ext_7674 ([identity profile] neadods.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] neadods 2008-03-27 01:31 am (UTC)

to defend the idea that it's okay not to have a trial cause it's obvious someone is guilty I find disturbing, to say the least

That's not what I'm arguing. (Oh HELL no I'm not arguing that in a country that had lynchings because they were "guilty of something"!!)

Both Tosh and UNIT committed crimes against the state (Union? Peace? Crown? Don't know the right word) according to what we saw in Fragments. Everyone is focusing on OMGWTFUNIT... and I'm over in the corner going OMGWTFTosh! Because she *is* guilty. There is a difference, law and morality, between randomly grabbing someone off the street (presumably what happened to Mrs. Sato) and being literally caught in the act of committing a crime. For one thing, in the latter case, I believe British law permits the holding of a person for a short period of time to determine the facts

Guantanamo, to our national shame, is full of people randomly grabbed off the street.

Until I double-checked Jack's words, I was fairly sure that she had *had* the trial and we hadn't seen it due to time constraints, just as Law and Order never really shows the crime, it shows the mop-up after. When there are only 42 minutes to play with, a certain visual shorthand is given.

I'm not saying UNIT did right. But I'm not excusing Tosh either. No way in hell am I saying that just because UNIT abrogated her rights that she shouldn't have been able to foresee that this was Not Going To End Well.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting