Search
Forum Home | Login
singrdave
singrdave
Join Date 07/2004
+1

Taking the Fifth Equals Guilty Plea?

Abu Ghraib General Refuses to Incriminate Self

External Link
January 12, 2006 10:18:16 AM from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (Bold text added for emphasis.)

The act of "taking the fifth" is not a guilty plea. But in the fervent heat of prosecution and reporting, the authors and editors of the following article seem to forget one thing. Since when did pleading the fifth amendment mean that the pleader is therefore guilty?

From today's Washington Post:

Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, a central figure in the U.S. detainee-abuse scandal, this week invoked his right not to incriminate himself in court-martial proceedings against two soldiers accused of using dogs to intimidate captives at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, according to lawyers involved in the case.

The move by Miller -- who once supervised the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and helped set up operations at Abu Ghraib -- is the first time the general has given an indication that he might have information that could implicate him in wrongdoing, according to military lawyers. (Bold text added for emphasis.)

The Abu Ghraib scandal was a horrible event. I am by no means trying to excuse any of the human rights abuses that were committed and, even more stupidly, recorded for all the world to see.

But, as far as this reporter, and apparently the Washington Post (who edits and thereby takes responsibility for his material before publication) are concerned, it's beyond innocence or self-incrimination in this matter. It's not about the General's rights as an individual at all. It's about getting a story. And it's about witch hunting. And it's about pillorying an individual without a court-martial, due process or even the discovery of evidence regarding his alleged offenses.

Apparently all he has to do is invoke his fifth amendment rights and he's already guilty.

Case closed.
Locked Post
Search this post
Advanced Search
Subscription Options
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
singrdave
singrdave
Join Date 07/2004
+1
Reply #1 January 12, 2006 10:32:24 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
Bumped again to bring it to the top of the pile. I'm gonna let the other one settle.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
singrdave
Dr Guy
Join Date 09/2004
+129
Reply #2 January 12, 2006 10:34:23 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
But they support the troops!
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
singrdave
ParaTed2k
Join Date 12/2004
+35
Reply #3 January 12, 2006 10:40:07 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
The only right the Washington Post (or any of the MSM) recognizes is "freedom of the press". The rest of the Constitution of the U.S. is meaningless to them.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
singrdave
singrdave
Join Date 07/2004
+1
Reply #4 January 12, 2006 10:42:35 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
The only right the Washington Post (or any of the MSM) recognizes is "freedom of the press".

And they're going to impose their preconception of guilt upon all who were even peripherally implicated in Abu Ghraib.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
singrdave
greywar
Join Date 05/2003
+4
Reply #5 January 12, 2006 11:36:21 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
By definition of military leadership he and the female General (Karminski?) are both gulity. Your directly commanded soldiers systemically abuse prisoners over a long period of time under your command? Guilty as sin. Fuck em.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
singrdave
singrdave
Join Date 07/2004
+1
Reply #6 January 12, 2006 1:03:22 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
female General (Karminski?)

Former-BG Janis Karpinski.
Demoted to COL after Abu Ghraib.

Your directly commanded soldiers systemically abuse prisoners over a long period of time under your command? Guilty as sin.

Just for the record, Grey... I wasn't saying he's guilty or innocent. I was saying the press shouldn't be all over a guy when he takes the Fifth.

While I agree that an innocent person should have nothing to hide, it's still not an admission of guilt just to say you're not going to self-incriminate.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
singrdave
Daiwa
Join Date 07/2001
+351
Reply #7 January 12, 2006 2:29:14 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
I'm not sure this is what the amendment refers to as a "criminal" case. The first part of the amendment specifically excludes military personnel in "time of War or public danger," at least raising the possibility that a court-martial would not be the kind of "criminal" case the framers were referring to. I don't know if the COMJ extends the right to decline self-incrimination to active duty personnel or not - I would favor it, but I just don't know.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
singrdave
singrdave
Join Date 07/2004
+1
Reply #8 January 12, 2006 2:38:44 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
I don't know if the COMJ extends the right to decline self-incrimination to active duty personnel or not


Article 31 of the UCMJ is the equivalent to the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
Sorry that wasn't made clearer, he would have invoked his Article 31 rights, not his 5th Amendment rights. But they are equivalent and just as meaningful.

And yes, it definitely applies in this case.

Link

Article 31: COMPULSORY SELF-INCRIMINATION PROHIBITED

(a) No person subject to this chapter may compel any person to incriminate himself or to answer any questions the answer to which may tend to incriminate him.

(b) No person subject to this chapter may interrogate, or request any statement from an accused or a person suspected of an offense without first informing him of the nature of the accusation and advising him that he does not have to make any statement regarding the offense of which he is accused or suspected and that any statement made by him may be used as evidence against him in a trial by court-martial.

(c) No person subject to this chapter may compel any person to make a statement or produce evidence before any military tribunal if the statement or evidence in not material to the issue and may tend to degrade him.

(d) No statement obtained from any person in violation of this article, or through the use of coercion, unlawful influence, or unlawful inducement may be received in evidence against him in a trial by court-martial.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
singrdave
stevendedalus
Join Date 11/2003
+8
Reply #9 January 14, 2006 12:21:37 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
Unfortunately, the Fifth Amendment does carry the implication "not to incriminate oneself" but it shouldn't.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
singrdave
Texas Wahine
Join Date 08/2004
+127
Reply #10 January 14, 2006 4:25:05 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
the first time the general has given an indication that he might have information that could implicate him in wrongdoing, according to military lawyers


I'm not sure what the problem is here. Does it NOT indicate that you might have information that could implicate you in wrongdoing when you plead the fifth? (or the military equivalent)

That's the whole point of exercising the fifth amendment.

I don't quite understand why this is a big issue.

Further, my husband has worked in the detention center in Bagram and those bastards at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere put his life in danger. I agree with greywar. Fuck 'em.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
singrdave
ParaTed2k
Join Date 12/2004
+35
Reply #11 January 14, 2006 5:36:58 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
So, so far I am reading that the rights of the bacteria in Abu Ghraib should have been respected by the troops and officers, but those troops and officers don't deserve any rights?

Last I checked, the U.S. Constitution and the UCMJ guarantees the rights of American servicemembers. If they are guilty, then by all means, they should be breaking rocks at Leavenworth. However, until then the 5th Amendment and Article 31 should be respected (even if you no longer respect the accused).
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
singrdave
singrdave
Join Date 07/2004
+1
Reply #12 January 15, 2006 4:24:52 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
However, until then the 5th Amendment and Article 31 should be respected (even if you no longer respect the accused).

What got my goat is the automatic assumption of guilt when the guy invoked his right to not incriminate himself in testimony. The author and editors of the article could have been much more subtle. And by the paper's implication that GEN Miller had stuff to hide means he's already been tried and convicted.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
singrdave
stevendedalus
Join Date 11/2003
+8
Reply #13 January 16, 2006 12:36:02 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
And by the paper's implication that GEN Miller had stuff to hide means he's already been tried and convicted.
Like some enemy combatant.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
singrdave
ParaTed2k
Join Date 12/2004
+35
Reply #14 January 16, 2006 12:54:25 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
What got my goat is the automatic assumption of guilt when the guy invoked his right to not incriminate himself in testimony. The author and editors of the article could have been much more subtle. And by the paper's implication that GEN Miller had stuff to hide means he's already been tried and convicted.


I doubt it was a mistake, they are getting the reaction they want.

And by the paper's implication that GEN Miller had stuff to hide means he's already been tried and convicted.
Like some enemy combatant.


So, you think of unconvicted servicemembers the same as those who fight against America? Sad.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
singrdave
MasonM
Join Date 01/2004
+45
Reply #15 January 16, 2006 1:01:15 AM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
Combatant means, well, comabtant. Look it up.

Pleading the fifth can simply mean that you don't like the way the lawyer phrased the question. It is NOT in any way an admission of guilt.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
View all recent posts
Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top
Stardock Forums v        Server Load Time:   Page Render Time:
Stardock Entertainment

Press | Support
Copyright © 2026 Stardock Entertainment. The Political Machine is a trademark of Stardock Entertainment. Steam and the Steam logo are trademarks and/or registered trademarks of Valve Corporation in the U.S. and/or other countries. All rights reserved.