Will Haditha Be Another Duke For Media?

The media treatment of the Marines accused of murdering 24 Iraqis in Haditha exhibits many of the excesses and prejudices as in the Duke “rape” case. The charges fit a template for opposing the war, fed by selective prosecution leaks, which only due to strict evidence requirements and expensive defense lawyers is not railroading the Marines. Nonetheless, the damage to morale in and out of the armed forces, to the reputation of the United States, and to support for the war will have been done, regardless of the ultimate outcome.

Columnist Leonard Pitts comments on the Duke case media coverage:

It requires us to reassess how we know what we know. Is it fact, or just a narrative squeezed through the meat grinder? Truth, or just its emotional equivalent?
Or, as an editor told me once: Be rigorous in fact-checking stuff you don't know. Be more rigorous in fact-checking stuff you do.

Similarly, David Broder comments:

The role of the media in the Duke lacrosse team's phony rape story and the Don Imus' firing left large parts of the so-called establishment press looking embarrassed and besmirched…. Rereading some of the coverage of the case is a painful exercise in journalistic excess – and one-sidedness. … Now we know better. But how often do we have to relearn the lesson that leaks from prosecutors can be biased and unfair?

Last June I wrote about the weakness of apparent evidence leaked by those supposedly close to the prosecution, “The “Fog” in NYT’s Haditha Investigation Story.” Last December, I wrote about the process that will be followed in determining responsibility, and that the media may well have its share, in “U.S. Media May Hope Haditha Charges are Dismissed.”

The weakness of the prosecution’s case may be seen in the immunity deal it just struck with one of the charged Marines, in return for his testimony.

Last week, the North County Times reported that the government's prosecution of the Haditha incident is fraught with problems, according to sources with intimate knowledge of the case.

The difficulties include conflicting statements from Iraqis whose testimony led to the charges and an incomplete forensic reconstruction of the events that have resulted in prosecutors delaying the start of hearings against some of the accused, the sources said.

Also at issue are interrogations of suspects conducted by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service in Iraq during which agents allegedly refused to provide attorneys for some of those who asked for them and refused the men bathroom breaks, the sources contend.

In January, a team of prosecutors from Camp Pendleton went to Iraq and spent several weeks in Haditha interviewing witnesses and seeing the four houses that were assaulted following the roadside bomb attack.

Part of the reason for that trip, according to several sources, was because the forensic reconstruction done by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service was considered lacking.

His attorney hasn’t responded to press inquiries, and the details of the deal haven’t been released. However, of note is that this is not a plea bargain, accepting guilt for a lesser charge, but an immunity, indicating the strong need for the prosecution to bolster its case.

Counsel for another charged Marine does not appear too anxious about this.

"Obviously, the government is looking towards ensuring they secure a conviction on someone at the expense, from their viewpoint, of sacrificing other potential prosecutions," said Mark S. Zaid, one of Wuterich's lawyers. "Its inconsistent with the policy the government says it's trying to enforce ... that there are some kinds of conduct that are not acceptable."

Zaid said the incident was a terrible tragedy and "people clearly died, but this is what happens in the fog of war." He said the Marines were acting as Iraqi "police chaperones one day and Marines the next" and didn't have the training they needed to act as military police.

"The immunity deal doesn't change anything," he said. "The facts are the facts."

Yes, the facts are the facts. The military justice system, compared to the civilian, is particularly suited – by act of Congress – to adjudicating such difficult cases, and does provide for more layers of fairness and review.

When that is done, how will the New York Times report it? If its treatment of its jump-to-conclusion coverage in the Duke case is an indicator, if the Marines are not found guilty or of far reduced charges, the New York Times will not apologize to the Marines or Americans.