Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: kattracks
After reading the first 100 posts, I am amazed that no one raised the issue of "innocent" until proven guilty and the prejudicial comments from Senators on both sides of the aisle in the Senate.

At her court martial, her defense attorney could rightfully claim the inability to receive a fair trial at the hands of the military due to the Senatorial comments...
272 posted on 05/13/2004 9:03:49 AM PDT by texson66 ("Tyranny is yielding to the lust of the governing." - Lord Moulton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: texson66
At her court martial, her defense attorney could rightfully claim the inability to receive a fair trial at the hands of the military due to the Senatorial comments...

Most courts martial of enlisted personnel are so rubber-stamp as to be ridiculous. Back when I was in the Air Force (over 30 years ago), Stars and Stripes published the statistics of courts martial (IIRC just for US forces in Europe) in the previous year. Only about 13 officers had been tried. I think seven had been found guilty and six acquitted. In the same period some thousands of enlisteds had been tried with well over 90 percent convicted.

Back then I had a book on the subject titled, "Military Justice is to Justice What Military Music is to Music." Raise anything you want, score all the points you want, the answer is "Guilty!"

However, this one will be unusually high-profile, so I give your remark a "Maybe." But, prejudicial publicity or not, there seems to be a lot of evidence here. Yes, it's high profile, but all the pressure will be on the usual direction. "Guilty!"

278 posted on 05/13/2004 9:15:59 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson