|
|
 Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Well, last actually. And they gave it much less space than the big list of grievances from G's lawyer that they listed. The implication to a simple person might be that the warden's reasoning is less well -founded because it's shorter.
You're right, I had the order backwards. They mention the warden first in another article I was looking at. But nevertheless, the other side of the argument is clearly and thoroughly stated. Immediately following the passage that I quoted with the bulleted list of grievances, there are THREE FULL PARAGRAPHS dedicated to the opposing argument.
In a letter sent to another one of Gallagher’s attorneys last week regarding the dispute over the pre-trial conditions, Rosenbloom stated he “issued those orders under the authority provided in me.”
“I have a reasonable belief: offenses triable by court-martial have been committed; SOC Gallagher committed the offenses; and the restraint ordered is required by the circumstances.
“In line with determinations previously made by both the Internal Reviewing Officer and the Military Judge, I find the stipulations of restriction are required to prevent attempts by SOC Gallagher to intimidate witnesses and obstruct justice,” Rosenbloom added in the letter, also obtained by Fox News.
You can even get a ruler, and measure it on the screen. Both sides got nearly an equal number of inches (those are like better versions of centimeters)
I really don't care what you think the "implication to a simple person" would be. I'm sorry you're a simple person. That must be shitty.
|
Reply With Quote