T
TMC
Guest
No, frankly that is not safe to assume, particularly given that none of them seem anxious to actually tie their names to his cause. I have yet to see an actual list of the supporters.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
Theo520
Guest
That you or I haven’t seen the list is pretty irrelevant. It speaks more to our search skills than whether they are hiding their support. This is’t a mainstream story with lots of coverage.No, frankly that is not safe to assume, particularly given that none of them seem anxious to actually tie their names to his cause. I have yet to see an actual list of the supporters.
T
TMC
Guest
I don’t think its irrelevant, normally these lists of people are publicly available - its the whole point. The fact that the White House has said they have this support but won’t provide the list is odd. The only retired military guy that I have seen publicly support him was Allen West, and given West’s history that is neither surprising or helpful. Maybe the list will come out, but at this point that seems unlikely.That you or I haven’t seen the list is pretty irrelevant. It speaks more to our search skills than whether they are hiding their support. This is’t a mainstream story with lots of coverage.
G
grotto
Guest
That is your interpretation of the event. Wiser people decided otherwise.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
If the prosecutor suppressed exculpatory evidence, and it appears they did, then this should have been thrown out and if not, pardoned.
That’s a terrible thing for prosecutors to do. Weinstein destroyed Arthur Anderson that way and the Court later acknowledged its wrongfulness, but Anderson was still destroyed. The government was successfully sued in Boston for millions for hiding exculpatory evidence in one of the Whitey Bolger cases.
That’s a terrible thing for prosecutors to do. Weinstein destroyed Arthur Anderson that way and the Court later acknowledged its wrongfulness, but Anderson was still destroyed. The government was successfully sued in Boston for millions for hiding exculpatory evidence in one of the Whitey Bolger cases.
Last edited:
T
TMC
Guest
If that is what happened, I agree. What I have been pushing back on is the false narrative that Behenna was some kind of a hero, acting bravely, and that the real issue was something to do with politicized rules of engagement. None of that is true. He disobeyed orders, drug a naked man into the desert, and shot him dead. That is uncontested. I said that if there are questions about the way his trial was conducted, then I am OK with him only serving the six years he has served, but let’s not pretend that what he did was OK. I stand by that.If the prosecutor suppressed exculpatory evidence, and it appears they did, then this should have been thrown out and if not, pardoned.
That’s a terrible thing for prosecutors to do. Weinstein destroyed Arthur Anderson that way and the Court later acknowledged its wrongfulness, but Anderson was still destroyed. The government was successfully sued in Boston for millions for hiding exculpatory evidence in one of the Whitey Bolger cases.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Well, when evidence is suppressed, we really don’t know what happened, do we?
G
grotto
Guest
You just don’t get it.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
It may be a peculiarity of Irish law that prosecutorial hiding of exculpatory evidence is okay. In the U.S., on the other hand, that’s a basis for vacating the conviction because the trier of fact really didn’t know what the alleged perp or the alleged victim actually did, and the “grounds for conviction” were illusory. Probably that’s why the state attorney general and numerous former generals and admirals and others asked Trump to issue a pardon. Probably at least the former knew what the evidence was that the prosecutor hid from the judges.You just don’t get it.
But some want to believe everything Trump does is wrong, particularly those who know the least about the circumstances but have the strongest ideological objections to him
H
Hodos
Guest
Exactly my point. Wiser people found him guilty of murder. I don’t have to interpret anything. This soldier was objectively and rightfully convicted of murder based on the evidence of the case. Additionally, as someone who was subject to UCMJ, and administered it quite a bit as a former commander, I can tell you that the UCMJ rules of evidence and procedures are usually more lenient in favor of the defendant than even civilian criminal law is.That is your interpretation of the event. Wiser people decided otherwise.
Last edited:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Except that the judges didn’t see it all, did they, because the prosecutor hid some of it from them. When you were a former commander would you have thought that okay? I doubt it.based on the evidence
D
dvdjs
Guest
Does the type of evidentiary rule apply in courts-martial?If the prosecutor suppressed exculpatory evidence, and it appears they did, then this should have been thrown out and if not, pardoned.
From the articles is seems more like the evidence was discounted - self-defense being not an acceptable defense against a person whom you have unlawfully detained, stripped, and interrogated at the point of a gun - rather than suppressed.
Can you provide evidence of unlawful suppression of evidence?
Last edited:
T
TMC
Guest
The facts I asserted were uncontested.Well, when evidence is suppressed, we really don’t know what happened, do we?
H
Hodos
Guest
No, that isn’t the case at all. It is not the prosecutor’s responsibility to provide the defense’s case. If the defense supposedly had this evidence they would have presented it at his trial. The facts of the case, which are undisputed, are: 1) the prisoner had been captured and interrogated; 2) he was released to be taken back to his home; 3) the LT stopped along the way, stripped the prisoner naked, and began to interrogate him again on his own (demonstrating a level of intent and motive); 3) the prisoner was shot and killed by the LT. As a former commander, I am perfectly comfortable with a platoon leader who murdered a man being convicted of a crime. Soldiers are still subject to UCMJ in war zones.Except that the judges didn’t see it all, did they, because the prosecutor hid some of it from them. When you were a former commander would you have thought that okay? I doubt it.
Last edited:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Easy enough to turn the whole thing around if one adds facts they didn’t have.The facts I asserted were uncontested.
T
TMC
Guest
Maybe, but the facts I asserted are admitted. He disobeyed orders and illegally dragged a naked man into the desert, where he shot him dead. If it is true that the naked, unarmed man attacked him (which is the disputed fact), that would be a mitigating factor. It would not excuse the many crimes he admits to having committed.Easy enough to turn the whole thing around if one adds facts they didn’t have.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
No it isn’t. But the prosecutor has an absolute duty to turn over any exculpatory evidence it has or discovers to the defense. That’s really basic, and it’s considered misconduct if the prosecution fails to do it. That’s why Weinstein was sanctioned in the Arthur Anderson case and the judgment reversed. But it was too late because Anderson was destroyed as a business before that.No, that isn’t the case at all. It is not the prosecutor’s responsibility to provide the defense’s case
According to the article, the defense did not have it at trial because the prosecutor concealed it.
It’s terribly wrong to do it. The “facts are undisputed” because the hidden evidence was not presented. None of us know what that was, but the Attorney General of Oklahoma apparently does, along with others. All you really need to do to change the whole thing is to insert, between your #3 and your second #3 the following: “The prisoner, in taking off his clothes, pulled out a grenade, and pulled the pin, reaching for the accused’s rifle. The accused shot him in self-defense, whereupon the prisoner fell onto the grenade, which then exploded. The accused had scratch marks on his hand, and there were traces of his DNA under the prisoner’s fingernails along with the pin on his third finger.”
I’m not saying that’s how it happened. I’m merely saying the addition of a few facts can change a whole picture. Same with deleting a few.
If Obama had pardoned the man, nobody would be saying anything.
Last edited:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Plea bargains are always to be questioned.
But regardless, the prosecution hid exculpatory evidence from the triers of fact. That should always be reversed in our justice system.
But regardless, the prosecution hid exculpatory evidence from the triers of fact. That should always be reversed in our justice system.
F
FirstFiveEighth
Guest
Yes he disobeyed orders. Did I say he did not? I don’t think so. I was explaining why a pardon was most likely given in this case, since people were screaming that this pardon is a terrible miscarriage of justice.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
A President who is proud to be above the law pardons man who broke the law, in other news, water is wet.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.