The intent was right, the execution sucked . . .

Reserve rush to judgment on soldier, part 4

Kari Sleight, Publisher, Frontiersman, called me yesterday (7/6/2010) to discuss why the Frontiersman published the piece on the Afghan incidents resulting in charges for murder for 4 U.S. soldiers.

She stated that the intent was to defuse the criticism received by the Frontiersman from those in the community who were anti-war and had posted to the article in a virtuperous manner. She said profanity was used and the vitriol against the young soldiers was egregious. If that were the catalyst for the op-ed piece, then the intent was to defuse and to remind. Unfortunately, the execution sucked.

Kari has a son-in-law who has served in both OIF and OEF as an MP and is still active duty. To him, we given our thanks for his service. It was his experience in returning from the war zone through New York and the anti-war comments he received that gave impetus to the op-ed piece.

The motivation for the op-ed was good, but the outcome, no matter what Kari Sleight may claim, was not what was intended.

The bent of the article was clearly not directed to reminding readers of the 6th Amendment rights of the soldiers, their UCMJ rights, and that the facts of the situation will not be known until they come out at trial. That damaging comments were made before the Article 32 hearing disclosures was dismissed as a misinterpretation on my part.

Kari stated that the piece was the work of the entire editorial board of the Frontiersman, that no one person wrote the piece.

The problem I had with the piece and still have with it is that it clearly draws conclusions from the Specifications in the charging document that can be found on-line. The language used in the op-ed piece could have clearly demonstrated the source of the allegations as the charging document, but that was not the direction demonstrated. Instead, the op-ed's first sentence clearly stated a conclusion.

The use of 'alleged' or 'allegations' should have been used liberally throughout with clear reference to the charging document to show that the soldiers were charged, but the issues had not been adjudicated. Instead, the Afghan's were pronounced civilians without any qualification.

I have a real problem with that designation of those alleged killed by the troops charged. We weren't there when the incidents happpened, and I am willing to bet, neither was the JAG officer who drafted the Specifications and Charges against the soldiers.

Too often, those who are civilians by day, are the enemy by night or on the weekends. Not too long ago, Reuters ran an article on Afghanis who fought NATO troops on weekends, but worked at legitmate jobs and participated in the goverment during the week. Therefore, the use of the term civilians is specious at this juncture. The status of those killed will come out at trial. "Alleged" should have been clearly stated. Instead, civilian was stated as a fact.

I disagree with the manner in which the Frontiersman op-ed was written. Conclusions were stated, not allegations. Kari and I will agree to disagree as to the interpretation of the op-ed piece.

I still believe that Wick Communications and the Frontiersman's Editorial Board should publically apologize to the family of SPC4 Morlock, to Morlock and the other troops charged, and to our troops.

I am still angry. I read and understand English very well. I do not believe that I misinterpreted the op-ed piece's message. Neither did my family who all read the content and reached the same conclusions. My youngest, a veteran of OIF, was as incensed as I was.

I understand Kari's sympathies in the matter and her intent. I still disagree that the op-ed piece says what she intended.

Frontiersman's Publisher's reply

Dear Mr. Wood,

Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with us, and for taking my call this afternoon.

I understand your passion for those who serve in the military and share that respect with you.

I’m glad we had the discussion and hope you better understand our position. We believe that judgment on this case should be reserved until the matter is resolved in the tribunal.

Sincerely,
Kari
---------------------
Kari Sleight
Publisher
Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman
907-352-2255
http://www.frontiersman.com

E-mail to Wick Communications about Frontiersman

From: Larry Wood wood.lawrence.d@wood-alaska.com
To: john.mathews@wickcommunications.com; will.chapman@wickcommunications.com; kari.sleight@frontiersman
Sent: Tue, Jul 6, 2010 10:13 am
Subject: OP ed piece in Frontiersman: Reserve rush to judgment on soldker
To: Mr. John Mathews, CEO
Wick Communications, Inc.

http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2010/07/06/opinion/editorials/doc4c3298e9573ba548921296.txt

Read it.
Then tell me that the 6th Amendment is alive and well for our troops. Yes, they are presumed innocent under UCMJ.
The incident described has not been adjudicated nor has the Article 32 hearing taken place. The troops have been charged, and very likely have been placed under arrest.
One of those arrested grew up in this community.
How do you think his family feels about the hack job your paper did on their son?
He was tried in the press, not by the military.
Further, the failure to post the name of the person writing this hit piece against the military was an act of outright cowardice.
The prejudice shows in the comparison to the war in the RVN.
How many of our troops have been charged in 10 years of war with acts of violence against civilians in OIF and OEF?
How many have been convicted by military courts martial?
Maybe, three or four high level cases, and the rest thrown out.
I know troops who’ve been charged for a wrongful death in the conduct of operations against the enemy in hostile territory.
They are accused, have their weapons taken from them, put on quarters arrest until the battalion commander conducts his inquiry, after which, the issue either goes to brigade JAG, or higher if there is reason to believe that it is a wrongful death. Otherwise, the soldier is given his weapon back with an apology by the battalion commander, and returns to duty. What do you think that kind of treatment does to these guys and gals?
Oh, those poor Afghan “civlians”. Right.
Your writer made that determination, based upon what? I too read the charging documents.
Were these alleged victims civilians by day, enemy by night or on weekends?
Who really knows until the facts are heard before a military tribunal, but your writer cavalierly made definite statements as to their actual status without hearing any evidence.
Our enemy has no uniforms, nothing that gives them identification as a militia or regular unit of a hostile force.
There are no front lines.
This is war at its worst.
The ROE these guys fight under is the most restrictive in the history of armed warfare.
Our domestic police do not operate under such constraints as to the use of deadly force.
Yet, whomever decided that they have the righteous morality to stand in judgment before the facts are actually heard.
Had the individual who wrote this piece been other than a coward, we would have a name to demand an answer from as to why this outrage against the Morlocks and the honor of our military was committed.
Even my pieces submitted to that paper over the years bore my picture and name or at least my name. And, yes, I tend to be direct in my writing.
The Frontiersman and Wick Communications owe their readers and those soldiers accused an apology.
I suggest you make it so, if you have any courage and sense of justice.
I am 58 years old.
I grew up in Alaska.
I have never seen the Frontiersman publish such a demeaning and prejudicial article about our military.
If the troops accused did ‘bad’, then they will be convicted by a military courts martial, only after the facts are heard. Not by the press before the fact.
To do so the day after the 4th of July is an act of contempt on the part of the author and the failure to take credit for the piece by posting the name of the author, an act of abject cowardice on the part of the Publisher and Editor.
I demand that the Frontiersman and Wick Communications publically apologize to the community, the Morlocks, the other accused troops, and to all of our troops for this insult.

Best regards,
Larry Wood
Palmer, Alaska
Where I write:
Blog: Williwaw! Alaska! Alaska!
Anchorage Gubernatorial Examiner for Examiner.com

Websites:
Business: Terra Resources, Ltd.
Family: Wood Alaska

MORON at the FRONTIERSMAN . . .

http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2010/07/05/opinion/editorials/doc4c3298e9573ba548921296.txt#blogcomments

The editorial is labeled "Reserve rush to judgment for soldier" and then goes on to excoriate the troops accused in the incidents alleged. Key word, alleged.

One, the author of this piece is an idiot. This sancimonious moron has decided to prejudge the case in the press without anything but knowledge of the charging document.

"From about Feb. 22 to May 5, three Afghan civilians were killed and another
beaten, allegedly by U.S. soldiers sent there to fight for their freedom.
Charging documents claim as many as five soldiers from B Company, 2nd Battalion,
5th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, killed the civilians with fragmentation
grenades and rifles. It’s a sad reality of war that
otherwise-unthinkable crimes can be perpetrated by a few who have lost their honor among the thousands of troops who bravely and selflessly represent the United States and freedom.

Tens of thousands of soldiers have deployed and a small handful have dishonored both themselves and their unit,” said Lt. Col. Tamara Parker, spokeswoman for Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Wash."

Apparently, the author of that editorial has decided the troops are at fault before the Article 32 hearing.

"It’s easy to make a leap ahead of the legal process and assume guilt unless
proven innocent. That three Afghan civilians were killed is fact. That they
allegedly died at the hand of the same soldiers who were sent there to fight for
their freedom is disturbing."

Civilians? Really?

How would this clown know? Was he/she there? Or, is this specious supposition based upon the charging document? And, what is the record for actual convictions of troops accused of unjustified deaths of alleged innocents in combat? 3 that I know of our of dozens of such charging documents filed with careers and reputations ruined over the zealous pursuit of trying to appease the liberal anti-war mindset.

"Sadly, allegations like these aren’t isolated to this incident. The actions
of a few in Vietnam prompted the disgusting label of “baby killer” to be hurled
at soldiers returning from that war."

What is this all about? Vietnam? Now, we know what it is that wrote this hack job on our military. A lib who 'remembers' Vietnam . . . and all the bad we did. Go fornicate a duck you moron!

"Do we support Morlock as advocates of his innocence? Of course not. That, too, would be premature and irresponsible."

WHAT!!!!!!

THE IDIOT THAT WROTE THAT PIECE SHOULD BE FIRED! A PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IS THE BASIS OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM. THE ACCUSED IS PRESUMED INNOCENT, EVEN IN A MILITARY COURT.

CALL THE FRONTIERSMAN AND DEMAND THE FIRING OF THE IDIOT THAT MALIGNED THIS SOLDIER AND HIS COMRADES. LET JUSTICE BE DONE, BUT UNDER DUE PROCESS, NOT IN THE PRESS!!!!!