Dean's World has a great post drawing a comparison between the cases against the two groups.

...the press is in full troop—bashing mode, with 90% of Iraq coverage now focused on Haditha. And almost to a word, the articles are written with the assumption U.S. Marines have committed an atrocity; this before any serious look has been taken at the evidence.

But there are problems with the narrative. First off, the doctor who certified the civilians as having been shot is, shall we say, not exactly objective. Secondly, the area is rather pro—insurgent, and witnesses may not be credible (remember the early reports of the Jenin "massacre?"). Third, given that the insurgents commit mass murders on a daily basis and understand propaganda, it's not unreasonable to think they might have committed the atrocity themselves, then staged the area to give the impression it was coalition troops that had been responsible.

Meanwhile, defense lawyers for the accused Marines are requesting drone footage, saying it will exonerate them. That doesn't sound like something they would do if they thought the evidence would show them committing atrocities.

Does this remind anyone else of the Duke lacrosse team rape case? Unreliable witness, exculpatory footage, a media that has already hung them...

At the very least, our troops deserve the benefit of the doubt until tried. Hard to believe Memorial Day was only a few days ago, and already the media is spitting on our soldiers.