And here I always thought folks were innocent until proven guilty. Does that only work unless they are American soldiers? Was there a memo on this that I missed?
-XT
Evidently so.
It’s not an issue of “innocent until proven guilty” by this point, it’s more a matter of “guilty, but how guilty?” that people would like to figure out.
Well, some people, anyway.
No need for a trial then I suppose. They just ask you in and you can pronounce them all guilty…seeing as you know all the facts of the case and all. “Well, I saw it on the internet, so they must be guilty. Extenuating circumstances? Ha!..hang em all!” I seem to recall similar attitudes in the past when dealing with minorities…I’m sure it worked out well for them though.
Did you want to trample on any other rights while you were at it or are you content with just this one?
-XT
I’m unaware of anyone actually being charged with a crime here, so “innocent until proven guilty” doesn’t seem to enter into it.
At the very least, this smells of “Things that should not be done in the name of the United States of America”…
I see… “Well, I saw it on the internet, so they must be innocent” is perfectly acceptable?
Good point. Except the only people who are in a position to offer these hypothetical extenuating circumstances aren’t talking.
again, you seem to have missed the memo…it’s more like, “Ha…Hang a couple of flunkies, and be done with it.”
ok…I give up…are we talking about Jews, Blacks, Gypsies, Unitarians, Masons, or American Indians here?
The point is, we have no idea who “they” are. Once we can figure that out, ** Then ** we can hang them.
My point was that one does not just pronounce guilt by fiat without having all the facts. Seems to me we don’t have all the facts, let alone know WHO might or might not be guilty. So…seems a bit premature to start claiming "it’s more a matter of “guilty, but how guilty”. YMMV and I probably over reacted anyway.
Thank you for restating my point (though I doubt that was your intention).
Couldn’t agree more, and if folks are FOUND guilty (not by fiat but by one of those trial things I hear so much about) then throw the book at em…and make sure your aim is good. If that includes Bush and his merry men, great…in fact, I volunteer to be the one to throw it (or pull some triggers). I’ve got great aim and a vindictive streak…
-XT
No, I don’t. But, it is reasonable to expect that verdict for so,e participants, given the revelations, videos and still photos, and the comments that have been made by Donald Rumsfeld among others. If they keep to their word to look into this, there will be hell to pay for someone.
I can’t imagine that there will be a trial unless the evidence is released to the public. The administration will continue to ignore these allegations as long as proof isn’t staring the American public right in the face. Until the videos are released, the adminstration’s stone wall isn’t coming down.
Then we get the investigation and (most likely) trial that the allegations merit. But not before.
No. Factual and legal guilt are two different things.
Barring an insanity defense, if there’s photographic evidence of soldiers filming rapes, then logically somebody is guilty of something. Unless all these soldiers were insane and completely unaware of the wrongness of their actions, I fail to see how they could be innocent.
As long as we’re speculating, what possible excuse could be proffered for American guards filming these alledged events and not actively engaging in stopping them?
Just curious.
“Just following orders…”
Tell that to our guests at Guantanimo.
I can’t imagine that the actual people involved matter one damn bit either to the administration or to the folks wanting the tapes.
This is a political issue and not really a criminal one as it’s been playing out. The issue at hand is the effect on public opinion and it’s impact on administration policies should tape get out there showing, demonstrably, american soldiers committing ‘atrocities’.
Get those tapes out there on CNN or World News Tonight and support for the war, soft already, will drop through the floor. The administration loses the middle pretty quickly that way. And if they lose the middle they’ll lose a good bit of their support in the Senate then BANG…the President is looking at 3 years of lame duck status.
AND it’ll give one of his biggest in-party opponents, John McCain, a chance to hit him with the ‘I was tortured while a prisoner. I don’t want to see my fellow soldiers doing the same the US prisoners’ routine.
Do we even know if this is new evidence? Could this be part of what was used to convict those already found guilty?
I thought it was just ‘new’ in the sense that it was previously unreleased (to the public) evidence…not ‘new’ as in these things were still on going at AG and recently happened. I remember some senators talking about this stuff when the scandal first came out. If someone has information to the contrary I’d appreciate it, but my impression is that this information WAS used in the trials and sentencing of folks involved in the initial AG scandal.
-XT
I concur, these photos are what Rumsfeld was referring to in his Senate testimony, May 7, 2004
I am not aware that any of the unreleased photos or videos were used at any of the abuse trials.
I would think that if this were the case, there would be no reason for Congress to be getting involved now, after the fact. It would already be “case closed”, and that would be that. Why investigate something that was already dealt with? It wouldn’t make sense unless there was more to it, or if other people were being implicated.
Why indeed. My (non-cynical) reason is from Fear Itself’s cite by Rummy…we haven’t seen the worst of what happened there yet, and as many in this thread have pointed out to me, we the people have the right to see the worst.
-XT