Your questions were addressed at the source:

"One indication of affairs in Haditha is that the heavily guarded investigators came under a coordinated insurgent attack. Still, negligence, if proved, does not constitute a cover-up. Even the most fault-finding Haditha inquiry, conducted by Army Maj. Gen. Eldon Bargewell, rejected the idea of some upper-level conspiracy. As for the infantrymen at Haditha, Lt. Col. Ware's investigation concluded, in a representative statement, that "No trier of fact can conclude SSgt Wuterich formed the criminal intent to kill." The allegations of a deliberate massacre are entirely unfounded. They are contradicted by credible testimony, and ...

Your questions were addressed at the source:

"One indication of affairs in Haditha is that the heavily guarded investigators came under a coordinated insurgent attack. Still, negligence, if proved, does not constitute a cover-up. Even the most fault-finding Haditha inquiry, conducted by Army Maj. Gen. Eldon Bargewell, rejected the idea of some upper-level conspiracy. As for the infantrymen at Haditha, Lt. Col. Ware's investigation concluded, in a representative statement, that "No trier of fact can conclude SSgt Wuterich formed the criminal intent to kill." The allegations of a deliberate massacre are entirely unfounded. They are contradicted by credible testimony, and remain a "story unsupported by evidence."

Not really.

It seems to me that the main point of the Journal opinion piece is that the media and anti-war politicians and pundits exaggerated the events in Haditha. That's true. My main point is: The Journal piece tries to trivialize those same events.

Fifteen civilian, non-combatants were killed. The Marines involved falsely reported that the civilians were killed by an insurgent IED. The military issue a report confirming an IED as the cause to death. Despite accusations to the contrary, the military stuck by it's initial report for two months. Not until pressured to do so by media reports did the military launch and investigation. Yet, the Journal piece want to dismiss all thi...

Not really.

It seems to me that the main point of the Journal opinion piece is that the media and anti-war politicians and pundits exaggerated the events in Haditha. That's true. My main point is: The Journal piece tries to trivialize those same events.

Fifteen civilian, non-combatants were killed. The Marines involved falsely reported that the civilians were killed by an insurgent IED. The military issue a report confirming an IED as the cause to death. Despite accusations to the contrary, the military stuck by it's initial report for two months. Not until pressured to do so by media reports did the military launch and investigation. Yet, the Journal piece want to dismiss all this as mere glitches, errors in judgment and, at worse, negligence that in no way involves a cover up. I simply don't accept that interpretation.

Firstly, I just wanted to show my appreciation that you're making clear statements explaining what evidence supports your views. Plus we've agreed on some common ground. Civil discussion without resorting to deragatory rhetoric, especially on such grave subjects, isn't easily achieved around here. Thanks.
Here's where I'm coming from. Intelligence was known and distributed that an ambush was planned on that day, and specifically that about 20 insurgents and a white car would be involved. This information was intercepted on cell phone conversations between 2 known insurgents, which later proved to be the same 2 providing false information which made it to the Time article. This case rests o...

Firstly, I just wanted to show my appreciation that you're making clear statements explaining what evidence supports your views. Plus we've agreed on some common ground. Civil discussion without resorting to deragatory rhetoric, especially on such grave subjects, isn't easily achieved around here. Thanks.
Here's where I'm coming from. Intelligence was known and distributed that an ambush was planned on that day, and specifically that about 20 insurgents and a white car would be involved. This information was intercepted on cell phone conversations between 2 known insurgents, which later proved to be the same 2 providing false information which made it to the Time article. This case rests on 2 issues: whether ROE were followed , and the subsequent investigation (or alleged lack thereof). The only Marine with remaining charges regarding the ROE testified to the hearing officer, who recommended the whole case be dismissed, yet it continues to court martial under lesser charges. And the powerpoint after action report on the incident submitted by an S2 officer included the intelligence, UAV videio (showing insurgents shooting and running from house to house), pictures, # of casualties, and a log of radio communications, concluding that civilian deaths were unintentional being a result of firing between Marines and insurgents, satisfying the higher ups that no further investigation was necessary. Until the media firestorm months later that is...resulting in what I believe to be a persecution and scapegoating of Marines. Our enemy is well aware of the tactics of propaganda, the importance of public perception, and how to manipulate it.

I too appreciate the civility with which you have conduct this discussion, and while I cannot say that we are in totally agreement, the additional facts you've provided have given me a lot more information to consider and have changed my view of the events on the ground in Haditha.

I share you're opinion that the Marines involved not be used as scapegoats. In fact, I will go as far as to say that the those Marines be given the benefit of the doubt as far as the ROE are concerned. If there is no clear ROE violation, then they did nothing wrong and all charges should have been dismissed. Although I make no claim as to having ever been in an even remotely similar situation, I would imagine ...

I too appreciate the civility with which you have conduct this discussion, and while I cannot say that we are in totally agreement, the additional facts you've provided have given me a lot more information to consider and have changed my view of the events on the ground in Haditha.

I share you're opinion that the Marines involved not be used as scapegoats. In fact, I will go as far as to say that the those Marines be given the benefit of the doubt as far as the ROE are concerned. If there is no clear ROE violation, then they did nothing wrong and all charges should have been dismissed. Although I make no claim as to having ever been in an even remotely similar situation, I would imagine that a 100% correct application of the ROE during and engagement like Haditha is impossible.

A question: The BBC article I linked in my original post -- assuming it is current and accurate -- indicated that charges still pending include those associated with ROE and giving false statements. Can you provide any additional information about origin of the giving false statement charges? Thanks.

A question: The BBC article I linked in my original post -- assuming it is current and accurate -- indicated that charges still pending include those associated with ROE and giving false statements. Can you provide any additional information about the origin of the giving false statement charges?

I would invite you to read this Washington Post article.Though it dates back to June, it's still vastly more in depth than that BBC article. For specific charges, testimony, and current status of the remaining prosecutions, I just came across [URL=http://warchronicle.com/TheyAreNotKillers/...

A question: The BBC article I linked in my original post -- assuming it is current and accurate -- indicated that charges still pending include those associated with ROE and giving false statements. Can you provide any additional information about the origin of the giving false statement charges?

I would invite you to read this Washington Post article.Though it dates back to June, it's still vastly more in depth than that BBC article. For specific charges, testimony, and current status of the remaining prosecutions, I just came across this page that chronicles much in one place.
The most plausible of the current charges seem to be (imo) those on intelligence officer 1st Lt. Andrew A. Grayson. He's accused of pressuring another Marine to erase photos from a computer in preparation for a statement to officers and...yep, that reporter from Time magazine. In hindsight, perhaps he was wise (even if technically illegal) to be wary of releasing graphic photos to Time if he is indeed guilty, seeing later how they eagerly put forth the distortions of the insurgents. I don't know? Getting us back to the point you raised about the tough choices on daily dilemmas with deadly consequences either way that are presented to many of our volunteer servicemen everyday in Iraq.