Срочно, нужен совет юриста!

[BOP B 3AKOHE]

The most efficient way for anybody to look good would be by concealing negative information, not by underreporting. So if an organization made up its mind to conceal the bad stuff, it would conceal everything. I am saying that your conviction of underreporting has no factual or logical basis.

You don't think that Abu Ghraib scandal and resulting criminal convictions had enough factual or logical basis? Do you think they would have had any investigations if it wasn't for the public outcry?

[BOP B 3AKOHE]

Negotiations between the prosecution and the defendant are not public record. Ever. It's done as much to protect the defendant as to advance the public interest. Between you and me, I am sure an immunity plea will be worked out -- a bigger fish will be caught, and Padilla will walk. Mark my words. (Though I doubt that he wants to walk.)

May be. may be there is no "big fish".
If and when it all happens he may want to lay low, but in a place of his choosing, not the government's.

[Verbatim]

I don't know. Conduct proper searches for any sharp objects, so they wouldn't anything to stab with?

And if he conseals one anyway -- what, bite the bullet?

[Verbatim]

You don't think that Abu Ghraib scandal and resulting criminal convictions had enough factual or logical basis?

It did -- but your statement about the deaths in detention does not.

Do you think they would have had any investigations if it wasn't for the public outcry?

There was an investigation before the public outcry.

[Verbatim]

May be. may be there is no "big fish".

The key, I'd say, is not to make assumptions either way.

If and when it all happens he may want to lay low, but in a place of his choosing, not the government's.

How do you know where he may want to lay low? Many mafia bigshots in the 80's and 90's chose the government's place of hiding as the safest one.

[BOP B 3AKOHE]

I don't know. Conduct proper searches for any sharp objects, so they wouldn't anything to stab with?

And if he conseals one anyway -- what, bite the bullet?

Are you asking for my assessment of a hypothetical situation or are we discussing the justification of the guard's actions in a particular case?
When I make a point, I take the effort to back it up with references to credible sources. When you make a point, I see nothing of the kind. Can you tell the difference in conducting a discussion?

[BOP B 3AKOHE]

You don't think that Abu Ghraib scandal and resulting criminal convictions had enough factual or logical basis?

It did -- but your statement about the deaths in detention does not.

Which statement?

[BOP B 3AKOHE]

Do you think they would have had any investigations if it wasn't for the public outcry?

There was an investigation before the public outcry.

Correction: I should have said "Do you think they would have had any meaningful investigations if it wasn't for the public outcry?"

[BOP B 3AKOHE]

I do -- but again, they don't explain the data, which may be misinterpreted, such as the fact that all custodial deaths are investigated. There is no such thing as a non-investigated custodial death. They also do not explain what is involved in the investigation, who conducts it, or the facts of specific cases. All that leaves people to interpret the info any way they want -- and most interpret it according to their a priori political convictions.

I previously wrote: "And yes, AI is listing some cases, go way down to "6.2 Investigating deaths in custody".
Did you? There are facts of specific cases there. Take an effort, please, otherwise this all becomes rather speculative.

[BOP B 3AKOHE]

May be. may be there is no "big fish".

The key, I'd say, is not to make assumptions either way.

OK. You go first. :smoke:

I am sure an immunity plea will be worked out -- a bigger fish will be caught, and Padilla will walk