my post on Lt. Watada's "Unbecoming" Mistrial seems to have gotten to a point that others seem to run around. [Breaking Related News * ]
Here is the crux of the matter:
"...the military judge, said the case could end in a mistrial if Watada’s lawyers refused to let the defendant answer the judge’s questions about potential inconsistencies with a "stipulation of fact" that Watada agreed to before the trial began. "
"The defense has consistently tried to call into question the legality of the war, because Watada said the war is illegal and a command to fight in Iraq is also illegal. But the judge has said the argument over the legality of the war is not a matter that can be settled in military court." *
Note that a crux must have two lines. It seems that the case cannot proceed under the "stipulation of fact" that the prosecution prepared and the defendant agreed to, yet the judge felt had inconsistencies that he expected the defendant to clear up and was not for the court to decide.
Later reports seem to confirm this thinking even without necessarily getting to that point so easily. That's what I am here for, even if an occasional misspelling or misthinking is occasionally caught. At least it is not as bad as the misjudgement that brought us here. Not that there will not be calls to stay the course.
By the way, is that not another error or actually what we should be doing? I may not be much for grammar and neither is "The Decider", but what we seem to have here is a missing preposition. We have never been on a course but it must be stayed. It may be a "Catch 22" or the "8th Wonder" but there is often a missing link and sometimes you have to follow them.
* [IMPEACHMENT EFFORT: see link go to February 1oth on calendar]
In my view, this is where the matter lies.
No comments:
Post a Comment