Anti-American sentiments justifiable?

SLAM: debunk creationism, pseudoscience, and superstitions. Discuss logic and morality.

Moderator: Alyrium Denryle

weemadando
SMAKIBBFB
Posts: 19195
Joined: 2002-07-28 12:30pm
Contact:

Post by weemadando »

XPViking wrote:Look, if they weren't even charged, sure I can see people being pissed off. I suppose my remarks were jumping the gun a little (that is, the person is already charged). I think the public perception in these cases is generally, charge the soldier and then hand out a guilty verdict. Possibly some people see no difference if the soldier is found innocent since "Why bother in the first place? He's going to get off because the military protects its own."

XPViking
8)
I think that they can be guaranteed a fair trial here in Australia... But cmon, not even charging him, suspending him from duty or anything?

That really IS the military protecting its own...
User avatar
XPViking
Jedi Knight
Posts: 733
Joined: 2002-07-03 07:48pm
Location: Back in Canada

Post by XPViking »

weemadando,

I guess what I said earlier came out awkwardly. Yeah, judging from what you've said, I'll agree that the soldier should be charged otherwise a bad perception is created, which you've already mentioned. Again though, some folks might feel that even if he is charged he will be let off, okay? I'm not saying procedures shouldn't be followed, but some might feel it would be just people going through the motions anyways. Do you see where I'm coming from here? Charged or not charged, innocent or guilty, it wouldn't matter. Let's say the person is found guilty. Some will think that he's sipping margaritas somewhere.

Do you have a link for the story weemadando?

As far as Australia guaranteeing a fair trial, well, I don't know. Does the US have a SOFA with Australia?

XPViking
8)
If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might if they screamed all the time for no good reason.
weemadando
SMAKIBBFB
Posts: 19195
Joined: 2002-07-28 12:30pm
Contact:

Post by weemadando »

XPViking wrote:weemadando,

I guess what I said earlier came out awkwardly. Yeah, judging from what you've said, I'll agree that the soldier should be charged otherwise a bad perception is created, which you've already mentioned. Again though, some folks might feel that even if he is charged he will be let off, okay? I'm not saying procedures shouldn't be followed, but some might feel it would be just people going through the motions anyways. Do you see where I'm coming from here? Charged or not charged, innocent or guilty, it wouldn't matter. Let's say the person is found guilty. Some will think that he's sipping margaritas somewhere.

Do you have a link for the story weemadando?

As far as Australia guaranteeing a fair trial, well, I don't know. Does the US have a SOFA with Australia?

XPViking
8)
Thats another truly fucked up thing - rape cases aren't allowed to be reported in the general media, well, they are, but they aren't supposed to be, in order to protect the victim and the reputation of the alleged perpetrator. Truly messed up.
Post Reply