![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
When branches clash
I've been reading a lot of criticism regarding the lack of outright apology on Bush's part regarding the abuse of Iraqis in the custody of American forces... and I've been in agreement, for the most part.
Today on NPR, however, they ran a blurb from Rumsfeld where he stated that, under the advice of lawyers, since he is in the chain of command, he was unable to make any judgmental comments regarding the situation or the possible guilt or innocence of the alleged abusers. The NPR talking head seemed to find this a bit incredulous, but it suddenly hit me... this is precisely why we have separation of judicial, executive and legislative branches in the civilian sector.
See, Rumsfeld is a) the executive commander of all soldiers, including the alleged abusers, b) the executive commander of the prosecuting military attorneys, *AND* c), the executive commander of the *defending* military attorneys, *AND* d) the judicial commander of *the military judges*.
*ANY* misstep in what he, or by extension as *his* commander, the President, says regarding the guilt or innocence of the soldiers (and a solid non-weaseling apology prior to a trial decision would be a de facto admission of guilt on the part of the soldiers) can be used as evidence of prejudgment of the soldiers by the commanders of the judging panel, and thereby immediate grounds for a mistrial.
So I ask the LJ community... which is more important to you, and what do you see as a better step for justice, PR, etc...
a) A solid and direct immediate apology without qualifiers, even if it means that individual soldiers end up getting off scot free
or
b) Withholding a public apology until after the trial, to ensure that any guilty verdict is solid and without possibility of appeal on technicality, but realizing that this is a PR quagmire
or
c) Issue a weasely sounding apology "We apologize for any abuses that may have happened...", hope that it's vague enough to withstand any appeal allegations for the trial purposes, but that it's direct enough to provide the political face saving needed, knowing that neither is likely to be true
Note that the apologies coming out of the armed forces in Iraq are permissible because they are not commanders of the above mentioned parties with an interest in the trial... they're 'to the side', and therefore it is not a conflict of interest.
It's interesting to see what is essentially a textbook case of "This is why we have three *separate* branches of government, with no single leader" unfold so exactly.
In my mind, they could do a *HELLACIOUSLY* better job of explaining this, but of course no matter who is in office, there are some factions that will never be satisfied with any explanation regarding something they disagree with, so let's ignore them for the moment. (Hell, most Americans have no idea how the government works, why should we expect anyone outside the borders to be able to figure it out and understand the implications of the structure?) Instead, I'm interested in constructive ideas and commentary.
Me, I'm in the b camp, providing that they can issue a statement basically saying "By the laws of our country, we as the commanding officers are obligated to not make any comment regarding the guilt or innocence of the alleged abusers, nor any statement that could be construed as such in a military court of law. It is because of the desire for a fair trial, and the effort to ensure justice in these cases, that we must withhold commentary until the trials have concluded."
And then I hope that they nail any guilty parties asses to the wall... and then take a hard look at the system under which these actions are said to have occurred.
Today on NPR, however, they ran a blurb from Rumsfeld where he stated that, under the advice of lawyers, since he is in the chain of command, he was unable to make any judgmental comments regarding the situation or the possible guilt or innocence of the alleged abusers. The NPR talking head seemed to find this a bit incredulous, but it suddenly hit me... this is precisely why we have separation of judicial, executive and legislative branches in the civilian sector.
See, Rumsfeld is a) the executive commander of all soldiers, including the alleged abusers, b) the executive commander of the prosecuting military attorneys, *AND* c), the executive commander of the *defending* military attorneys, *AND* d) the judicial commander of *the military judges*.
*ANY* misstep in what he, or by extension as *his* commander, the President, says regarding the guilt or innocence of the soldiers (and a solid non-weaseling apology prior to a trial decision would be a de facto admission of guilt on the part of the soldiers) can be used as evidence of prejudgment of the soldiers by the commanders of the judging panel, and thereby immediate grounds for a mistrial.
So I ask the LJ community... which is more important to you, and what do you see as a better step for justice, PR, etc...
a) A solid and direct immediate apology without qualifiers, even if it means that individual soldiers end up getting off scot free
or
b) Withholding a public apology until after the trial, to ensure that any guilty verdict is solid and without possibility of appeal on technicality, but realizing that this is a PR quagmire
or
c) Issue a weasely sounding apology "We apologize for any abuses that may have happened...", hope that it's vague enough to withstand any appeal allegations for the trial purposes, but that it's direct enough to provide the political face saving needed, knowing that neither is likely to be true
Note that the apologies coming out of the armed forces in Iraq are permissible because they are not commanders of the above mentioned parties with an interest in the trial... they're 'to the side', and therefore it is not a conflict of interest.
It's interesting to see what is essentially a textbook case of "This is why we have three *separate* branches of government, with no single leader" unfold so exactly.
In my mind, they could do a *HELLACIOUSLY* better job of explaining this, but of course no matter who is in office, there are some factions that will never be satisfied with any explanation regarding something they disagree with, so let's ignore them for the moment. (Hell, most Americans have no idea how the government works, why should we expect anyone outside the borders to be able to figure it out and understand the implications of the structure?) Instead, I'm interested in constructive ideas and commentary.
Me, I'm in the b camp, providing that they can issue a statement basically saying "By the laws of our country, we as the commanding officers are obligated to not make any comment regarding the guilt or innocence of the alleged abusers, nor any statement that could be construed as such in a military court of law. It is because of the desire for a fair trial, and the effort to ensure justice in these cases, that we must withhold commentary until the trials have concluded."
And then I hope that they nail any guilty parties asses to the wall... and then take a hard look at the system under which these actions are said to have occurred.
no subject
Or our former allies refuse to align themselves with us anymore.
Oh, and Shrub apologized a few minutes ago :).
Oh well nevermind then...
Re: Oh well nevermind then...