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 (132300)	5/9/2004 11:36:59 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

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. ;^) I wonder if they're going to summon the ghost of Stanley Milgram as an expert witness... ;0) It's ridiculous.. Soldiers are supposed to know the difference between lawful and unlawful orders. I, perhaps, could see them willingly participating in keeping these prisoners awake (sleep deprivation), and implementing long-term "preparation" methods under the guidance of the MI interrogators (although this would be contrary to regulations), but posing for photos, putting leashes around their necks, and stacking them in homo-sexual positions is just completely beyond the pale of what could be considered a "lawful order".. I'm not sure it's going to fly as a defense that deflects from their own personal responsibility.. After all, what if these MI interrogators had instructed them to beat a prisoner to death in front of other prisoners as an "example"? Could they justifiably defend their actions as "following a lawful order"?? Hardly.. But it going to be interesting to see the "Song and Dance" on the part of the defense when it comes to trying to spread the blame around... Hawk