[bigheadfred]

What it comes down to is whether they were following the orders given. “Civilian” casualties don’t bother me at all. From talking to soldiers who were there, there weren’t any civilians. Don’t trust them. Don’t tun your back on them. Things have changed, but at that place and time I think they did what they had to do. Initial reports seem to indicate this. Just another day at the races. And what happened wasn’t an overwhelming concern. To paraphrase a soldier who served with my nephew “If you look at every single incident, there would be a lot more prosecutions”. It was a nasty business. And the “truth” can be very subjective, IMO.

[RS]

C'mon Fred - When you say don't trust them, don't turn your back on them it's because you can't identify the enemy. By claiming there are no civilians you are advocating just killing everyone, wiping out the entire population of Iraq. If that IS your position then read your tagline and say what you mean.

If you pick and choose which information to use you can always find a path that leads to the conclusion you have previously determined.
There IS a non-subjective truth, fixed on the day the events occurred ... we simply don't have a clear look at it with all the conflicting testimony we are presented.

If the charges are dismissed because of procedural issues, it does not change that truth.