Line #85 Headscratchers/AFewGoodMen


1	!Per wiki policy, Administrivia/SpoilersOff applies here and all spoilers are unmarked. Administrivia/YouHaveBeenWarned.
2
3	* Where the hell is Santiago's Company Commander? Why is a full bird Colonel discussing his concerns with a Platoon Leader?
4	** Jessep probably stepped in when he got word of Santiago's letter. He pretty much considered it a personal insult to his leadership.
5	* Why, of all the men in the unit, send Dawson and Downey to give Santiago a Code Red? Dawson is a model marine, but has shown a specific reluctance to administer this kind of punishment, and has specifically been protecting Santiago; while Downey's limited understanding and tendency to answer questions openly and innocently are less than ideal for a secret illegal order such as this. It's shown that the other marines were angry with Santiago and had been aching to give him a Code Red for a while, so there were plenty of other options. The choice of Dawson and Downey didn't prove problematic, but still, it doesn't strike me as wise.
6	** The choice of Dawson is actually quite a good one. When Dawson carries out a punishment he finds distasteful on someone he's been trying to protect, it proves to Jessep and reiterates to Dawson himself that his ultimate loyalty is to the Marines and that his conscience comes a very distant second. It also emphasises to Santiago, when he suffers physical punishment delivered by someone who's previously looked after him, that nobody on the base is really on his side.
7	** He's also the one who already has a motive (Santiago reporting him for the fenceline shooting), and since Dawson doesn't express that much remorse for Santiago until the end, he didn't have much of a problem with the Code Red on this occasion.
8	** And Downey is a fine choice, until things go horribly wrong. There's no reason for Jessep or Kendrick to think Downey will ever be called to testify about a routine Code Red, and his innocence and trusting nature are pretty ideal for something such as this.
9	** Actually, Downey is a fine choice even if things go horribly wrong. Remember that Kendrick only gave the order to Dawson, while Downey was dealing with the jeep blow-out. So Downey can't provide any testimony against Kendrick. All he can do is finger the fall guy: Dawson. Which he did, actually.
10	** Remember that Kendrick had it in for Dawson after he snuck another marine food against his orders.
11	** And who said that Jessep and/or Kendrick specifically chose Downey for the mission? My impression is they actually chose Dawson (for the reasons outlined above) to administer Code Red, and it was the latter's initiative to bring Downey in.
12	** As for the other marines itching to give Santiago the Code Red treatment, this could also have been a consideration ''against'' choosing them; Jessep and Kendrick didn't actually ''want'' Santiago dead or seriously injured, they just wanted him roughed up. However, given the bad feelings between him and the others there was a risk that things could have escalated out of control had anyone else performed it. In theory, however, Dawson's own reluctance to participate in the Code Red and previous willingness to protect Santiago meant that he would have held back sufficiently to ensure that Santiago was not in severe danger. Of course, things escalated out of control anyway, but that was for reasons that Jessep and Kendrick couldn't possibly have known about (which is not to excuse them, of course, but nevertheless).
13	*** But remember that something changed in-between these events: Dawson learning about Santiago's promise to tell more about his alleged fence shooting, which had to change Dawson's attitude towards Santiago. It would appear that Jessep and Kendrick factored this in the decision.
14	*** True, but presumably what changed was that Dawson was now willing to give Santiago a damn good kicking. However, he would presumably still be more likely to draw the line at actually killing the man due to their prior good feeling.
15	* Why is Jessep so determined to make it clear that marines under his command DO NOT ignore orders, ever, full stop? The prosecution's case is that, after being ordered not to touch Santiago, Dawson and Downey broke into his room and murdered him. So it was ''essential'' to the case that under extreme circumstances a marine will not follow orders.
16	** The easy answer is that Jessep didn't think his story through because he couldn't conceive that he would be questioned over the death of one of the Marines under his command. Nevertheless, Jessep does appear to be short-sighted and impulsive since he didn't take steps to try to cover up the incident until the case was in full swing. Of course, if he was smart, his testimony would have gone like this:
17	--->'''Jessep:''' I requested that Santiago be transferred off the base and ordered that he not be touched.\
18	'''Kaffee:''' And why was that?\
19	'''Jessep:''' Santiago was a sub-standard Marine, and I didn't want the men taking matters into their own hands.\
20	'''Kaffee:''' Is it possible that Dawson ignored the order?\
21	'''Jessep:''' He obviously did ignore the order. Dawson did it before, as noted on his prior performance report. And now a Marine is dead due to his disregard for orders.\
22	'''Kaffee:''' Ermm...
23	** Pride before reason. To say that a subordinate could have possibly disregarded his orders would be a sign of weakness that Jessep wouldn't stand for.
24	*** Not to mention a ''Colonel'' with ''private rank marines'' that ''didn't'' follow his orders ''without question'' would most certainly be pulled from his post. Think about it: the marines wouldn't see a Colonel with a discipline problem, they'd see a Colonel whose men didn't respect him, didn't listen to him, and had lost the authority of command. Boom. Instant retirement. It could be that, once Jessep established the story of ordering all men to keep their hands off Santiago, he had no choice but to stand by that fiction because to alter his story in ''any'' way would result in the Corps removing him as an ineffectual leader. Which answers the questions on this page so far: Jessep wasn't short-sighted and impulsive, he was calculating and devious, but once he started to lie, he had to continue to lie in order to maintain his professional career and personal integrity. Ironic.
25	*** Seems unlikely that a one-off incident of marines disobeying orders would be considered grounds for removing a colonel from command, rather than just a punishable incident for the marines in question.
26	*** Welcome to the United States Marine Corps.
27	*** Only going off Google here, but while it's fairly easy to find cases of USMC members convicted of disobeying orders, I don't see anything about their superiors being reassigned (let alone "instant retirement" for someone many many rungs up the ladder) as a result.
28	*** How many of those incidents involved the marines disobeying orders and killing someone?
29	*** It's not so much that they are ''relieved'' instantly (although the Navy has several instances in the past decade of ship captains and even commanding admirals having been relieved before the ship even got back to port, when 'lack of confidence in their ability to command' hit critical mass), but that they become instantly aware that their careers have ended. Once a colonel has it known to his superiors that privates are openly disobeying his orders to his face, that's it -- his next officer efficiency report is going to contain phrases such as "this officer is not recommended for independent command", which is the polite military way of saying "this officer is a worthless fucking idiot". At this point any colonel with minimal self-awareness is going to apply for retirement ''anyway'', because the alternative involves being assigned to an endless series of shit jobs until he finally gives up or hits mandatory retirement age, with zero point zero hope of ever being promoted again. After all, at least that way he can free up a marginally less incompetent warm body to be sent somewhere else.
30	*** As lawyer and a military dependent (Navy), I viewed Jessep's actions as not being so much to protect himself but Kendrick. He thinks Kendrick is a weasel but a good officer. Kendrick screwed up with the Bell incident and now with Santiago, his leadership skills are at issue as well as his Marine Corps future. Jessep is protecting Kendrick and the cover-up is largely to protect Kendrick (and ensure his loyalty to Jessep)
31	*** There's a scene in the play that lends a lot of credence to the above theory. When Jessep, Markinson and Kendrick are discussing Santiago's letter, Markinson suggests that Kendrick's methods are to blame. He then proceeds to list the names of ''several'' Marines (besides Santiago) ranging from Privates to a ''Gunnery Sergeant'' who are all implied to have at the very least asked to be transferred out of RSC Windward because of Kendrick's methods. So it wasn't just Santiago being a screw up, this was a pattern of behavior that demonstrated that Kendrick was unfit for command. What's more is that Jessep allowed this to happen on his watch, he's smart enough to figure out that if the top brass learned that he'd be out of a job as well.
32	** Also, don't forget one key point: Kaffee had successfully bluffed Jessep into thinking that the two airmen, O'Malley and Rodriguez, were going to testify that there had been an earlier flight from Guantanamo that Jessep had erased the records of as part of his cover-up of his involvement in Santiago's death. As such, Jessep thought he had been caught in a lie, and therefore had to change his story to account for why Santiago, whose life Jessep feared was in danger, was not transferred off the base on the earliest possible flight. So he tried to change his story to say that Santiago was being transferred because he was a substandard marine, which wouldn't have been as urgent. And once he was changing his story on the stand, it was all over.
33	*** It should also be remembered that Jessep is extremely prideful to the point of being absolutely intolerant of any insubordination. In the scene where he, Markinson and Kendrick are discussing Santiago, he is incensed that Markinson would disagree with him or question him like that, regardless of the fact that he and Markinson are old friends with the same amount of experience (Jessep has merely been luckier with promotions). The contrast can be seen with Kendrick who views Jessep's authority as second only to God and his assistant Tom who ends every answer with "Sir". In Jessep's mind, the ideal Marine asks no questions and is concerned only with following orders.
34	*** Speaking of insubordination, didn't the judge shrug off Jessep's comment, "I don't know what the hell kind of unit you're running here," a little more easily than you'd expect? Making that kind of comment to an officer in open court is distasteful in the extreme. Also, despite the fact that they both hold the rank of colonel, the presiding judge is the commanding officer of a court martial, and making such a comment to him while he is carrying out his duties is contempt at best, and insubordination at worst. I wouldn't expect him to throw Jessep in the brig, but surely a sterner response was called for.
35	*** Well until that point, the judge pretty much hated Kaffee, and sided with the prosecution and every witness against him; he wasn't expecting to have to turn on the witnesses for any reason. Also, Jessep was clearly more famous than the judge, had more de facto status. Those two things combined probably meant it took a bit more than the average instance of insubordination for the judge to rebuke him properly.
36	*** Well, he DID screw up by alienating the judge. After that point, the judge starts giving Kaffee more slack and ignoring prosecution objections. Not to mention, he didn't need to do much. His retort to the Colonel was akin to saying "You're in MY house now." Which would be an extreme slap in the face to a guy like Jessep.
37	*** The judge ''doesn't'' shrug the comment off. He immediately -- and rather acidly -- puts Jessep in his place by reminding him that for all his rank and posturing machismo, in the courtroom ''the judge'' is the one with all the power, not him.
38	** The simple answer is that Jessep's trapped between a rock and a hard place. If he acknowledges that his men sometimes ''don't'' obey his orders, then he looks like a weak and ineffective leader with poor control over the men under his command. And it's not just out of arrogance, stupidity or careerism that he quashes that suggestion; ''no'' ranking military officer would want anyone to get that idea about them, because the whole point of being a high-ranking officer is that you are supposed to be a good leader who commands the unquestioned obedience of the men and women under your command. And it's no good begging "extreme circumstances"; the whole point of the military chain of command to begin with is that you follow orders ''without exception'', that there are ''no'' circumstances extreme enough where that doesn't apply, and in fact deciding that you get to not follow orders if you deem the circumstances severe enough would in fact makes those circumstances ''worse'' (and pretty much the only recognised exception to this -- when obeying orders would result in the committing of a war crime -- would hardly help here, since they can hardly use "avoiding committing a war crime" as an excuse in this situation). But if Jessep ''doesn't'' allow for the fact that his men may take matters into their own hands, then he's by default acknowledging that the Code Red only happened because he wanted it to happen, and thus opens up the line of questioning that is ultimately used to bury him. Sucks for him, but then, he's only got himself to blame, since finding himself in such a position is pretty much a consequence of his illegally ordering someone to be brutally assaulted then participating in a cover-up when it went wrong.
39	** Also, remember whose questions Jessep is answering. Throughout the movie, Jessep has made it clear that he views Kaffee and his kind with contempt, and considers him to be a snot-nosed little squirt who, unlike Jessep, is not a real soldier (this extends all the way to which [[InterServiceRivalry branch]] they're in; if there's one thing Marines despise, it's the Navy due to them technically only being a subsidiary of them rather than a distinct branch). Jessep is irritated that Kaffee is seemingly questioning his control over the men under his command and is trying to intimidate him by reminding him of how authoritative and powerful he is. Unfortunately for him, he's forgotten that he's fighting on Kaffee's turf, not his own, and has underestimated just how clever Kaffee actually is. Jessep thinks he's bullying Kaffee into submission and simply doesn't realise that he's actually marching right into Kaffee's trap until it's too late.
40	* In the beginning, Lt. Cdr. Galloway is walking past the Drill Team, almost brushing one of them as she passes. Shouldn't someone have kept her off the parade field during a dress rehearsal? And her rank doesn't matter; even a General would know better than to just stroll across a parade field during a practice, and would be kicked off anyway if they didn't.
41	** A lieutenant commander interfering (or at least coming into close porximity) with the rehearsal of the drill team is probably a little rude or disruptive, but she was in motion and wasn't just hanging around. If something like this happened in the real world, it would probably be in everyone's best interest to just let it go, unless it happened more than once and truly was disruptive.
42	* This may just be a quibble, but it just bugs me the way they say, "Code Reds." The plural has to be "Codes Red."
43	** Only if there are different codes, really. As it is, "Code Red" is a singular unit. That's the whole term. "Red" isn't a qualifier, it's part of the name.
44	** I can attest to this. Working in a hospital, the codes are treated as one word. "We had a lot of Code Pinks today." If there were a lot of different ones called, it would be "We had a lot of codes today." The same is done with the Dr.'s. Dr. Quick is singular, Dr. Quicks is plural.
45	* As anybody that was in the Marine Corps (and the Army) can attest, you only refer to a firearm as a "gun" once. MAYBE twice. After that, you would find yourself in a position where you would never refer to a firearm as a "gun" ever again. Col. Jessep's famous speech about those "walls being guarded by men with GUNS" has always bugged me.
46	** Not in the military here, but would a Marine call a mounted machine gun a "gun"? The guard towers at Gitmo have machine guns. Or what about naval guns, or heavy artillery? Are those "guns", too?
47	** What? Then what the fuck ''do'' they call them then?
48	*** Rifles. They call their personal firearms rifles, semi-automatic firearms like the M14 are called rifles, fully automatic firearms like the M4, M16, etc. are called assault rifles, and what we call handguns are referred to as side-arms or pistols. The original Marines were sea-faring warriors who used rifles to shoot at invading forces who came on their ship so since as an organization they started out using rifles they prefer not to call their weapons by any other title. In regards to mounted machine guns, artillery, Naval Guns/Cannons, I would believe there is some leeway. In fact, the insistence on calling them rifles is probably to distinguish them from artillery guns.
49	*** The finicky, technical definition of a 'gun'--at least for the purposes of the US Navy and Marine Corps--is a, large-calibre weapon that fires a projectile in a shallow ballistic arc. A 105mm howitzer is ''not'' a gun, but the 16"/50 Iowa-class deck cannons, to pick an example at random, are. Very broadly speaking, 'gun' is used to describe artillery that isn't primarily designed for indirect fire.
50	** I'm in the military, but I'm giving this a pass. It's true that they aren't called guns, but it's only used in that particular phrase by Jessep. Sure he's a Marine, but he's also an overdramatic type who looks for any excuse to launch into a speech. And "men with guns" simply rolls off the tongue better. It fits Jessep's character.
51	** Perhaps some FridgeBrilliance, in that Jessep is using the colloquial civilian term because he is talking to Kaffee (and Weinberg), and so he's talking down to them and insinuating that they're not real military.
52	** Also, the simple fact is that this story isn't written by a soldier exclusively for the enjoyment of current and former enlisted members of the US military, it's written by a civilian intended for a mass audience comprised mostly of civilians. Civilians who, for the most part, almost certainly don't give a shit about someone using the term "men with guns" in the imprecise manner being complained about here. Especially since it's just being used in an everyday "colloquial way of the describing the military" fashion and not to refer to an actual firearm. Assuming he knew the distinction, the writer almost certainly felt that "men with guns" suited the dramatic and poetic purposes he was going for in that scene, so sadly for current and former soldiers they just have to suck it up and remember the MST3KMantra on this one.
53	* Could someone with military experience explain to me Jessep's reasoning in wanting Santiago to stay? It seems that there should be procedures to deal with soldiers who develop health conditions that interfere with their performance other than "haze him until he drops dead". Jessep actually forces the doctor to rescind a previous diagnosis saying "The kid can't take this. Give him a desk job." He then has that doctor perjure himself to ''frame'' the Marines he ordered to give Santiago the Code Red. Is it just to cover up the fenceline shooting? Then screw him till he bleeds, then let '''him''' bleed out.
54	** The U.S Military is notorious for ignoring the physical and mental health problems in soldiers, the idea is that you are supposed to toughen up and bear your burden without mentioning it or asking for help.
55	*** A common slogan of the Marine Corps boasts that "Pain is weakness leaving the body," and the Corps takes that attitude pretty seriously. That said, it would actually be pretty surprising for someone with an undiagnosed heart disease to survive bootcamp and SOI.
56	** Jessep didn't think that Santiago had a health problem. Nobody on the base, including the base physician, realized that Santiago had a real health problem. They all thought he had a bad attitude and were taking steps to try to correct that attitude.
57	*** A man like Jessep would not take kindly to having his operation in Cuba halted, the Marine Corp is a branch of the U.S Military the most powerful and prestigious Military on Earth and its structure needs to be filled with strong and capable men who can do their jobs once handed a rifle. You need to weed out the weak so the strong are not dragged down with him, this is why Colonel Jessep viewed things so personally with Private Santiago. This was the wrong point of view to take, Santiago fell behind in his training and when that happened his fellow Marines should have encouraged him and worked together with him to make him a more stand up soldier. No compassion was shown to Santiago and those that were supposed to protect him and uplift him failed. If there is no team work in the Military and we don't stand up for those that can't defend themselves then the entire reason for a Military even existing has failed.
58	*** There also seems to be an element of Social Darwinism involved as well; as far as Jessep is concerned, Santiago is inherently 'weak', and transferring such a man to another post is going to make that post weaker as well.
59	** Santiago was also sending letters to everybody and their mother asking for a transfer, thus disrespecting the chain of command. Santiago was also offering to squeal about the fenceline shooting incident in exchange for a transfer, which Jessep would see as an attempt to blackmail him and undermine his authority. That's what made it personal.
60	** Again, no one knew about Santiago's health problem. The film never clearly established what his health problem was: the defense speculated that it was a heart condition of some kind while cross-examining the doctor, but that was it.
61	** And military leaders, both good and bad, prefer not to transfer substandard subordinates. A bad leader wouldn't want it known that they couldn't train a specific individual, while a good one feels that transferring them elsewhere is simply making them somebody else's problem and screwing over whatever unit will be receiving the individual. The leader would prefer to simply separate the offender from the military altogether.
62	*** But why keep him in the Marines at all? Santiago was breaking all kinds of rules and Jessep has considerable influence. Why not find a way to give him a dishonourable discharge and drum him out of the Corps?
63	*** The "book" answer to this situation would have been to internally investigate Santiago's claims as well as discipline him for jumping the chain of command (using approved disciplinary or judicial techniques) and deal with that. Separately, he should have been medically evaluated for any underlying reasons why he can't seem to keep up physically. If nothing is found, he's kicked out for failing physical training standards. If there is a medical condition, he's either treated for it and continues serving (depending on the outcome of the disciplinary issue) or kicked out for medical reasons with appropriate VA benefits. Lumping the two matters together and hazing him until he cries uncle and either improves or dies appears to be Jessep's preferred option rather than the correct, but "weaker" approach. Sadly this actually happens in the military from time to time. If they kick him out for disciplinary reasons, it would most likely be a "general" or "other than honorable" discharge. A dishonorable can only be given from conviction by court martial, for which a felony charge is required.
64	* Here's my problem: at one point in the film, when Sam suggests that Dawson and Downey's defense was the same one that failed for the Nazis at Nuremburg, Kaffee defends them by saying that these guys were carrying out a routine training exercise that they had no way of knowing would really hurt Santiago, much less kill him. But isn't the same true of Jessep? He didn't order the code red on Santiago because he wanted to hurt him; he just wanted to train him to be a good marine. Granted, Jessep also acted to cover up the situation afterwards, but consider his predicament: he's been told by a pencil-pushing time-server that a training method that he knows from years of experience to be irreplaceably effective is no longer permitted. He decides that rather than just do the easy thing, pass along a substandard marine to another command where he'll be some other commander's problem, he's going to train this man to be a proper marine. Bear in mind that Jessep had no way of knowing about any health problems that Santiago had. So Jessep orders a training exercise, a code red, that has been used repeatedly in the past to effectively whip marines into shape, with no intention to do Santiago any harm. When the exercise goes wrong, Jessep is looking at the end of his military career and prison time if he takes responsibility. So he works behind the scenes to make sure that Dawson and Downey will be offered a sweetheart plea deal by the prosecution, so that nothing really bad would happen to them. Now, I'm not saying that Jessep should be up for sainthood, but it really seems to me that the film has no sympathy for him whatsoever, and wants the audience to have no sympathy for him either. But is he really such a monster?
65	** In all honesty Colonel Jessep should not have been considered by the court to be put on the stand. To begin with the dealings of what occurred with the death of some lowly private would be '''way below''' his pay-grade and would be exempt from having to investigate it or give the story a second thought. The Lieutenant under Jessep's command would be the right pay-grade to be bothered with this case (and he is). Furthermore it is more or less figured out by the Defense that it was the Lieutenant who directly made the order of the code red so it should have been his responsibility to deal with the consequences making the Colonel free from the guilt of paying for any crimes. The only reason Colonel Jessep would feel the need to let himself be put on the stand is to avoid a Congressional investigation which would legally require the commander of the base to be put on the stand and this would seriously stifle any plans he might have to rank up to being a General Officer, this was just Jessep trying to get the problem out of the way so he can get back to his career. It is not that Jessep is to be admired as a saintly commanding officer but under the law he shouldn't have had anything to worry about.
66	*** OP here: you are wrong on both counts. First of all, regardless of Jessep's pay-grade, he was the one who ordered Lt. Kendrick to order Dawson and Downey to give Santiago the code red, an order that was illegal, as he had been ordered by his superior officer to discontinue the practice of giving codes red. As such, he, Jessep, is legally culpable for the consequences, i.e., Santiago's death. Kendrick is also culpable, which is why he also gets arrested at the end, but that does not negate Jessep's culpability. Second of all, under the U.S. Constitution, the defense can call any witness, by subpoena if necessary, to testify, so long as that testimony is itself admissible. That applies to courts civil and martial alike, and it does not matter if the victim and the accused in the case are both privates, and the witness is the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff himself. That's what that whole "equality under the law" thing is all about. If a general has relevant testimony to give in a case against a private, that private can subpoena that general to testify, and he must come before the court. And in any case, I wasn't talking about Jessep's legal culpability, which is without question: the man is clearly legally guilty. I was talking about his moral culpability, and that the film seems to have no sympathy for him, and seems to expect us, the audience, to have no sympathy for him either. That I don't understand, since his goal, after all, was to train Santiago, not to hurt him; that's what Dawson justifies himself in his own testimony, but the same thing is just as true for Jessep.
67	*** This post doesn't really grok the ''incredible'' weight placed by the military on the title of commanding officer. If a Marine dies, especially in peacetime in a way that had nothing to do with any enemy, the CO is the ''first'' place the USMC will look. Nothing, and I mean ''nothing'' that happens in any command is below the paygrade of the commanding officer as far as the military is concerned. Firing the CO and putting an effective end to his career is practically standard operating procedure in a case like this. That's why the unseen brass here is so interested in getting a plea bargain. They need Dawson and Downey to admit they were doing something they were specifically ordered and trained not to do so that any blemish on the record of the "star on the rise" CO is minor at best. Also, and not coincidentally along similar lines, the prosecution and the defense can subpoena damn near anyone and that person has to show up. All they need is some reason it will help the case, which may even be tangential at best, and the judge will allow it. The commanding officer of the dead man's unit is always going to be considered someone worth talking to, particularly given the weight of responsibility placed upon him or her.
68	*** Colonel Jessup is a high-ranking military officer. He's not God. He is subject to the same laws and rules as everyone else, meaning that if the defense attorney thinks he has evidence relevant to their case? They can call him to the stand and he will goddamn well sit in that chair and answer every single one their questions honestly and to the best of his knowledge whether he thinks it's beneath him or not.
69	** The problem is that Code Reds are, from the get-go, immoral whether or not Jessep believes they are irreplaceably effective. Hazing, in all branches of the US military, is illegal for multiple reasons. Even setting aside the possibility of physical injury, it demoralizes the victims and hurts unit cohesion. Soldiers need to trust and depend upon one another to be an effective unit. How are you going to put your life in the hands of the guys who just beat the shit out of you last night? As someone at the top of the page pointed out, even if he'd survived the incident, Santiago would know he has no allies on the base. Speaking with 10 years' military experience, the ''last'' thing you want to do to a struggling soldier is to isolate him.
70	*** Be that as it may, that would just mean that Jessep was mistaken, not evil. Moreover, the film itself never argues, or even suggests, that codes red don't work; quite the contrary, in fact. I think we sort of have to say that in the world of the film, they are effective. But even if not, it's clear that Jessep sincerely believes that they work, and that this will train Santiago. Dawson's statement on the stand, when asked why he gave Santiago the code red, "To train him, sir," could just as easily be uttered by Jessep at his own trial. Again, I'm not saying that Jessep ought to be up for sainthood, only that I don't see why the movie treats him like the devil.
71	*** The film seems to be saying that Santiago was simply someone who shouldn't have been on the receiving end of such brutality. He may have been a substandard Marine but we are arguably supposed to be appalled at Jessep's callousness in keeping on a man whom he knows is being pushed to breaking point. Jessep knows Santiago can't cut it in training and that he is at a very high risk of reprisal from other Marines. This can be seen in the way Jessep orders Lowden and Downey to administer the beating, reminding Santiago that he truly doesn't have a friend in the world. That is arguably when Jessep's motives change from the good of the corps to utter Sadism.
72	*** But how would Jessep have known that? He had no way of knowing about Santiago's heart condition. As far as he knew, Santiago just needed to be motivated to get his act together; to be trained, in other words. And did the film even establish that it was Jessep who specified that Dawson and Downey should have been the ones ordered to give the code red? He ordered Kendrick to have Santiago given a code red, but did he specify who specifically should do it? Isn't it possible that it was Kendrick who selected Dawson and Downey? Why assume sadism on Jessep's part at all?
73	*** Part of why Jessep is such a bastard is how cowardly he acts throughout. If he really believed in the righteousness of his actions, he would have just confessed. When things go bad, he lets two young marines, one of whom is painfully naive, take the fall for his crime. Jessep is meant to represent the absolute worst of the U.S. Military: Lying, brutal, callous, cowardly, indifferent, motivated by self interest and completely unwilling to accept blame or criticism. Men like Markinson represent the preferable alternative and a better side of the armed forces.
74	*** How is Markinson's suicide not cowardly? Also, Jessep doesn't just cut Dawson and Downey loose. Remember the beginning of the film: he pulls strings behind the scenes to make sure that the prosecutor offers them a sweetheart deal that would let them go home in six months. They are the ones who insist on going to trial. And again, it's easy to say that Jessep should have just confessed from the very beginning, but put yourself in his shoes: a training exercise of a kind that had been used repeatedly for years to good effect results, in a completely unforeseeable way, in Santiago's death, and if Jessep confesses his role, his military career, which has been pretty much his life, is over. Is he really such a monster because he doesn't want to see his entire career go down the tubes because of a training accident?
75	*** Jessep gave an order that, effective or not, was illegal. He ''knew'' it was illegal and he gave the order anyways. Jessep was right when he talked about the virtues of honor and trust when it comes to the chain of command, but he violated both. The moment he gave an order that violated USMC regulations, his superiors could no longer rely on him, and Marines he commanded could no longer trust him. Even before he lied, falsified records, and threw his own men under the bus, his actions made it impossible for him to function as an officer in the United States Marine Corps.
76	*** Speaking of applicable things that Jessep said: "We follow orders, son. We follow orders or people die. It's that simple." When Jessep ordered the code red, he violated orders, and someone died.
77	*** Consider also that Jessep shows very little remorse for the fact that a man essentially died as a result of his orders and actions (or if we were being generous, shows perfunctory remorse at best), and indeed seems to consider it almost a good thing in that it 'saved lives'. The crux of his climactic speech, the one that's so famous, is essentially him bragging that Santiago's death as a consequence of his orders was perfectly justified, and that pretty much anything he does is ultimately justifiable because he's standing at a post defending his country. Whether he knew that his orders would lead to Santiago's death might be something we can go back and forth on, but it's his callousness and arrogance in face of the result of them that makes him unsympathetic as much as anything else. Ultimately, though, like Weinstein says, once all the martial justifications and codes of conduct and everything else is cut through, this is essentially a glorified case of a bunch of tough guys picking on someone weaker than them and then trying to cover it up when it goes south. Jessep is essentially a bully in a uniform with some very nice medals.
78	*** Right. Jessep seems to think that because he occupies what in his mind is a very important post, that somehow he has absolute authority to do whatever he wants to "protect the country". But he ignores the simple fact that everybody is accountable to somebody higher up. Jessep has a superior officer, who has a superior officer, and so on up to the President. And above the President is the law and rules governing the military. Jessep didn't do his job; he broke the law.
79	*** Yes, except that everything you are saying about Jessep is equally true of Dawson and Downey. Dawson and Downey didn't do their jobs; they broke the law. Dawson and Downey are essentially bullies in uniform with some very nice medals. Remember, after all, that Weinberg's (not Weinstein) speech about how, once you cut through all the martial justifications and codes of conduct and everything else, this is essentially a glorified case, etc., is about Dawson and Downey. Weinberg was talking about their own clients, not about Jessep. If what he says is true of Jessep, it is also true of Dawson and Downey. Which is precisely my point, that no one seems to want to respond to directly: the film seems to want us to have some sympathy for Dawson and Downey, but not for Jessep, even though Dawson and Downey's defense applies equally well to Jessep.
80	*** You missed the point being made; it's not that the others aren't bullies also or that they didn't do anything bad, it's that unlike them, Jessep shows little-to-no remorse for what he did, and in fact is ''proud'' of it. ''That's'' (partly) what makes him more reprehensible. Case in point: Dawson immediately accepts the court's judgement that his actions were wrong, that he deserves punishment for them, and that he has no place being a marine anymore because of them. He ends by lamenting that he should have stood up for Santiago instead of joining in the torment of him. He learns a lesson. Conversely, Jessep ends the film basically bragging about how the the fact that he's a front-line soldier basically gives him the God-given right to do whatever he wants regardless of who gets hurt and then, when the law takes exception to this, sneering about how Kaffee has essentially doomed the country because he personally is not going to be there to defend it anymore. He learns nothing. Both men did something wrong, and both men faced judgement about it, but one man is willing to accept responsibility and punishment for it, comes to regret his actions, and subsequently grows as a person because of it. The other man doesn't, and remains callous, arrogant and defiant. ''That's'' what makes one man more sympathetic than the other one.
81	*** What makes Dawson and Downey's situation different from Jessep is that they were doing what they were ordered to do. It was an unlawful order, which is why they are convicted with Conduct Unbecoming, but it takes a lot of moral fortitude to openly disobey a direct order that comes down from the base commander. The law would, and should, be harder on the one who gave the order in the first place than on the one who carries it out. With a colonel's far higher rank and pay grade comes a lot more responsibility than a corporal. A corporal or private is expected to follow orders without question or hesitation. When an order comes down that's illegal, the corporal is already conditioned to obey it, so he needs to trust that the officer giving the order knows what he's doing and has his back. Jessep violated that trust. Dawson was willing to take responsibility for obeying an unlawful order, but his commander refused to take responsibility for ''issuing'' that order, instead letting his underlings take the fall, sweetheart plea bargain notwithstanding. Jessep also deserves no credit for the plea bargain, because the motivation for it was purely selfish. He thought if he gave Dawson and Downey a good plea bargain deal, they'd be less likely to take the case to trial and expose him.
82	*** I must have gotten a different impression than the troper above. Dawson and Downey were, perhaps, pitiable for the fact they got stuck with that order, but they still got what they deserved for ''following'' it. It was just important that justice came around and saw that Jessep went down with them.
83	*** "Troper above" here. Yes, they absolutely got what they deserve, and Dawson admits as much (Jessep, in contrast, never once admits wrongdoing). I was merely answering the OP's question as to why the movie treats the defendants more sympathetically than Jessep.
84	*** I'd also point out that they got off extraordinarily easy; the actions of everybody involved fit squarely into the UCMJ's definition of manslaughter.
85	*** A defendant can only be convicted of something he's been charged with. Because Ross decided to go for a murder-or-nothing prosecution, the jury can only say, "Yes, they committed murder," or, "No, they didn't." Manslaughter was not an option. Also, if I remember correctly, manslaughter was part of the plea deal that Dawson rejected so emphatically.
86	*** When a defendant is charged with Murder 1, all lesser murder charges are implied.
87	*** Lesser ''murder'' charges. A manslaughter charge is not the same as a murder charge. Put simply, in legal terms murder is when someone ''deliberately'' causes someone's death, and manslaughter is when someone ''accidentally'' causes someone's death, and you cannot argue that someone both deliberately and accidentally caused the death of another person at the same time; you have to pick one or the other. If a prosecutor wants to convict someone of manslaughter, they can't just charge them with murder, even if it's in the first degree (which is also a specific thing, not just a "one-size-fits-all" charge); they need to specifically charge them with manslaughter.
88	*** The OP implies that Jessep's only options were "train him" or "transfer him." Evaluate, discipline, and if necessary kick him out of the Marines were perfectly legitimate and easy options that weren't even considered (none of which required breaking the law). He had physical, disciplinary, and possibly medical reasons why he shouldn't be a Marine anymore. That's just a matter of paperwork that a Colonel should be well practiced at. He seemed more interested in "teach this punk a lesson" rather than to do what was best for the Corps.
89	*** "The film itself never argues, or even suggests, that codes red don't work." The ''premise'' of the film is that a guy got a Code Red and it ''killed'' him! How much more evidence do you need that Code Reds don't work?? Is there some character I forgot about who was like "Oh man, I used to be a crap marine, but then somebody gave me a Code Red and it really turned my life around! Suddenly I was a much better soldier and a much greater asset to my country! Hooray for Code Reds!" Because I don't remember there being a guy like that. Ever. I think the implication is that Code Reds have ''always'' been a lousy idea, which is why they're illegal, and in this particular case the Code Red was even lousier than usual and it killed somebody. Jessep was a cruel commander who got away with cruelty for a long time; now he's finally paying the price.
90	*** Yes, actually. Cpl. Howard, who failed to use resin on his rifle and dropped it during a drill:
91	---->'''Howard:''' That night the guys in my squad threw a blanket over me and took turns punching me in the arm for five minutes. Then they poured glue on my hands. And it worked, too, 'cause I ain't never dropped my weapon since.
92	* Was the implication at the end of the Doctor's testimony supposed to be that he was merely covering his own ass by insisting Santiago's health was good? Kaffee more or less walked everyone through exactly what could have been really going on and why the Doctor would insist otherwise.
93	** Yes, that's what Kaffee was implying. If Santiago died due to an undiagnosed heart condition after the doctor gave him a clean bill of health, he could be looking at disciplinary action and/or a malpractice lawsuit. So Kaffee implied that he gave poison as the cause of death to avoid awkward questions about his failure to diagnose a life-threatening heart condition. However, the judge sustained Ross' objection because Kaffee had no evidence and was coming perilously close to accusing the doctor of a crime (falsifying the autopsy).\
94	\
95	As has been pointed out elsewhere, however, Kaffee only needed the doctor to admit that it was ''possible'' Santiago's lactic acidosis was due to a medical condition rather than poison. The whole basis for the murder charge was that the rag stuffed into his mouth was poisoned. If the rag wasn't poisoned and nobody knew about his heart condition, there was no reason to expect that tying him up and gagging him would kill him. At worst it would be assault and battery, or possibly involuntary manslaughter.
96	*** Wouldn't the UCMJ's felony murder rule apply, though? They entered Santiago's room without permission, intending to commit an assault. Since the death was a direct result of the commission of those inherently dangerous crimes (i.e., burglary and assault), it doesn't really matter whether or not they knew about the heart condition. Obviously this is hypothetical, but put that way, if Santiago had woken up, been startled to find Dawson and Downey in his room, and died of a heart attack before they ever laid a hand on him, by the strictest reading of the applicable law, it seems like they'd ''still'' be guilty of murder.
97	*** Not exactly. The prosecution can't just suddenly switch theories of the crime mid-trial in order to make sure they get a guilty verdict owing to double jeopardy rules (though they can theoretically submit a motion to the court allowing them to do so, which is itself a lengthy legal process that the defence can challenge and not something that happens automatically), otherwise the prosecution would basically just be able to keep cycling through various theories of the crime until they settled on one they could make stick. Nor can they reasonably argue two different theories of the crime at the same time as this is just trying to have it both ways (it was intentional murder... unless it was an unintentional manslaughter). The prosecution has essentially gambled that their evidence and their theory of the crime is strong enough to support a charge of murder. Unfortunately for them, it turned out it wasn't. Morally speaking, the defendants are indeed still guilty of causing someone's death, but legally they can't be charged with doing so once they're cleared by the court.
98	* Even though he was proven right in the end, why was Lieutenant Kaffee allowed to go free even though he had accused a superior officer of a crime without evidence? Shouldn't the next court-martial be his own?
99	** Kaffee had the bluff of the two airmen who would allegedly provide that evidence. Since the bluff worked, no one but the defense team (& Ross after the fact, but he wasn't gonna blab) ever knew that he didn't actually have it.
100	** A combination of Spirit of the Law doctrine and optics. Kaffee uncovered a pretty heinous conspiracy and goaded the BigBad to basically confess in open court. To go after him for the very actions that led to this revelation would at best look really bad, and at worst might come across as unlawful retaliation against a junior officer who embarrassed the establishment.
101	** Basically, you can't give him a by-the-book punishment when the results were that damn good. In reality he would probably have been given a slap on the wrist and some sort of shit-duty for a while. Punishment for his actions, but not enough to discourage good deeds from others.
102	** Because he got that superior officer to ''confess to said crime while on the stand''. There is now ''plenty'' of evidence to charge and convict Jessup, from his own mouth. Charging or punishing Kaffee in any way beyond maybe a warning not to do it again would be petty, vindictive, and a waste of everyone's time and energy.
103	* Is the last name of Jack Nicholson's character spelled Jessup, or Jessep? Wikipedia isn't consistent with the spelling, and IMDB is willing to accept both.
104	** I can't look at it right now but I'd see what the film closing credits say about the spelling.
105	** Closing credits spells it "Jessep".
106	* Why would a full bird colonel like Jessep concern himself with a matter involving two privates? Wouldn't there be multiple other officers in the chain of command, who should have dealt with Santiago? Why wouldn't Jessep just tell the Battalion commander (a [=LtCol=]) to handle it himself, while the [=LtCol=] would instead delegate the problem to the company commander (a captain)? Why does Jessep need to get involved to the finest detail, down to how Santiago should be disciplined?
107	** The scene at the beginning answers this pretty well, I think. Jessep is reading Santiago's transfer request, which the latter had sent directly to him as the base commander. That made it personal for him. It was Santiago that had gotten Jessep involved by sending him that letter, and Jessep was incensed that Santiago would offer to squeal on a fellow Marine. He even says, "Who the ''fuck'' is Private First Class William Santiago?" He was probably also annoyed that Santiago jumped several levels of the chain of command by sending the letter all the way to the top. Combined with Jessep's control-freak personality, it's perfectly in character for him to personally retaliate.
108	*** The letter that Jessep reads (part Santiago voice over) was sent to Jessep by an NCIS agent that Santiago sent it to. NCIS told the senior officer of the unit "you have something to deal with." Jessep should have handed it to the battalion commander, possibly expressed some frustration, but then washed his hands of it until his subordinates completed an investigation. As the senior officer, Jessep might have had to be involved in Santiago being punished later and stand back until called upon to intervene. The most he should have been personally involved with would be to appoint an officer to investigate the shooting claim.
109	* It's established that Galloway is much better at research and "paper law" than "trial law", but how can anyone who works in any kind of law think that "strenuously objecting" to a testimony the judge has already allowed would work? More so, how can someone as supposedly adept at research as Galloway, in all the time that they were mounting their defense, not figure out that Downey was not in the room when Kendrick gave the order?
110	** Galloway's pretty passionate, the situation probably got to her. As for the situation with Downey, Downey considers an order from Kendrick through Dawson as effectively the same thing, as would Dawson, and the two men just didn't think to clarify that only Dawson received the order himself.
111	** Still, almost single-handedly sinking the entire defense is proof that Galloway was not cut out for trial law.
112	*** Nobody thought she was. She fought for the case and got it - probably at least in part due to her rank - but her superiors threw it to known dealmaker Kaffee because nobody really thought it would go anywhere, so it didn't matter how well they could handle a trial.
113	** Galloway clearly didn't ask Downey what actually happened prior to the Code Red. This is a pretty big mess up of legal practice, and may even rise to the level of professional misconduct. In the preparation montage, Galloway is instructing Downey to say that Kendrick ordered the Code Red. Downey knew this was false, and lying under oath is perjury. What's worse, now it looks like Galloway told Downey to lie, which is subornation and a serious violation of legal ethics. Or to put it briefly: Galloway is a bad lawyer.
114	*** Downey technically didn't know it was false. He never got the order directly from Kendrick, but he ''did'' get the order from his squad leader, who said it came from Kendrick. As far as Downey's concerned, that's perfectly proper use of the chain of command.
115	*** But still perjury. It would have been correct if he said the order was relayed to him, but he was told it came from Kendrick. The problem is Galloway didn't appreciate just how much of a moron he was and seek a blow by blow clarification. She should have established a timeline of how that entire day played out and somehow missed the flat tire. Kaffee was right to be pissed off at her.
116	*** And to be fair to Galloway, Kaffee at the very beginning actually specifically asked Downey if Kendrick gave the order and received an affirmative answer. It was only in retrospective that any of them realized that there was no meaningful distinction between Dawson and Kendrick in Downey's eyes.
117	* Forget Santiago's case. Kendrick, while under oath, admits that he deprived Curtis Bell of food for seven days. How come he is not arrested on the spot? Or is it supposed to be legal as long as "at no time was his health in danger"?
118	** His explanation was that it was "barracks restriction" which is a form of non-judicial punishment that officers are allowed to impose on subordinates for minor matters. One of the things that made a "code red" improper was that it involved enlisted men disciplining men of equal grade. In the military, orders and punishments go from top to bottom.
119	*** But does barracks restriction allow for food deprivation?
120	*** Yes and no. At the time of the movie, confinement and diminished rations wasn't an unusual outcome of a captain's mast. In fact, it probably contributed to the common trope of prison inmates being fed a diet of "bread and water." The problem is, however, that it was a punishment that was only allowed on naval ships at sea, and the term couldn't be longer than three days.
121	* If Santiago were really as sickly as we're led to believe, he would never have gotten through ''Marine Corps'' basic training!
122	** Perhaps his condition intensified after basic training to the point he couldn't keep up any longer.
123	** This is especially likely given the fact that Cuba has a tropical climate. His condition may have been perfectly manageable in a different climate, but intense exercise in the more extreme weather exacerbated it.
124	* Jack could possibly have prevented the demise of Jessep: he could have rightly objected to Kaffee's questioning Jessep on whether his orders could be disobeyed, as the witness has the right not to speculate on the hypothetical actions of the other people. He was probably thinking that this speculation will actually benefit the prosecution, emphasizing the outrageous nature of what Dawson and Downey did.
125	** Also, he likely was curious about the answer himself. Jack had made it clear throughout the film that he had nothing but contempt for Jessep. While he certainly did his job to within the best of his ability, when Jessep went up for cross, all of Jack's objections were primarily to protect Kaffee from getting himself into serious hot water. He otherwise allowed Kaffee a bit of latitude as he had no incentive to protect Jessep as even Jessep incriminating himself wouldn't have torpedoed his case (the lack of poison evidence already guaranteed the murder charge was never going to hold, so it was just a matter of saying what Dawson and Downey did was wrong). Simply put it was win-win. Either Kaffee ends up feeding him more ammunition to bury Dawson and Downey, or Jessep goes down. Even if the above speculation is reaching, he likely never expected Kaffee to go on a ranting tirade, let alone expected Jessep to outright self-destruct.
126	*** "The lack of poison evidence already guaranteed the murder charge was never going to hold, so it was just a matter of saying what Dawson and Downey did was wrong" - it's rarely put that way, but it's actually absolutely right. Given this, I now wonder just how much more severe the punishment of Dawson and Downey would be if it were not for Jessep's confession?
127	*** They probably would have been convicted on the same charge of Conduct Unbecoming a Marine, because that's the only charge left after they're acquitted of Murder and Conspiracy, but Jessep's confession was probably a mitigating factor in the sentencing. They may have received jail time otherwise. The government should have also charged them with Burglary (for sneaking into Santiago's room) and Assault and Battery (for tying up and gagging Santiago). If these charges had been brought, they would lead to convictions even if the defendants were acquitted of the murder charges, but they can't be convicted of crimes they're not charged with.
128	* Dawson and Downey should never have been charged with murder in the first place. Even the prosecutor should have realized that there was no evidence that the rag was poisoned. Murder requires an intent to kill, and the rag being poisoned was the entire basis they were going to use to prove intent. Plus, if they wanted to kill Santiago there are a hundred other ways to do it. Of course the defense also screws this up, because he never asks the doctor or anybody else where two low-grade marines would be able to find an untraceable poison on their base.
129	** Standard prosecutorial tactic. You charge at as high a level as you can, with the expectation that the accused will bargain it down to a plea instead of risking trial. That is what happened, as a more reasonable plea deal was offered as an out; only the two defendants decided they didn't want to plead out and insisted on a trial.
130	* Kaffee says at one point that "He doesn't know what killed Santiago, and he doesn't want to know." All he cares about is disproving lactose poisoning. However, in doing so, he shuts off an important defense avenue: If the rag was poisoned, where did the poison come from? For that matter, how would two Marines, neither of whom seems particularly well-educated even know what lactose poisoning is, or how to induce it?
131	** Defence 101: Never ask a question to which you do not already know the answer. It is also not that easy to ask on the stand, it is more a very general pretrial question which would require a judge's ruling on admissibility of charges, but assuming the right circumstances of witnesses and questions the last thing you want is to ask that question and have a witness come up with a semiplausible theory which strengthens the prosecution's case. Knocking holes in specific prosecution allegations is a safer trial tactic than posing more general theories.
132	*** He should not ask it on the stand, at least not until he knows exactly what happened, but it is worth investigating. In a civilian court, this would be where you bring in an expert witness of your own to debunk the coroner's report.
133	*** If the prosecution says that the victim died of lactose poisoning, and only lactose poisoning, then as long as that is disproved then the case is won. It really doesn't matter how the victim died, as long as it was not how the prosecutor said it was. At least the murder charge part, the conduct unbecoming is a separate charge, and that is what the defence is focused on. If they introduce an alternate theory then they are gifting the prosecution a second bite at the cherry, as well as muddying the waters for the jury too, risking the possibility of it turning a clear yes/no question into bickering over methods. It'd be like pleading "[[Webcomic/SchlockMercenary that's not how we did it]]" and the jury deciding they must have done it, just not how the prosecution said. Keeping it focused on that specific charge of lactose poisoning makes it easier to disprove the entire prosecutorial case.
134	** They weren't accused of trying to induce lactic acidosis, but rather choke him or gag him with a poison that he would ingest or breath in. Lactic acidosis was his body's response to the alleged poison. He was trying to disprove the poison or at least show that the acidosis could have been a natural reaction.
135	* How is it these guys aren't guilty of straight up manslaughter? They didn’t intend to kill him, so it wasn't murder, but they attacked him (a crime) and he died as a result. I don't see how the notion they thought he could take the abuse absolves them of manslaughter.
136	** They are indeed guilty of manslaughter, but since they've been charged with first-degree ''murder'' that's the charge that the prosecution has to make stick. Murder one charges accuse a defendant of deliberately planning and causing someone's death, so that's what the prosecution has to prove; they can't simultaneously argue that the defendants also ''accidentally'' caused the victim's death, as a manslaughter charge would indicate. It can only be one or the other -- either the defendants deliberately caused the victim's death or they didn't, they can't do both at the same time. The prosecution doesn't get to charge and argue two different theories of the crime at the same time just to make sure they get a conviction. Due to double jeopardy rules, the prosecution also don't get to retry a defendant on a lesser charge once he's been acquitted of the more serious ones. Essentially, the prosecution took a gamble that they could convict the defendants on the maximum charges, and it turned out they couldn't.
137	* A key plot point is exposing Jessep's lie that Santiago was to be transferred off the base. However... it is never brought up ''where'' Santiago was to be transferred. Jessep has Markinson sign a phony transfer order to give Kaffee, which would necessarily have the gaining base on it. As soon as Markinson gets in touch with Kaffee the defense knows the order is false, so it should be simple enough to contact said gaining base and verify, as they would necessarily be informed of an inbound Marine. Were I on the defense team, this would be the very first avenue I'd pursue. In fact, I'd have asked Jessep in Gitmo when he first brings it up (which may have exposed the lie - Jessep is clearly caught off-guard by Kaffee's request for the transfer order, which he covers up with bluster). Why is it never even brought up?
138	** I think this can be explained the same way the altered tower chief logs can be explained. If Jessep has the pull to be able to have those logs altered, he likely also has the pull to get the gaining base to corroborate his phony transfer. However, as mentioned on the main page, this falls under Artistic License, because in the real world it would never fly and Jessep would be removed from command and indicted for even trying.
139	*** Mind you, it would still make perfect sense that Kaffee would call pilots to testify and not someone from the receiving base, but yeah, a short {{Handwave}} that this avenue has been explored by him and his team would be great.

Context Headscratchers / AFewGoodMen