NYT Propagandist Charged With Telepathy

Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Richard Weltz does a very nice job of dissecting another bit of NYT propaganda. David Cloud gets my vote for "Stuck on Stupid" player of the day.

Pinch's strategy of making the propaganda sheet more manageable by reducing the number of subscribers can only be helped by pieces such as Cloud's.

12 comments:

Knucklehead said...

Rick,

May we safely assume that you are unsympathetic to the argument that despite training which undoubtedly discourages inflicting abuse upon prisoners, despite the fact that most human beings, in the absence of specific instructions to refrain from abusing prisoners, would not default to abusive behavior, that accountability for abusive behavior should be pushed upward to the highest desk the buck can be passed to?

Can you imagine the fun it must have been to be a part of that jury if, indeed, some member insisted on asking the judge if there were not some way this miscreant could be excused and the blame shifted to some "superior".

I wonder if Mr. Cloud has ever been on a jury. I also wonder what predilections rattle around his fevered mind.

vnjagvet said...

Keep in mind that this was a court martial. The jurors were all officers in the US Army. Although the accused could have elected to have enlisted personnel on the jury, she did not so elect.

If any of those jurors asked the questions attributed to them, I suggest it may have been a CEM (Career Ending Move).

In any event, any such questions would have had to come during questioning of witnesses to have any hope of eliciting any real information. Once the evidence is closed (i.e. during deliberations), such questions would have been totally pointless.

Rick Ballard said...

Vnjagvet,

I didn't know that she had taken the all officer jury option. Does the jury make a sentencing recommendation?

Knuck,

I think I would have said skull rather than mind. Mind carries a connotation of cerebration and there is little evidence of that occurring in Mr. Cloud's case. As to what might rattle around in his skull - there's actually space for almost anything.

terrye said...

I think the fact that we have seen the pictures should in and of itself tell anyone with the sense God gave lettuce that the Army was not ordering this behavior.

chuck said...

Terrye,

tell anyone with the sense God gave lettuce

Yeah, but we're talking about a reporter for the NYT here. Lettuce is far in the evolutionary future.

chuck said...

BTW, Terrye,

Could you post something on farm subsidies sometime? I have always been led to believe that they were props for the big agro-business corporations, but I know you have a different take on things. And you have the advantage of actually having been in the business. The closest I come was my uncle who raised chickens and grew corn in Indiana, but that was 40 years ago.

vnjagvet said...

Rick:

Not only a recommendation, they do the sentencing(or at least they did 35 years ago).

vnjagvet said...

Rick:

It hasn't changed. If the case is tried before a jury, 2/3 of the members must concur in any conviction and any sentence unless it is life imprisonment where 3/4 is required.

Capital cases are tried separately and require a unanimous vote.

An accused my elect to be tried by military judge alone.

vnjagvet said...

Three years sounds about right.

Rick Ballard said...

I would agree with three years for the propagandist. As a former EM, it's a bit light for disgracing the uniform. I believe that Garner received a ten year sentence. The fact that England allowed herself to get knocked up after the fact cuts no ice with me. Six years seems closer to being correct.

vnjagvet said...

Rick:

That is why I am sure she was advised to turn down EM on the jury. The cw when I was defending was that most officers are more lenient on the lowest ranking EMs than NCOs.

I used that to my advantage in a number of defense cases involving E1s and E2s. I called it the "wimp defense". I put the EM on the stand during the penalty phase to let the jury see how how pitiful they were. Depending on the prosecutor, I had to do little. Most would overreach, ruining the witness, but evoking the sympathy of the jury. Worked like a charm.

They made me prosecute after that.

Knucklehead said...

vnjagvet,

Hmmm... the old "Pitch the poor sap on his sword defense".