Al wrote on Jun 12, 2007 6:38 AM:War is a nasty endeavor and nasty things happen. I am sorry but innocent people are often killed. What is the Corps coming to? Will we now have embedded lawyers and ACLU representatives along with the news correspondence accompanying every squad? Before firing a round will be have a decicion made by all present that is OK to respond? Like so many other things in this country, this has totally gotten out of hand. There a too many officers more concerned with their careers than in caring for their Marines and getting the job done. Thank goodness we didn't have this attitude during WWII; if we had, we would all be speaking German or Japanese and would still have our veterans being tried.

to Al wrote on Jun 12, 2007 7:15 AM:Here's an idea: Each squad gets it's own lawyer. Of course, they are only observers, so will not be allowed to carry weapons or wear body armor. To get the best view, they will have to be in the middle of any combat engagement BEFORE it happens. So obviously the lawyer must precede the squad at all times, going into any building first, ...

LetThemGo wrote on Jun 12, 2007 8:50 AM:OK. This Marine went into the house and shot and killed a man holding an AK-47. Obviously, one of the weapons of choice for the insurgents. I mean, I doubt the guy holding the AK was using it as a broom or just holding it and admiring it. I'm thinking......INSURGENT. So, the Marine notices other people in the home as well. Was he supposed to think the others were in a backroom watching MTV? Clearing a house means, just that...CLEAR THE HOUSE. He couln't possibly have taken a chance--ESPECIALLY, after busting in and shooting a guy who was holding an AK-47. After that, Im sure that it was reasonable for him to believe that the others meant to do him harm, as well. No harm. No foul. Innocent. Send him back to his unit. He's a hero, not a murderer.

Bob P. wrote on Jun 12, 2007 9:31 AM:This is wrong on so many levels that I'm not sure where my comments should start. How can the Platoon Leader be granted immunity while his soldiers are "thrown under the bus". Is every engagement that results in death require an investigation? Are those that risk their lives on a daily basis going to judge by "REMF" arm chair quarterbacks? This is no way to fight a war. Come on Marines "Semper Fi" and do the right thing. Stop the madness!

A Better idea wrote on Jun 12, 2007 9:53 AM:No, why don't we send our beloved all-purpose politicians instead of the lawyers. Same safety measures apply, of course. They're a peace-loving group and can talk their way out of ANY situation. How noble of them to take a risk like that on behalf of our soldiers! Betcha the hand of George W. will be the FIRST one up. It's in his character.

Greg wrote on Jun 12, 2007 10:17 AM:I like that idea Al. But we all know it is too dangerous for them to do that. They will just make assumptions from thousands of miles away. Free this kid now. He had the heart to go there in the first place. He doesnt seem like a street thug, who these lawyers want to house him with. We need more people like this kid in this world. I dont have any experience in a war, but I can only imagine how crazy it is. My dad was in Vietnam. He has stories. Good luck Lance Cpl. Justin Sharratt, and the others involved...you have the support of millions. Keep your head up.

something different wrote on Jun 12, 2007 10:20 AM:Folks, there is something very different about this war. To just say "war" and have that boil that up to the same situation folks faced in Normandy and the Pacific, Korea or even Vietnam is just not reality. We attacked Iraq, a country, for a very serious and specific reason. Take away that reason and what do you have? Justification for the next best reason one can think of? Personally, if I were a Marine or soldier fighting in Iraq, I would want a lawyer and an ACLU person with my squad. That way my rearside is covered in case my own family decided to hang me out in public for some sort of political pressures or whatever the reason is in the case of the Haditha accused. This is one of the worst lose-lose-lose situations I hae ever seen. More to come I'm sorry to say. When civilians are used as instruments of war -- even innocent civilians -- they are sadly killed sometimes. That is the ugly cost of doing business like this. And don't fool yourselves ... war is a business. This one has nothing to do with 911 or keeping America safe. It is to make money. When guys come back and talk about everything they see over there ... the contractors ... and the big money ... hey the Marines and soldiers are not stupid. They understand very clearly this is an economic-driven war. But is is marketed as this "keep America safe" thing. Ya know, I often wonder how many new defense industry millionaires have been born since 2003? That would be a great story.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Jun 12, 2007 11:12 AM:I'm with Al and 'to Al'. One step further; Embedded reporters are the FIRST to go into buildings to be cleared, since there are no insurgents, and video everything BEFORE the Marines go in themselves. Then they could review the video to assure the individuals are innocents. Embeds also not allowed to carry weapons or wear body armor. Shouldn't cause any worry. After all, there are never any insurgents in these buildings during an attack and firefight.... "IF" you believe the prosecution. AWheck! Better yet...Send NCIS and prospective Prosecutors in first because we all know what's going to happen if the Marines go in first! The prosecution had an Iraqi man who served as a prosecution interpreter for interviews of family members of three men killed. OMG!!! "Family" members? Cmon'; Tell it like it is. Rather than family members, try "TRIBAL" members... in insurgent infested Haditha. They would not come to the U.S.? Then DROP THE CHARGES. The prosecution has 'Iraqi' interpretation of interviews of so-called witnesses who very possibly may be responsible for the deaths of our Marines. When all of this surfaced over a year and a half ago, the Washington Post and TIME (both) used Iraqi interpreters for these same witnesses, who WON'T come here, and at the time said their stories "COULD NOT BE INDEPENDENTLY CONFIRMED". Excuse me but, in an American court of law THAT would mean NO charges, No trial. What in the heck is the problem with NCIS, this prosecution, and this military system of justice? The Marine Corps teaches, LEAVE NO MAN BEHIND. Well, bow your heads up there in your high seats of power because you've not only left them behind, you've bailed on them. What's with the article title? Accused Haditha SHOOTER? Why not Accused Lance Corporal?...C'mon'! OH! And Lance Cpl. Sharratt is correct. He can use any means necessary to defend his life. The Marine that the new Secretary of Defense just ousted as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Quote: "If they're wearing civilian clothes, they will not asssume that those are really civilians", "Our soldiers on the ground have an absolute right to defend themselves", "...the environment you're in certainly will impact on how you perceive the threat", "Clearly the environment does impact your PERCEPTION of of the threat." The prosecution can Monday Morning Quarterback it to heck and back but it doesn't change our troops RIGHT to defend themselves, and NONE of us have the right to make that decision for them.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Jun 12, 2007 1:16 PM:To m...: WHY? What has he been PROVEN guilty of? When was the trial held? What was the corroborated evidence? You should hope you're never accused of something and have to prove your innocence if those "PRE"judging you have the same attitude as yourself.

WINKLE TO AW & AL: wrote on Jun 12, 2007 2:13 PM:I'm sorry but you have it all wrong. Squad lawyers and press members are not competent to determine whether or not the Iraqis in an insurgent house from which rounds were being fired at our troops should be fired on. Not at all. No, no. Our Marines should not be able to even think of harming an Iraqi, even if he is carrying an AK-47 or a basket full of grenades or was seen planting a roadside bomb. Not until the said Iraqi(s) has been tried and found guilty by a court convened by Time magazine or other reliable organization. Then and only then,and with the approval of Jane Fonda, may the Marines open fire. These are the Rules of Engagement as formulated our dear friends, Osama bin Laden and the Ayotolla Mugwumpaweeniebog.

WINKLE wrote on Jun 12, 2007 2:27 PM:This has to be the most ridiculous persecution (not prosecution) of a good Marine by a bunch of saps in DOD that has come down the pike. The only instances of anything equally ridiculous is the persecution of all the other Marines in this bizarre, crazy, upside down circus. So justice for this Marine consists of testimony by some Iraqi guy who gives a hearsay account of what some Iraqi women want who won't even show up for the trial! The "Judge" allows that kind of baloney into evidence and to the jury?? Then, to top it off we have testimony by some people who have been granted immunity and have every reason in the world to say whatever the prosecution wants them to say. The same prosecution that got them immunity!! Damn. This whole thing is a travesty. It should all be scrapped and these guys, including the Corporal, exonerated.

AW4cryinoutloud wrote on Jun 12, 2007 4:39 PM:To WINKLE: I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said. I remember Fonda and bin Laden. Almost forgot about Mugwumpaweeniebog. Gads WINKLE, that's funny!