Replies

My answer to your question is "yes." I would rather the AP NOT publish a story if they are unable or unwilling to verify this story- especially when it involves a capital crime in a zone of operations. I personally think that the practice of releasing unverifiable information during an ongoing investigation is irresponsible and an indication of that reporter's desire to get his name on a big story. If he could not release it without providing verifiable sources, he should not have released the story. And on that note, I would like to know exactly what the AP Washington office "contributed" to the story. How much of this is really from Lenz, and how much was padding? As I said before, I am trying to look at this issue critically and carefully. I am not defending the indefensible. If these troops committed thes crimes, then they deserve to hang for them. But until they have proven guilty in a court-martial, they have the same rights to the presumtion of innocence as anyone else. But I find it curious that all of these atrocity stories have been clumped together in a limited time frame. There were "eyewitness" accounts of the Haditha massacre as well. Furthermore, the USMC is already treating the 7 Marines and 1 Navy Corpsman as if they were guilty of murder, and they have not even been tried yet. They have been clapped into irons, charged for their ride home, charged for the replacement boots they received when their original boots were confiscated at the brig... The press is largely to blame for the military's overreaction when serveicemen are accused of crimes- whether the accusations are founded or not. Remember Lt. Pantano?

Ask yourself a simple question - - why would this command or any command issue a press release on the subject? So the various news agencies would sit on the story?

Seems to me like someone needs an extra dose of reality. But, if shooting the messenger makes it all feel better, knock yourself out.