Posted on 06/15/2007 4:58:04 AM PDT by RedRover
I will invite Mr. McLaren to join this thread, and hope that he may.
Here's my take. From Day One, the Haditha Marines have been used as symbols. Time magazine called them "symbols of a war gone bad". Murtha picked up that theme and help turn Americans further from the war.
On the other side, the expedient response was to throw the Haditha Marines under the bus. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff made statements such as: "Fortunately, this type of thing doesn't happen very often..." As if it were already a proven fact.
Mr. McLaren says his role is based "loosely" on Capt. Lucas McConnell. There's no "loosely" about a movie depicting Marines murdering civilians. Anyone who sees the movie will believe it's factual.
The families of the Haditha Marines are taking out second mortages on their homes, wiping out 401k accounts, to pay for lawyers.
The first enlisted man charged for Haditha, LCpl. Justin Sharratt, is on his way to being exonerated after a year in hell for himself and his family. "Exonerated" may be the wrong word. As Capt. Jeffrey Dinsmore (3/1 Marines) has said, "While I continue to firmly believe that all will be acquitted, none of them will ever be truly exonerated." The media and movies such as this one have seen to that.
I have no reason to think Mr. McLaren is anything but an honorable man. I thank him for his service to our country.
But I respectfully ask him: please consider how you're helping destroy the lives of fellow Marines.
I will never have an open mind about that.
Well said... I join you in the request.
Of course, as far as the Marines are concerned, the damage has already been done. The film will be released before the Article 32s are completed—putting that much more pressure on the Corps to go to court martials on each of the accused (and incidentally increasing astronomically the lawyer fees).
I would hope that, in future, Mr. McLaren would at least point out to interviewers that the film is fiction.
The director has claimed he got the story from Marines “who were there”. I think he’s lying and would challenge him to name his sources.
"A trailer from the film was recently shown at the Cannes Film Festival" is another way of saying that this is a hatchet job.
[Mr] T
Murtha is getting desperate.
They must work furiously at preempting a fair Article 32 and trial.
Do you have any idea if the Newsmax report on the classified background of the Haditha event is accurate? Was a classified report released that stated a “white car” was to participate in an attack on Americans?
I have every reason to be confident in Phil Brennan’s report.
But would the intel about the white car stand up to scrutiny in a courtroom? Can’t say.
Sgt Wuterich’s Article 32 will be held on the third week in August. Capt. Dinsmore will certainly testify for the defense. We’ll see if the intel stands up to cross-examination.
Remember how Clinton and his hideous cronies fought the 9-11 film?
As noted above, no one gives a damn when it comes to lowly servicemen.
The reports about Cpt Dinsmore’s most recent testimony states that the prosecutor kept asking him if he had evidence that any of the dead were insurgents. The paper reports that Dinsmore finally agreed that they could have all been civilians.
It seemed an odd exchange that it would have to be asked so many times by the prosecutor before Dinsmore supposedly conceded. I wondered if he had classified info but was unable to share it at the time because it was still classified until this past week.
Do you have any thoughts on that?
The media reporting has been so poor that it’s difficult to get a real sense of the testimony and the impact it’s having.
The media is reporting the story from a presumption of guilt. The reporting does not reflect what’s really happening in the hearings—which is a search for truth to a reasonable degree of certainty.
There is grey area in any investigation. Even the NCIS agent who presented forensic evidence in the Sharratt hearing (evidence that I believe will exonerate the lance corporal) said his findings were highly probable but not absolutely certain.
Similarly, Capt Dinsmore’s testimony was to the data and conclusions an experienced S2 drew from them.
Insurgents ARE civilians. Is it possible that a military age male at the scene of an ambush with an AK-47 is just on his way to a wedding party?
Yes, it’s possible, but judgements in the heat of combat are based on instinct. We should never second guess that in a courtroom.
Insurgents are dressed as civilians. They are actually fighters in violation of standards of decent treatment of civilians. Few things are as reprehensible as intentionaly making true civilians into targets.
We represented the Corps in a positive light. ... We would never sell out our fellow Marines for 15 minutes of fame
That is good to hear.
Remember how Clinton and his hideous cronies fought the 9-11 film?
Wow! I completely forgot about that. I never was able to see the movie. Is it out on DVD? I remember very little press on it and in fact just from FREEPERS.
This is true in all cases in our vaunted "Criminal Justice System". The media over-exposes the more salacious charges in a high-visibility case, while giving no credence to the circumstances leading to the action. Just search for any MSM story on a defensive firearm use for examples.
Another problem is the costs involved. The real Criminal gets his paid for -- the innocent or not guilty/proven get no reimbursement in a criminal action. If lucky they can try the lottery of a civil action, but that also entails additional costs.
I do believe that the Brits (and most of their Commonwealth partners) have it right -- No report or publicity allowed by any Media except after Arraignment in a court; and no report or publicity until the conclusion of the trial and a Verdict is pronounced. You do have the right to know what's going on -- go sit in the court in your locality. You don't have a right to promulgate unfounded accusations far and wide to the detriment of either the prosecution or the defense or the possible tainting of the jury pool. I really believe that the OJ case would have had a far different outcome had Gil Garcetti not been able to game the system; likewise the Duke Hockey Team saga would also have been better for all if Nifong was muzzled from the start.
I have no reason to think Mr. McLaren is anything but an honorable man. I thank him for his service to our country.
But I respectfully ask him: please consider how you're helping destroy the lives of fellow Marines.
I will never have an open mind about that.
On this we agree. Also this 'movie' should not be released until after the conclusion of these cases. I don't think they will go much differently either way, as I still have more respect for the UCMJ system than the civilian counterpart -- but the future attitudes regardless of outcome will definitely be colored by the perceptions created thereby.
I second that Red. I have my doubts about this movie being “fair” to the Marines. After all, nothing has been fair about this whole mess. Besides, the info is slowly being declassified so who did the producer use as sources - the media, the “innocent civilians”?
Marine Ping!
I’m with you on all points.
I’d favor an immediate adoption of the British system. Unfortunately, men like John Adams was hooted down as a “monarchist” when he suggested America could adopt British practices. Unfortunately, too, the First Ammendment has been perverted by activist judges over the past fifty years so that it no longer only limits federal power.
I also agree about the UCMJ. I had the pleasure of speaking with Darryl Sharratt (father of LCpl. Justin Sharratt) who is EXTREMELY impressed with the IO and the whole way his son’s case is being handled in the hearing.
Yikes! Should have been “men like John Adams were hooted down” or “a man such as John Adams was...” Indecision leads to bad grammar.
The really important thing about Capt. Dinsmore’s testimony, of course, is that it was intel available to the Marines and helped guide their decisions.
Surprisingly Broomfield was able to interview some of the Marines involved in the incident. "We spent five days in a motel in San Diego interviewing them for probably 10 hours a day, just to get a sense of their lives and who they really were. They were very wary to begin with, but once people start talking, they really talk. The main Marine character we focus on was this guy called Ramirez. The night he got back from Iraq he broke into a truck and basically had post-traumatic stress and ended up driving into a house. He was best friends with the guy who was killed by the bomb, and then had the job of writing numbers on the dead people's heads and photographing them. They were extremely tough and had seen a lot of action. They talked about chasing each other around with people's legs and kicking people's brains around."
I assume by "Ramirez", the director means LCpl. Briones whose story is pretty much what Broomfield describes. Except that Briones (and another photographer, LCpl. Andrew Wright, who made similar accusations about a massacre) wasn't really "involved" in the incident. Neither Briones or Wright were there when it happened.
So, in brief, the movie is based on Marines who weren't there. Just like the main "witnesses" against the Haditha Marines weren't there either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.