Newsmax Claim: "Bombshell" Audio And Video Evidence Cripples Case Against Haditha Marines, Largely Exculpates Them

Allah is made more skeptical by the reporter's definitive, triumphalist tone.

As he says, we'll see.

NewsMax, however, can reveal that the facts of what happened early that November morning clearly show that the incident was part of a planned ambush by insurgent forces, that the civilians tragically killed in the were used as human shields by the insurgents, and that despite claims by Rep. John Murtha, there was indeed an ongoing firefight between the Marines and the enemy.

In short, what the intelligence officer provided, was a fully backed up account that puts the listener at the scene of the action and takes him though the entire day's action. All of this information was made available to senior officers up the command ladder including the Battalion commander Lt. Col. Chessani.

It was so complete it eliminated any need for further investigation.

Robert Muise, the Thomas More Law Center attorney who questioned the officer, told NewsMax in a statement, "The intelligence officer is a crucial witness in this case. During his testimony, he effectively described the enemy situation prior to, during, and after the November 19 terrorist attack, providing the necessary context for the decisions that were made as a result. His testimony shows the complexity of the attack this day, the callousness of the terrorists toward the local civilians, whom they use to their advantage, and the error of viewing this incident in a vacuum.

"The officer also showed how the insurgents used allegations of wrongdoing by Marines as propaganda to support their cause. In fact, another witness, who was the assistant intelligence officer during the attack and is now the current intelligence officer for the battalion, testified that since the Haditha incident received so much negative attention, terrorist propaganda alleging law of war violations against American servicemen in Iraq has ‘ballooned.'"

I don't know. That last bit troubles me, because it is, at best, weakly corroborating evidence. And if you've got smoking gun directly exonerating evidence, why would you seek to buttress it with weakly corroborating evidence?

My rule is usually that if someone's offering up something weak like that, it means the rest of what they have is pretty weak too.

Still, here's hoping.

posted by Ace at 04:25 PM

| Access Comments