4 ms·

That is truly disturbing.

grzm 9y ago
Yes, it is. However, it's also reassuring that the system has corrected itself. While we might desire a system that never makes a mistake, it's comprised of fallible humans, and as harsh as it is, we know that sometimes there will be errors. What we can do is try to make a system resilient enough that it can minimize and correct those errors.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > it's also reassuring that the system has corrected itself. Extrajudicial courts were created. Client-attorney interactions were willfully disrespected. A Brig. Gen allowed for the dismissal of the disrespected attorneys. A military judge threw a fit. The last ill has been partially corrected; we're a long way from due process, fair trials or justice.
  - grzm 9y ago
    Indeed. There's still a lot to be corrected, and the system as a whole wasn't perfect to begin with. But it's also last bit, which has been corrected, is the context of the submission. It's of course important to step back and assess the system as a whole: it's also important to recognize when smaller parts are working, if nothing else to remind ourselves that the system as a whole is worth saving.
    - RobertoG 9y ago
      Is it not, this: "Extrajudicial courts were created." (I would add, created at will and could be created again in the future). and this: "the system as a whole is worth saving" a little incompatible? I mean, what is the point of the system, if you can create a parallel one whenever you feel the existing one is not convenient?
      - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
        > what is the point of the system, if you can create a parallel one whenever you feel the existing one is not convenient? This is hyperbole. Nobody can create a military tribunal “whenever they want”. Specific circumstances led to Gitmo’s creation, circumstances not easily replicable domestically. American courts are still, by and large, impartial, independent and fair.
- mindslight 9y ago
  How can one say that "the system has corrected itself", when the perpetrators have yet to receive punishment? Criminals don't get to just cease and apologize.
  - kbenson 9y ago
    That's not what happened here. There's still a case, but it's stalled pending adequate representation for the defendant.
    - mabbo 9y ago
      I think he means the people who bugged attorney-client calls, and the judge who put a good man in jail for not helping them do that. Why aren't those people being brought to justice?
      - kbenson 9y ago
        Oh, I see. I think those are somewhat separate issues, but I do agree they need more attention and investigation. I'm not sure there are criminals in them or not, as a legal distinction. I do agree it's morally repugnant and goes against America's core values though.
        mindslight 9y ago
        As-written legal distinction isn't very meaningful - legislators have written out the system's actors' culpability in the same manner that judges give it a free pass. A general sense of morality/values isn't very productive for making an argument either, as that basically reduces to "gut feeling" and rationalization. Many people are scared of the 21st century bogeyman, and will kowtow to whatever thugs are purporting to ward it off. Instead I would appeal to very basic concepts, like symmetry. For instance, if the defense team had carried out similar surveillance, would they be facing the same (lack of) consequences?
        kbenson 9y ago
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- slededit 9y ago
  The disturbing part isn't the "errors" on their own, but that it effectively came down to the integrity of a single person under duress. The system failed because it was no longer the system protecting the accused - it was the General under house arrest.
  - Lordarminius 9y ago
    I agree. People high up decided that it was not cool to have a marine corps general under arrest. I have a few questions: 1. How is it legal to tap the communications of an attorney and his clients ? 2. Is such evidence admissible in American courts ? 3. How can it be that the general can be held accountable for 'allowing the resignation of defense counsel(s)' Is such permission required ? This is very strange.
- phaus 9y ago
  Unless that Col. gets kicked out of the military and disbarred for being an unethical POS that's willing to railroad people into the death penalty without a fair trial, I don't think its fair to say the system corrected itself.

grzm 9y ago

Yes, it is. However, it's also reassuring that the system has corrected itself. While we might desire a system that never makes a mistake, it's comprised of fallible humans, and as harsh as it is, we know that sometimes there will be errors. What we can do is try to make a system resilient enough that it can minimize and correct those errors.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> it's also reassuring that the system has corrected itself. Extrajudicial courts were created. Client-attorney interactions were willfully disrespected. A Brig. Gen allowed for the dismissal of the disrespected attorneys. A military judge threw a fit. The last ill has been partially corrected; we're a long way from due process, fair trials or justice.
- grzm 9y ago
  Indeed. There's still a lot to be corrected, and the system as a whole wasn't perfect to begin with. But it's also last bit, which has been corrected, is the context of the submission. It's of course important to step back and assess the system as a whole: it's also important to recognize when smaller parts are working, if nothing else to remind ourselves that the system as a whole is worth saving.
  - RobertoG 9y ago
    Is it not, this: "Extrajudicial courts were created." (I would add, created at will and could be created again in the future). and this: "the system as a whole is worth saving" a little incompatible? I mean, what is the point of the system, if you can create a parallel one whenever you feel the existing one is not convenient?
    - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
      > what is the point of the system, if you can create a parallel one whenever you feel the existing one is not convenient? This is hyperbole. Nobody can create a military tribunal “whenever they want”. Specific circumstances led to Gitmo’s creation, circumstances not easily replicable domestically. American courts are still, by and large, impartial, independent and fair.
mindslight 9y ago
How can one say that "the system has corrected itself", when the perpetrators have yet to receive punishment? Criminals don't get to just cease and apologize.
- kbenson 9y ago
  That's not what happened here. There's still a case, but it's stalled pending adequate representation for the defendant.
  - mabbo 9y ago
    I think he means the people who bugged attorney-client calls, and the judge who put a good man in jail for not helping them do that. Why aren't those people being brought to justice?
    - kbenson 9y ago
      Oh, I see. I think those are somewhat separate issues, but I do agree they need more attention and investigation. I'm not sure there are criminals in them or not, as a legal distinction. I do agree it's morally repugnant and goes against America's core values though.
      - mindslight 9y ago
        As-written legal distinction isn't very meaningful - legislators have written out the system's actors' culpability in the same manner that judges give it a free pass. A general sense of morality/values isn't very productive for making an argument either, as that basically reduces to "gut feeling" and rationalization. Many people are scared of the 21st century bogeyman, and will kowtow to whatever thugs are purporting to ward it off. Instead I would appeal to very basic concepts, like symmetry. For instance, if the defense team had carried out similar surveillance, would they be facing the same (lack of) consequences?
        kbenson 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
slededit 9y ago
The disturbing part isn't the "errors" on their own, but that it effectively came down to the integrity of a single person under duress. The system failed because it was no longer the system protecting the accused - it was the General under house arrest.
- Lordarminius 9y ago
  I agree. People high up decided that it was not cool to have a marine corps general under arrest. I have a few questions: 1. How is it legal to tap the communications of an attorney and his clients ? 2. Is such evidence admissible in American courts ? 3. How can it be that the general can be held accountable for 'allowing the resignation of defense counsel(s)' Is such permission required ? This is very strange.
phaus 9y ago
Unless that Col. gets kicked out of the military and disbarred for being an unethical POS that's willing to railroad people into the death penalty without a fair trial, I don't think its fair to say the system corrected itself.