Guilty until proven to be a Scapegoat.
You all remember the Haditha Marines? Tried and convicted in the court of the Press, with Surrender-Monkey-in-Chief "Semper I" Murtha himself presiding over their presumption of guilt.
The initial investigation conducted by the unit found that after an IED attack, the Marines were attacked by terrorists fighting from a house nearby. The Marines attacked the house, and some civilians used by the terrorists as human shields were killed. It sucks, but that's pretty much the nature of the game as played by the terrorists. You can't let them get away with it, even at the cost of human life. Sucks, but there it is.
The jihadists told the media, however, that all 24 killed were innocent civilians and that the Marines basically went berserk. So of course, the Media trumpets this claim from the hills, dismissing with a sentence or two the fact that the Marines on the scene determined that at least 8 of those killed were definitely terrorists. This is defined for purposes of this discussion as 'person with an AK-47 shooting at Marines'.
So the Marine Corps, in an attempt to shut up the media, begins a series of court-martials.
On trial now is a Captain Stone, a young JAG. Unfortunately, things just aren't going as the media, the terrorists, and the politicians want. Seems they are repeating their story that weapons found on the scene and the eyewitness testimony agrees that at least a third of the dead were actually fighters. Now, 2 civvies for every 1 terrorist killed in a firefight may be a sucky ratio, but I can see how it happened, and anyone who hasn't been in a situation like that probably can't.
As the Prairie Pundit remarks, the real question of war crimes centers around the actions of the terrorists who fought from houses also occupied by civilians and knowingly exposed civilians to Marine Corps fire in hopes of staging an incident for propaganda purposes.
It's all part of Information Warfare, but it is still a crime.