Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (132266)	5/8/2004 11:48:25 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Most of the people being prosecuted won't get a real jury anyway, they're being court-martialed. I fail to see how a panel of military personnel is the same as a jury Which is why it's even more imperative to avoid the appearance of "command influence" having an effect on how the trial is conducted. It's extremely important, as you understand, that a commander (in this case, the President and/or Secretary of Defense) not display any form of prejudgement of the guilt/innocence of the defendants. Should they do so, it would be grounds for a mistrial and dropping of charges. Here's a reference case I found where this happened: armfor.uscourts.gov And a discussion of the definition of Unlawful Command Influence: usmilitary.about.com You're the lawyer.. I hope you can tell us whether Bush/Rumsfeld discussing the events surrounding the case and making negative comments as to the horrendous nature of the crimes meets the standard of UCI. Hawk

To: Ilaine who wrote (132266)	5/9/2004 12:00:45 AM
From: John Soileau	Respond to of 281500

<<You may not care about that, but I care, deeply. Where are the grownups?>> Well said. The grownups are....ducking for cover. The sickening aspects of this we can't forget or minimize--what effect might these images have on the treatment of US servicemen by foreign captors in the future? Next in importance, what effect will these images have on the willingness of ordinary Iraqis to cooperate with the occupying forces? The damage is not just the domestic political fallout. This fiasco makes the everyday lives of our servicemen and women in Iraq more difficult, and for that reason alone (aside from the wisdom of preserving the Geneva Convention, and basic morality), it is totally unforgivable.

To: Ilaine who wrote (132266)	5/9/2004 4:36:41 AM
From: Sam	Respond to of 281500

Who's in charge? You may not care about that, but I care, deeply. Where are the grownups? Mark Shields said on The Newshour with Jim Lehrer last Friday that it was inconceivable to him that this kind of behavior could have happened the prison withoutany of the supposed "grownups" (not his word--I think he said "higher ups") knowing it was going on. Especially with the pictures being taken. Personally, I agree with him. FWIW.

To: Ilaine who wrote (132266)	5/9/2004 10:01:31 AM
From: Alastair McIntosh	Respond to of 281500

The "grownups" set the policy and should be accountable for the situation at the Abu Ghraib prison. Although the policy was set initially for Guantanamo, it seems reasonable that the same techniques would be authorized for "high value" prisoners is Iraq. washingtonpost.com The classified list of about 20 techniques was approved at the highest levels of the Pentagon and the Justice Department, and represents the first publicly known documentation of an official policy permitting interrogators to use physically and psychologically stressful methods during questioning. The use of any of these techniques requires the approval of senior Pentagon officials -- and in some cases, of the defense secretary. Interrogators must justify that the harshest treatment is "militarily necessary," according to the document, as cited by one official. Once approved, the harsher treatment must be accompanied by "appropriate medical monitoring." "We wanted to find a legal way to jack up the pressure," said one lawyer who helped write the guidelines. "We wanted a little more freedom than in a U.S. prison, but not torture."