I don't think there's enough evidence for that at this point.


I really don't think there's enough evidence for that at this point.


None of us here know the facts, so ... Don't think there's enough evidence for that at this point.


See above. Don't think there's enough evidence for that at this point. Ditto it being Illegal.

Like I said, a prosecutor could certainly bring a case based on the above, but at this point I doubt it would get terribly far ...


And the trouble with a prima facie case is that it can only stand if without rebuttal it can serve to prove a point. At this point the evidence you present above are mere supposition ("I read in the newspaper and extrapolated accordingly" is not an actual fact). In lieu of an independent investigation establishing what actually happened, the case you present can be effectively rebutted with a simple "prove it." -- which, since you don't know what actually happened and since no investigation has yet occurred to establish what actually happened, you cannot credibly do, imo.

The problem here is that none of us has access to an accurate, truthful narrative of what actually happened beyond that a person was killed in an operation crossing international boundaries. To me the only prima facie case indicated here is perhaps one of a violation of national boundaries. Beyond that, since none of us know what actually happened, any other prima facie case regarding the other issues you mentioned without further investigation fails on its inherent lack of merit.

There doesn't need to be 'enough evidence' - you're getting confused between proof of guilt which is what's necessary for a conviction in court and a prima facie case which is what's necessary for a prosecution.

The evidence of illegality is in White House statements that soldiers entered Pakistan without consulting the authorities of that country. Evidence of excessive force is in the fact that only one shot was necessary to kill him but more than one shot was used - followed by destruction of the body and concealment of the videos. A misrepresentation occurs when someone makes a misstatement of fact. Since contradictory statements can't both be true we know that there were several misrepresentations. Again - evidence of an illegal funeral is in White House statements that he was buried from a US vessel at sea - illegal immigrants are not allowed to conduct funerals of persons who die in Pakistan nor indeed to interfere with a dead body in any way.

How far the case would get would depends on answers to cross examination... I must say you seem to be adopting a rather uninformed stance in believing that guilt or innocence would be determined entirely on what we know, or don't know, so far.

km

KM who gives a s---t he is dead and it is boring to rehash the same topic over and over.Go on to something new!

Interesting back round you have.Try to find out where this is located if you can.There are beautiful beaches here and white sand also. One place is called Boracay where foreigners and the movie stars hang out all the time. Jerry

No I think my point here is that the purpose of investigation, prosecutorial vetting and preliminary hearings is to prevent weak or frivolous prosecutions from wasting everyone's time by getting to an actual trial. Just because a prosecutor *can* bring a case to trial doesn't mean they objectively *should* if the case is built on evidence not likely to result in a conviction. So, yes, the standard is exactly "is the evidence credible enough to result in a conviction?" Otherwise, why is it even being brought to trial?

In my view, the evidence you've outlined is certainly enough to begin investigations into the various alleged offenses. But since you're calling for arrests and trials to determine guilt or innocence *right now,* it's my view that evidence is insufficient to warrant such trials at this time.

I actually think our basic difference here is that you seem to see a trial as the primary investigative tool while I think that function should be handled by the detective divisions and investigative bodies designed specifically for that task. Of course, a trial is an entirely appropriate venue when facts are in dispute, but at this point we don't even have those. And I'd think that a judge would take a very dim view indeed of a prosecutor who was using an actual trial to build his case on the spot without doing any investigative legwork beforehand ...

If it's boring you, you're free not to read it =)

And although I'm sensing we're coming to an end, I'm finding this particular discussion rather enjoyable and -- refreshingly -- comparatively snark-free ;-)

six does and kat for example... so do you, apparently, because you just can't stop reading the dialogue.

km

ICC trials are of the investigative nature you describe because it's often not practicable to conduct formal pre-trial inquiries or interrogations of suspected international criminals. The warrant currently being sought from the chief prosecutor of the ICC from the judges of that court for the arrest of Col Gaddafi is an example of such a procedure as were the Nazi war trials in Nuremberg but the case against the killers of bin Laden is just as cogent, if not more so.

km

And yet you cite the current investigation of possible war crimes in Lybia, which has been following precisely the procedure I favor: The prosecutor was tasked with the investigation back in March and has been using the facilities of his office to conduct inquiries as to wether war crimes may have been committed and if so who might be those responsible. I don't believe it has been necessary to put anyone on trial in order to gather this evidence -- just (I assume) regular detective/investigative work. Only now, it seems, does the prosecutor have enough evidence to pursue actual arrest warrants from the court -- warrants that are obviously an end result of the past months of the investigation, not the first step of it.

The evidence of illegality is in White House statements that soldiers entered Pakistan without consulting the authorities of that country.

I don't remember any country asking for permission to arrest, war criminals.

We can start with Hitler and move on from there.