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: 6 Jan 93 22:26:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.005139.27922@nosc.mil> barrus@cod.nosc.mil writes:
>
>>>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.  

Cruise's character is a LTJG, he's been in one year.
he promotes to LT -- then to LCDR.  

>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".
>>
>
>I think you missed something here.  

I missed nothing.

>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.

>
>>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).

John D.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies