Justice? I don't think so. A finding of "not enough evidence to convict" is a far cry from a finding of "not guilty on all charges". "Not guilty" would have been justice; this, in my opinion, is Bull Shit.

Ace,

Tanks for the hat tip.

Craig, you've obviously never been through a trial.

A finding of not guilty could only be achieved through a trial. A risky scenario, and hard on all involved, especially the soldier (Marine). If you really give a shit about the Marine, this is FUCKING AWESOME news.

No JAG office is going to pronounce someone "not guilty," that's not in their job description. Saying not enough evidence is saying "not a crime."

Case closed

I give a shit about the marine. I also give a shit about his continued legal status, which, believe me, ain't good. As hard as a trial may be, try living under the cloud of suspicion for the rest of your life. Furthermore, "Insufficient evidence" leaves open the bringing forth of more, possibly sufficient, evidence. There is no statute of limitations on murder.

Perhaps it doesn't matter to you, but think of this man's position vis-a-vis the Iraqi's (is he still serving in Iraq?). He's accused but not cleared of murdering an unarmed Iraqi. Can you say, "hearts and minds"?

Unrelated, but why do not the comments remember my info? I have to reenter it each time.

Craig,

Last thing first. THe comment "rememberer" does the same thing to me. It's a "feature" (read: bug)

Bottom line, though, Craig is that no investigative body short of a Court Martial can "clear" the marine. And he might be found guilty if tried. Even if found not guilty, the trial will be hell, and going to trial is a hell of a lot worse on a record than a dismissed investigation.

This isn't like a "whodonit" episode of Law & Order. If they decide not to prosecute the Marine, given the video, there's no other "evidence" that's likely to change their mind.

Sorry, bub, but this is the BEST possible outcome here. Life in the legal field isn't all tidy like a sitcom, but it's HIGHLY unlikely that this guy will ever be charged.

And what the hell do you care about "hearts and minds" if you want this guy let off? The Iraqis wanted this guy let off, too. THey hate the foreign scum like this soldier shot. Keeping him in country won't do a thing. It's not like anyone can recognize him from the video, I don't think his name was released or a picture, and our guys are all in helmets and camo. Not exactly one to stand out.

Craig,

The point here is the Marine was never charged. An investigation was conducted and nothing was found to warrant charges being filed. I don't think his reputation has been harmed in the least (could you have told us what his name was yesterday?). There is certainly nothing that will be entered in his permanent record. The fact the incident was caught on tape precludes any further evidence is going to be introduced to reopen the investigation.

"precludes any further evidence is going"

Me no write good. I meant to say that having the incident on tape means there is not much chance of any further evidence being found which would cause the case to be reopened. Hope thats a little clearer :)

I agree with everyone who disagrees with Craig. I think this is the best (realistically) possible outcome.

BrewFan makes a good point about the tape. The incident was taped. The evidence is inarguable.

Therefore, there are no real "facts" that can really emerge to change the outcome here. (Well, unless he said "I'm going to kill an unarmed Muslim today" that morning, or something like that.)

The problem with the case isn't the "facts," its the implications of those facts and the interpretation of the law.

The prosecutor found the facts "ambiguous," because it would be hard to prove the Marine did NOT fear for his life in that split-second. Again, it's going to be very hard to come up with new evidence that can make that an easier point to prove.

I.e., the case turns not on the acts depicted on the tape, but on the Marine's state of mind, and whether or not he had the "guilty mind"/mens rea which is necessary to charge someone with murder.

I don't see how it's very likely that additional facts can prove he had the necessary criminal intent. The situation was "ambiguous," and I don't see how additional facts can resolve that ambiguity against his interests.

ace, allow me to add that the Navy JAG would never formally exhonerate an unindicted Marine.

That's just not what they do.

Where Craig does have a point, IMO, is that this incident will continue with a life of its own in the media and in activist, anti-war propaganda. The Marine, who appears to be legally off the hook, will most likely always be pictured as a war criminal who was let off because the military "declined to prosecute". Although a "not guilty" verdict could only be rendered after a trial, I would hope that some stronger clarification could be made to establish that the investigation failed to establish legitimate grounds for prosecution. In other words, do not leave the impression that "declined to prosecute" could have any subjective intent to show favoritism to a military member.

It speaks well of our military that they investigated this. A pretty serious allegation was made, and that always deserves some scrutiny, even though in this case there was nothing to it; just a brave soldier doing his best in a nasty situation.

I don't envy that marine, but I sure am grateful for his service.

Ace... you're showing a surprising amount of naivety in this. Everybody who's in the know knows damn well that Jeff Gannon "arranged" things with the JAG's office.

You know how it goes...

Daily Kos: "Your powers are weak, gay man."
Jeff Gannon: "You can't win, Kos. If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine. "

oo-ray

Who cares. American lives matter more than ragheads.