Blogoland

I'd be remiss if I didn't point to this very interesting article from The Washington Post which quotes the attorney for a Marine. It offers a more sympathetic (and, frankly, more plausible) portrayal of the events at Haditha. Namely, that instead of the ruthless killing of civilians that there seemed to be indiscriminate shooting and fragging. As I said, interesting, but I'll bet this story is far more complicated than either narrative offered thus far.

UPDATE: Interestingly, retired Col. W. Patrick Lang doesn't seem to buy this line of defense.

What you see here is undoubtedly a preview of what his defense will be if he is ever tried for murder or other possible offenses under UCMJ.

It is his only workable defense, and that is that the Iraqi witnesses are lying and that the civilians were killed unintentionally in the course of a firefight in the town.

How that would "play" would depend on whether or not the other Americans all back up his story and there is no forensic or other material evidence to substantiate the crimes that he might be accused of.

I don't think that would work for him. There are too many other knowledgeable people, photographs, etc.

Huh.