CommonPrejudice

All of them are the 'bad guys'

That intellectual giant, Chris Matthews, speculating on Haditha. (From Media Matters):

Matthews said that the fact that the civilians allegedly "knew that [the IED] was there ... [and] did not step on it" might, for the troops, have constituted "prima facie" evidence, or sufficient evidence, if not rebutted, that they were "part of the bad guys."

Especially the children. I mean they're out playing all the time. They would know where the IEDs are. Damn kids.

The Lowest

So I imagine most by now have heard about Coulter's recent comments about the widows of the 9/11 victims.

These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s death so much."

The words remind me a little of Ward Churchill's comments about those killed in the World Trade Center being "little Eichmanns." So what do Coulter and Churchill have in common besides a talent to spout off loathsome garbage?

It was the right wing that made both of their names well-known.

Of course there is one major difference. While Churchill only had his ten seconds of fame, Coulter is a prominent Republican, a regular on national TV, a best-selling "author" and recently soiled the cover of Time magazine. Churchill (a complete fraud as the evidence more and more indicates) was an obscure college professor until the right decided to nonsensically point to him as some sort of representative of the left.

So even after her recent vile comments, it seems Coulter can do no wrong for the majority on the right side of the blogosphere.  Take for example this post by someone who believes the Democrats were buying votes with crack cocaine in the last election. As Crook and Liars notes,this guy actually distances himself from Coulter. But check out the comments and how Coulter is defended.

You can be certain that she will continue to appear on television and throughout the print media regardless of how debauched she becomes. Yeah, liberal media my ass.

American society faces very serious problems when absolute nutjobs like Coulter can be popular and have such a following. Unfortunately due to its military might and polluting ways, the rest of the world is greatly influenced as well. It is an eternal shame a nation like this has so much power while the world faces previously unknown challenges, especially regarding the environment and the destructive capacity of today's military weapons. Kinda hard to be optimistic. (Not that I would put any more faith in, say, China)

An ArgleBargle For the Ages

On the left sidebar I regularly post the "arglebargle or fufurah" dedicated to the most ridiculous statements of the day. I have already stated that Chavez's comments regarding the Peruvian election were very inappropriate. Nevertheless, this comment at the OAS by Peruvian Foreign Minister Oscar Maúrtua may be the most glaring, outrageous "arglebargle or fufurah" I have ever seen in my life. (And it gives me an excuse to demonstrate for those who think Bush's reign has been some sort of break with the proud American history of promoting democracy and freedom abroad - especially in Latin America - that this is not the case). First Maúrtua:

Chavez's meddling in Peru ''had no precedent in this hemisphere,'' Peruvian Foreign Minister Oscar Maúrtua told the OAS.

I believe Maúrtua overlooked a couple of incidents. (Also see here for a very good list along with context)

               

Location	Period	Type of Force	Comments on U.S. Role
Argentina	1890	Troops	Buenos Aires interests protected
Chile	1891	Troops	Marines clash with nationalist rebels
Haiti	1891	Troops	Black workers revolt on U.S.-claimed Navassa Island defeated
Nicaragua	1894	Troops	Month-long occupation of Bluefields
Panama	1895	Naval, troops	Marines land in Colombian province
Nicaragua	1896	Troops	Marines land in port of Corinto
Cuba	1898-	Naval, troops	Seized from Spain, U.S. still holds Navy base at Guantanamo
Puerto Rico	1898-	Naval, troops	Seized from Spain, occupation continues
Nicaragua	1898	Troops	Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur
Nicaragua	1899	Troops	Marines land at port of Bluefields
Honduras	1903	Troops	Marines intervene in revolution
Dominican Republic	1903-04	Troops	U.S. interests protected in Revolution
Cuba	1906-09	Troops	Marines land in democratic election
Nicaragua	1907	Troops	"Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up
Honduras	1907	Troops	Marines land during war with Nicaragua
Panama	1908	Troops	Marines intervene in election contest
Nicaragua	1910	Troops	Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto
Honduras	1911	Troops	U.S. interests protected in civil war
Cuba	1912	Troops	U.S. interests protected in Havana
Panama	1912	Troops	Marines land during heated election
Honduras	1912	Troops	Marines protect U.S. economic interests
Nicaragua	1912-33	Troops, bombing	20-year occupation, fought guerrillas
Mexico	1913	Naval	Americans evacuated during revolution
Dominican Republic	1914	Naval	Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo
Mexico	1914-18	Naval, troops	Series of interventions against nationalists
Haiti	1914-34	Troops, bombing	19-year occupation after revolts
Dominican Republic	1916-24	Troops	8-year Marine occupation
Cuba	1917-33	Troops	Military occupation, economic protectorate
Panama	1918-20	Troops	"Police duty" during unrest after elections
Honduras	1919	Troops	Marines land during election campaign
Guatemala	1920	Troops	2-week intervention against unionists
Costa Rica	1921	Troops
Panama	1921	Troops
Honduras	1924-25	Troops	Landed twice during election strife
Panama	1925	Troops	Marines suppress general strike
El Salvador	1932	Naval	Warships sent during Faribundo Marti revolt
Uruguay	1947	Nuclear threat	Bombers deployed as show of strength
Puerto Rico	1950	Command operation	Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce
Guatemala	1954-?	Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat	CIA directs exile invasion and coup d'Etat after newly elected government nationalizes unused U.S.'s United Fruit Company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua; long-term result: 200,000 murdered
Panama	1958	Troops	Flag protests erupt into confrontation
Cuba	1961	Command operation	CIA-directed exile invasion fails
Cuba	1962	Nuclear threat, naval	Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with Soviet Union
Panama	1964	Troops	Panamanians shot for urging canal's return
Dominican Republic	1965-66	Troops, bombing	Marines land during election campaign
Guatemala	1966-67	Command operation	Green Berets intervene against rebels
Chile	1973	Command operation	CIA-backed coup ousts democratically elected Marxist president
El Salvador	1981-92	Command operation, troops	Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash; long-term result: 75,000 murdered and destruction of popular movement
Nicaragua	1981-90	Command operation, naval	CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution; result: 50,000 murdered
Honduras	1982-90	Troops	Maneuvers help build bases near borders
Grenada	1983-84	Troops, bombing	Invasion four years after revolution
Bolivia	1987	Troops	Army assists raids on cocaine region
Panama	1989	Troops, bombing	Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed
Haiti	1994-95	Troops, naval	Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup
Venezuela	2002	Command operation	Failed coup attempt to remove left-populist president Hugo Chavez
Haiti	2004-	Troops	Removal of democratically elected President Aristide; troops occupy country

And of course these are just the overt military interventions and some of the CIA work. The behind the scenes pressuring, the endless threats, intimidation and arrogance towards Latin America have been a constant feature of the United States policy in its so-called backyard. At times I wish those on the left who are shocked, just shocked, by the US administration's behavior in Iraq would crack open a book or two and read up on the long and bloody history of US intervention in this hemisphere.

For God sakes the US has been blatantly interfering in the Venezuelan political process and have made no secret of their lack of enthusiasm for Humala in Peru. This Maúrtua character must have missed a couple of his history classes. Wow.

Digby Nails It Like Digby

This is Digby's conclusion. As they say read the whole thing.

Virtually the entire American political establishment got punked by Osama bin Laden's trash talking and they still don't get it. With every impotent "message" of toughness we send, the more we play into his hands.

Garcia takes it comfortably

Alan Garcia wins in Peru against Ollanta Humala, garnering about 55% of the vote to take the contest easily. I must say that I'm not as hopeful with Garcia as I was. Discussions I've had with a couple of people and a few things I've read have led me to believe that perhaps Garcia has not matured and previously I think I underestimated his capacity for corruption . And while there certainly are two, shall we say, styles of leftist government in Latin America (Kirchner, Lula, Bachelet versus Morales and Chavez), it is very much an oversimplification to approach it so cut and dry. There are differences between the southern cone social democrats and there are some similarities between Chavez/Morales and the others. Further all of them seem to have a good working relationship.  I don't think walls should be put up right now when it is so very important that Latin America develop its own independent political and economic path. Garcia has called Chavez's plan a "backward socialist model" while Chavez has very inappropriately interfered in the Peruvian election with his reckless comments. Hopefully both will come to realize that this is counterproductive and neither one are the enemy of Latin American economic and social progress.

Actually, while he has been in power for some time, I still haven't entirely made up my mind regarding Chavez and probably won't until I visit the country someday. Economically I am encouraged. Beyond that I am not so sure.

Is this what it takes to work for Newsweek?

The upcoming GOP agenda.

GOP strategy now is aimed at energizing the party's base, with an agenda packed with conservative crowd-pleasers. After a long delay, Bush last week signed a $70-billion tax cut. The Senate soon will vote on constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage and flag burning.

Michael Hirsh, Newsweek.

But at least the GOP is engaged in a war over real policy choices. It is an emotional debate, often a hysterical and ill-informed one, but it is a fight among adults who know what they believe in and who have the guts to battle for it. By contrast the Democrats, ostensibly the party poised to exploit this GOP civil war, don't seem to remember what it is like to behave as adults.

Let me see if I can follow what Hirsh is saying.  The Republicans "strategy now is aimed at energizing the party's base" or in other words political pandering. And the "real policy choices" are "constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage and flag burning" when such infantile issues as the war in Iraq, global warming, the policy toward Iran and North Korea, health care, etc etc etc are ignored. But the GOP has courage and they behave like adults ... albeit "hysterical and ill-informed" adults. Yep, Hirsh makes a solid case.

It appears that there is little rhyme or reason in whom Newsweek employs. There certainly isn't any criteria relating to intelligence.

Talkin' Latin America Elections, Land Reform, Confronting the Military

In what I hope to make a regular Sunday feature, here's a roundup (with some commentary) of the some of the news coming out of Latin America over the last few days. Of course the big news is the election in Peru, which pits Ollanta Humala against Alan Garcia. I'll have something to say about that after the results are known. Recent polls have Garcia in front by a comfortable margin but many feel with the high number of undecided and the reluctancy of many to admit they will vote for Humala (apparently a poll done with a secret ballot produced a much smaller margin between the two candidates) the election is still very much up for grabs. Meanwhile:

Biggest Project Since Panama Canal
(From the Jamaica Observer)

The site for the largest Central American project since the Panama Canal could be designated this weekend when regional leaders meet to discuss plans for a US$6.5 billion multinational oil refinery, Mexico's energy secretary said Thursday...

The refinery, with a capacity of 360,000 barrels a day, will be able to meet the energy needs of Central America's seven nations at US$8 less a barrel than the open-market prices,..

The refinery is the crux of the region's most sweeping energy project to date. It aims to reduce the region's dependence on foreign oil and keep skyrocketing gasoline prices in check.

One argument I've heard against the nationalization of the oil industry in Latin America is that the countries lack refining capabilities, so in the short run this is probably a good thing. However, given the environmental realities and the asleep at the wheel approach of the current administration in Washington it seems to be that it would be a good time to invest heavily in alternative energy. Why can't Latin America become a global leader in this field as it asserts more independence from the United States?

----------

Morales Starts Land Reform
(From Reuters)

Bolivia's leftist president, Evo Morales, took a first step on Saturday toward handing over a fifth of the country's territory to poor farmers, a day after angry landowners vowed to form self-defense groups.

Morales chose the eastern city of Santa Cruz, the landowners' power base in Bolivia's agricultural heartland, to award 60 titles to 7.8 million acres of former government land to some of the poor peasants who support him...

Between the idle and underutilized land, the exploited land and vast number of poor who have no access to land whatsoever, land reform is absolutely necessary in Latin America. But of course there is more than one way to skin a polluting, absentee exploiter. The operation requires common sense, a certain level of pragmatism and a solid and just plan. There must be some form of decent compensation for those who lose their land (even if one believes the landowners are not deserving it must be done for political reasons), the land expropriated must really be unproductive and there must be concrete plans, assistance and financing for the small time farmers who will take over the land. It cannot be an ideological exercise or it will certainly fail.

And those who insist of forming extra-legal paramilitary groups must be treated as the criminals they are. You lost, now give it up.

----------

Crazy Speculation
(From The US News and World Report)

Meanwhile, in Bolivia, leftist President Evo Morales is sounding more and more like his soul mate, Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez. Newly elected Morales asserted that the U.S. government has organized groups to kill him, just as Chavez claims that Washington is plotting his overthrow.

The tone here is clearly meant to imply Morales is as nuts as Chavez. And with good reason. It's not like there were a coup attempt to overthrow Chavez that was linked to the U.S. or that the United States has been involved in plots to overthrow leftist leaders in Latin America. That's just crazy talk.

----------

Tightening Race in Mexico

It looks like it's a dead heat leading up to the July 2 election in Mexico between the (more or less leftist) PRD candidate Manuel Lopez Obrador  and the (more or less rightist) PAN candidate Felipe Calderon with each getting approximately 34% in the latest polls. The (more or less 'corruptist') PRI  candidate Roberto Madrazo is close behind in third with 30%)

See bloggings by Boz for a host of other poll results from Latin America.

----------

Bachelet to visit Washington and to be pressured

On June 9 Chilean president Michelle Bachelet will visit Washington. One issue certainly to be discussed is Chile's intention to support Venezuela's bid for a soon-to-be open seat on the Security Council at the UN. From Progreso Weekly ((via Vheadline):

With an arrogance bordering on intimidation, the administration of George W. Bush wishes to impose its will onto Chile's sovereignty and force that country to impede Venezuela's admission to the United Nations Security Council.

That attempt came to light on Sunday, April 28, when the Chilean daily La Tercera published a report -- based on Chilean diplomatic sources -- titled "White House Ultimatum." ...

"A lot worse was the Chilean [foreign] minister's [Alejandro Foxley] meeting with Under Secretary of State Robert Zoellick, who openly displayed his skepticism toward the policy of prudence and what he called -- with a mocking tone -- the 'naive idea' of solidarity within South America. According to [Zoellick], Chile's silence [...] would end up separating the country from the world actors with which it interacts, such as Asia and Europe, and would earn it scant dividends among its neighbors.

The International Forecaster editor Bob Chapman states:

If they apply half the pressure they did on Foxley, Bachelet is liable to walk out.

Man, I'd love to see that.

The very idea of the United States current government using a "mocking tone" with a Latin American government is richly ironic given the "serious" issues US government deals with.

-----------

A Long Overdue Confrontation

Here is a headline from the New York Times today:

Argentine president faces rising criticisms

You might think this points towards an erosion of Kirchner's popularity. In fact I very much hope the opposite occurs. The story is actually about how conservative military elements are beginning to openly criticize the Argentine president. (And frankly it is a weak story with little analysis or perspective).

From the moment Néstor Kirchner became president of Argentina three years ago, sectors of the military have chafed under his criticism and tough human rights policy. But as the president moves ahead with plans to overhaul the armed forces and reduce their authority, those tensions are breaking into the open.

At an Army Day ceremony here last Monday, a few officers turned their backs on Kirchner and another walked offstage as he delivered a speech attacking the armed forces for their past associations with "state terrorism" and for a recent case in which military intelligence was found to be spying on politicians and reporters. The wife of a recently dismissed officer even stood and publicly challenged Kirchner's version of the military's history.

"As president of the nation, I have no fear," Kirchner told the crowd at one point. "I'm not afraid of you." He then left the ceremony without reviewing the troops that had been assembled for him....

I know Argentina reasonably well and I'll tell you. Kirchner demonstrated some serious political courage in standing down the military like that. The only comment supplied by the Times reporter is by some political scientist named Jorge Battaglino who claims Kirchner is overreacting. I'm guessing he didn't have a parent tossed out of an airplane.

While an open confrontation with the military in a country with a history like Argentina's is very dangerous, I believe it a fundamental step in continuing the long and difficult process of truly democratizing the country. I would hope and pray maneuvers by Kirchner such as this one will only make him more popular in the general populace. He will need their support. The following is the kind of sadistic delusional thinking behind the rebellious leaders of the military.

The confrontation Monday followed another outburst on May 24, in which more than 1,000 people, including retired and active duty officers, gathered at a main square here to pay homage to what they called the "victims of guerrilla subversion" in the 1970s. The demonstrators also rained insults on the army commander, General Roberto Bendini, whom they called a "lackey" and "traitor" for carrying out Kirchner's orders, and they attacked a television news reporter.

According to news reports, a retired general at the protest, Miguel Giuliano, accused Kirchner's government of having a "selective and paraplegic memory" regarding the dirty war and of using human rights "for purposes of revenge and political calculation."

Btw, by the time the military dictatorship took over in 1976 virtually all of the extreme leftist insurgents had been killed or were deep in hiding. "Guerilla subversion" my ass.

24 students gunned down

What a goddamn fiasco.

Gunmen in Iraq have dragged 24 people, mostly students, from vehicles and shot them dead,...

Yes, the media should be showing more good news out of Iraq. After all, dragging 24 teenagers out of their cars and gunning them down in the street happens all the time. But I imagine the religious right is happy with all that biblical eye for an eye retaliation going on (or in this case two eyes, mouth, ears, nose etc.)

A morgue employee removes a man's head from a box found on the streets of Baquba, Iraq, June 3, 2006. Witnesses said a note in the box said the head belonged to Sheikh Abdel Aziz Hamad al Mashhadani, the Imam of a Sunni mosque on the outskirts of Baghdad, and accused him of killing four physicians from the Baghdad area.

Here are a few words dedicated to DubyaPE (From Ben Harper's Excuse Me Mister)

...I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.
I've seen enough,
Oh - I've seen enough to know that I've seen too much.

'cause Mr. when you're rattling on heaven's gate.
By then it is too late...

Walmart to go "Organic"

Very interesting article by Michael Pollan on how Walmart is getting into the organic food business. This of course signifies, as the article states, the mainstreaming of organic food. On the surface this seems like a very good thing.

However, as is the case with most of what Walmart does, there is a much shadier side to the issue . When you consider Walmart's promise to keep the price of organic food only 10% higher than that of non-organic food and the company's well-deserved reputation for squeezing suppliers to get the absolute minimum cost, there are some obvious negative consequences looming on the horizon, the most important and obvious being that the word 'organic' will soon come to mean nothing at all.

As the article notes:

Organic is just a word, after all, and its definition now lies in the hands of the federal government, which means it is subject to all the usual political and economic forces at play in Washington. Inevitably, the drive to produce organic food cheaply will bring pressure to further weaken the regulations, and some of K Street's finest talent will soon be on the case. A few years ago a chicken producer in Georgia named Fieldale Farms persuaded its congressman to slip a helpful provision into an appropriations bill that would allow growers of organic chicken to substitute conventional chicken feed if the price of organic feed exceeded a certain level. That certainly makes life easier for a chicken producer when the price of organic corn is north of $5 a bushel, as it is today, and conventional corn south of $2. But in what sense is a chicken fed on conventional feed still organic? In no sense but the Orwellian one: because the government says it is. [the law was eventually repealed)

Whether its chickens in Confined Animal Feeding Operations(CAFO's) whose "free roaming" consists of a concrete porch with a view outside or cows in deserts chewing grain instead of grass (and thus highly reducing the vitamin content of its milk), it does seem that industrial food production can not be compatible with organic food production if the word organic is to continue to mean something. As the author of the article states:

To say you can sell organic food for 10 percent more than you sell irresponsibly priced food suggests that you don't really get it — that you plan to bring business-as-usual principles of industrial "efficiency" and "economies of scale" to a system of food production that was supposed to mimic the logic of natural systems rather than that of the factory.

Frankly I doubt we ever really will "get it." Check the story out.

Justifying the murder of innocent women and children

Yesterday the US government decided that its troops need more (some?) training in how to treat civilians.

Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, is expected to order today that all U.S. and allied troops in Iraq undergo new "core values" training in how to operate professionally and humanely. Not only will leaders discuss how to treat civilians under the rules of engagement, but small units also will be ordered to go through training scenarios to gauge their understanding of those rules. "It's going to include everyone in the coalition," the official said.

Yes this is really good idea. Clearly it is the lack of proper training that led to this.

Planted by insurgents at the edge of the road, the bomb had killed Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, a 20-year-old Marine from El Paso. Survivors and witnesses said Terrazas' death drove some of the troops into a murderous rage.

Survivors say that furious Marines rampaged through a quiet street, bursting into homes and gunning down Iraqi civilians — including children, women and an elderly man in a wheelchair.

I get it. I shouldn't go into a murderous rage and gun down civilians including women, children and people in wheelchairs. Thank god they told me this.

Let's just assume for a moment that the charges are true. There certainly seems to be evidence that something horrible occurred so it's not much of a stretch. Of course, those who committed the barbaric acts need to be punished. More importantly those who authorized and/or encouraged these acts need to be identified and punishment. But certainly I understand there are other factors at play, such at the tremendous stress the soldiers are under and the very nature of war itself.

Ezra Klein states it well:

This is war. A marine is extinguished by a bomb and his friends -- his brothers -- snap. They take all their fear and all their helplessness and all their rage and regain control in the only way they possibly can. You can blame them, but they, as individuals, are largely beside the point. You put human beings in a killing field and eventually a few of them will revert to beasts.

This is why war is hell. Because it isn't clean, because humans wage it. And when humans descend to hell, a few always become demons. American troops have massacred innocent Iraqis, not by accident, but on purpose. This is a barrel of gasoline dumped on the already-flaming insurgency. This will ricochet across the Arab world. We will become more hated than we already are. Al Qaeda will have another item to add to their list of casus belli. Our country can't afford to further inflame anti-American sentiment -- but doing so was as inevitable as morning dawn the moment we entered Iraq.

So alongside of punishing those directly responsible, more importantly the reasons that this horrible incident occurred must be addressed. As long as the war itself continues-which invariably produces soldiers gone bad like these - more Hadithas can be expected. Now I'm aware that this is a typical leftist 'root cause' argument so I imagine any wingers reading this will most certainly disagree, demanding everyone and anyone responsible be dealt with immediately and harshly - presumably the death penalty for those who pulled the trigger. And given the gravity of the charges and how this type of behaviour can not be tolerated at all, certainly the RWer's aren't  worried about legal technicalitites like due process and innocent until proven guilty. Lawyers be damned. This is war after all and those who commit offenses like these have acted in a treasonous manner. This is no time for going soft.  We need moral clarity!

Hmm. After a perusal of the right side of the blogosphere ... well apparently not so much. Funny that. From that walking piece on insanity, Michelle Malkin

GOP Sen. John Warner, who like Murtha also served in the Marines, struck the right tone over the weekend -- refusing, unlike Murtha, to render a verdict against the Marines before trial and avoiding Bush Derangement Syndrome, but also taking the allegations very seriously.

Is the time for trials? What if there are more soldiers like this? It's a ticking timebomb. Torture them until they talk I say!

I also know this: Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, the Marine who was killed by a roadside IED (improvised explosive device) that day,followed a proud family tradition of military service. He had received a commendation for bravery on his first tour of duty in Iraq in 2004. One of his fellow Marines said Terrazas's body was split in two by the bomb explosion that rocked his Hummer while on patrol that morning.

Of course it is tragic that anyone is killed in Iraq. But what does this have to do with shooting innocent civilians at point blank? I'm getting confused. This almost sounds like she is ... how should I put this ... justifying the murder of pregnant women and babies.

From Cold Fury:

Maybe then it might occur to them that the defenders of America are far more worthy of the benefit of the doubt...

Give the soldiers the benefit of the doubt? This all kinda sounds wishy washy, not at all morally clear. Is it people then who are bad and not their acts, Americans good, Arabs bad? Is this based on Abu Ghraib? Is this where the benefit of the doubt is derived?

Philip Brennan at Newsmax appears to be in favour of "waiting for the results of the investigation before rushing to judgment." How very civil libertarian of him. He notes:

Hardly mentioned at all in the hysterical coverage of Haditha is the nature of this city hard by the Syrian border. If you think Fallujah was a hornet's nest of insurgency, you should take a look at Haditha and what the Marines have been facing there.

I get it. The soldiers face horrible violent situations therefore the killing of innocent children and women can be justi.... oh wait, there it is again. Justifying horrible acts. I was sure the Right was against that kind of thing.

I guess when justifying the unjustifiable appears to be the only option you can always just use wild speculation to get you out of this argumentative quandary.

Isn't it conceivable that the Marines, under attack or believing they were under attack, shot up the area with their automatic weapons, mistakenly killing innocent civilians in the process? Then, fully understanding that the media would vilify them for their mistake, they compounded their error and lied, saying that the IED that killed their comrades, also killed the civilians. If so, I think the lie was a mistake, but an entirely understandable one.

Of course due process should be followed. But in this case we seem closer to fire than smoke and while certainly one can try to understand how these barbaric acts occurred and do everything to prevent more from occurring, there can be no justification (if indeed the charges are proven to be true) for this.

You see how it works. The reasons that something occur are not synonymous with justifying the acts themselves. Any clearer now?