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: Hawkmoon who wrote (132288)	5/9/2004 1:47:38 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Well, I don't think anybody's commented yet on the guilt or innocence of any particular defendant. And yet, prosecutors do make those types of comments, depending on the prosecutor. Some do, some don't. No harm in a police officer or prosecutor saying the defendant is guilty, there wouldn't be a trial if they didn't think the defendant was guilty. Friday night, the defense attorney for one of the defendants spoke with Greta Van Susteren, and was forthright in telling her that some of the things his client did would be offensive and degrading to anybody, but he was following orders. So I don't think denying what happened is going to be the defense. If you saw that, too, it was very nicely played for a defense attorney, I thought. No bullshit, in the sense of "what the definition of 'is' is," just forthrightly blaming someone else. ;^)

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (132288)	5/9/2004 2:09:28 AM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

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. Hawk, surely you don't believe that's their motivation. If it is they sure got religion awfully suddenly. For pete's sake, we've had PRESS RELEASES from our ATTORNEY GENERAL proclaiming the GUILT of various "terrorists." Many of them were later released. As far as the Pentagon, what policy of careful silence did they pursue when they charged the Muslim Army Chaplain with spying and aiding Al Qaeda with plans of our detention center in Cuba? How many times has Rumsfeld been on the tube proclaiming that these prisoners are "dead enders, Saddam remnants, terrorists ...and that they place no value on human life?" But when the information is politically damaging instead of helpful, that's when you see a sudden overwhelming concern for the rights of the ACCUSED????? I respect your ability to present arguments, I respect the passion reflected in your posts, and I respect your store of knowledge, but when you accept such a transparently inconsistent and self-serving rationale for covering up these abuses, it's clear that objectivity is not high on your list of attributes.