Forthrightly said, sir! Seldom, if ever, have I seen anyone scamper away with such dignity! Brave, brave, brave Sir Hamlet!
Awww shucks. T’wer nothin’.
You should have seen this one guy. He asks this other person a loaded question with no answer, and then, when the guy refuses to answer the non-question, he accuses him of running away. Now THAT was a work of art.
But, since I’m feeling generous, and you insist on being deliberately obtuse, I’ll explain it to you. Again.
"It’s not either “One, that the military and the prosecution in this case conducted themselves according to the very finest principles of truth, justice and the American way” or “That my concerns, and the concerns of others, about the conduct of the prosecution is just so much kumbaya idealism, of no consequence to a hard-headed realist, to be brushed aside like so much trivia?”
In this case, it is completely possible, and actually much more realistic, to think that yes, Khadr is guilty AND that the military and prosecution made mistakes.
Gasp, you say.
Unpossible!!! you shout!!!
Why how ever could it not be either the military was perfect or that Khadr is guilty! Those were the only possible options!!!
No, dear luci, they aren’t.
It is entirely possible for the military to have made mistakes. To have an officer chang a report, to have prosecutors delay getting the classified information about the present location of a potential witness, and to have screwed up the process along the way AND that the evidence shows Khadr is guilty.
To put it in the most basic way I could: “This does not mean there aren’t issues that could be raised (the changing of LTC W’s report, the possibility that another person was alive to throw the grenade), just that I don’t find them enough to reject his guilty plea, the confession, and the videotape.”
Now, do you get it? Are we done with this? Or are you going to ask me when I stopped beating my wife too?
Well, is that your answer? You still have it under the shroud of deniable ambiguity, if I ask anything based upon your “answer”, you retain the option of denial. Damn, but you guys are slippery! Is Ambiguity 101 a first year law class?
It is not an unreasonable answer, to be sure, but is it yours, or a hypothetical that you can ditch when the going gets tough?
What didn’t you understand? The only ambiguity is that it’s the real world, and, in the real world, things are rarely are as black and white as you want and portray them.
This is a joke right
Or, alternatively, your position is ethically flawed and you’d prefer not to admit it.
Or, you can continue to be obtuse. You’re a big boy, luci, Say what you mean.
Pretty sure you know what I mean.
But, OK, “mistakes”. I know what I mean by “mistakes”. Errors, flubs, zigged when he should have zagged. When I say “mistake” I mean something relatively nuetral, void of intent.
And I figure if the situation is divided amongst any two given sides, if mistakes are made, then they are randomly distributed, there are just as many mistakes that favor one side as favor another.
(“Mistakes were made.” Why does that sound so familiar?)
Best just stop here, see if we have the same definition of the term. Do we?
(Lawyers. What is it with you guys, anyway?)
Semantics? That’s why you’re being obtuse? Because a semantics argument over the word “mistake”?
Pathetic.
But, because you seemingly have a pathological fear of being direct, here’s the way I see it. Feel free to correct me.
You seem to think it is “ethically flawed” to think that misconduct on the part of the military doesn’t mean someone didn’t commit the crimes he pled guilty to.
Have I got it? Is that your point?
Yes, there was misconduct. The changed report (which the officer tried to explain) and the footdragging were unwarranted and never should have happened. While these are certainly issues, they do not overwhelm the evidence that Khadr is guilty. Nor do they completely nullify the charges and guilt plea of Khadr.
You seem to think that if you can point to any misconduct on the part of the military, that means Khadr isn’t guilty and/or he shouldn’t be charged. Stupid position to my mind, but not unique. But that apparently wasn’t enough for you. You went further and seemed to assert that anyone who thinks differently on that point is “ethically flawed”.
I know I had a lot of “you seem” and guessing to figure out what the fuck your point is. It would’ve been a lot easier had you actually made your point.
Now, were I as prone to false dilemmas as you, I would demand that you tell me whether your indirectness is due to your cowardice or your simple inability to make an actual point.
Not at all, simply being sure that our definitions of the word are in tune. Not even having an argument about that yet. But it appears that there will be no need of that.
Please feel free to bite me any where you like.
Why, no. That would be stupid. You’d be winning if I were stupid.
Nope. (See above)
Well, that will do for now, that point took about five pages. There was, indeed, prosecutorial misconduct. One has to wonder why, knowing that as you did, you kept beating me about the head and shoulders with the absence of a rebuke for prosecutorial misconduct, if you yourself believed such a rebuke was warranted.
Or not, maybe it was prosecutorial misconduct lite. The lo-cal, no consequence version. The kind that doesn’t actually corrupt justice, just gooses it along to the foregone conclusion.
Hamlet: "“There has not been, as far as I could find, anything close to a finding of prosecutorial misconduct by the judge. And, since then, Khadr has had his opportunity to go to trial. Instead he pled guilty to the charges.”
I should have known that if I used the term “misconduct”, some pedant hung up on semantics would shout “SEE!! PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT!!!” And by someone, I mean you.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the term “prosecutorial misconduct”. Prosecutorial misconduct is a term of art, generally reserved to large misbehavior on the part of the prosecution that influences the trial of a defendant.
That didn’t happen here. There was no prosecutorial misconduct. The judge never found there to be prosecutorial misconduct. No court will ever find prosecutorial misconduct.
But, at the very least, I understand you now.
Hamlet: “You seem to think that if you can point to any misconduct on the part of the military, that means Khadr isn’t guilty and/or he shouldn’t be charged. Stupid position to my mind, but not unique.”
So, it was defense misconduct? Or the judge? Do they have baliffs at these things? Maybe it was him.
It would probably depend on what capacity they were operating under.
If they were sheep dipped, the words expendable and deniable were probably used in the pre mission brief.
An A-team operating in mufti is probably doing so for the purposes of the host country to be able to deny that American advisors are present, and would probably be wearing enough of a uniform to meet the code.
As for unlawful combatants, it would depend on the “host” country, in the case of a deniable op. Francis Gary Powers was a CIA contractor who flew missions over the soviet union when he was shot down. They put him on trial and jailed him and eventually releasing him. Legally they probably could have put him up against a wall and shot him for being a spy.
Declan
Completely correct, and at the risk of further confusing elucidator, I’ll point out that not even every instance of “prosecutorial misconduct” is, on appeal, sufficient to overturn a verdict. (Chapman v. California).
Well, I am certainly much relieved! Before, I had been worried that perhaps this fellow was not getting a strictly fair trial. But after you take out the stainless steel parsing tweezers and pull apart the word “misconduct”, I see that what it really means is “Ooopsie-daisy!”. This is misconduct Lite, the lo-cal, zero consequence version.
Now, we can show this off to a skeptical world as representing the best American traditions of impartial, unbiased justice (with an asterisk, to footnote some minor nuances of no real significance).
And we are assured that this is the extent of it, there are no more unfortunate goofs to be uncovered. Because, of course, if there were, they would tell us, they would rush forward with these facts with the same brisk alacrity that these were revealed to us. We are so assured, right, gentlemen? Now that these silly little oopsies have been uncovered, we can be quite certain there is nothing more to see here, yeppers, we got the straight story now, by golly!
And I had been a bit worried about how this all reflects on the confession. I had been worried that perhaps the accused looked at all of this and thought "They’re going to find me guilty no matter what. If the Archangel Gabriel arrived in the courtroom and carved “Not Guilty"in flaming letters on the courtroom wall with this blazing sword, they’re still going to find me guilty. The only way I ever get out of Hell Lite is to cop a plea, give them what they want.”
But no, the guilty plea is your Rock of Ages, cleft for thee, it proves everything you ever wanted proven, certainly, no one would ever, ever make such a plea if they weren’t totally guilty, now would they? We were having the teensiest bit of trouble finding anyone who actually saw him throw a grenade, but that’s all behind us now, we have the guilty plea and the confession! Either of them alone might not be sufficient for total reassurance, but put them together and, well, there you have it!
A splendid example of impartial, unbiased American justice.*
PS: I thank The Counselor for his generous concern that he not “confuse” me. In the same spirit of generous advisement, I advise him that the next time he reaches out to pat me on my pointy little head, he count his fingers when he withdraws his hand.
How do you envision the criminal justice system works? If a person can show that a police officer made a mistake with his report or that there was a delay in identifying the exact whereabouts of a potential witness, the defendant gets out of jail free? If there is an issue, any issue whatsoever, with the arrest/charges/prosecution, then the defendant should go free? Unless the police, prosecutor, and judge are absolutely flawless, there can be no conviction?
Is that what you seriously believe?
Or, somewhere in that head of yours, do you realize that a person can, in fact, be guilty and plead guilty, despite mistakes made by the system, as long as they don’t deny the defendant a fair trial (or a fair guilty plea). Is there room in your world for that possibility?
It doesn’t. At all. You know what reflects on the confession?
The confession. And the circumstances surrounding the obtaining of the confession. Which, in this case, were heard about at hearings, reviewed by the judge, and found to be admissible.
What do the smart guys call that? You know, when you take what the other guy says, mangle it beyond all recognition and stupefy it so far down until it looks like you wiped it off a retarded baboons butt. Something about an “absurd reduction”, but I cant quite put my mental finger on it. I do recall its considered to be kinda dishonest. Well, bless your heart, maybe you just don’t know any better.
What would I have done, if I were in a position to make a decision and be sure it would stick? You mean after my Sonya Hyek lap dance?
I would have shipped him stateside, patched him up to the best of our abilities, and handed him over to his mama. Does he want reporters there, so he can scream obscenities about the Great Satan? Fine. Just make sure there are plenty of cameras there, so they can see the nurses tending his wounds, fluffing his pillows, and just generally giving him the best medical treatment available. Call up the local Al-Jazeera office, make sure they get there.
Because finally, what this is all about is reducing the number of our enemies. A real good subset is not making any more, not offering ObL any Christmas presents of propaganda coups, not filling his recruiting stations with angry young men. You can reduce the number of your enemies by killing them, but that entails problems and complexities I need not reference further. Except that some of our best have to die to make that happen.
But if we are going on this ill-advised snipe hunt, it should have proceeded under ruthlessly strict protocols. Not a jot, not a tittle, not a hair out of place. Open, transparent, devoid of the slightest blemish. Leave our enemies nothing…nothing!…that they can point to as proof of our prejudice and injustice. This proceeding falls far short of the mark.
I am not that familiar with legalistic proceedings. Is there something that fits the bill here, short of dismissing the case? Because I don’t know if we could have done that, having already gone down the road. Re-trial, with a stern rebuke for all involved parties? Perhaps. But we never should have been here in the first place, hip deep in shit and a mile off shore. Now, we have no good options. Him pleading guilty in exchange for being shipped to Canada may well be the best option available, and it stinks to high heaven.
I think we got here because rather than admit we had shot a fifteen year old boy, we had to make sure to dress him up as a hardened terrorist. Dumb-da-dumb. Dumb da dumb dumb dumb!
Is this tie-dyed kumbaya, all full of warm fuzzy? No, this is cold blooded realpolitik, this is about not making more enemies. Not having to kill them is a bonus, not having them trying to kill us is the real point.
Less enemies, without getting anybody killed. Sound good to you, hoss?
Boy it sure would be great if everyone did everything perfectly, wouldn’t it? I’d love it if no one made even the slightest misstep along the way, that the system worked perfectly, and that we had videotape of every encounter our military has. And recognizing the missteps is NOT as you try and intimate, making excuses or not caring about them.
There was no trial, so there can be no re-trial. Khadr pled guilty.
It certainly isn’t the best option, but rarely does that happen in the real world. And that’s what we have to deal with. While it would be nice to have the perfect case, we have to deal with the world the way it is.
Not having people join Al Qaeda, not having them make and plant IED’s to murder people, and having Christopher Speer alive would be very nice too.
I’m sorry the world doesn’t live up to our wishes.
Yeah, you hard headed realists sure are smarter than me. And then, when you fuck up everything beyond all recognition, well, there really wasn’t a realistic option. Because that’s the way the world is, darn shame about that. The only realistic option is to keep doing things the way we’ve always done them, because that works so well.
Time to think outside the coffin.
And proceeding as if they hadn’t happened? Brushing them aside as trivia?
How much confidence do you have that we’ve seen all the oopsies? And what do you make of the remarkable coincidence that all these little goofs favored the prosecution? To the skeptical eye, it would appear as though the proceedings were all pointed to a pre-determined goal. Which you answer with a flat “No, not true!” Very convincing.
Why would anyone believe a word we say? Our unstinting devotion to truth and justice? The way we rushed to make witnesses availabe to the defense?
But enough. I’ve made my case as much as I’m going to, and it bounces off your certainty like popcorn balls off a tank. And as long as the choir was gathered, did a bit of preaching.
I’m done.
One thing about you I find fascinating is your ability to, even as you quote a sentence, to completely ignore what it actually says. Instead, you stick your fingers in your ears, singing LALALALALALA, and answer as if the words I typed meant what you want to pretend they meant, not what they actually do mean. It must be nice to not be bound by the conceits of language, meaning, understanding, and honest debate.
Even as I typed the words “And recognizing the missteps is NOT as you try and intimate, making excuses or not caring about them”, in your head, you hear “recognizing the missteps is simply brushing them aside as trivia.” I have no idea, nor do I want to know, what kind of bizarre filter you have that somehow changes the very meaning of words, but it’s really fucking annoying.
Take away your strawmen, you speculation, and your ignorance, and you were done 6 pages ago.