From: jdooley@maemaster.eng.uci.edu (John R. Dooley)
Subject: Re: Q on A Few Good Men: Poison???
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 7 Jan 93 21:47:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.010759.26625@nosc.mil> barrus@nosc.mil (Joseph D. Barrus) writes:
>In article <2B4B5CA3.19728@news.service.uci.edu>  writes:
>
>Yes, he had no trial experience, but was the son of a legendary
>lawyer, 

So what?  Having a dad whose successfully has no bearing
on his ability.  

>where he sure would have picked up some insight to what
>to do at a trial.  

Yeah, right.  I'm sure his father (who died 8 years before
the beginning of the movie) was able to provide plenty of
insight.
 
>I don't think he showed imcompetance (or rather 
>incapablilty) up to the trial, 
>but rather a lack in desire to do what is 
>necessary to prepare a defense for trial.  

He was NOT preparing to defend his clients.  Call it
what you want.  I call it incompetence.

>He just wanted to plea it out.  

The ONLY thing he'd shown himself capable of doing in
his legal career.

>He had the capability to do it right, but suppressed it to avoid
>going to trial because of the pressures he felt living up
>to his father.  

He did not display the capability *period*.  What does
Moore really know other than that he only wants a plea
bargain, and, thus, is unfit for this job.

>Moore eventually saw that and in the interest of
>giving her client the best defense, she tried to bring that out
>of him

What exactly did Cruise do to convince her he could
successfully try the case?  She was (visibly) disgusted
with him at every stage:  his investigation at Guantanamo,
his neglect to meet with his clients when they were shipped
to New York, etc.

>Moores character was originally not on the 
>defense, but was involved as an overseer acting in her job in internal
>review (other than her own interest in the defense).  
>She and Cruise had two >different jobs in different chains of 
>command.  She had no authority to tell him what to do, only to 
>make suggestions to those that appointed him.  
>Since they had picked him for their own ulterior reasons, 
>they would probably have turned a deaf ear to her anyway.  
>So the only way she was going to get any 
>influence in the way the case went and to satisfy her own rejected desire to 
>be the defense council was to get the private's relative to hire her.  And 
>then she still had no authority over Cruise.   

Moore's continued presence is another plot problem.  
If the Navy wants to "cover up" what went on, why don't 
they give her an assignment to keep her from gumming up 
the works.   They can't possibly want "internal review"
hanging around.  Hint:  That the private hired her to 
defend him is not a good answer, as her primary duty 
has to be to the Navy.

>I think it was when she 
>really blew it in court when she made the blubbering objections that she 
>came to realize that she wasn't going to have the talent to get them off and 
>knew that she was going to have to get that out of Cruise.  

This of course is AFTER the scene where she begs Cruise to stay.
And, her blunder is miniscule compared to the blunder of not asking
the private if he was there when Sutherland ordered the code red.
Since Cruise is leading the defense, that failure is his fault.

>Actually, all the defense needed was to cast a shadow of doubt
>upon the guilt of the defendants.  Markinson's testimony might
>have done that AWOL or not.
>

I doubt it.  First, the doubt needs to be reasonable.  Markinson's
testimony would have been solely on a peripheral issue - whether
Santiago was issued a transfer.  He signed the post-dated transfer.
So, paper evidence exists.  He'd have no corroborating witnesses.
The only question is when was he lying.  That's a pretty weak
witness.  And, he couldn't speak to the key issue,
did Nicholson or Sutherland order a code red.  Markinson was not 
have been present when the order was given. 

John D.