The Decision-Making of the Judge Advocates General - Essay Example

Full Deciding on The Response When an accusation arises and there is a lack of substantial, verifiable evidence, making decision based on truths and moral laws could be extremely difficult. This difficulty is presented in the decision-making of the Judge Advocates General regarding a prisoner if he is supposed to be considered an “enemy combatant” or not. In the movie The Response, there are valid arguments that need to be considered. For instance, the judges questioned the legality of the hearing that took place because they are basing their accusations from the reports of an unverified informant against the detainee. The prisoner’s argument that he cannot provide any more information about himself that could perhaps help to the furtherance of the case if he cannot look at the evidences against him, is very reasonable. Their questioning and detaining of the prisoner bring the judges to examine, their actions as well because of the various considerations such as the political and moral laws which seem to contradict what needs to be done. In the eyes of the law, the prisoner has his rights that need to be respected but there are also a number of issues such as security that need to be greatly considered. Here arises the problem on how the JAG must decide on this situation. To help the JAG decide on the matter, this paper will discuss some philosophies of great thinkers such as Hammurabi, Moses and Cicero in order to enlighten and guide him through a well-meditated and highly informed resolution. In the code of Hammurabi, suspicion is not enough for one to be punished. The detainee has been imprisoned for four years already without even enough evidence against him. During the hearing, the judges claimed that they have proofs against the prisoner, making him a threat to humanity. However, during their deliberation, the judges had to admit that the claims against the prisoner are not enough to prove him guilty as charged. Looking at the code of Hammurabi, the judges had all the right and reason to question the legal status of the hearing. There was not enough evidence that was produced against the accused but he was still imprisoned for four years. The detainee was stripped of his rights to perform his duties and responsibilities toward his family and to improve his life or even to exercise his craft and skills. He has been imprisoned based only on the testimonies of an unknown source who, on the contrary, can also be considered questionable. On the issue about the status of the hearing, it could be considered that it was nothing but an exercise of power. As mentioned earlier, the accused is stripped of any ability to defend himself. He is represented by a person who is not even a lawyer and therefore he cannot consult with him because everything he will tell the representative can be used against him instead of for his good. Indeed, such reaction is suspicious in the eyes of the judges just as Officer CArol mentioned in the deliberation. However, one must also consider that the accused knows that he has rights which are not being respected. He should be given the entitlement to a lawyer who could represent him without any bias but that is not the case. As stated previously, the detainee was stripped off of his rights and power as a free person. He was not even given the chance of choosing his own lawyer and was not shown the evidences used against him so that he would know how to defend himself. Sure, this is a special case because many lives are at risk. Nevertheless, the question about the government’s witness should also be examined. The judges are surely not that naïve to think that the witness is a hundred percent honest in his accusations. The evidences used against the accused may simply be just circumstantial as one of the judges commented. The judges’ supposition that the witness possibly could have been forced to point his fingers at an innocent person might be right. The act could have been a diversion technique so that the authorities will investigate an individual who will not be able to give the government any information about the real criminals. Based from the Hammurabi code, both the witness and the accused should be interrogated and treated with the same fairness and justice in order for the authorities to weigh their real motives and know who is telling the truth. If the witness lied in order to cover the real criminals, he should be given the punishment that was supposed to be executed upon the accused. When the accuser and accused faced each other and the judges are still unable to tell who is lying, the ordeal by water clearly should not apply. However, should the judge be unable to decide on the innocence or guilt of one or the other, the two should be imprisoned for the safety of the general public and let fate decide their punishment whether they live or die in prison. In relation to the Hammurabi code, the judges can also base their decision-making with the help of the Mosaic Law. The Law of Moses says that if a man intentionally kills a person which is the accusation upon the prisoner in the movie, he should be likewise killed. Nevertheless, the fact still remains that the allegation is nothing but that, an accusation which was not verified. According to the files of the prisoner, he was turned over by an alliance for a bounty offered by the government and he was arrested simply for an unquestioned witness who ran away with the money. This law does not give true justice. It only offers power to those who are in a position to manipulate and scare people but not to truly serve justice. The law should not simply give power to authorities but should also demand them to seek justice in all occasions such as the hearing in Guantanamo Bay. Therefore, in connection with the discussion about the Hammurabi code, the witness and the accused should both be investigated and if the detainee is found guilty, then he should be punished accordingly. However, if he is found to be innocent, the witness should be punished instead. In The Response, the detainee is accused of terrorism which resulted to the death of forty American soldiers. According to Hammurabi, the accused should be killed to execute the principle of an “eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” which the Law of Moses also appropriates. According to Cicero, this is giving each their due. However, as discussed above, such should still be postponed until all evidences are verified and the two persons involved are interviewed. According to the law though, the interrogation of the witness would be impossible. Therefore, in agreement with Moses, the detainee should be released. Since the accusation’s reliability is questionable, there is no reason for the accused to be treated unjustly. Moses says justice should not be denied and no one should kill an innocent person. If, in reality, the accused is innocent and is just a victim of the witness’s self-interest, his imprisonment could be the parallel of death. The accused may not be physically dead but his immobility to help his family and enjoy his life is just the same as physical death. This is prohibited by the Law of Moses---if the accused is not found guilty. Four years of the detainee’s life have already been stolen but there are still no substantial evidences gathered against him. This perhaps could also mean that there are really no evidences to be gathered simply because the accused is innocent so therefore, he should be released. However, since the case is risking international security, then again, there should be a deeper investigation that must be conducted on the informant and the accused. The officers should do everything in their authority to make higher officials consider the possibility that they are detaining an innocent person while the criminals are out there continuing with their criminal activities. In addition, the colonel has a point when he argued about the possible effects of the detention on the prisoner considering he was innocent. It can possibly turn him into the man they are accusing him of and this will be because of the judges. Nevertheless, the judges cannot also simply release the prisoner without any assurance that he is innocent. Therefore, as of the moment, he should not be classified as an enemy combatant but will be informed that he will still be detained for his protection until the president declares that the war on terror is over. It may be the same as a guilty sentence but considering that the detainee is already a branded person; his security should also be assured. Through Cicero’s philosophies, the aforementioned act of detaining the accused for his protection is considered escaping greater dangers. The accused person’s arguments are reasonable and should be accepted. According to Officer Carol, the prisoner was unresponsive and evasive during the hearing. Nonetheless, one can see that the accused is an informed individual who knows that he has rights which are being violated and therefore, his technique which the officer is pointing at might simply be his way of protecting those rights. Therefore, since the law protects the informant and the evidences against the accused are not substantial and reliable, the accused should be kept inside the prison for his own good. Nonetheless, again, if international security is really to be assured in this case, the informant and accused should be interrogated with fairness and justice. Accordingly, it should be mentioned anew that the officer should do his utmost best to speak with the higher authorities to express the concerns mentioned above so that proper action must be taken. In the case at hand, one can clearly see that there is a problem with the system. In the offering of a bounty, there arises self-interest. Undeniably, a person who can testify against another individual for a certain amount of money and without any question will have the courage to be a false witness because authorities will not be going after him anyway. The government’s offer is very attractive and although one can say that the alliance who informed about the accused is a reliable and trusted informant, one cannot also deny the presence of self-interest and ill will. Who knows, since the informant is not investigated, he might just have researched very well about the accused so that the information he has given were all accurate. Such self-interest, given a person’s security and immunity, is very tempting and therefore can create a systematic lie in a law-governed system. Consequently, self-interest constrains justice to be executed accordingly. Reason on the other hand clearly affects the decision-making in the system just as what happened in The Response. During the hearing and deliberation, different reasoning was heard. The accused reasoned that he cannot defend himself appropriately because he cannot see the classified evidence against him and that he was not well represented. Although his case is a special one, he did have a point that was acceptable and reasonable. Consequently, the officers questioned many aspects of the case. One claims that the reactions of the accused are questionable because he seemed to be evasive of the questions asked of him. However, through reason, one cannot also deny that the detainee is standing alone to defend himself so that he is being careful in what he says. The other two officers contemplated about a possibly tortured informant who simply named the accused to stop the torturing which is a possibility in this case. Other deliberations were brought out because of the reasons that the officers were trying to make sense of. The same process of reasoning might have brought about the thought of protecting the informant so that the law requires no questioning of the tipster. However, in the case of the officers, such use of reason in the deliberations and decision-making, are limited and made more difficult because the officers are blinded about the informant and the reliability of the information given to them. Abstract Decision-making in The Response is truly challenging to the judges. There are so many considerations they have to think about. However, they have limitations that make the process more difficult. Therefore, in this paper, suggestions were made in accordance to the Hammurabi code, the Mosaic laws and Cicero’s philosophies in order to help the captain decide on the fate of the prisoner. It has been suggested corresponding to the Hammurabi code, that suspicion is not enough therefore, the informant should also be investigated. When the process is completed for both the witness and the accused, it should only be by then that the determination of who is guilty and who is innocent will be made. After which, the guilty should be punished while the innocent should be given his freedom. According to the Mosaic Law, the same process is but right. Moses believes that justice should not be denied. In The Response, the accused is being detained without the authorities verifying the reliability of the accusations against him. Instead, the allegations have been accepted to be true without question. This is not justice and according to Moses, the detainee should be released. However, if the Law of Moses is to be followed, international security will be at risk because although there is not enough evidence against the accused, there is still the possibility that the accusations against him are true. His personal, cultural and educational backgrounds make him are very suspicious henceforth, the allegations should not be taken lightly. On those accounts, he should be detained but not as an enemy combatant. Rather, he should be informed that his detention is simply for his security. Such decision will lessen the prisoner’s possibility of rebelling against the government and turning into terrorism in the future if he was innocent and, it will disable him from continuing his terrorist acts if he was guilty. Moreover, it will also protect him from the dangers he might be exposed to in the outside world because he is now a branded man. This, according to Cicero is escaping greater dangers. Self-interest and reason play a great role not only in the deliberation and decision-making in the case but also affects the law-governed system. On the part of the informant, self-interest plays a great role. According to the law, the informant has all the protection. His identity is not to be revealed and the defendant will not be able to see his testimonies. In addition, there is a handsome amount of money offered to him. The informant is basically able to gain money without any risks by pointing at a terrorist. This is where self-interest creates malice in the informant. Reason may suggest that such offers should be given to attract people who are knowledgeable about terrorists to come forward. They should be assured of their protection so that fear will be expelled. However, the same reasoning makes deliberation and decision-making processes difficult because the officers have to consider the informant which they are blinded about. They may need to question the reliability of the informant but they cannot. This makes self-interest and reason constrain justice. Read More