Justice for Haditha Marines?

The Belmont Club discusses the changing nature of the evidence in the case.

The Strategy Page discusses the possibility that the "Haditha Massacre" may turn out to be a battle with a lot of civilian casualties. "With testimony now emerging that shows that at least eight of the 24 'victims' were armed terrorists ... Haditha would have more in common with the 2002 battle of Jenin (also claimed to be a massacre) than it does with My Lai." However things judicially turn out, I think it is reasonable to observe that in the atmosphere of the hostile press coverage of the war in Iraq, it is bureaucratically safer to be overly zealous in prosecuting allegations of misconduct than it is to give the troops the benefit of the doubt. The negative consequences of any consideration in case the accused are guilty will far outweigh those of being excessively strict in the event they are innocent....

I think he is talking about the political consequences and not the military consequences. Militarily the consequences for troops who hesitate when fighting an enemy that camouflages himself as a civilian and uses civilian shields can be his units destruction. Even after the fact, it is not easy to sift the facts as this story demonstrates.

A Marine captain accused of failing to investigate the killings of 24 Iraqi civilians said Tuesday that he never pursued a probe because he believed the deaths resulted from lawful combat.

Capt. Randy W. Stone also said he never lied about his actions. "I have never lied and have worked at all times to assist as best I could to shed light on what I knew and when I knew it," Stone said.

Stone, who was the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines' lawyer at the time of the Nov. 19, 2005, killings in the town of Haditha, spoke from the lectern on the seventh day of his Article 32 hearing, the military equivalent of a grand jury proceeding.

...

Prosecutors portrayed Stone as a meek novice who overlooked the killings in an attempt to gain favor with the other Marines. In his closing argument, Lt. Col. Paul Atterbury said that Stone knew women and children were killed in their homes but that he did nothing in response.

"The battalion judge advocate has a duty to make sure his Marines do not become desensitized to the mortally bruising combat environment that is Al Anbar, Iraq," Atterbury said.

Defense attorney Charles Gittins said that the prosecution's case was based on the assumption that Stone knew the killings were wrong, but that prosecutors had the luxury of hindsight. More senior Marines saw no need to investigate the deaths because they were deemed to have been a lawful consequence of combat, he said.

"He had no more knowledge about the deaths than the division commander, who was actually briefed by the battalion commander," Gittins said.

Atterbury said it was irrelevant that Stone's superiors saw no need for an investigation.

...

That is a pretty remarkable statement by the prosecutor. Think about who would be better able to judge whether the events were outside the norms for combat. Would it be an experienced division commander or an in experienced battalion lawyer?

What continues to be missing from the stories about these events is the facts concerning enemy war crimes that triggered the events. The enemy camouflaged himself as a civilian and used civilian human shields. Both should be considered much more egregious offenses than accidentally killing the civilians in a firefight, much less failing to investigate the firefight.