NYT’s Hasn’t Heard Of Innocent ‘Til Proven Guilty

A few days ago I wondered about the “little or no reflection by the major media on their own hysteria” about Haditha.

The latest rumination from the New York Times, instead, with squad leader SSgt Wuterich’s Article 32 hearing beginning, wonders why the entire U.S. military justice system can’t seem to agree with its hysteria. Generalizing from its own partial and hasty viewpoint the NYT’s says,

In Iraq and in the United States, the killings were viewed as cold-blooded vengeance.

It’s not until half-way through a lengthy piece of bemoaning that the prosecution has been unable to prove guilt that a sober voice is briefly introduced:

“It certainly erodes that sense that what they did was wrong,” Elizabeth L. Hillman, a legal historian who teaches military law at Rutgers University School of Law at Camden, said of the outcomes so far. “When the story broke, it seemed like we understood what happened; there didn’t seem to be much doubt. But we didn’t know.”

But, that doesn’t stop the NYT’s from returning to its wail, ending on this absurd note that runs counter to justice requiring innocence unless proven guilty:

“We can’t say those guys didn’t commit a crime,” said Michael F. Noone Jr., a retired Air Force lawyer and law professor at Catholic University of America. “We can only say that after an investigation, there was not sufficient evidence to prosecute.”

Duh! That's called innocent until proven guilty, in court and not in conjecture or for scoring a political point.

The NYT’s stubborn refusal to face the facts even runs counter to other journalists and experts who have closely followed the cases.

For example, the Camp Pendleton area’s North County Times, which has closely reported the cases, points out this expected defense that runs counter to the prosecution’s contentions, contentions which in other cases have been found unconvincing against contrary evidence:

Wuterich's attorneys are expected to argue that Dela Cruz fired first at those men. They point to a forensic reconstruction by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, which used aerial surveillance tapes to reconstruct what happened near the car.

A government investigator is expected to testify that the Iraqis were running away, leading Wuterich to believe they were insurgents involved in the attack. Attorneys for Wuterich say the tapes show Dela Cruz is the more likely killer based on his position and Wuterich's in relation to the slain men.

"The forensic evidence rules out to a scientific certainty Dela Cruz's version of events," attorney Puckett said.

There is little doubt that SSgt Wuterich’s leadership position will place him under greater scrutiny for his actions. This is, also, a two-sided examination. Experienced combat veterans may see a young man who acted with leadership in making fast decisions under fire, fulfilling his responsibilities to his men and mission.

The NYT’s has had more time to deliberate, but doesn’t seem to have grown any wiser, or respectful of justice requiring adequate proof of guilt, rather than the NYT’s hysteric and unfair continuing attempts at justifiying its own rush to judgment.

The NYT's might do better to wait, watch and see what comes out at the hearing rather than denying facts and justice, particularly in advance.