Posted on 12/04/2012 5:12:12 AM PST by DeaconBenjamin
I actually did a photo search (ugh!) and the only bearded photo was in an orange jumpsuit. Maybe he didn't start growing it until after his arrest, but the fact they allowed him to KEEP it is prima facia evidence it was 'allowed'.
I don’t believe that the fact he has a beard is prima facia evidence it was allowed. From what I have gathered (although I have not been spending copious effort to keep up with the story, admittedly), he grew the beard after the rampage, once incarcerated. He was ordered to shave, but refused, citing religious reasons. It was my understanding that the military judge who recently ordered him shaven was the first to adjudicate the issue, but apparently he came to the “wrong” conclusion.
As I said, these impressions have been gained under the longer-term review of data presented, and are definitely not definitive. But I would be loathe to reassess them without direct evidence of some sort.
Thank you for responding, but I believe we will agree to disagree on this for now. Have a great day, FRiend.
By your reasoning the fact that he has not been tried over three years later means his murder of multiple people is allowed also. Just because action has not been taken does not mean something is allowed.
You said it better than me.
That's downright ridiculous.
-----
Just because action has not been taken does not mean something is allowed.
In law, yes, it does. Silence implies consent whether it's an individual OR an entity.
By not keeping him shaved, the government implied its consent to the beard, and the burden became theirs to justify its removal.
I'm certainly not trying to defend this piece of excrement, but legal procedures are legal procedures. You don't get to pick and choose which ones you 'want' to observe.
This is a court martial too; not a civvie court which would be expected to have more lenient views.
The court/military was NOT silent on the subject of the beard, hence the disputed ruling over shaving him. The issue was under litigation (for lack of a better term), and therefore one cannot construe a lack of decision as silent consent.
That's what happens when the terrorist is allowed to live through the attack.
-PJ
Wow, first the legal proceeding to keep him shaved is exactly what was taking place. That is what this whole ruling and proceedings was about, the court and prosecution were following the law. They could not force him to do this without the ruling. Then the ruling was appealed then overruled.
That's downright ridiculous since the charges are still there.
-----
Just because action has not been taken does not mean something is allowed.
In law, yes, it does. Silence implies consent whether it's an individual OR an entity.
By not keeping him shaved, the government implied its consent to the beard, and the burden became theirs to justify its removal.
I'm certainly not trying to defend this piece of excrement, but legal procedures are legal procedures. You don't get to pick and choose which ones you 'want' to observe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.