From the NYT:
August 28, 2005
Constitution Sent to Parliament in Iraq Despite Sunni Objections
By DEXTER FILKINS
and ROBERT F. WORTH
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Aug. 28 - Iraqi leaders today presented a disputed constitution to the country's Parliament, overriding the objections of Sunni negotiators and setting the stage here for a protracted period of political conflict.
Setanta wrote:" . . . or not." Which is exactly the point . . . he begs the question because he assumes the result in advance of the experiment. To me, it is exemplary of his thinking in matters which he discusses here--he thinks he knows and therefore, in his feeble, pathetic manner, attempts to browbeat others by the sonorous and stultifying repetition of his silly special terms and his shallow and partisan analysis.
Yes, he made it very clear in the beginning of his sentence that he was making an assumption ("
If we assume ..."). Perhaps you would have picked up on that had you not been so intent on criticizing him. You obviously misread his sentence to say something it didn't, with partisan analysis, and in your own feeble and pathetic manner.
Setanta wrote:How very typically witless of you Fox.
Hey Foxy ... Setanta thinks your witless too. Shocker!
Set wrote: My response was that Ican was idiotically anticipating the deicison of such a court, which is no part of due process. He anticipates both the verdict and the sentence. I realize nuance is difficult for religiously fervent conservatives, but do try to keep up.
Yeah, how dare Ican anticipate both the verdict and the sentence in his own hypothetical, contingently based on his own stated assumption of guilt.
Yeah I've been witless for a long time, Tico. Just ask certain people. As they did with Ican, they get to make up all sorts of things just to get the digs in. But I figure I'm in good company.
I could not for a moment but cede the palm to you Tico, for partisan, pathetic and feeble manner. What one assumes has no bearing upon the eventual outcome of a criminal proceeding, even were one to find the accused with smoking gun in hand. That is something one would expect you to know, given your avowed profession. However, i suspect that you look to a political career, as opposed to a forensic one.
Setanta wrote:I could not for a moment but cede the palm to you Tico, for partisan, pathetic and feeble manner. What one assumes has no bearing upon the eventual outcome of a criminal proceeding, even were one to find the accused with smoking gun in hand. That is something one would expect you to know, given your avowed profession. However, i suspect that you look to a political career, as opposed to a forensic one.
Of course one cannot presume the outcome of a criminal trial will be a finding of guilt, even if the defendant is in fact guilty. In a word, "
duh." But I find it indeed pathetic and feeble that you would feel the need to criticize Ican for his hypothetical example where he said:
Ican wrote:If we assume the sniper was a US soldier deliberately targeting Reuters and not mistaking the Reuter's vehicle for a malignancy vehicle, then that soldier should be quickly courtmartialed and executed.
Now, pay attention this time as you read his sentence again, this time slowly, and focusing on the two bolded portions. The first bolded portion is where Ican states his assumption that the sniper is guilty. The second bolded portion is where Ican states his belief that "if" the sniper is guilty, said soldier
should be courtmartialed and executed. In other words ... perhaps words you can better understand ... he is suggesting that in his view, a sniper guilty of such acts
should be courtmartialed and executed. This really isn't that hard a concept to grasp.
But instead of recognizing Ican's view, you choose to breathlessly exclaim that Ican is attempting to circumvent due process, and shoot the guy without a fair hearing.
In your words: pathetic and feeble.
-----
And you apparently feel you could waltz into a courtroom against me tomorrow, and hold your own. I hope you understand how much I'd love to meet you in court, Setanta, if only so you could put your money where your mouth is. I've dozens of jury trials under my belt, and thousands of bench trials and hearings. I suspect you may have appeared in defense of a speeding ticket or two.
As a matter of fact, i was quoting you in the use of pathetic and feeble, so that was in your words, not mine.
What seems apparent to you is not at all apparent to me. In fact, i've never defended myself against a speeding ticket--one those occasions when i was so apprehended, i paid up, because i was guilty, and it was more convenient. I have appeared many times as a witness in criminal proceedings, and have been less than impressed with the counsel i there encountered. I was always armored with my unwavering avowal of the truth as i knew it, and it has always stood me in good stead. I have not put myself forward as competent counsel, and i remain unimpressed with your avowal of your skills and experience.
I'm typing here, Tico, try to keep some perspecitve--given that fact, i suffered no want of breath when i took the opportunity to scorn Ican's typical addiction to the conviction that he is uniquely qualified to judge the actions of anyone and to provide the necessary remedies. I read and understood what he wrote, so your puerile attempts to ridicule my understanding are meaningless. I simply took with him the same tone he applied to his hypothesis. And, again, as you seem determined to dance around the issue, no one can state to a certainty what should or will be the outcome of a criminal proceeding--such an attitude is inimical to the concept of both the presumption of innocence and conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
Setanta wrote:As a matter of fact, i was quoting you in the use of pathetic and feeble, so that was in your words, not mine.
But when you did, you were quoting me quoting you. So they were your words after all.
Quote:What seems apparent to you is not at all apparent to me.
Obviously.
Set wrote:In fact, i've never defended myself against a speeding ticket--one those occasions when i was so apprehended, i paid up, because i was guilty, and it was more convenient. I have appeared many times as a witness in criminal proceedings, and have been less than impressed with the counsel i there encountered. I was always armored with my unwavering avowal of the truth as i knew it, and it has always stood me in good stead.
Sure ... that's a good start.
Set wrote:I have not put myself forward as competent counsel, and i remain unimpressed with your avowal of your skills and experience.
I'm not sure I've ever claimed skilz. But I certainly have 12 more years of courtroom experience than you do. Perhaps you'll remember that the next time you lecture me about presumption of innocence, courtroom procedure, or the like.
Set wrote:And, again, as you seem determined to dance around the issue, ...
How have I done that?
Set wrote:... no one can state to a certainty what should or will be the outcome of a criminal proceeding--such an attitude is inimical to the concept of both the presumption of innocence and conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
I said as much when I said:
Tico, just a post earlier wrote:Of course one cannot presume the outcome of a criminal trial will be a finding of guilt, even if the defendant is in fact guilty. In a word, "duh."
Does that sound like I'm dancing around the issue?
Ticomaya wrote:Setanta wrote:ican711nm wrote:If we assume the sniper was a US soldier deliberately targeting Reuters and not mistaking the Reuter's vehicle for a malignancy vehicle, then that soldier should be quickly courtmartialed and executed.
Let us not bother with anything like due process, just find the SOB guilty with a drum head court and shoot his ass right now ! ! !
I'm glad you occupy no responsible position in government.
What do you suppose he meant by "courtmartialed"? Sounds like he's suggesting due process to me. Or were you trying to say something else?
If Ican had meant the assumption came after the court martial and the verdict there would be no assumption about it.
revel wrote: If Ican had meant the assumption came after the court martial and the verdict there would be no assumption about it.
I don't believe Ican meant the assumption came after the court martial. The assumption came first. The assumption was that the sniper had intentionally targeted Reuters.
We are right back to Seneta's point. Why bother with the court marital if we already assume he is guilty first? There is supposed to be a presumption of innocence in any court of law.
He should have said this: if the sniper is found to be guilty in a court martial then I feel he should be executed. But I guess that is too passive for a conservative. But too aggressive for a liberal.
Another point for Bushco.
August 29, 2005
Army Contract Official Critical of Halliburton Pact Is Demoted
By ERIK ECKHOLM
A top Army contracting official who criticized a large, noncompetitive contract with the Halliburton Company for work in Iraq was demoted Saturday for what the Army called poor job performance.
The official, Bunnatine H. Greenhouse, has worked in military procurement for 20 years and for the past several years had been the chief overseer of contracts at the Army Corps of Engineers, the agency that has managed much of the reconstruction work in Iraq.
The demotion removes her from the elite Senior Executive Service and reassigns her to a lesser job in the corps' civil works division.
Ms. Greenhouse's lawyer, Michael Kohn, called the action an "obvious reprisal" for the strong objections she raised in 2003 to a series of corps decisions involving the Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root, which has garnered more than $10 billion for work in Iraq.
Dick Cheney led Halliburton, which is based in Texas, before he became vice president.
"She is being demoted because of her strict adherence to procurement requirements and the Army's preference to sidestep them when it suits their needs," Mr. Kohn said Sunday in an interview. He also said the Army had violated a commitment to delay Ms. Greenhouse's dismissal until the completion of an inquiry by the Pentagon's inspector general.
Carol Sanders, spokeswoman for the Army Corps of Engineers, said Sunday that the personnel action against Ms. Greenhouse had been approved by the Department of the Army. And in a memorandum dated June 3, 2005, as the demotion was being arranged, the commander of the corps, Lt. Gen. Carl A. Strock, said the administrative record "clearly demonstrates that Ms. Greenhouse's removal from the S.E.S. is based on her performance and not in retaliation for any disclosures of alleged improprieties that she may have made."
Known as a stickler for the rules on competition, Ms. Greenhouse initially received stellar performance ratings, Mr. Kohn said. But her reviews became negative at roughly the time she began objecting to decisions she saw as improperly favoring Kellogg Brown & Root, he said. Often she hand-wrote her concerns on the contract documents, a practice that corps leaders called unprofessional and confusing.
In October 2004, General Strock, citing two consecutive performance reviews that called Ms. Greenhouse an uncooperative manager, informed her that she would be demoted.
Ms. Greenhouse fought the demotion through official channels, and publicly described her clashes with Corps of Engineers leaders over a five-year, $7 billion oil-repair contract awarded to Kellogg Brown & Root. She had argued that if urgency required a no-bid contract, its duration should be brief.
Ms. Greenhouse had also fought the granting of a waiver to Kellogg Brown & Root in December 2003, approving the high prices it had paid for fuel imports for Iraq, and had objected to extending its five-year contract for logistical support in the Balkans for 11 months and $165 million without competitive bidding. In late June, ignoring warnings from her superiors, Ms. Greenhouse appeared before a Congressional panel, calling the Kellogg Brown & Root oil contract "the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career." She also said the defense secretary's office had improperly interfered in the awarding of the contract.
Her demotion was delayed when the Army's senior legal officials said they would first seek an independent investigation of her reprisal complaint. "The Army has referred this matter to the Department of Defense inspector general for their review and action, as appropriate," said an Oct. 22, 2004, letter to Ms. Greenhouse's lawyer from Robert M. Fano, the Army's chief of civilian personnel law. The acting secretary of the Army, Mr. Fano wrote, had also directed the Corps of Engineers to "suspend any adverse personnel action so that Ms. Greenhouse remains in her current position until a sufficient record is available to address the specific matters you raised."
But on July 14, the Army secretary approved Ms. Greenhouse's demotion, effective Aug. 27. With his request to proceed, General Strock had provided an unsigned nine-page memorandum, reviewing Ms. Greenhouse's recent performance ratings and responding to her allegations of impropriety.
Mr. Kohn said Sunday that the inspector general had not finished investigating the matter and that the demotion violated the Army secretary's commitment to wait on any action.
Mr. Kohn said that when he telephoned Dan Meyer, director of civilian reprisal investigations in the inspector general's office, on Aug. 24, Mr. Meyer was "shocked" to learn that the corps had proceeded against Ms. Greenhouse. Mr. Meyer said that he was immediately opening a "civilian reprisal" investigation and faxed forms to Mr. Kohn to initiate the process, Mr. Kohn said.
A Pentagon spokesman said Sunday that the inspector general's office could not be reached for comment.
revel wrote:We are right back to Seneta's point. Why bother with the court marital if we already assume he is guilty first? There is supposed to be a presumption of innocence in any court of law.
revel: Go back and read my responses to Setanta. If you still believe what you believe, I can't help you.
Quote:He should have said this: if the sniper is found to be guilty in a court martial then I feel he should be executed. But I guess that is too passive for a conservative. But too aggressive for a liberal.
I suppose (why am I doing this?) that Ican believes the sniper should not be found "not guilty" if he is in fact "guilty," and therefore he properly stated that
if the sniper is guilty he should be found guilty. Everyone understands a trial will determine guilty or not in real life. While that is true, I must say I find it very "liberal" for you folks to solely focus on giving the guilty man "due process" and the possibility of being found not guilty, when in fact he is guilty. Apparently you folks don't think a guilty man
should necessarily be found guilty. Ican says: If guilty, convict and sentence. Liberals say: If guilty, give him a trial and see if he's found guilty.
Interesting, don't you think?
(And before you say anything, you might be interested to know I was a criminal defense attorney for 7 years, including 4 years as a public defender. I am not blind to the presumption of innocence, nor am I not focused on the rights of criminal defendants.)
Tico by now we are all well aware that you are an attorney. You have pointed that out on more than one occasion to say the least. Every time there is some kind of legal arguement you pull that out as though it should shut everyone else the heck up.
I only hope that half your arguments that you make here are made with the greater goal of advancing your conservative views rather than a well thought out defense such as you might use when in court.
Liberals do not say, "If guilty, give him a trial and see if he is found guilty." What most logical people say of either side of the political equation say is; if there is enough evidence to question his status of guilt or innocence, let him have due process of law in a court of law and his innocence or guilt be determined then.
I suggest we move to another subject.
revel wrote:Tico by now we are all well aware that you are an attorney.
About a month ago, I mentioned that I was an attorney -- in an offhand way and only by way of explaining why I was asking the particular question I was asking ... the only time I've ever done that on A2K -- and at least one poster responded with surprise and doubt. He/she expected me to prove it!
Quote: You have pointed that out on more than one occasion to say the least. Every time there is some kind of legal arguement you pull that out as though it should shut everyone else the heck up.
Wrong again. Except for the occasion identified above, I "
pull that out" only when someone who might not know what they are talking about tries to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about
vis the law or legal procedure. That's when I've pulled it out. I have never held myself out as an expert, save for a handful of occasions when some poster had claimed I was wrong. If you were a lawyer and I claimed you didn't understand the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," you might bristle as well.
I've certainly never claimed on these fora that because I'm a lawyer my opinion deserves greater weight.
Quote:I only hope that half your arguments that you make here are made with the greater goal of advancing your conservative views rather than a well thought out defense such as you might use when in court.
Why would you hope that?
I usually don't spend that much time prepping a strategy for a response, I just type it out ... if that makes you feel any better.
Quote:Liberals do not say, "If guilty, give him a trial and see if he is found guilty."
No? Then why are we discussing this?
Quote:What most logical people say of either side of the political equation say is; if there is enough evidence to question his status of guilt or innocence, let him have due process of law in a court of law and his innocence or guilt be determined then.
Of course they do. Then again there are some (Setanta and you in this case) who would choose any opportunity to attack a conservative poster because they perceived a chink in the armor where none existed. I've explained already my analysis of Ican's post ... and as I've already said: I can't help you.
Quote:I suggest we move to another subject.
If only you would.
hambuger suggested talking about the weather, what do you all think about the hurricane Katrina in New Orleans?
Or what do you all think of the Iraq draft of the constitution? Do you think it will hold out past the next vote with the way it is worded?
Those ten feet levees aren't going to hold up, and NO will be under 20-30 feet of water. Sad.
CI, the last I have heard on the news a lot of people are huddled together in the dome and even that is starting to leak.
