films foundation claims have been debunked two years ago

I don't think that the "Frontline" episode ("Rules of Engagement") that I just watched twice last night put anything to rest at all.

Some of the attorneys of the accused Marines kept making references to the alleged rules of engagement (ROE) that stated that male individuals that were of "military age" & were fleeing from an IED attack were OK to shoot & kill, which seems dubious to me. The general ROE that was in effect at the time of the incident didn't make any mention of that. The taxi that had mostly teen Iraqis in it didn't seem like much of a threat to me, but, of course, I wasn't there.

The general ROE did make several mentions of "self-defense" (which is a different concept on the battlefield than here in the USA IMHO) & using deadly force (for self-defense only) against civilians or civilian buildings. It also mentioned trying to make a Positive ID (either from your own or a superior's determination) before engaging targets, giving (optional) warnings before engaging targets, and the fact that commanders on the ground can deviate from the ROE based on certain circumstances.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/haditha/etc/roecard.pdf

Also, "Frontline" many numerous references to "forensic" evidence that suggested this or that. However, there was apparently no exhaustive investigation (like tracing the paths of bullets, determining whether bullet holes were made on the day in question, etc.) done on the incident immediately afterwards, and since the "Frontline" report didn't really go into the details of this "forensic" evidence (they just stated this or that as if it was to be taken at face value) I dunno how to weigh it properly.

I kind of doubt that there was ever any incoming fire from nearby houses after the IED attack on the day in question, but there were other IED & small arms attacks ongoing in Haditha throughout the rest of that day...so who knows what the Marines heard. The "sound of an AK-47 racking" before the first attack on house #1 sounds dubious to me as well (again, I wasn't there though)...it sounds like something that someone might make up after the fact...but who knows.

I don't think that the issue of declaring an entire house (that the Marines apparently thought at the time contained some "saboteurs") as "hostile" based simply on perceived sounds was fulling vetted in the "Frontline" presentation either. It's also pretty clear that the shootings & grenading at house #2 was way out of line given what at least some of the Marines saw (in real time) in the aftermath of house #1. Again, the idea of "seeing a runner" sounds like something that someone might make up after the fact to justify actions that were already taken...who knows...

While we'll never know for sure what really happened, even the shootings at house #4 (a significant time after the first 2 house incidents) sound potentially bogus to me. Iraqi civilians are allowed to have at least one weapon for home defense, and I dunno about you...but I'd have had mine out & ready to go after what had happened in that neighborhood (a large explosion & subsequent shootings) that morning.

It really sounds like the Marines over-reacted to the IED attack on their convoy on the day in question, but I can't honesty say that I'd have done anything different given their training, ROE, etc..

As for the reaction of the chain of command after the incident, it seems pretty clear that the Marines viewed civilian deaths as routine, which is very true since the concept of modern total war (where the super-vast majority of deaths are always civilians). I dunno that Marine commanders intentionally covered anything up as much as they bungled the communication & eventual (too late) investigation of what actually happened that morning in Haditha.