Speakeasy forum

General discussion

trial focuses on qualities of soldier

by WOODS-HICK / May 24, 2006 3:14 AM PDT
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: trial focuses on qualities of soldier
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: trial focuses on qualities of soldier
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
What a joke!
by JP Bill / May 24, 2006 3:22 AM PDT
Prosecution attorneys said they?ll prove the opposite: That Cardona, 32, could have said no when asked to follow orders that violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

They don't say he wasn't ordered to have the dog unmuzzled, they say he could have disobeyed the order.
Collapse -
I agree, what a joke
by duckman / May 24, 2006 3:32 AM PDT
In reply to: What a joke!

that the defense is putting on

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Which part of the defense do you disagree with?
by JP Bill / May 24, 2006 3:42 AM PDT
In reply to: I agree, what a joke
Collapse -
P.S.
by JP Bill / May 24, 2006 3:51 AM PDT

Prosecutions states

Prosecution attorneys said they?ll prove the opposite: That Cardona, 32, could have said no when asked to follow orders that violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

In other words

His superiors told/ordered him to do something they should not have.

He followed orders,

He is charged because he followed orders.

The ONLY way he should be charged is

EVERYONE of his superiors should be charged, Starting a the highest rank and when each and everyone one of them ischarged AND found guilty

THEN, and only then, he and the other dog handlers that ''followed orders'' should be charged

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) He is obligated to refuse an illegal order
by duckman / May 24, 2006 4:48 AM PDT
In reply to: P.S.
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) So are his superiors
by JP Bill / May 24, 2006 4:49 AM PDT
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) That is irrelevant
by duckman / May 24, 2006 4:57 AM PDT
Collapse -
PS
by JP Bill / May 24, 2006 5:00 AM PDT

Just in case you don't understand my point

The Major tells the Captain, the Captain tells the Lieutenant, the Lieutenant tells the Sargeant, and so on and so on, until the grunt gets the message.

If any one of the superiors ''does their duty'' and does ''as you say''

In fact he would never hear the illegal order.

The ''grunt'' isn't put in the position of having to chose between ''disobeying an unlawful order'' and ''obeying an unlawful order''. He wouldn't even hear it.

Collapse -
The failure of any other officer in the chain
by duckman / May 24, 2006 5:03 AM PDT
In reply to: PS

failing to stop the order does not absolve the "grunt" of his duty to disobey it. I know the whole purpose of your line is to have the President indicted for this, but it doesn't wash.

Collapse -
Good for the goose doesn't apply?
by JP Bill / May 24, 2006 5:17 AM PDT

I'm not surprised.

Rumsfeld says I can stand at my desk for 6 hours a day.

I don't see why prisoners can't "stand in one spot" for the same length of time.

Collapse -
Good night Gracie,
by duckman / May 24, 2006 5:22 AM PDT

this is going nowhere

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Supper time for me.
by JP Bill / May 24, 2006 5:23 AM PDT
In reply to: Good night Gracie,
Collapse -
The prosecution is not ...
by Evie / May 24, 2006 11:15 PM PDT
In reply to: P.S.

... conceding that he WAS following orders.

Don't you find it odd that apparently none of these guys "following orders" have named names of those whose orders they supposedly followed?

Collapse -
Conceding?
by JP Bill / May 26, 2006 11:01 AM PDT

Defense attorneys for an Abu Ghraib dog handler said they will prove that Sgt. Santos Cardona was following orders when he used his unmuzzled military working dog to scare, intimidate and attack detainees.

Prosecution attorneys said they?ll prove the opposite: That Cardona, 32, could have said no when asked to follow orders that violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

They said they'll prove ''the opposite'' which would be ''He wasn't given the orders''

BUT, the prosecution is going to prove

''he could have said no'' (disobeyed).

Which would REQUIRE the orders to be given.

RIGHT or WRONG?


Is this person a lawyer?

Notice dog with no muzzle

Lawyers for Miller have argued that he has already answered questions on whether he discussed with US officials in Iraq the need to use dogs against prisoners, and he has denied doing so. In previous interviews with lawyers for the accused dog handlers, Miller asserted, ?At no time did we discuss the use of dogs in interrogations.?

Miller?s announcement that he would not testify in the case, however, comes shortly after defense lawyers reached an agreement with prosecutors to obtain the testimony of Colonel Thomas Pappas, the former commanding officer at Abu Ghraib. Pappas has agreed to testify in exchange for immunity from prosecution, and this raises the possibility that he may testify that he did in fact discuss the use of dogs with Miller.

Pappas told investigators in the past that he did discuss the use of dogs with Miller, a statement that has been corroborated by other witnesses, including the former warden at Abu Ghraib.

Collapse -
Are you goofy?
by duckman / May 26, 2006 11:15 AM PDT
In reply to: Conceding?

If the defense asserts that he was following orders, the prosecution refutes that and they don't have to show or disprove that orders were given to destroy his defense

Collapse -
Response
by JP Bill / May 26, 2006 11:22 AM PDT
In reply to: Are you goofy?

No, Are you?

Collapse -
The prosecution ...
by Evie / May 26, 2006 11:16 AM PDT
In reply to: Conceding?

... is prosecuting the misconduct. To the extent that the defense will "prove" he was "following orders", the prosecution essentially can just show otherwise. Two-pronged approach: (1) Dispute that orders were given, but if that defense argument is convincing, then (2) demonstrate how that does not absolve the person following an order they knew to be illegal.

Parse away.

Collapse -
and
by JP Bill / May 26, 2006 11:28 AM PDT
In reply to: The prosecution ...

As I said in a previous post all his superiors should be charged and found guilty then the "lower ranks" should be charged.

IF any of his superiors are not found guilty, then the lower ranks should not be charged.

If his superiors said NO then he wouldn't have to make the choice.

NIP the illegal order "in the bud"

Collapse -
Why should anyone above be charged if
by duckman / May 26, 2006 11:49 AM PDT
In reply to: and

they were not involved or DIDN'T give the order?

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) "I was just doing as I was told" defense
by duckman / May 24, 2006 3:52 AM PDT
Collapse -
think peta should get involved
by Mark5019 / May 24, 2006 4:42 AM PDT

poor dog mite have gotten a disease

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) does nuremberg need to be translated?
by WOODS-HICK / May 24, 2006 5:44 AM PDT
Collapse -
the diference is
by Mark5019 / May 24, 2006 6:29 AM PDT

the jews gypsys werent at war with the germans.
thses "people are at war
nice troll i mean try

Collapse -
don't forget the catholics, artists, handicapped, etc
by WOODS-HICK / May 24, 2006 6:42 AM PDT
In reply to: the diference is

WWII wasn't about you

Collapse -
never said it was
by Mark5019 / May 24, 2006 6:51 AM PDT

just pointed out how far off you were and still are

Collapse -
Update; 'Dogs were to be used.......
by WOODS-HICK / May 26, 2006 9:05 AM PDT
Collapse -
(NT) (NT) so a dogs mouth is cleaner than a humans
by Mark5019 / May 26, 2006 10:11 AM PDT
Collapse -
They are?
by JP Bill / May 26, 2006 11:32 AM PDT

You should see what parts of his body my dog can lick.

Collapse -
remember the old joke?
by WOODS-HICK / May 26, 2006 11:56 AM PDT
In reply to: They are?

why do dogs lick themselves?

because they can.

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

GIVEAWAY

Turn up the volume with our Apple Byte sweeps!

Two lucky winners will take home the coveted smart speaker that lets Siri help you around your connected house. This sweepstake ends Feb. 25, 2018.