[QUOTE=Monty]
Well, military courts also have juries.
[/QUOTE]
True enough, but military courts have juries who are identified, or, at the least, are known to the prosecution. A military juror is in the unique position of having his career advancement entirely in the hands of the prosecution’s superiors. A juror who is tiresome and non-cooperative may well expect to become known as someone who is “not a team player”.
[QUOTE=constanze]
Cervaise’s post was quite good.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks, but honestly, I’m a little mystified that these things that seem so incredibly obvious to me actually need to be said out loud.
Your post was well written enough to convey clearly what was obvious to you. It’s similar to when I watch a good cabaret: they talk about everyday news and obvious facts in a way that makes me laugh or shout with indignation, and I wonder why I couldn’t say these things this way, too.
[QUOTE=Cervaise]
I think they should be tried in the criminal justice system, a la organized crime, because (a) that’s exactly what they are, and (b) it sends a powerful message.
That message: you’re just another roach with whom we deal in due course.
I see these Islamofascist types (to borrow the Bushism) as sitting around in their tents and caves absolutely ecstatic that with barely better than third-world technology they’re able to so strongly jerk the leash of the world’s unquestioned greatest power. That they are able to have so tremendous an effect is probably their greatest recruiting tool: Want to fight the Great Satan? Look at us, we’re the ones who really managed to get their attention.
Let’s take that away. The British response after the transit bombinbs was, I think, ideal (minus the whole Brazilian headshot thing): dust off, tighten up, and move on. That we Americans are squealing in panic and overreacting both overseas and at home is not so much infuriating as it is frankly embarrassing.
The United States is the most powerful nation on the planet. It will, unsurprisingly, attract the hatred of all manner of wackos. This is to be expected. It is not something that should cause our current level of total freakout. And the possibility of suffering another attack here or there does not rise to the level of endangering the existence of the nation. Only compromising our core values will accomplish that destruction.
So let’s find 'em, arrest 'em, and throw 'em into the system like the lowlifes they are. Take away the glamour, run 'em through the wringer, and if they’re found guilty stick 'em in a hole for the rest of their lives. Business as usual.
Otherwise, we make our enemies much more powerful than they really are. Why would we want to do that? As far as I’m concerned, the elevation of the issue to the status of War on Terror is, practically speaking, giving aid and comfort to the enemy, because it’s exactly what they want.
We’re fighting them on their terms. We can only win if we fight them on ours.
[/QUOTE]
I couldn’t agree more. Perfectly stated. We need to get past this panic already and start dealing with this like adults.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
True enough, but military courts have juries who are identified, or, at the least, are known to the prosecution. A military juror is in the unique position of having his career advancement entirely in the hands of the prosecution’s superiors. A juror who is tiresome and non-cooperative may well expect to become known as someone who is “not a team player”.
[/QUOTE]
Incorrect assertion.
[QUOTE=Monty]
Incorrect assertion.
[/QUOTE]
Well, that certainly settles that! Whatever was I thinking? But just for the record: citerino? Linky-dinky parlay voo?
I’ll give you two:
And just for fun, I’ll throw in a third one for free:
Well, if that qualifies as a cite, then here’s another one.
Hey, this is fun.
In the real world in the US military, it is illegal to coerce a prosecuting attorney, a defending attorney, or a juror. It is also illegal to penalize the jurors for their decision at the trial.
[QUOTE=Monty]
In the real world in the US military, it is illegal to coerce a prosecuting attorney, a defending attorney, or a juror. It is also illegal to penalize the jurors for their decision at the trial.
[/QUOTE]
And people who engage in conquest and torture would care about such legal points why ?
You really think that matters? You think guys that “buck the system” and aren’t “team players” can only be penalized by direct, legal means? Really and truly, you believe that?
I have a similar question for you: Why do you believe that someone in the US military who is selected as a juror would be subject to penalties for voting his conscience?
How do you square that belief with the simple fact that there are military lawyers assigned, and whose duty it is, to represent the accused with all their ability?
In answer to your question, yes, I do believe that military lawyers and jurors are not punished for serving on courts-martials. There are certain safeguards in place for them: Inspector General, UCMJ, Congressional Representative, Senators, just to name a few.
Der Trihs’ comment is yet another non sequitur so I feel completely safe in ignoring it in this conversation.
Spelling correction for my post above:
courts-martial in lieu of courts-martials.
[QUOTE=Monty]
I have a similar question for you: Why do you believe that someone in the US military who is selected as a juror would be subject to penalties for voting his conscience?
[/quote]
Because if the authorities want a particular result from a trial, they will punish anyone who gets in the way, of course.
[QUOTE=Monty]
Der Trihs’ comment is yet another non sequitur so I feel completely safe in ignoring it in this conversation.
[/QUOTE]
Translation : You have no answer, but don’t want to admit it.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Because if the authorities want a particular result from a trial, they will punish anyone who gets in the way, of course.
[/quote]
Got any proof of this assertion for United States’ courts-martials?
Actual translation: I’m not all that interested in what you pretend to be the facts. I’m actually interested in facts.
[QUOTE=Monty]
Actual translation: I’m not all that interested in what you pretend to be the facts. I’m actually interested in facts.
[/QUOTE]
We have enganged in conquest and in torture; which facts are you disputing ?
I await your presentation of facts in relation to the issue of punishing individuals who have served on a court-martial for their decision at said court-martial. So far, you have presented no facts relating to that issue.
The question is moot anyway, since the only difference between being found guilty at one of these trials will be whether or not they execute you. The US has no plan to release them if they are found not guilty.
Der Trihs,
Read this link and answer the following questions, if you please:
[ol][li]Do you believe the jurors will be ordered by their separate Immediate Superiors in Command to disregard the court-martial procedure and the judge’s instructions and issue a verdict their ISICs desire?[/li][li]Do you believe the defending attorney will be punished for defending the accused?[/li][li]What is your logical basis for that belief?[/li][*]Do you have any inkling whatsoever of how either the military justice or the military fitness/evaluation reporting systems work for the United States’ Armed Forces?[/ol]
[QUOTE=Monty]
Der Trihs,
Read this link and answer the following questions, if you please:
[ol][li]Do you believe the jurors will be ordered by their separate Immediate Superiors in Command to disregard the court-martial procedure and the judge’s instructions and issue a verdict their ISICs desire?[/li][li]Do you believe the defending attorney will be punished for defending the accused?[/li][li]What is your logical basis for that belief?[/li][li]Do you have any inkling whatsoever of how either the military justice or the military fitness/evaluation reporting systems work for the United States’ Armed Forces?[/ol][/li][/QUOTE]
You’re really serious? Look, I have no evidence here, but you don’t think that people’s career in the military can be seriously affected by things like this? Believe me, I know enough people in the military to know that the “rules” aren’t by any means all in the rule books. My heavens, I’ve been told by military friends that there are plenty of people whose careers in the military have been basically destroyed because their spouses didn’t have ‘the right attitude.’ I’m not saying that jurors would be pressured to find a defendant guilty, but I am saying that waving the rule book around is no way to refute that as a strong possibility. People are people. Some people who have power and don’t get their way like to get revenge on those under them who have thwarted them. There has never been a rule book in the world that could or did prevent that.
The defending attorney has no choice in the matter, and thus will not be penalized. The juror, on the other hand, has choice as his only job in the whole process. Do you see a difference?
Cervaise, bingo!
luci, I don’t know if the younger folk got it, but I love linky-dinky parley-voo!