Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
War Crime Pardons
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
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
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RocksInMyHead" data-source="post: 73968372" data-attributes="member: 284142"><p>That was only one of the cases I mentioned (Behenna). And the <em>arguable</em> wrongful conviction was dismissed on appeal. It's pretty flimsy. In essence, an expert witness who agreed that he was acting in self defense did not testify. However, the court had ruled that, as the initial aggressor, Behenna forfeited the right to self-defense, so whether or not an expert agreed was irrelevant. </p><p></p><p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2013/05/the-story-of-michael-behenna-and-mad-dog-5-self-defense-in-war/" target="_blank">To clarify, he stripped a captive naked and threatened him with death - against orders, as he was supposed to be returning the man home - if he did not provide information. When the man attempted to escape/fight back, he shot him.</a></p><p></p><p><s>At any rate, he had not exhausted the appeals process, and his case was still scheduled for review at the end of this month. It would seem premature for the President to step in.</s> (missed that the article I was reading was from 2013) Further, the circumstances would appear - to me - to warrant nothing more than a new trial, at most. The facts of the case are not in dispute here, merely the interpretation of them.</p><p></p><p>Gallagher and and Golsteyn have not been tried yet, so no one can make a determination of whether or not they are innocent of the charges, and I haven't seen anyone dispute the legal aspects of the other cases mentioned.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RocksInMyHead, post: 73968372, member: 284142"] That was only one of the cases I mentioned (Behenna). And the [I]arguable[/I] wrongful conviction was dismissed on appeal. It's pretty flimsy. In essence, an expert witness who agreed that he was acting in self defense did not testify. However, the court had ruled that, as the initial aggressor, Behenna forfeited the right to self-defense, so whether or not an expert agreed was irrelevant. [URL='https://www.scotusblog.com/2013/05/the-story-of-michael-behenna-and-mad-dog-5-self-defense-in-war/']To clarify, he stripped a captive naked and threatened him with death - against orders, as he was supposed to be returning the man home - if he did not provide information. When the man attempted to escape/fight back, he shot him.[/URL] [s]At any rate, he had not exhausted the appeals process, and his case was still scheduled for review at the end of this month. It would seem premature for the President to step in.[/s] (missed that the article I was reading was from 2013) Further, the circumstances would appear - to me - to warrant nothing more than a new trial, at most. The facts of the case are not in dispute here, merely the interpretation of them. Gallagher and and Golsteyn have not been tried yet, so no one can make a determination of whether or not they are innocent of the charges, and I haven't seen anyone dispute the legal aspects of the other cases mentioned. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
War Crime Pardons
Top
Bottom