[Girlene]

“Appearance” of UCI is the issue.

I agree. Having Col. Ewers in the loop of the Haditha meetings gives the appearance that something was expected from him by his attendance. If he could not interact, advise, or influence decisions about Haditha, why was he there? Gen. Mattis admitted he hadn't considered the possibility of the appearance of UCI by having Col. Ewers involved in these meetings. Just because Gen. Mattis wasn't aware does not mean the appearance did not exist.

I want to know if anyone asked Col. Ewers why he appeared on the PBS documentary, Rules of Engagement, in uniform, and made his comments about this case. He sounded like he was speaking for the prosecution.

[xzins]

I also want to know if Mattis ever considered that having Ewers in those dozens of meetings gave the clear message that Mattis was communicating his approval of Ewers.

If Ewers spoke in the meeting is not the final word by any means on those staff meetings. What his presence meant was that Ewers was highlighted as a foremost authority. This meant that his ideas/words on the subject of Haditha were approved, and that he was the guy to go to OUTSIDE of that staff meeting.

There is no way that the Ewers/Mattis connection was not publicly approved by virtue of Mattis inviting him to those meetings. There is no way that the appearance of UCI can be denied. The E/M connection also constitutes direct UCI from the standpoint of Mattis’ approval of the man and his ideas.