A Present Moment

A photo is worth a thousand words, but what happens when the words are just ... words? This is a photo taken from the on-line local paper (mydesert.com) of a Marine officer brought up on charges at the nearby Marine Corps Base, where he serves as the Base Provost Marshal, and whose job is to oversee the military's law enforcement activities.

The allegations are that he
• Conspired with others to falsify unit training records and his own physical fitness test.
• Fraternized with subordinates at off-duty events.
• Failed to investigate allegations of adultery by Marines and a civilian officer.
• Hazed a Marine who admitted he committed adultery by forcing him to brief others about the crime (mydesert.com).

He is shown with his lawyer, a Middle-Eastern male with a hyphenated last name. Here's the problem: people see the photo, read the headline, and leap to conclusions about the person, as well as the charges he faces. No, none of the commentators know the Marine, nor have knowledge of the case, but that does not stop anyone from blogging a thousand words based on a picture.

A Middle Eastern appearance is enough to substantiate charges of being a "sleeper," similar to the military officer who shot and killed Army personnel several months ago. The photo shows the two engaged in a conversation, which is fairly typical during a trial between the accused and the lawyer, but which appears, in this instance, to provide proof that they are involved in a conspiracy. One person alleges that "this guy looks shady," while another feels that this is a "classic case of over-charging," with the military throwing charges at the Marine while hoping that some of them will stick. Believe it or not, one blogger actually states that "My gaydar is going off -- look how he holds his hands without any wedding bands." After reading these comments, I am glad that the Marine is being tried by a military court, not a local court that will be influenced by the kinds of unsubstantiated personal comments made by the bloggers!

Years ago, there was a film shown in classrooms, Cypher in the Snow, about making conclusions about a student based on insufficient evidence. Each person was asked to explain what s/he saw, heard, or thought happened to a child, revealing that everyone uses their own perspective to construct their own truth. Recently, a TV movie, Vantage Point, made the same point: we all see the same thing, but the difference between what we see and what we assume happens is in direct contrast to what the evidence can prove. And, of course, a week ago I was certain that I saw a 3-foot tall child floating face down in the Pacific Ocean, not a 12" doll.

Reginald Rose wrote a TV screen play, 12 Angry Men, that warns us all to base our convictions on the evidence, not the race, color, religion, political tendencies -- or sexual orientation. I hope that this Marine gets a fair trial and, if he is guilty, accepts responsibility for his failure to do his job to the highest military standards. However, that is not a conclusion I can draw based on a photo that captures one instant of a person's life. What I think may be going on behind the scenes based on my fear of another terrorist attack, or attribute to the man's cultural heritage, or decide based on the way he holds his bare hands in a photo cannot, in any way, be used to determine his guilt or innocence either in a court of law or the local newspaper.