AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Apr 22, 2007 12:57 AM:The Washington Post and Time magazine seem to have a monopoly on unauthorized and unreleased information. They seem to have a gift for being the only ones with the ability to find every single witness in every single incident. The Washington Post, always faithful to the Prosecution, writes a report on the Unreleased Bargewell report; a report that wasn't released because of "ongoing criminal investigations". But, Hey; who cares whether or not the leaking of a report during an ongoing investigation has the possibility of tainting any chance of a fair trial for the accused? Why make any attempt to protect the rights of the accused? Let's just continue to allow the prosecution to pick and choose what it wants to "create" a criminal case; The rights of the accused be damned! The incident at Haditha was reported the day after it happened. The report contained the events of the firefight, that they had to clear houses and that civilians were killed. There was no cover-up. This idea came from Time's reporter Tim McGirk (March 27, 2006 article) when he reported the results of his so-called investigation in which he said, "According to eyewitnesses and officials interviewed over the past 10 weeks..." Sound like Hamdania? It's always Iraqi witnesses who TIME chooses to believe and report to the military as gospel, causing an investigation. And, of course, we should always take the word of the Iraqi's. Heaven forbid we take the word of our own. If not for McGirk, who interviewed by phone and Email and used Iraqi investigators, this whole thing would have remained as it should have; a firefight with insurgents, with casualties that are an inevitable part of WAR! Here are the words that discredit McGirk: "The available evidence does not provide conclusive proof that the Marines deliberately killed innocents in Haditha". Hello!!! Yet McGirk, TIME, the Post, the Marine Corps, and NCIS take the word of Iraqi Human Rights groups investigators and Iraqi so-called witnesses over the word of the accused, who; lest anyone forget, all had exemplary records until our own government bought the enemy's tactic of misinformation against our troops.

No Hiding Place wrote on Apr 22, 2007 10:36 AM:"What you do in the dark will be brought to light" is a line from an old gospel hymn. Dispite efforts to hide or misrepresent or minimize this sad episode--what happened is apparent to anyone but the most hardened apologists. I do understand that it was under the conditons of war--but that is where the term "war crime" comes from.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Apr 22, 2007 2:26 PM:To No Hiding Place: With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. Nice words from an old gospel hymn, but I think that whoever wrote them would have taken the time to hear from ALL of the accused and the Defense. That would be the Christian thing to do would it not? How about an old gospel hymn with something about bearing false witness. Anything you can think of on that? I'm not making apologies for anyone. The only apologies should come from the Iraqi's, Malaki, McGirk, Time, the Post, NCIS, Murtha, the Pentagon and possibly...You for your reference to war crimes.

Frank wrote on Apr 22, 2007 2:54 PM:Good for you "No Hiding Place". The "boys will be boys" and "our country right or wrong" defenders of these murderers are perhaps an abomination worse than the war criminals themselves.

Hiding Place wrote on Apr 23, 2007 10:06 AM:There was not an ounce of "due respect" in your rude response. Excuse me, but, I do know what I am talking about and don't need or want your sarcasm!

Frank wrote on Apr 23, 2007 10:51 AM:To Hiding Place at 10:06 AM. I presume your 10:06 AM comment is directed at AW4? The rest of us have learned to not even read her remarks. They are so inflamatory, disconnected and well..just plain nutty. Many readers think she is just a pen name for an NCT editorialist trying to keep this "debate" alive. In any event I don't even read what she says anymore, its like watching a train wreck, very voyeuristic yet sad at the same time.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Apr 23, 2007 12:55 PM:To Frank: Say What??? I didn't know there was a debate going on. I thought I was making my own personal comments. If you want a debate that would be great because in a debate one usually would have something to back up their remarks. I would love to go there with you on that. I would love to hear your abundance of proof of anyon'e guilt. Oh please, have at it Frank. I bet they were rolling on the floor laughing at NCTimes when they read your paranoid comment that many readers think I'm a pen name for an NCTimes editorialist. (WHO is the nutty, disconnected one?). NC doesn't need anyone to pen name anything for them. Their writers do just fine with their reports. But, Gee Frank; among all the juvenile insults, Thanks for the compliment!!!

MorallyRight1 wrote on Apr 24, 2007 8:08 AM:Okay here we go again...an NCIS investigation report that is made public BEFORE the thing even goes into legal proceedings? And, yes, the NCIS will once again get away with it, folks. This is simply how these things are tried in the public arena, instead of a court of law, albeit a kangaroo court. One lie leads to another, doesn't it?

MorallyRight` wrote on Apr 24, 2007 8:11 AM:To AW4: And yet McGirk still represents these publications? You did your homework and nailed that one right on the head. But, I would bet my last penny that he has other 'sources' of income for his 'unbiased' reporting.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Apr 24, 2007 12:22 PM:To MR1: I hear Ya!