Remaining holes in SLN intel

ldwechsler wrote:Second, what could they actually check? Nuclear bombs tend to reduce evidence to atoms. WE know that McBryde set off one bomb and the seccie set off the other.

And you're still ignoring that Anton Zilwiki personally set off the THIRD nuke that day.

If neither of us are lawyers, the next question is to ask which jurisdiction are we not lawyers in? Because current UK law requires that intent be proved as well as foresight. The case I quoted from, R. v Jogee, was the case that established that.


Your argument for the prosecution is that Zilwicki and Cachat might reasonably have known that David would run off and nuke a park. Complete with kids.

The argument for the defence would be that Zilwicki and Cachat did not encourage him to do that, did not plan to do that, and in fact asked Carl to tell him not to blow the nuke at all. They are in the position of a group of people off to burgle a house, who tell David to leave the stolen gun in the car - only to have him take it with him and shoot the householder.

In UK law, the provable lack of 'intent' of the others would mean they were not accessories to the murder. Even under the old common purpose cases, they'd have probably got off, because the defence could argue that they couldn't reasonably know David wouldn't do as he was told.

Now, my experience of criminal cases (no, I'm not a lawyer) is that it would be bloody difficult to convict Zilwicki and Cachat. Yes, you could argue that they knew he had a nuke, therefore might reasonably expect that he could use it. But as well as the question of whether they could reasonably know David would decide to disobey the rest of the group, David had definitely broken from the 'common purpose' of the group.

People keep quoting the getaway driver - at this point Zilwicki and Cachat (and Carl and Karen and the others) aren't getaway drivers. They're the gang who've just robbed the bank, are driving away - and watch the unstable member NOT get in the getaway car, but instead take the gun he was supposed to use in the robbery and rush over to the local park to start shooting.

ldwechsler wrote:And don't forget: they are innocent.

No, they are guilty. Under and sane legal system they would be guilty for taking part in the nuclear strike. Under Mesa's legal system they are almost certainly guilty of numerous crimes. Morally they are guilty. That blood is on their hands.

If they had even the tiniest shred of human decency in them they would have confessed to their crimes upon their return to friendly territory.

ldwechsler wrote:
Let's grow up. If there is going to be a fuss made over nukes on planet it will be focused on Henke. The fuss already was made over Anton and Victor and went nowhere fast.

The only reason why anyone would so much as suspect Henke might not be guilty is because of Manticore's long track record of being the good guys. If Manticore is found complicit in even a single nuclear strike on Mesa then their reputation no longer protects them.

No, they are not guilty. Strategic bombing became a normal part of warfare almost a century ago. Live with it.

quite possibly a cat wrote:

ldwechsler wrote:And don't forget: they are innocent.

No, they are guilty. Under and sane legal system they would be guilty for taking part in the nuclear strike. Under Mesa's legal system they are almost certainly guilty of numerous crimes. Morally they are guilty. That blood is on their hands.

If they had even the tiniest shred of human decency in them they would have confessed to their crimes upon their return to friendly territory.

ldwechsler wrote:
Let's grow up. If there is going to be a fuss made over nukes on planet it will be focused on Henke. The fuss already was made over Anton and Victor and went nowhere fast.

The only reason why anyone would so much as suspect Henke might not be guilty is because of Manticore's long track record of being the good guys. If Manticore is found complicit in even a single nuclear strike on Mesa then their reputation no longer protects them.

Bluesqueak wrote:If neither of us are lawyers, the next question is to ask which jurisdiction are we not lawyers in? Because current UK law requires that intent be proved as well as foresight. The case I quoted from, R. v Jogee, was the case that established that.


Your argument for the prosecution is that Zilwicki and Cachat might reasonably have known that David would run off and nuke a park. Complete with kids.

The argument for the defence would be that Zilwicki and Cachat did not encourage him to do that, did not plan to do that, and in fact asked Carl to tell him not to blow the nuke at all. They are in the position of a group of people off to burgle a house, who tell David to leave the stolen gun in the car - only to have him take it with him and shoot the householder.

In UK law, the provable lack of 'intent' of the others would mean they were not accessories to the murder. Even under the old common purpose cases, they'd have probably got off, because the defence could argue that they couldn't reasonably know David wouldn't do as he was told.

Now, my experience of criminal cases (no, I'm not a lawyer) is that it would be bloody difficult to convict Zilwicki and Cachat. Yes, you could argue that they knew he had a nuke, therefore might reasonably expect that he could use it. But as well as the question of whether they could reasonably know David would decide to disobey the rest of the group, David had definitely broken from the 'common purpose' of the group.

People keep quoting the getaway driver - at this point Zilwicki and Cachat (and Carl and Karen and the others) aren't getaway drivers. They're the gang who've just robbed the bank, are driving away - and watch the unstable member NOT get in the getaway car, but instead take the gun he was supposed to use in the robbery and rush over to the local park to start shooting.

Would someone please tell me what David we are talking about here?

phillies wrote:No, they are not guilty. Strategic bombing became a normal part of warfare almost a century ago. Live with it.

quite possibly a cat wrote:

ldwechsler wrote:And don't forget: they are innocent.

No, they are guilty. Under and sane legal system they would be guilty for taking part in the nuclear strike. Under Mesa's legal system they are almost certainly guilty of numerous crimes. Morally they are guilty. That blood is on their hands.

If they had even the tiniest shred of human decency in them they would have confessed to their crimes upon their return to friendly territory.

ldwechsler wrote:
Let's grow up. If there is going to be a fuss made over nukes on planet it will be focused on Henke. The fuss already was made over Anton and Victor and went nowhere fast.

The only reason why anyone would so much as suspect Henke might not be guilty is because of Manticore's long track record of being the good guys. If Manticore is found complicit in even a single nuclear strike on Mesa then their reputation no longer protects them.

Do pardon me bold to call attention.

Which is the impetus behind my post that spies wage their own brand of warfare. Bond, James Bond, 007, at your service.

I wish people would take more care of the quote assignments.

phillies wrote:No, they are not guilty. Strategic bombing became a normal part of warfare almost a century ago. Live with it.

ldwechsler wrote:And don't forget: they are innocent.

quite possibly a cat wrote:No, they are guilty. Under and sane legal system they would be guilty for taking part in the nuclear strike. Under Mesa's legal system they are almost certainly guilty of numerous crimes. Morally they are guilty. That blood is on their hands.

If they had even the tiniest shred of human decency in them they would have confessed to their crimes upon their return to friendly territory.

ldwechsler wrote:Let's grow up. If there is going to be a fuss made over nukes on planet it will be focused on Henke. The fuss already was made over Anton and Victor and went nowhere fast.

quite possibly a cat wrote:The only reason why anyone would so much as suspect Henke might not be guilty is because of Manticore's long track record of being the good guys. If Manticore is found complicit in even a single nuclear strike on Mesa then their reputation no longer protects them.

Strategic bombing of civilians is NOT okay in the universe with Manticore, because of the Eridani Edict. Manticore is going to be judged on this (assuming that propaganda charges are made) by the various leaders of the planets that comprise the Solarian League, where it can not be assumed that the Manties are the good guys (particularly because there is no general knowledge of Malign). We have no way of knowing that the Green Pines charges have gone nowhere with that group.

Corrected spelling where I hit an "S" on the keyboard instead of an "A".

As we wander around in merry circles, let me posit the following case.

Captain (JG) Honor Harrington leads a small, but desperate, squadron of ships in an attempt to break out of Mesan space with their vital information.

As part of their escape attempt, they use stolen nuclear missiles (Warrant Officer Harkness having disabled the locator beacons). They are trying, of course, to minimise casualties. But in the middle of the attempt, unexpectedly, a Mesan ship mutinies and blows the main battlecruiser into teeny tiny bits.

"We can escape without further bloodshed!" says the Captain (JG). "Tell the other ships to stand down!"

"Fuck that" says Commander P. Young (on one of the other ships) and then takes his ship and commits an Eridani Edict violation on the planet - deliberately targeting a park where children are playing.


Is Honor guilty? After all, she provided the missiles...

[Cthia - the 'David' in my other post is David Pritchard, not David Weber. ]

Bluesqueak wrote:If neither of us are lawyers, the next question is to ask which jurisdiction are we not lawyers in? Because current UK law requires that intent be proved as well as foresight. The case I quoted from, R. v Jogee, was the case that established that.

Your argument for the prosecution is that Zilwicki and Cachat might reasonably have known that David would run off and nuke a park. Complete with kids.

The argument for the defence would be that Zilwicki and Cachat did not encourage him to do that, did not plan to do that, and in fact asked Carl to tell him not to blow the nuke at all. They are in the position of a group of people off to burgle a house, who tell David to leave the stolen gun in the car - only to have him take it with him and shoot the householder.

In UK law, the provable lack of 'intent' of the others would mean they were not accessories to the murder. Even under the old common purpose cases, they'd have probably got off, because the defence could argue that they couldn't reasonably know David wouldn't do as he was told.

Now, my experience of criminal cases (no, I'm not a lawyer) is that it would be bloody difficult to convict Zilwicki and Cachat. Yes, you could argue that they knew he had a nuke, therefore might reasonably expect that he could use it. But as well as the question of whether they could reasonably know David would decide to disobey the rest of the group, David had definitely broken from the 'common purpose' of the group.

People keep quoting the getaway driver - at this point Zilwicki and Cachat (and Carl and Karen and the others) aren't getaway drivers. They're the gang who've just robbed the bank, are driving away - and watch the unstable member NOT get in the getaway car, but instead take the gun he was supposed to use in the robbery and rush over to the local park to start shooting.

cthia wrote:Would someone please tell me what David we are talking about here?

The name of the seccie that set off the Green Pines bomb is David.

Obviously this argument has gone as far as it can go. Let's assume that you are right in the UK and I am right in the US; then declare a ceasefire on the subject between us. Each of us will be allowed by the other to respond to third parties, but will try to indicate that we are talking specifically about the UK or the US.

Bluesqueak wrote:As we wander around in merry circles, let me posit the following case.

Captain (JG) Honor Harrington leads a small, but desperate, squadron of ships in an attempt to break out of Mesan space with their vital information.

As part of their escape attempt, they use stolen nuclear missiles (Warrant Officer Harkness having disabled the locator beacons). They are trying, of course, to minimise casualties. But in the middle of the attempt, unexpectedly, a Mesan ship mutinies and blows the main battlecruiser into teeny tiny bits.

"We can escape without further bloodshed!" says the Captain (JG). "Tell the other ships to stand down!"

"Fuck that" says Commander P. Young (on one of the other ships) and then takes his ship and commits an Eridani Edict violation on the planet - deliberately targeting a park where children are playing.


Is Honor guilty? After all, she provided the missiles...

[Cthia - the 'David' in my other post is David Pritchard, not David Weber. ]

That has to be decided by the Solarian League, for whom the Eridani Edict is fundamental foreign policy.