.

And I most sincerely hope that neither you nor anyone you care about is ever victimized by a violent criminal who was kept out of jail by a slick criminal lawyer who KNEW the SOB was guilty! Unfortunately, others will be.

has a right to a trial -- the accused can turn in a not guilty plea.

because YOU wish that he or hackett or anybody in fuckin fairy land would jump to the way you say they should doesn't make it so.

you made this about you and what you think should be done -- so may i suggest -- you go to the accused and with your very best persuasive abilities convince him to fire hackett and hire you.

and then you can you hold his hand to whatever path you want to lead him down.

this isn't your case -- this is hackett's case and he is defending the client the best way he sees fit.

in our legal system guilty people do get off -- because they are entitled to a vigorous defense -- whether you like it or not.


and by your logic -- if defense attorneys are going to weigh in on the guilt or innocence of clients -- then we might as well pack up the legal system and all go home and never leave the house.

this country has a significant history of railroading people to prison -- that should never be the goal of our legal system.
an accused has a right to face his/her accusers and do the best he/she can to convince the jury of their innocence.


and snarky -- snide - superior comments about me and my family and my/our experience with being victimized is not relevant to this.

Yes, many people are railroaded into prison - and they are overwhelmingly poor - often minorities.
And Hackett could be defending them pro bono - but there's no money in it. There's no glamour or
publicity in those cases. As I pointed out in my first post, I learned from a very successful criminal lawyer, "Successful criminal attorneys represent successful criminals." Those lawyers' fees originate in criminal activities. It's a very sleazy set-up. Hackett doesn't HAVE to defend those soldiers - the military will provide them with counsel. Hackett craves the spotlight.

First year law students come in with often idealistic notions of doing good and effecting justice. They are then overwhelmed by the mercenary, uncaring "justice" system, and the majority of lawyers who don't invest any emotion in their cases and whose primary concern is logging enough billable hours to hang onto their 60+ hours a week associate jobs and someday make partner so they, too can golf with the judges.

I have done a lot of pro bono work for poor, usually elderly people who have been victimized by greedy landlords, heartless health insurance companies, bullying neighbors, etc. I have never accepted one penny from them - although they often wanted to try to pay me something out of their pitiful incomes. And this makes me a fool in the eyes of many attorneys, who never do ANY pro bono work.

I repeat, you live in some la-la land where if something bad should happen to you or yours, you need to believe the judicial system will protect you. You're angry that I point out that when the guilty go free, they proceed to commit more of the same or worse crimes, and their victims will be people in their communities. What, do you think putting one over on the courts
magically REFORMS them? They go forth and sin no more?
Why do I bother to ask you questions - you never answer them.

How's he supposed to pay his rent and buy groceries??? Just because people go on TV, it doesn't mean they are rich. They grab a couple of hundred bucks for an appearance, fee, and maybe get a free plane ride and hotel out of it, but that's chump change.

He's out of service, he's got campaign debt, and he didn't have enough time in to get a retirement pension. He has to make a living.

The accused reached out TO Hackett, not the other way around. And the accused now has at LEAST two lawyers--one assigned by the military (and sometimes more than one, depending on the charges) and Hackett. Just because the accused elects civilian counsel, which he pays for himself, that doesn't stop the military one from staying on the team as an advocate as well.

The legal system may be lousy, but that's a tale for another thread.


What should Hackett do? Panhandle between pro bono cases? Work part time at Mickey D's?

with his own firm in Cinncinnati. He's not working at McDonalds. Just saying...

http://www.hackettlaw.com/

sandbox for however long his deployments lasted. They don't make up the diff--you eat it.

I don't begrudge the guy an opportunity to earn his daily bread. I'm sure his W-2 isn't bulging; and odds are he's cutting the accused a break on his fees, too--if he isn't doing it gratis. We really don't know, do we...we don't know if he knew this guy from before, or what...

is aked what they want to plead.

how simple does it have to be for you -- mr experienced lawyer?

the accused wants to plead innocent -- and the lawyer representing him/her has a job to do.

you keep wanting to talk about you -- IT AIN'T ABOUT YOU!
i don't care how long you have been an attorney how much pro-bono work you've done or anything else.

this is only about hackett and the fact that he has a right to conduct his defense of his client in the fashion he has chosen.

that's it. that's all.

you want to talk about a bunch of horse shit that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

you might find this piece of info interesting -- from marie26

My purpose is to separate his name from the alleged war crimes that took place," Hackett told The Associated Press. "He's not under investigation for anything related to what has played out in the press." So the defense is actually the opposite - he's arguing the Haditha soldiers weren't following orders, but acted on their own w/o Kimber's approval or knowledge. Kimber apparantly doesn't face any charges at all at this time - he retained a lawyer to protest his military reassignment. So why is Hackett loudly proclaiming the innocence of people who he doesn't even represent? Why is he making public statements that could hurt his own client's defense? Maybe he likes the publicity? I don't know. There's lots of news stories quoting Hackett's statements about the Marines who committed the Haditha killings & it gives the impression that he represents these soldiers. He does not.
Marine Irked at Inclusion in Haditha Case -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...
Lawyer: Officers Not Linked to Alleged Killing -
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13048452 /

and trash someone who is following their conscience.

the best interest of their client -- you would want the same if -- god forbid -- you found yourself in a dicey legal situation.

he is obligated to provide a VIGOROUS defense.

And that attorney's job is to do whatever is in the best interest of his/her client. What the soldiers at Haditha did was horrible but even those who commit the most horrible crimes still should have attorneys. I can't lose respect for Hackett because he doesn't take the defense that is in the best interest of the country over the best interest of his client. That's simply not the way that the legal system works.

He's representing Capt. James Kimber, the captain of a Marine battalion. Some Marines in that battalion were allegedly involved in the Haditha killings. Kimber was in a different city at the time of the Haditha massacre, and does not face any criminal charges related to the Haditha massacre. According to Hackett, Kimber is not even a target of the Haditha investigation. Kimber says he was never told about any alleged atrocities against civilians while he was in Iraq & states that he didn't even find out about the Haditha massacre until Time published its story. Kimber says he was removed from his post as a "political casualty" & is upset that his name has been linked to the Haditha incident.

"My purpose is to separate his name from the alleged war crimes that took place," Hackett told The Associated Press. "He's not under investigation for anything related to what has played out in the press." So the defense is actually the opposite - he's arguing the Haditha soldiers weren't following orders, but acted on their own w/o Kimber's approval or knowledge. Kimber apparantly doesn't face any charges at all at this time - he retained a lawyer to protest his military reassignment. So why is Hackett loudly proclaiming the innocence of people who he doesn't even represent? Why is he making public statements that could hurt his own client's defense? Maybe he likes the publicity? I don't know. There's lots of news stories quoting Hackett's statements about the Marines who committed the Haditha killings & it gives the impression that he represents these soldiers. He does not.

Marine Irked at Inclusion in Haditha Case -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/02/AR2006060200180.html

Lawyer: Officers Not Linked to Alleged Killing -
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13048452/

He's just another Neo-Conservative. We need to weed these fuckers out of the Democratic party.

He couldn't hold a candle to Brown and he didn't.

Hackett was completely disgusting on Hardball. He should join Lieberman and go sit with the Repugs and the sooner the better.

and I think that's really sickening. When we Dems think we find someone who can be glib and sure of themselves and fight back against Repugs (I saw him perform very well against Repugs on Talk Show) and then it turns out they are nothing but Repug Plants.....well...I guess it means we either better get our "Framing Issues" resolved better or do Google for as much dirt on any Dem who tries to run as we can.

I really was thrown a curve ball by his performance on MSNBC. AND...what's worse is that MSNBC knew Hackett had been turned and so threw him on there just to make those of us on the LEFT who supported him with our own Money be discouraged that we FELL FOR HIS what seems to be ACT early on!

It's all part of their "Psy Ops Campaign" to discourage and defeat us.

Were they RUNNING Hackett all along? And some of us got "hoodwinked" is what I wonder. How could we have been so naive? :shrug:

when I first saw him on TV after he got out of the race. That guy is not impressive.

We just don't have many good Dems in Ohio, just look at that Strickland, I'm just so disappointed the party didn't run a better candidate. Brown is sterling and I just pray he wins!

Noron giving him all the air time as she did her gutteral laugh ....which was after she had Pig Ben Ginsberg on with Whore DLC'er Bob Shrum...I guess I should have figured MSNBC under Dan Abram's is going to the RIGHT of FAUX NEWS with their NEW PROGRAMMING.

It's just Disgusting from any which way one looks at it. Noron O'Donnell is like the girl who "lap danced" while laughing her way to the TOP and since she's filling in for "Tweety" who lap danced his way with Jack Welch to Fame and Fortune... Well..what else can one say about "MEDIA WHORES FOREVER."

That father was courageous, sorry I don't remember his name, but he was a very strong spokesman for his son who is refusing to serve in Iraq. I don't know why Hackett was setup on Hardball to cream him.

as a DEMOCRAT, FGS!!!!

It is totally disgusting.........and Dan Abrams new RULE OF MSNBC seems to be to the RIGHT OF FAUX that he would have allowed this shows that the RAMP UP to "SELECTION" Mid-Terms is in FULL FORCE!

Media Whores...MSNBC........WAR HAWK WHORES..CNN and what are the average Americans who expect CABLE to give them TRUE, FAIR, and Balanced Views left with? CIA/FBI/BUSHCO/CRIME FAMILY "PAP" to listen to before they get their kids off to Soccor Practice!

Well....maybe we just have to work harder. ? :shrug:

I have to say the Hackett thing is kind of OTT.........and I wonder about "BACKLASH!" In that WE WILL VET CANDIDATES more CAREFULLY in the future.

:shrug:

was, as it happens, chair of our state Campaign Spending Commission until recently. In fact, he is a war resister himself, from the Vietnam era: he ended up in the Peace Corps, after which the mofo's still tried to draft him!

his Dad was a war resistor? Anyway, hopefully this will be a test case against Bush and they have good lawyers and his Dad would have good connections enough to find a good lawyer.

months ago when I mentioned that I thought he was a REPUBLICON I got all kinds of angry responses.

It seemed to me that he did a 360 Degree Turn......:-(

The "What have you done for me lately?" crowd has arrived.

I'm going to sit this one out.

and still expect to be considered Democrats or Democratic allies.

posted. This was a "SET UP" to get to us Progressives.

If you are a DLC'er is the only way I could understand your bizarre to me post. :puke:

I was only half listening at first, but I had to do a doubletake when they said it was Paul Hackett. He seems to be much more conservative than what I thought. I thought I heard him say that whether the "war" is illegal or not is a philisophical and academic debate for law school class??? Huh? :eyes:

And I agree with Hackett's take on all this: the accused are presumed innocent before being proved guilty. There are a lot of people -- on both sides of the political aisle -- who have made rush, kneejerk condemnations about the Marines in question.

Dems didn't want Hackett? Fine.

Don't stop him from acting like a defense attorney and saying things that are designed to help his client, though. Attorneys are salesmen...and that's what's Hackett is being now, a salesman.

father? I think he should use those type of tactics in the courtroom and not on national TV.

And how does this help his client? I don't see this as helpful to the client....what I see is Hackett wanting attention. It's all about him...as usual.

I didn't see it.

His comments on Abu Ghraib were similar. He was very disgusted commanders were not really held accountable and basically said the same thing about soldiers not really having the freedom out in the field to disobey direct orders and that leadership has to be held to more accountability.

Not having served I can't really comment on the validity of his argument but he does seem to be consistent here. Part of the reason he was running to begin with was because he wanted us out of Iraq so the grunts on the ground were not put in these idioticly insane situations. That was my take.

Hackett might've been involved in some war crimes himself in Iraq. Wild speculation, yeah, but it would explain a lot of his recent behavior.

ETA: Not that he's a war criminal. Just that maybe he's reacting so strongly because some of the things he himself saw while in Iraq.

:eyes:

Yet I can't help feeling that alone doesn't explain the vehemence of Hackett's statements on this issue.

I don't know for sure, but it seems very likely to me (and it stops me from randomly accusing military veterans of war crimes).

He's acting against his client's best interests, IMO. So, there's got to be something else compelling him to make some of these remarks. In fact, when he's describing Murtha, he says the exact things that his critics have said about him. Ex: "I don't know if he's gotten addicted to the microphones and the cameras. For him to continue to foam at the mouth, it's irresponsible, it's stupid, it's wrong." Projection much? Murtha is foaming at the mouth? It's just odd. I'm just thinking out loud here; I have no idea what Hackett did in Iraq. For all I know he sat at a desk all day. I'm just trying to understand Hackett's actions here. FWIW, I'm not a Brown supporter & I don't mean to (intentionally) slander Hackett; I'm just curious.

In fact, his suggestion that Murtha had become "addicted to the microphones" was a direct response to Murtha's contention that the Haditha Marines had "killed in cold blood". When a U.S. Congressman esentially calls your client a cold-blooded killer, I believe it's part of your job as a defense attorney to attempt to discredit the source of that statement.

It's my belief that Hackett's simply doing his job. His first responsibility is to his client, not the political party that said they didn't want him. He's fulfilling that responsibility, and part of that entails attempting to discredit negative statements about his client...even if the person who makes that statement is Murtha.

he needs psychiatric help. He has a powerful mean streak and NO ONE can ever disagree with him. He cares only about himself....hopefully his public career is over. He would have made a terrible public servant.

Has it occurred to you that a defense attorney will occasionally make strong statements to the press to help his client's case (especially if the case has gained national exposure).


It's part of the job to look like a loose cannon sometimes.

It's sad when a hero falls off the pedestal and folks still are looking for rationalizations to uphold their errors in judgment.

The man needs mental health help. As do most warriors who come back from an illegal war. I am so tired of the Ruling Elites shouting patriotic slogans and all the macho men jump over themselves to be the first to gun down the 'enemies.'

It takes a real hero to uphold Peace.

He's shown his "mean streak" on numerous occasions, not just when defending clients. No wonder his own campaign staff didn't like him.
It seems what he is doing now suits him best - being an attorney/media novelty act.

"wild speculation"? that's putting it mildly


and here i thought we didn't make knee jerk reactions around here. :eyes:

I know. Totally unfair; I shouldn't have posted that & all flames are justified. But it's an intuitive thing. I've wondered this since I found out he served in Fallujah - there was some bad fighting going on there, including the use of white phosphorus. And his reaction is so over-the-top, it seems like a possible explanation. He's defending a Haditha soldier; but his recent comments don't do anything to help his client & might actually hurt him. A good attorney would know better than to start slamming a war hero like Murtha - talk about alienating a jury. It seems very personal for Hackett, very reactive & irrational. He seems to have a deep sense of identification w/these Haditha soldiers. IMO, people will act like that when there's something they're projecting, or hiding from themselves.

He bristles at any suggestion that this was an illegal war, because he served in it too, & he needs to believe that he was simply "obligated to follow orders" from the Commander In Chief. He also bristles at any suggestion that the Haditha soldiers engaged in war crimes - he'll only say "in war mistakes are made." Maybe because he secretly wonders about how some of his own actions, or mistakes, during the Iraq war could be perceived in the US. Not that his actions were war crimes, but that he worries they might be. Maybe he's projecting & reacting to the suggestion that anything he personally did in the Iraq war was wrong, or a crime. Like by demeaning Murtha, & defending these soldiers, he can defend his own service & silence the critics - and maybe his own inner critic as well. /psycho-babble.

bothering with? I'm seeing some ignores on this post and I figure the reason I put them there there means it was important...even though I only
have a handfull on DU on IGNORE.

something to do w/the epic Hackett/Brown flame wars? :) They said it was inappropriate & I basically agree.

They aren't combat ready fighting guys, they're the ones who are farting aroud trying to get the school repaired or the sewage cleaned up off the streets. Not much opportunity for "war crimes" when you aren't in "combat."

To be clear, I'm not saying that Hackett is a war criminal or anything. I'm just wondering if he's projecting his own doubts about the war, and the morality of his service, onto Murtha. On a psychological level, not a real level, if that makes sense (probably not). I'm just interested in people's motivations & reactions, so I'm trying to understand why Hackett keeps lashing out like this. I don't mean to imply anything specific about what Hackett did or didn't do in Iraq; I don't know.

Murtha starting talking. And he figured the best defense is a good offense. Had he not come out strong, at the outset, vigorously, it would have suggested that he felt Murtha's comments applied to his clients.

I think it is just basic lawyering that makes him say the things he says. He's got a living to earn and a profile to keep up; so he's gonna do what is good for Mistah Hackett.

And what's good for Mistah Hackett is pulling off a minimum sentence or even a walk for his clients.

But the thing is, Hackett isn't defending the actual participants in the Haditha massacre, he's defending the commanding officer. And according to his statements, his argument is simply that the commanding officer was not aware of, or responsible for, any crimes that may have taken place. In that context, rants against Murtha or other war critics aren't particularly helpful to his client's cause. Have you seen any other lawyer involved in the various prosecutions going around saying this kind of stuff? I sure haven't. IMO, it's just bad representation & it seems to be more about Mistah Hackett than his client.

I tried to debunk my own stunningly stupid comment & find out what Hackett actually did in Iraq. He was stationed in Fallujah during the siege of Nov. 2004. While he served in Fallujah, his unit was apparently responsible for manning checkpoints & determining when people & supplies could enter the city. He also issued ID cards to anyone who wanted to re-enter the city after the Fallujah battle. Hackett appears briefly in an Iraqi filmmakers' documentary about the siege of Fallujah, where he states that Fallujans could "keep the ID card as a souvenir". http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/25/155226 He was also involved in combat on at least one occasion, while traveling from Ramadi to Fallujah. It's pretty hard to find much information about Hackett's exact responsibilities during his time in Fallujah. But then, it's hard to know anything about what happened during the Fallujah seige since most media coverage was barred.

...and the GOVERNMENT does not comment on ongoing investigations. You won't hear them saying anything about anything--they can't, they won't.

Hackett is doing what defense attorneys do--it's a trash talk game, it signifies nothing, it just may get a few people wondering and discussing the matter, and he just may reach someone who sits up on the courts-martial. His goal is to make his client look as innocent and victimized by the process as possible, and fake outrage is one way to play it. YOU may think beating up Jack Murtha may not be the way to play it, but Hackett is probably counting on getting a load of BUSHCO types on that CM...in which case, Murtha bashing is a plus from his perspective.

The only people with civilian counsel are the defendants, you see. And civilian counsel is something they go out and get ON THEIR OWN, and PAY FOR, otherwise they get an 0-2 from the fresh-cut JAG pool (or occasionally, a ballsy 0-4 who just doesn't give a shit about the military and is in it for the justice). It's optional. And usually, people get it when the stakes are really high.

As the officer in charge of the unit perpetrating the offenses, that kid Hackett is defending (he's more like a division officer, really, despite the fancy "commanding officer" title, responsible for a small group of personnel--not hundreds or thousands) is going to take the heat--the old "he should have known" prosecution. Failure to maintain good order and discipline, failure to adequately supervise, blah, blah...and so on. Get out the book, they'll toss it at the guy. Doubt they'll go any higher than that, though, if they can get away with it--sorta like the LT CALLEY of his day....If this kind of crap is going on, you need to look at the culture that fosters it--there have been too many incidents to put all the blame down to a single bad apple or two. Or even a single front line supervisor or OIC. I say look UP, to the senior leadership. Look WAY up.

People need to separate HACKETT the politician from HACKETT the lawyer. The politician ship has sailed, off into the sunset and over the horizon==he has said as much. He's making his stones as a lawyer now--that's his gig, and he's sticking to it, for now, anyway. He needs MONEY, clearly, and the higher his rep, the more he can charge.

As for his Iraq duties, if people are shooting at you, you shoot back, but Hackett was civil affairs--and that isn't infantry. Now granted, ALL Marines are trained to be groundfighters first, they PRIDE themselves on that, but the truth is that the ones who do it all the time are WAY better than the ones who just have to qualify every so often. He certainly, like Jessica Lynch, who was a truck driver, not infantry, found himself getting shot AT, but his job was not the "house to house" streetfighting duties that the poor bums on patrol have to deal with. In fact, an Arlen Specter staffer, defending Hackett against "in the rear with the gear" charges and Rush Limpballs swiftboating, described his situation over there as follows:

“That’s just bullshit,” counters Marine Corps Major William Reynolds, who is communications director for Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and also served with Hackett in Iraq. “Paul was under fire, mortared, and IED’d.” Reynolds notes that politically, he and Hackett “didn’t agree, but it was a real delight to have him over there. As a Marine, he was a trusted person on the ground. You knew when you were there you could count on him.”

For his part, Hackett simply says that he considers himself lucky. In the course of his seven months in Iraq, he survived some near misses, including wrestling an insurgent to the ground in Fallujah and a roadside bomb that exploded in front of his Humvee. “We had some outrageously close calls combined with outrageously good luck, where in any other circumstances on any other day, people would have died.”

Even he says, the guy was there, and like so many, getting shot AT, getting IED'd, getting mortared. Nothing wrong with that--everyone has a job to do, but not everyone shipped over there is a poor sad sack in a Hummer on patrol, knife in his teeth, shooting at people, and sweating getting blown up every day. Some just do their duty and risk being on the receiving end of the violence.

At any rate, Hackett did his duty. He took a stab at politics, and now he's moved on to lawyering.

And even though one thing led to the next, they're all kinda separate and distinct phases of his life.

My point is that he is not representing the accused Marines in the Haditha incident. His client, Capt. James Kimber, is not being court-martialed at this time & it's not clear that he ever will be. His punishment has already been meted out - he was reassigned & given a desk job. Which he is upset about. So far, there hasn't been any evidence that this guy will be charged at all; though that could happen in the future. Once that happens, Hackett's comments might make a little more sense to me. I'm not thinking about Hackett the Senator; I'm just puzzled at Hackett the Lawyer's tactics here. He's representing the commanding officer & his strategy is to state that Kimber didn't know of, approve, etc. the massacre. From that perspective, it doesn't matter much if the soldiers acted w/premeditation, or snapped, or whatever. He just needs to show that Kimber doesn't share responsibility. Hackett himself said that he is only "seperating" Kimber from any war crimes that may have happened - he's not denying war crimes occured. So, why is it so important to slam Murtha to accomplish this defense? Why does he keep speaking on behalf of the convoy of Haditha marines when he's not representing them? It just doesn't seem to serve a valid purpose. Maybe there's some right-wingers he'll make happy, probably equally balanced by the Marine veterans he'll offend. I just think it's a bad tactic, that's all. I understand Hackett has a client to represent, but IMO this is an odd way of doing that. It just doesn't seem to be in his client's best interest. But, none of us know exactly what's happening w/that investigation, & maybe his strategy will end up being pretty brilliant at the end of it all.

matters, such as appealing an assignment. There's a whole flag/general assignment review process that one can go through if one feels that a hosing re: assignment has taken place. Once you do that senior level review, if ya still wanna gripe, the best thing to do is get a Senator on the SASC to weigh in for you, if you possibly can. And assignments (though we know better in real life) are not "punishment"--they're simply an indicator of "future potential" and needs of the Service and the individual (that's the bullshit they hand one, anyway!).

I think this guy might have been told he's going to a desk because they've got a sword hanging over his head, and they don't want to waste any of the "good" slots(read: assignments that make one more promotable, like major operational and joint tours) on a guy they might be lowering the boom on, anytime now.

I've got no inside track on this, I'm just saying something isn't jiving. He may not be charged, but he can't be cleared (REALLY cleared, I mean--not on paper). They wouldn't waste someone that well seasoned in a totally lame assignment that a civilian could handle.


Responsibility and authority go hand in hand. If you are a senior enlisted leader, divison officer, department head, or commander, you're responsible, and accountable, for your people. Not knowing isn't an excuse. That does NOT mean if someone goes off the page it's your fault, but if there is demonstrated to be a (forgive the overused phrase) "culture of corruption" or worse, a culture of murder that the chain of command had an awareness about (even if they turn a blind eye to the details), there's gonna be some serious hell to pay.

Hackett is seeding the field for a reason...guess time will tell. The guy likely called on Hackett because he knew him, either personally or by reputation. Could be Hackett has a relationship with some of the NCIS guys doing the investigations.....ya never know.

He even mentioned that he had volunteered to do so. There were pictures of him on patrol in Fallujah floating around the 'net, I was trying to find them.

He went out on patrol like the chaplain goes out every so often, to get an idea of how horrible it is. But volunteering to sit in the back seat isn't the same as being forced to do it, night after night, and not wanting to go.

It wasn't his main thing, even if he dabbled every once and again. Being the OIC of a Civil Affairs detachment, it is unlikely that he had much TIME to go farting around on patrol, to be blunt about it.

He was in Ramidi and Fallujah, and I am sure that getting out to see what was happening in the streets gave him an idea as to what he was up against with his own eyes as opposed to dealing with what local Iraqi civilian functionaries wanted him to hear or see....


Having said that, I still never cared for the man as a candidate, as many here seem to think that he walked on water. If some here had done any research on Hackett at all, they would have found some of the very conservative positions he held. I wonder how many here would vote for him if they knew he was a life-long NRA member, and had a concealed carry permit?

Just wonderin'.

Congressional, he made it perfectly clear that a woman couldn't "carry 80 pounds and kick in doors in Fallujah."

When he said that...I thought about the family on the other side of the door. I thought about how I would feel if the military showed up and kicked my door in in the middle of the night.

But then I don't glorify war and warriors. I want to see the day when a war is declared and no one shows up to fight in it.

IMO, anyway.

Is it because he needs the money (because what Lib Dems coughed up wasn't enough) or was he just running to "cover his butt" and just because he's a lawyer he now thinks he can cash in with more sensationalism.

When he said "You put the uniform on and that obligates you to follow the "Commander in Chief" it caused me to wince. (I'm doing a consensus quote of what he said but it's accurate to what I heard)

He actually sounded like a Prosecutor on Bush/Rummy's Side rather than an "uninvolved" bystander who just happens to have a Law Degree. It was just so dreadful to see the evil there from one who ran as a Democrat..........

I'm still trying to wrap my brain around it. :-(

Yes, he's defending the Marines in Haditha because it's AMERICAN to defend the innocent until proven guilty.

Or did you forget that part of Constitutional law?

Dear Lord - he's defending his clients.

I don't know about that - he was a JAG in the Marines & does seem to have strong loyalty to the military. Probably much stronger than to the Democratic Party. He might well feel a sense of duty to defend this soldier. That sentence makes me wince, too, but that might just be a former Marine thinking like a Marine. From a soldier's point of view, I guess that is their obligation. Hackett's got some surprising parts to his personality, though, for sure. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around what he's all about too.

constipation of the brain. He's wrong on the facts, I think. I believe one is required to disobey orders that one knows to be illegal. We stretched a number of necks in Germany after WWII in rejection of the "I was just following orders" defense.

In any case, I don't see how it applies to this. War crimes are war crimes, and murder is murder. What does "following the commander in chief" have to do with the sorts of atrocities that we've been seeing in Iraq? What's Hackett's point? What does his statement have to do with acts of violence perpetrated against civilians? Is he claiming that these soldiers are being ordered to attack unarmed civilians, and that it's OK because you're just following orders?

I'm glad this guy had the plug pulled on him. He needs to realize that morons belong in the Republican party, and then re-register as one.

Just follow Hitler's orders and you will be OKAY! :eyes: How much more dreadful can things become? :shrug:

way.

((i won't say his job, but decently high up the chain)) and he said hackett was a complete ASS -- a loose cannon.

so this doesn't surprise me.

and we caught a lot of hell for it. I don't think I'll ever forgive him for the dirty tactics and smear campaign he used agains Sherrod Brown, and I'm a pretty forgiving person.

At least most folks are beginning to see the light and hope they now realize that Hackett's loose cannon personality is probably the reason why Sherrod had to reverse his decision and get into the Senate race.

NGU.

masquarading as a democrat for the conservatives to hold seats, and I believe that there are many more maybe even this lamont guy but for now I want lieberman out because he gets in dems face knowing that he is an Republicon.

like he did. I understand that Wes might have Hackett's view of the "Military Code of Honor" but SHEESH! Iraq really WAS an ILLEGAL WAR!

:shrug:

to turn me against Hackett.

Not against Sherrod Brown.

Your point?

Did you back Liebermann for VP in 2000? :eyes:

He was on the Majority Report, and Janeane asked him a question about the soldiers, using the word as a catch-all phrase for people in the military. Hackett when on a rant that she left out the sailors, airmen and Marines, and that was the reason the left doesn't have any credibility with the military, because they do things like that. It really turned me off. My distaste for him increased when I heard him filling in for Jerry Springer, and I was relieved that he dropped out of the Senate race. Sherrod Brown is a much better man.

found him repulsive.

I just didn't like the way it was handled by the establishment.

They should have just let Hackett lose in the primary. He would have too.

but we were just DLC whores. I'm not surprised, he had always supported finishing the job in Iraq, etc.

Many on DU will follow you anywhere.

the rest. We here on DU are a very savvy bunch...and I didn't see YOU questioning Ken Lay's "Convenient Demise" either...:shrug:

Nwo I know why the Democratic Party didn't waste too much time with him.

Holy crap! Is that what's considered "right wing" these days?

He was merely reciting the law.

I stuck around to watch the replay after seeing this thread. I expected a ranting Hackett but all I saw was a very respectful discussion from both sides. Hackett said when you join the military you know the rules including not speaking out against the president. That's basically all there was to it.

I watched it as well and was expecting something very different than what I saw. I thought both sides were very respectful. Paul Hackett even said that he has said much worse criticisms of the President and the war, but it was after he was done with his stint in the military and out of uniform.

Though I respect and will support Lt. Watada's position and see what I can do as a private citizen, I did not think that Paul Hackett came across as anything but a lawyer reciting what the law states.

more and more of this.

so I can see where this soldier is coming from. If I'd joined up I would have gone anywhere but Iraq. Iraq was Illegal.

war. The US military has to answer to the CIC and the US government, not the UN, or you and me. It is our job as citizens to hold this government accountable if we believe they have started and illegal war. Many citizens have not done their part either because they are indifferent or they actually still support this "war." The troops do not get to decide what is and is not an illegal war based on their own feelings. I happen to agree with Lt. Watada, but he is going to have to face his court-martial because he is violating the UCMJ. Lt. Watada has some problems as well because IIRC, he joined after Iraq had started and then decided he didn't want to go. The large majority of the military, even those who vehemently oppose the "war" and hate *, will still not support Lt. Watada because of the commitment he made to his fellow soldiers.

different kind, though. It's time someone stood up to Presidents lying us into war. Bush is caught red handed in this one with the missing WMD's. That's a little different from others wars that we might have been dragged into by other Presidents that we didn't find out until years later had lied to us. I would think it's a Constitutional issue. I'm glad that Watada is at least bringing it into the open. It's important to do it.

The list goes on and on.

I view it as TREASON...

*a crime that undermines the offender's government
*disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior
*treachery: an act of deliberate betrayal

husband list.

Yes, Paul Hackett supports war crimes. He could smell the flesh burning as the white phosphorus burned the flesh of innocent Iraqis, but that was just super from the perspective of Paul Hackett. Paul Hackett supports war crimes.

people off death row or in post-conviction get them off death row...so do you think I support capital murder?

You don't smell burning flesh in a courtroom.

That he would get even with the Dems after his incident in Ohio. I can't remember where I heard it but I thought he said something like it. thats why Im not surprised.

office. He is part of the Fighting Dems - Band of Brothers so I seriously doubt it.

It doesn't surprise me that he gave up the race so easily either.
What an f-ing jerk.

but are willing to volunteer a kneejerk condemnation.

thread.

Makes more sense now that he didn't make the cut. Gadz what an asshat!. Definitely NOT a Democrat....

I donated when he ran against Schmidt.

I got a "thank you" card months later, right when he started running again for Senate.

Did you even see the discussion that the OP is talking about?

media, House, overseas colonies, corpos, monolithic White House all begin sliding into each other faster and ever faster

I wrote him off there and then.

I remember someone here at DU givin' me shit cause I hadn't gone and worked on Hackett's campaign. Acted as though no other political work mattered. There was a group of posters here who rather preened over their effort for Hackett and I don't think I see any of 'em in this thread. Just goes to show, takes more than grabbing the tail of a rising star and riding till it burns out/falls. It takes party building precinct by precinct in between elections.

On another note, I'll bet Whore-a O'Donnell was mighty moist listening to Hackett play the right wing ass-wipe.

Julie

n/t

and taking it right to the Pentagon and White House, in court, a good thing?

I'm not a Paul Hackett fan, but before I begin stating an opinion one way or another, I'd like to see the clip for myself. I thought his comments about Murtha were out of line and unbecoming of an officer, but I think his comments -- as you've reported them here -- could very well be posturing in order to defend his client(s). Clients who have yet to be PROVEN guilty in a court of law. Nonetheless, while watching the clip will not give me a definitive answer, it can help me come closer to the truth.

Thanks in advance.

site now. I don't know about clips but they often seem to turn up on DU from posters. But, the transcript would be worth a read. Given that O'Donnell gave so much air time to Hackett and not to Watada you can see that Watada was overwhelmed.

If Hackett is defending a Marine involved in Haditha then yes I guess you could say he's just defending his client. Still for those of us who believe Iraq invasion was illegal because Bush lied to Congress it was pretty bad watching Hackett that many here supported seem to follow O'Donnell's baiting.

Choosing Hackett (Dem) to go against Watada and Hackett taking advantage of it by hogging the airtime was really disgusting to watch for many of us.

Democrats should take the stance that soldiers should refuse to deploy.

That will make us look super tough and stoic on protecting Americans from terrorism.

For Gods sakes people.

The guy signed up AFTER the invasion had begun. He knew what he was getting into.

And agreeing with this guy is basically calling all active service members war criminals.

Yeah, that will win in 06.

Anyone who wants to refuse to redeploy is a hero. "And agreeing with this guy is basically calling all active service members war criminals." - is bullshit.

Why, because you say so? Or do you have an actual reason.


Blame the administration, not the soldiers.

know by fucking now that this is a war for a bushitler and no purpose in it for America but for her war profiteers!

:eyes:

He sounded like some whacko neocon. I wasnt sure it was him , hearing him talk but it was.

Once you take that oath and wear the uniform, you don't get to decide which wars you want to participate in. And unless he was given specific orders to target innocent civilians, his illegal war argument is moot.

That is in no way a neo-con argument. It's the truth.

reminds me of ... oh Jason Leopold....Bev Harris....Howard Dean....

Wow. creepy scary talk.

Much too gung ho shoot em up for a liberal.
That's all I'm saying.

realizing that he is probably more conservative than Brown was on most issues. DU, like other internet discussion boards, is often knee jerk in their original reactions and then are shocked when they discover that their heroes aren't perfect. Look at Obama! he was the hero of DU in '04 and now he's just another DINO to many.