The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Cafe Society

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-22-2010, 11:17 PM
JCorre JCorre is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
"A Few Good Men" Would Jessup's charge stick?

I just watched the movie tonight. After the climactic scene in which Jessup admitted to the code red order under oath and he was arrested I was wondering:
  • Would Caffey conceivably get assigned to defend Jessup?
  • For a man of Jessup's rank and political pull is there any way he could manage to get off the hook?

I guess I'm asking if there would be a way to legitimately/successfully argue that his testimony in the trial of Lowden and Downey is not enough evidence to get him convicted of issuing an illegal order?

I'm sure it would be enough to get him convicted of perjury but i can't recall him ever stating explicitly that he didn't give the order. My memory may be faulty though.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 03-22-2010, 11:42 PM
Rumor_Watkins Rumor_Watkins is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCorre View Post
Would Caffey conceivably get assigned to defend Jessup?
no. I don't know UCMJ stuff, but that's a gigantic conflict of interest (that Jessup would conceivably not care to waive) IMHO.

Quote:
For a man of Jessup's rank and political pull is there any way he could manage to get off the hook?
sure. but it's hard to do when you get caught in your oral testimony. (the following have come from unsubstantiated reviews, or it may have been more expounded upon in Sorkin's play) The movie didn't do a good job of the conspiracy to keep this secret part. I believe Kaffee was specifically assigned (remember, he was assigned by division) precisely because he was their best shot at getting the Defendants to plea bargain and keep the Officers' involvement under wraps, because Jessup's star was on the rise and no one wanted this gumming up the works. Then he had to go and get the hots for a nosy chick.


Quote:
I guess I'm asking if there would be a way to legitimately/successfully argue that his testimony in the trial of Lowden and Downey is not enough evidence to get him convicted of issuing an illegal order?
if i recall the movie correctly, he outright admitted it. That, coupled with Louden and Downey's testimony that they were told to do X would be sufficient, if you ask me, to convict Jessup. Would be enough to bust Lt. Jack Bauer, too.

Quote:
I'm sure it would be enough to get him convicted of perjury but i can't recall him ever stating explicitly that he didn't give the order. My memory may be faulty though.
when asked "did you order the code red" he replied "you're goddamn right I did" that's pretty explicit. after denying it multiple times prior, If i remember correctly.

Last edited by Rumor_Watkins; 03-22-2010 at 11:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-22-2010, 11:59 PM
JCorre JCorre is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Thanks for the reply.

For context, I was thinking after the scene, "you're going away for all days old man" but after a second I thought, "but wait, he'll just hire some "johnny cochrane" or "dershowitz" and get off"
and was wondering if my second thought was valid.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-23-2010, 06:39 AM
Musicat Musicat is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sturgeon Bay, WI USA
Posts: 17,535
A typical disposition of such a case is to force Jessup into early retirement in exchange for no Courts Martial. Usually a pretty sweet deal for the accused, all things considered. Career ended, but a terrific pension and nothing preventing him from entering another civilian business while drawing the pension. And full military benefits (medical, PX, commissary, etc.).
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-23-2010, 07:22 AM
corkboard corkboard is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
"You want answers?"

"I think I'm entitled."

"You want answers?"

"I want the truth!"

"You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it- you? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know- that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, though grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.

You don't want the truth because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor inclination do defend myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said 'thank you', and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand at post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!"

"Did you order the code red?"

"I did the job I was- -"

"DID YOU ORDER THE CODE RED?"

"YOU'RE GODDAMMED RIGHT I DID!!!"


-from memory, thankyouverymuch.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-23-2010, 08:29 AM
muldoonthief muldoonthief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 7,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumor_Watkins View Post

if i recall the movie correctly, he outright admitted it. That, coupled with Louden and Downey's testimony that they were told to do X would be sufficient, if you ask me, to convict Jessup. Would be enough to bust Lt. Jack Bauer, too.
Yes, Kendrick (Kiefer Sutherland) will be in a world of hurt too. At the end of the movie, Kevin Bacon says he's on his way to arrest him as well.

Of course, you have to wonder if the way they caught Downey lying on the stand will come up in the new trial as well - IIRC, he originally claimed he was in the room when Kendrick ordered them to give Santiago a code red, but later had to admit he wasn't because the jeep that picks them up from guard duty had a flat tire.

BTW, it was Dawson & Downey on trial. Louden is Downey's first name.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-23-2010, 09:04 AM
usar_jag usar_jag is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCorre View Post
  • Would Caffey conceivably get assigned to defend Jessup?
  • For a man of Jessup's rank and political pull is there any way he could manage to get off the hook?
It's highly doubtful that Caffey would be assigned to defend Col. Jessup. In the Army, defense counsel have a separate chain of command from the rest of the JAGs, and Caffey was acting as a prosecutor. (I can't speak for the Navy, but it's probable that they have the same structure.) There is also a huge conflict of interest problem.

Again, I am only speaking from an Army perspective, but assuming that Navy Regs are similar, if I were advising Col. Jessup, I would have him put in a "Retirement for the Good of the Service" immediately. If things progressed, I would have hime request a "Retirement in Lieu of Courts Martial". Unless the investigation yielded a pattern and practice of this kind of abuse, I suspect Col. Jessup would either retire (either at current rank or a lower rank, depending on the deal) or be chaptered out of the USMC with a General Discharge.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-23-2010, 09:10 AM
Poysyn Poysyn is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
The charge would stick. It would've been too high profile not to stick. The biggest issue with being convicted of even only that lovely catch-all "conduct unbecoming" is that you give up not only your rank and pension (which would be a big hit as a Colonel), but you have to pay back what you were paid during the trial, because you are guilty.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-23-2010, 09:12 AM
muldoonthief muldoonthief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 7,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by usar_jag View Post
It's highly doubtful that Caffey would be assigned to defend Col. Jessup. In the Army, defense counsel have a separate chain of command from the rest of the JAGs, and Caffey was acting as a prosecutor. (I can't speak for the Navy, but it's probable that they have the same structure.) There is also a huge conflict of interest problem.
Kaffee (Tom Cruise) was a defense attorney - he was defending Dawson & Downey. Ross (Kevin Bacon) was the prosecutor in the case.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-23-2010, 09:39 AM
usar_jag usar_jag is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by muldoonthief View Post
Kaffee (Tom Cruise) was a defense attorney - he was defending Dawson & Downey. Ross (Kevin Bacon) was the prosecutor in the case.

Sorry--wasn't thinking--his questioning of Col. Jessup was atypical of a defense attorney. I think I need to rewatch that movie--though entertaining, it's not a true life portrayal of military legal proceedings.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-23-2010, 11:26 AM
JCorre JCorre is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Followup question:

Could Jessup retain Alan Dershowitz for his defense at a military courts marshall?

Would he be well advised to? (Hiring a civillian rather than military counsel...)
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-23-2010, 11:36 AM
friedo friedo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 20,689
You are allowed to hire a civilian defense attorney (at your own expense) in a military court martial. There are even some ex-JAGs who specialize in it. Otherwise, you get the JAG guy assigned to you.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-23-2010, 12:51 PM
minlokwat minlokwat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Maryland, My Maryland!
Posts: 1,384
They would have also nailed him on an obstruction of justice charge since it would have come to light that he was behind the doctored flight log from the other base (Andrews? -if memory properly serves?)
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-23-2010, 01:16 PM
Linus Van Pelt Linus Van Pelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Here's the thing that I've always wondered:

A lot of of the drama in the movie comes from the statement made by Ross that Kaffee would be risking his own court martial for claiming that Dawson and Downey were acting under orders since by doing so he'd be accusing Jessep and Kendrick of comitting a crime without proof. That always struck me as a bit of a stretch, but I'm also aware that there are a lot of rules covering lawyers' behavior in court that seem odd to the layperson. Can one of the experts in military law that are reading this thread comment on this? Was Kaffee really at risk? Or was that idea simply made up by Sorkin to create the conflict?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-23-2010, 01:25 PM
Rumor_Watkins Rumor_Watkins is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linus Van Pelt View Post
Here's the thing that I've always wondered:

A lot of of the drama in the movie comes from the statement made by Ross that Kaffee would be risking his own court martial for claiming that Dawson and Downey were acting under orders since by doing so he'd be accusing Jessep and Kendrick of comitting a crime without proof. That always struck me as a bit of a stretch, but I'm also aware that there are a lot of rules covering lawyers' behavior in court that seem odd to the layperson. Can one of the experts in military law that are reading this thread comment on this? Was Kaffee really at risk? Or was that idea simply made up by Sorkin to create the conflict?
yeah, this one never sat well with me...

yes, (non-military) attorneys are bound by rules of professional conduct, but no where in the rules (that I'm aware of) are you not allowed to suggest/accuse someone else at your client's trial of being the actual perpetrator of the crime your client is on trial for. now, you can't suborn perjury (so you can't put someone on the stand who you know will lie) but in terms of the "no, this is the guy that did it" approach, you're fine. (no comment on whether that's a good tactic)

so, you're either allowed to do it and Sorkin just made up the threat to Kaffee, or the UCMJ has some really fucked up provisions that severely cripple a defense attorney's ability to provide a competent defense (it may have been in a JAG episode, too - I believe they claimed that a non-military lawyer in a military trial could be punished in the same way as Kaffee)

then again, based on what we see coming out of these military tribunals at Gitmo, this may not be entirely surprising.

Last edited by Rumor_Watkins; 03-23-2010 at 01:26 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-23-2010, 01:45 PM
FlightlessBird FlightlessBird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Can I hijack this just a bit, and back up 3 minutes screentime?

- Ever put your life in another man's hands, and his in yours? We follow orders, son. Otherwise people die. It's that simple. Are we clear? Are we clear?
- Crystal.
- One last question, before I call Airmen O'Malley and Rodriguez. If you ordered that - Santiago wasn't to be touched, and your orders are always followed, then why was - Santiago in danger? Why would it be necessary to transfer him off the base?
- He was a substandard Marine. He was being transferred...
- You said he was transferred because he was in danger. I said, "grave danger?" and you said... we can read it...
- I know what I said!
- Then why the two orders?
- Men can do things on their own.
- But your men never did.
- Your men obey orders. So Santiago wasn't in danger, right?

- I thought that maybe Dawson and/or Downey were not honorable so I wanted Santiago out of there. Put simply Lt Caffee, I said that my men follow orders or people die, well that's exactly what happened. Those two did not follow orders and someone died. Now I'm going to go see my sister. BEEYATCH!

Now maybe I wrote it a little flowery but the basic argument still kinda stands, We follow orders or people die, and a man is dead. That seems to wrap up the charges doesn't it?

FYI, I got the script from here.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-23-2010, 04:30 PM
FallenAngel FallenAngel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Linus, you missed a little of the point. What Jack warned Kaffee about was directly accusing an officer of a crime during examination. To make the accusation, if it were false, would be a criminal offense for which he could be charged.

Think of it kind of like making a false claim to the police.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-23-2010, 05:11 PM
Skald the Rhymer Skald the Rhymer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 24,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCorre View Post
I just watched the movie tonight. After the climactic scene in which Jessup admitted to the code red order under oath and he was arrested I was wondering:
  • Would Caffey conceivably get assigned to defend Jessup?
  • For a man of Jessup's rank and political pull is there any way he could manage to get off the hook?

I guess I'm asking if there would be a way to legitimately/successfully argue that his testimony in the trial of Lowden and Downey is not enough evidence to get him convicted of issuing an illegal order?

I'm sure it would be enough to get him convicted of perjury but i can't recall him ever stating explicitly that he didn't give the order. My memory may be faulty though.
I can't imagine that Caffey would get assigned to defend Jessup; the conflicts are obvious. I also don't think Caffey gave a good goddamn what happened to the colonel, so long as Dawson & Downing didn't go to prison. Jessup getting shitcanned would be, at most, gravy.

As for the rest of it, I imagine that Jessup was more likely to be forced to retire than to serve any jail time.

Last edited by Skald the Rhymer; 03-23-2010 at 05:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-23-2010, 05:19 PM
Bijou Drains Bijou Drains is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
How much military law is covered in law school? It seems like some of it is so specialized they may not cover much of it.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-23-2010, 05:21 PM
Rumor_Watkins Rumor_Watkins is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
How much military law is covered in law school? It seems like some of it is so specialized they may not cover much of it.
I'm sure there are a few schools that offer a course on the UCMJ - it's not like it's so specialized that you can't pick up the framework of it in a semester like any other specialized legal topic

Anyway, the various branches of the armed forces have a JAG school that they send new to-be military lawyers to: it's in Charlottesville, VA (I believe closely affiliated with UVA's law school)

Last edited by Rumor_Watkins; 03-23-2010 at 05:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-23-2010, 05:22 PM
Rumor_Watkins Rumor_Watkins is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by FallenAngel View Post
Linus, you missed a little of the point. What Jack warned Kaffee about was directly accusing an officer of a crime during examination. To make the accusation, if it were false, would be a criminal offense for which he could be charged.

Think of it kind of like making a false claim to the police.
I hope you can see why the two are not the same things, and I would really hope that no such rule exists under the UCMJ.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-23-2010, 06:00 PM
jk1245 jk1245 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
'nother question, if I may hijack.

Why would Jessup be in serious trouble at all? The movie establishes that code reds are fairly standard on the base and (presumably) haven't resulted in any other deaths. Therefore, Jessup could reasonably say that he did not expect any serious harm to come to Santiago. Moreover, it would seem to indict Downey and Dawson even more since the whole "we do this all the time, and no one died until these two idiots got involved" issue is there (not to mention the whole "I was just following orders" defense is not generally accepted).

I mean, I can see Jessup getting in trouble for going outside the procedures for disciplinary action, but that kind of thing doesn't seem a career ender much less a long time in the slammer type of offense. Is it a "everything's OK until someone dies" type of thing?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-23-2010, 06:52 PM
Rumor_Watkins Rumor_Watkins is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by jk1245 View Post
'nother question, if I may hijack.

Why would Jessup be in serious trouble at all? The movie establishes that code reds are fairly standard on the base and (presumably) haven't resulted in any other deaths. Therefore, Jessup could reasonably say that he did not expect any serious harm to come to Santiago. Moreover, it would seem to indict Downey and Dawson even more since the whole "we do this all the time, and no one died until these two idiots got involved" issue is there (not to mention the whole "I was just following orders" defense is not generally accepted).
remember when he met with kaffee et al in cuba? on the record, he understood that enlisted men disciplining their own was not to be condoned by officers. off the record, it was an invaluable tool.

then there's the whole part about him actually issuing the orders for one person to assault and batter another... which lead to that person's death.

just because you don't get caught speeding 95% of the time doesn't make it any less illegal.

Quote:
I mean, I can see Jessup getting in trouble for going outside the procedures for disciplinary action, but that kind of thing doesn't seem a career ender much less a long time in the slammer type of offense. Is it a "everything's OK until someone dies" type of thing?
Then there's the whole covering it up and lying under oath about it, too.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-24-2010, 08:58 AM
muldoonthief muldoonthief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 7,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by FallenAngel View Post
Linus, you missed a little of the point. What Jack warned Kaffee about was directly accusing an officer of a crime during examination. To make the accusation, if it were false, would be a criminal offense for which he could be charged.

Think of it kind of like making a false claim to the police.
But the problem is that Dawson and Downey claimed that they were ordered to do the Code Red by Kendrick. How could anyone in the military defend themselves if they were accused of a crime that they were ordered to do if their lawyer couldn't even try to establish that they had received such an order?

Direct of Dawson by Kaffee: "Why did you do a code red on Santiago?"

Dawson: "We were ordered to do so by Lt. Kendrick."

Direct of Kendrick by Kaffee: "Did you order a code red?"

Ross: "Objection! That's an illegal question! Take Lt. Kaffee into custody - he's under arrest!"

How can that possibly be the way things work?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jk1245 View Post
'nother question, if I may hijack.

Why would Jessup be in serious trouble at all? The movie establishes that code reds are fairly standard on the base and (presumably) haven't resulted in any other deaths. Therefore, Jessup could reasonably say that he did not expect any serious harm to come to Santiago. Moreover, it would seem to indict Downey and Dawson even more since the whole "we do this all the time, and no one died until these two idiots got involved" issue is there (not to mention the whole "I was just following orders" defense is not generally accepted).

I mean, I can see Jessup getting in trouble for going outside the procedures for disciplinary action, but that kind of thing doesn't seem a career ender much less a long time in the slammer type of offense. Is it a "everything's OK until someone dies" type of thing?
They established very early on that Code Reds are illegal. Kendrick said he knew Code Reds were illegal. Just because they've gotten away with them before doesn't make them any less illegal. Plus both Kendrick and Jessup lied in their statements, and lied under oath on the stand.

And while it's true that "I was just following orders" doesn't get you out of committing a crime, it's also true that the person who gave you an order to commit a crime is also commiting a crime. Note that Dawson and Downey got dishonorable discharges for following the order - they weren't convicted of murder because they proved they did get such an order, and weren't intending to murder Santiago, but they still did commit a crime.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-24-2010, 09:15 AM
Steve MB Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 9,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by muldoonthief View Post
But the problem is that Dawson and Downey claimed that they were ordered to do the Code Red by Kendrick. How could anyone in the military defend themselves if they were accused of a crime that they were ordered to do if their lawyer couldn't even try to establish that they had received such an order?

Direct of Dawson by Kaffee: "Why did you do a code red on Santiago?"

Dawson: "We were ordered to do so by Lt. Kendrick."

Direct of Kendrick by Kaffee: "Did you order a code red?"

Ross: "Objection! That's an illegal question! Take Lt. Kaffee into custody - he's under arrest!"

How can that possibly be the way things work?
Obviously it isn't, since the he did in fact get to ask the question "Did you order the Code Red?" The problem was that if he got the answer "no" and couldn't prove that the actual answer was "yes", then probing any further would put him out on a long thin limb.
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-24-2010, 09:35 AM
muldoonthief muldoonthief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 7,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve MB View Post
Obviously it isn't, since the he did in fact get to ask the question "Did you order the Code Red?" The problem was that if he got the answer "no" and couldn't prove that the actual answer was "yes", then probing any further would put him out on a long thin limb.
Some quotes from imdb:

Ross (prosecuting atty) to Kaffee: I have an obligation to tell you that if you accuse Kendrick or Jessup of a crime without proof then you're going to be subject to a court martial for professional misconduct and that is something that's going to be stapled to every job application that you ever fill out. Markinson's not going to stand up, Danny, he's a crazy man! Now, I'm not telling you this to intimidate you I'm being your lawyer here...Now I want you to acknowledge that the Judge Advocate has made you aware of the possible consequences of accusing a Marine officer of a felony without proper evidence.

At the time, Col. Markinson (J.T. Walsh), Jessup's XO, had already told Kaffee that Jessup had told him he wasn't going to transfer Santiago off base, and that the transfer order was a forgery and part of a coverup, and that there had been an earlier flight off base. Eyewitness testimony from a senior officer seems like "proper evidence" to me - certainly enough to begin a line of questioning.

And I just watched the scene with Kendrick again - Kaffee never asks if Kendrick ordered a code red against Santiago. He talks about punishment of a previous Marine, and whether withholding food would be a code red, and the importance of following any and all orders, but the closest he comes is asking "If you had ordered Dawson to do a code red on Santiago, would he have obeyed that order?" Kendrick immediately protests he ordered them not to touch Santiago, Ross objects, the judge sustains it and tells Kendrick not to answer. Then, Ross, the prosecutor, asks Kendrick "Did you order a code red?" and Kendrick says "No I did not."
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-24-2010, 11:36 AM
Poysyn Poysyn is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumor_Watkins View Post
remember when he met with kaffee et al in cuba? on the record, he understood that enlisted men disciplining their own was not to be condoned by officers. off the record, it was an invaluable tool.

then there's the whole part about him actually issuing the orders for one person to assault and batter another... which lead to that person's death.

just because you don't get caught speeding 95% of the time doesn't make it any less illegal.



Then there's the whole covering it up and lying under oath about it, too.
There's also the small fact that he ignored a directive/order from above not to condone enlisted men disciplining their own.

A Big Deal.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-24-2010, 06:53 PM
Linus Van Pelt Linus Van Pelt is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
I'm glad to hear that I'm not the only one bothered by that particular plot point. Don't get me wrong. I still think it's a great flick. But that bit always always made me say ."Hey, wait a minute. That can't be true... can it?"

FlightlessBird, while Jessep could have said something along those lines, the idea was that Kaffee's questioning had him a bit rattled so that he wasn't thinking clearly. On top of that (from the IMDB quotes...)

Kaffee: I think he wants to say it. I think he's pissed off that he has to hide behind all this. I think he wants to say that he made a command decision and that should be then end of it.
[Starts imitating Jessup]
Kaffee: He eats breakfast 300 yards away from 4000 Cubans who are trained to kill him. And nobody's going to tell him how to run his unit least of all the Harvard mouth in his faggoty white uniform. I need to shake him, put him on the defensive and lead him right where he's dying to go.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-30-2012, 05:23 PM
skdo23 skdo23 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
It was mentioned that Jessup was about to be tapped for a position at the National Security Council (a position that a military officer friend who I watched the movie with explained to me as being roughly equal in importance to the position Oliver North held during his role in the Iran-Contra affair). The political baggage that Jessup would now carry as a result of his testimony would probably be a career killer at this point.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.