A Reader's Response

Repack Rider responds to my "Murtha Knows Best: Pronounces Marines Guilty Before Charges Filed in Haditha Scandal," post:

You seem to be confusing "verdict" with the observation that a crime has
taken place.

A "verdict" is an identification of a perpetrator, but that is the last
part of the question. When you find a bullet riddled corpse, or 24 of them
including children, you know a murder has taken place. That is not a "verdict,"
it is an observation of fact that is the initial stage of developing a verdict,
because you can't have a verdict until you know there was a crime. We also know
from the initial action reports that they were killed by United States Marines,
although the action reports told a different story about the events than the
evidence did.

If the story we are told conflicts with the physical and photographic
evidence, someone is lying, and someone is a murderer, but that is not a
"verdict." That is the starting point to the investigation leading to a verdict,
which would identify who is lying and who is a murderer.Thank you for this
opportunity to clear up what seems to be confusion on the right as to the
difference between observing that a crime has taken place, and the resulting
"verdict."

First, thanks for your cordial response, I’m always glad to receive polite feedback whether or not its conclusions are in agreement with my own.

In reading your response, I think it’s safe to say that you’ve taken issue with my characterization of Murtha’s comments as a verdict. Let me reiterate his comment here for clarity:

“Democrat John Murtha, a former Marines colonel who has retained close links to
the military despite his denunciation of the Iraq occupation, said Marines
"killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

Murtha is not simply pointing out that a crime may or may not have taken place; he’s instead unequivocally stating that the Marines in question have killed civilians in cold blood. The legal ramifications for committing such an act are defined locally as murder, and in an international context, as an atrocity against humanity, i.e., a war crime.

The point of this post was to indicate that some people who have come out against the war in Iraq, Murtha, in particular, have indeed declared these Marines guilty of a crime for which they have not yet been formally charged – I don’t honestly see any other way of interpreting Murtha’s statements. A declaration of innocence or guilt is a verdict; this is exactly what Murtha did, and I, for one, will never allow the presumption of innocence to be abandoned so willfully and irresponsibly, without expressing my strong disapproval.

As to your final point of clearing up “what seems to be confusion on the right,” I must respond by saying that the only confusion I see is that you've automatically assumed that I am from the right in the first place. Do you think that anyone who doesn't rant against the president and the war in Iraq at every opportunity is one of "those" people on the right? I surely hope not; such thinking is anathema to substantive debate.

The purpose of this site is to combat just that mode of thinking. My opinions about the war in Iraq and John Murtha’s selfish statements are based solely on my own analysis, and have nothing to do with an allegiance to any media-defined political philosophy. My goal here is to dismantle the artificial, groupthink-driven rhetoric, which regrettably passes for enlightened political thinking these days. So, with this in mind, let me thank you for giving me this opportunity to clear up your confusion.