The evidence presented in a trial might change my opinion on this, but not anymore then the evidence presented before and after that same trial. A jury verdict concerns legal guilt or innocence; right or wrong is often something entirely different. Otherwise we'd all believe that OJ was innocent as soon as the jury found him not guilty. Or if we waited until the trial verdict to pass popular judgement, then we'd all feel safe letting Michael Jackson babysit our 8 y/o sons.

I base my opinion on the quality and quantity of evidence available. Probably more so in the Hamdaniya case than Haditha, is there something that seems out of the ordinary even for combat. Haditha can be explained under the context of combat operations, Hamdaniya cannot. In that case the soldiers are charged with dragging a civilian out of his home and shooting him, and then after removing valuables from his body, leaving him in a field with a poorly planted weapon. Afterwards they threatened to kill any fellow Marines who might feel the need to report what happened. Let me paraphrase the only explanation that any of the accused has released, 'I don't know why were were charged with this, it was out of our hands. We've been ordered to do these kind of operations before.'

What the hell is going on over there? Is Stanley Kubric directing this nightmare?