tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post5736127902898065830..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Elements of a Just TrialAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-88601732080383749972008-08-08T11:40:00.000-06:002008-08-08T11:40:00.000-06:00Too much to respond to :pFirst, the fact that he w...Too much to respond to :p<BR/><BR/>First, the fact that he was convicted on some of the charges and not others proves absolutely nothing. It <I>suggests</I> however that the adversarial judicial system was not prevented from doing its thing.<BR/><BR/>To wit: if Hamdan was determied to be Not Guilty of some of the charges, the court allowed his defense to actuall do its job.<BR/><BR/>Whether this verdict was fair or not, however, is still known only to the people present in the court room.<BR/><BR/>And, as much as I dislike sound bytes and remarks made for a political purpose, I can't find too much fault with McCain for speaking hastily on the subject. I think he was simply trying to say that it appears Hamdan was allowed to have a vigorous defense, which suggests the trial was more fair than not.<BR/><BR/>I agree with you semantically, Alonzo - but practically, I don't know what else you could expect from a man trying to please ~250 million plus voters with short ideological statements.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-68468124352773969922008-08-08T07:56:00.000-06:002008-08-08T07:56:00.000-06:00I think you are too harsh on the judges who sat in...I think you are too harsh on the judges who sat in the tribunal, although I think the defenders of the system you quote are probably too zealous in their defenses. A few thoughts:<BR/><BR/>1) We can no more say that Hamdan's conviction of some of the charges is evidence that the tribunal was biased against him than we can say that his acquittal is evidence that they were not. In order to do that, we need to gain some measure of understanding of how the tribunal reached the result it did. In a public case, we would have the ability to review the evidence ourselves and likely would have an opinion of the court explaining its reasoning. In this case, because it is "secret" (see point #4 below), we do not have the benefit of that. The question then becomes, do we presume, on the basis of inadequate evidence one way or the other, that the judges were biased?<BR/><BR/>2) You are right that a trial is there to protect the innocent. It is also there to provide a measure of justification for the punishment that is imposed on the convicted. We as a society are not morally justified in depriving someone of his liberty if he did not get a fair trial first.<BR/><BR/>3) The partial convictions and partial acquittals, and the relatively light sentence, indicates that the defense's evidence and arguments were considered. That's not the same thing as saying the judges were unbiased, but it does mean they listened to the defense. An <B><I>opportunity to be heard</I></B> is an element of the Anglo-American concept of due process and it's clear that Hamdan had that.<BR/><BR/>4) When condemning "secret" evidence, bear in mind that for the trial to be fair, the <B><I>defendant</I></B> must have an opportunity to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him. But that does not necessarily mean that the evidence has to be public. It's not hard to imagine a good reason to make an exception from the usual presumption of a public trial for a terrorist. I'm not comfortable with that result, but I am willing to allow for the possibility that a non-public presentation of evidence may be the <B><I>least bad</I></B> option in certain circumstances.<BR/><BR/>There's plenty of things to be concerned about with how the U.S. has treated its prisoners suspected of terrorism. What I'm most upset about is the incumbent Administration's claim that they have the right to continue to hold Hamdan after the remainder of his sentence expires. That seems unjustifiable.<BR/><BR/>But the verdict and sentence suggest (I did not say "prove") that there was at least an attempt by the military judges who presided over his trial to treat him fairly.Burt Likkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16060980744675990412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-66862768768294990532008-08-08T07:00:00.000-06:002008-08-08T07:00:00.000-06:00Alonzo, Good points!I'm continually disappointed b...Alonzo, Good points!<BR/><BR/>I'm continually disappointed by the multitudes who associated causation with correlation :-(bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-29279064334351943462008-08-08T06:58:00.000-06:002008-08-08T06:58:00.000-06:00Alonzo: How can debate take place when somebody,...Alonzo:<BR/> How can debate take place when somebody, like the US President for instance, keeps changing "definitions" so his "side" is always doing the right thing?<BR/><BR/>For example, the definitioon for "torture" has undergone a Bush-condoned "facelift". Maybe "justice", "guilty", and "bias" are undergoing similar treatments. US citizens generally accept these activities because they come with declarations that the activity is required because it is "protecting US citizens" and "the American way" and "democracy". Give me a break!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-15723029484783727632008-08-07T22:18:00.000-06:002008-08-07T22:18:00.000-06:00To be fair, if the court were completely 100% bias...To be fair, if the court were completely 100% biased against the defendant, they would have convicted on all counts (correspondingly, if they were completely biased for the defendant, they would have acquitted on all counts). McCain might just be saying something like, "Look, they aren't 100% biased." That's not saying much, to be sure. It certainly isn't proof of "no bias." And it leaves open the cynical conclusion that they acquitted on a few counts just to make people believe they aren't biased, even though they might still be.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com