Replies

I think it’s possible to see the merit in a proper and prompt investigation without slandering the Corps. I don’t think this investigation can fairly be described as proper or prompt. I’m not sure what would work better, but a peer review by other combatant officers outside of the chain of command ought to be a start.

It’s a fine line that’s undefined, IMHO. You can’t give carte blanche to combat troops to do anything they want unless you are willing to go to the end of that moral road, but trying to view an action through the eyes of an combatant in a stateside courtroom is impossible. The chances of a rag like Time magazine getting it right are even slimmer.

There are a few Lee Harvey Oswalds and Clayton Lonetrees in any outfit as big as the Corps, and they are not excluded from combat positions or offices in the JAG.

There has to be a way to investigate our own, and sometimes the testimony of civilians, friendly or not, has to be considered.

That said, I think the price for providing false or misleading testimony, hiding evidence or prosecutorial incompetence should be higher than it seems to be now. The same goes for printing “news” stories that aren’t supported by facts, or political grandstanding.

There are constitutional issues here, and part of the problem is the lack of a declaration of war, I think.

I admire your fire, and I’m damn glad that it looks like the Haditha charges are as bogus as I thought they were. There are going to be times when Marines do the wrong thing, and they should be dealt with, but there has to be a better way to do it.