From: barrus@nosc.mil (Joseph D. Barrus)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Q on A Few Good Men: Poison???
Date: 7 Jan 93 01:07:59 GMT
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA


my reader is having a hard time posting, so here it is again in full



In article <2B4B5CA3.19728@news.service.uci.edu>  writes:
>>
>>First of all, a lieutenant is about 4 years in minimum and LCDR
>>about 9 years in.  However, Lawyers come in as Lieutenants, not
>>not as ensigns and you promote from LT to LCDR, so there could
>>be as little as a few days difference in time in service.  
>
>Cruise's character is a LTJG, he's been in one year.
>he promotes to LT -- then to LCDR.  
>

I took your word that he was a LT.  I couldn't remember if he was a JG
or not.  I still seem to remember that Lawyers come in as LTs, but I'm
probably mistaken on that and they come in as LTJG

>>Since
>>they come in as lieutenants, there may only be as little as 5 years
>>on the job experience.  As far as jobs go, it could have little to do 
>>with rank.  A LCDR could easily be in a reporting position to a 
>>LT on an assignment or even in permanent duty.
>
>A LTJG with only one year experience is very unlikely to report 
>to a field grade officer.  (But, maybe not as unlikely in the Navy.)
>
>
>>>Then, the worst possible scene (which is saying something)
>>>is when Cruise decides to quit because his client won't 
>>>plea-bargain.  Moore pleads with him to stay on the case, 
>>>because if he won't defend them "no one else can" do it.  Yeah, 
>>>right.  First of all she wanted to do the defense, and was pushed
>>>aside for Cruise, so it's unlikely she'd object too much if he quit.
>>>Two, it's even more ridiculous when you consider that up to
>>>that point his investigative skills had been totally 
>>>incompetent.  Only Moore showed either the desire or capability 
>>>to defend the defendants.  From everything that had happened up 
>>>to that point, the only logical response from her would have 
>>>been "good riddance".
>>>
>
>>Cruise didn't want to do it
>>in the first place, and Moore wanted him out.  Cruise was given
>>the assignment because he lacked trial experience and was good at
>>settling out of court and it was hoped that he could keep this under
>>wraps.  Moore, after watching him after awhile, saw that Cruise had
>>the talent to defend them, even better than herself 
>
>Watching him do what?  He'd had NO trial experience.  He was totally
>incompetent in his trip to Guatanamo Bay.  (Moore certainly showed
>more competance in at least trying to learn what happened.)
>He was uninformed about the case in most instances.  It was after
>watching him work when she should have come to the conclusion that
>he was incompetent.
>
>

Yes, he had no trial experience, but was the son of a legendary
lawyer, where he sure would have picked up some insight to what
to do at a trial.  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 just wanted to plea it out.  
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.  Moore eventually saw that and in the interest of
giving her client the best defense, she tried to bring that out
of him

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.   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.  However, in real 
live a LCDR probably would have had Cruise doing pushups for his prima donna 
behavior.  But I got the feeling that Moore lacked the self-confidence to be 
authoritative over Cruise (which is also contributed to her blunder in 
court) and eventually realized that if she was going to provide a good 
defense she would have to concentrate on helping Cruise rather than pissing 
him off.  In real life these guys all probably would be prima donnnas with 
huge egos and that wouldn't have happened.


>
>>>Markinson's testimony at the trial would have been meaningless.
>>>How much weight would a court put on a the uncorroborated
>>>testimony of an AWOL commander?
>>
>>You forget that this is a Military Court Martial, not a Civilian
>>Court of Law.  The "Jury" was made up of military folks.  They may
>>very well not discount the testimony of an AWOL commander, particularly
>>if he had a distinguished career.
>>
>
>Actually, because it's a Military Court Martial that I say his
>testimony had no weight.  He had the same time in service as 
>Nicholson.  Yet, Nicholson had superior rank and was a command 
>officer.  Without corroborating testimony, Markinson's testimony
>would not hold water next to Nicholson's testimony (which
>could potentially be corroborated by Sutherland).
>

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.