SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum
GLD 494.56+3.9%Jan 28 4:00 PM EST
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Webster Groves who wrote (59650)1/3/2010 9:37:10 AM
From: carranza2  Read Replies (3) of 219857
 
No prosecutor does this intentionally.

The reasons, as in most things, live in the details.

After the incident, the State Dep't required the accused to provide a statement concerning the events. These statements, for legal reasons, could not be used as a basis for the prosecution. They may have been incriminatory. They surely were full of info that could be used to develop other info that might have been sufficient to convict. But the DOJ was prohibited from using any information that in any way had the statements as a source.

I imagine it was extremely difficult for the DOJ to develop evidence in Iraq that could have been used in a US court that did not in some measure depend on the statements from the participants.

I doubt very seriously that the prosecutors pulled punches.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News