From: barrus@cod.nosc.mil
Subject: Re: Q on A Few Good Men: Poison???
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 00:51:39 GMT


>>Spoilers follow.
>>
>>
>>I agree that the flashback was not very effective, but 
>>the whole plot was a muddle.  First, would a lieutentant commander
>>(implying at least 10 years in military service) be assisting
>>a lieutenant (one year of experience.)  Pretty damn unlikely.  
>>Even more so when you consider the military's rank structure.
>>
>

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.  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.


>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".
>

I think you missed something here.  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 but was reluctant
to show it due to the pressure of living up to his father's legendary
status and posthumous expectations.  She knew he was better that she
was and she worked hard to get him to come out and be what he could be 
(at the risk of sounding like a Marine Corp ad).

>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.

>
>None of the defense lawyers ever asked if the private was in the
>room when the corporal was ordered to do the "Code Red"?  Yeah,
>right.  Since that's the key point of the defense case, you'd
>imagine they might go over what happened in detail.  (Where
>were you sitting when the order was given?  What exactly did
>the lieutenant say to you?) This level of negligence is 
>too illogical.  
>
>The final scene is completely inane.  Nicholson's knew that 
>ordering the "Code Red" was against order's from superiors.
>He knew enough to alter flight logs to cover his tracks.
>I really can't believe that anyone would buy him being stupid
>enough to admit ordering it.  In the heat of an exchange.
>C'mon.  A successful combat officer (which we are led to believe
>he is) is successful because he doesn't lose his cool when
>under stress.  And, then on top of it, asking "what did I do
>wrong?" after he gets arrested.  If he didn't know he was 
>culpable, why was he altering flight logs. 
>
Cruise knew that Nicholson thought he was correct on this and
shouldn't have to hide from the truth.  Th.