You Thought Marilyn Manson Was Spooky...

[American Dream]

Eldritch wrote:

I have enough faith in the military justice system to think that if there had been sufficient evidence for Michael Aquino's guilt that he would have been at least tried of this heinous crime.

Hmmm....This doesn't make much sense to me...

[Eldritch]

It doesn't make much sense to me to conclude a man's guilt, based upon the evidence presented here.

I mean, for all I know, maybe he is guilty—but, with no more than what I've seen here, that's a steep hill to climb.

[biaothanatoi]

I have enough faith in the military justice system to think that if there had been sufficient evidence for Michael Aquino's guilt that he would have been at least tried of this heinous crime.

Sorry, that doesn't make sense. You still appear to believe that a military court could "try" a criminal matter, which it cannot.

In fact, formal charges against Michael Aquino were never even filed in the case.

Again, by "formal", you appear to mean "criminal".

To my mind, the issue is not whether Aquino has faced criminal charges, which we know he has not. At issue, for me, is your statement that, in the absence of a criminal conviction, the allegations against Aquino are necessarily "unsubstantiated".

It seems to me that, if a military tribunal found there was "probable cause" to name Aquino in the Presidio investigation, and if the treating clinician has documented (in a peer-reviewed journal) the harms commited against numerous children who named Aquino as amongst their abusers, then to suggest that the allegations against Aquino have no substance is a mistatement of fact.

I cannot imagine a sensible line of inquiry into any matter which discounts matters of fact that have not been affirmed in a criminal court of law. Courts are not truth-producing machines. They measure the narrow claims of two parties according to a particular standard (and often in a very ideosyncratic and illogical fashion) and that's all. To suggest that a matter that has not been tested in this way should be ignored altogether is a very strange one.

I'm not stating that Aquino is "guilty" of anything. There is a broad, sweeping landscape between the claim that the allegations against Aquino have some substance (which I am claiming) and the claim that Aquino is a child-raping murderer (which I am not claiming). And I'm suggesting that we pick our way through that landscape in a way that is cognisant of the information that is available to us.

[Brighid_Moon]

Information is available, from both sides:

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEPENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE RECORD
(They have to use all caps )

Defamation Response

Real Long Link

9. Department of Defense Instructions (DODI) 5505.7 contains the authority and criteria for titling decisions. It states, in pertinent part, that titling only requires credible information that an offense may have been committed. It further indicates that regardless of the characterization of the offense as founded, unfounded, or insufficient evidence, the only way to administratively remove a titling action from the Defense Central Investigations Index (DCII) is to show either mistaken identity or a complete lack of credible evidence to dispute the initial titling determination.

Edit: I'm amused at the bottom of that Memorandum that, lacking enough evidence against him, they went after him for his appearance and on the fact that he was on Geraldo.

[biaothanatoi]

Hey, thanks Brighid.

OK, so basically the burden of proof for titling is "credible information that an offense may have been committed", similar to a civil burden of proof e.g. balance of probabilities.

(It should be noted here that titling appears to be an action in and of itself - it is not simply that Aquino was "named" as part of an investigation.)

To remove his name, Aquino needed to demonstrate "either mistaken identity or a complete lack of credible evidence", and he was unable to do either.

Eldrith, this isn't a pissing contest, but I do want to make the point: the allegations in relation to Aquino were not "unsubstantiated". There was credible evidence that he may have committed multiple child sex offences at Presidio, and he was unable to prove that it was a case of mistaken identity, or that the evidence against him was baseless.

I've read the leaked transcripts of some of the interviews with the Presidio kids, and they are really, really disturbing. Aquino was also a suspect in sexual abuse investigations in other jurisdictions in the late 1980s, and my understanding is that at least one guy associated with Aquino did go to jail as a result of these investigations - but not, of course, Aquino.

In that light, I think we have to take these matters seriously.

[Eldritch]

I have enough faith in the military justice system to think that if there had been sufficient evidence for Michael Aquino's guilt that he would have been at least tried of this heinous crime.

Sorry, that doesn't make sense. You still appear to believe that a military court could "try" a criminal matter, which it cannot.

What do you think a court-martial is?

If the offense is committed by someone subject to the UCMJ, a military court can—and does!—try those so charged. Lawyers in the office of the Judge Advocate General (JAG) do this every day.

[biaothanatoi]

A court-martial is not a criminal trial. It is a military trial. So a military court tries military matters, not criminal ones. Military law and criminal law are distinct canons of law.

So you can't lay criminal charges through a military court - criminal matters like, for instance, sexual assault. That is a criminal matter that must be tried in a criminal court under criminal law.

Similarly, a military court can't use a criminal sanction like prison. As you noted, they can confine someone, but that is legally distinct from imprisoning them.

[Eldritch]

A court-martial is not a criminal trial. It is a military trial. So a military court tries military matters, not criminal ones.

If you're in the Army, and you shoot your general, you may be tried—for that criminal act—in a military court. Similarly, if you're in the Army, and you rape your Army chaplain's kid, you may be tried in a military court.

Regarding Courts-martial:

Courts martial have the authority to try a wide range of military offences, many of which closely resemble civilian crimes like fraud, theft or perjury. Others, like desertion and cowardice and insubordination were purely military crimes.

Courts-martial have universal jurisdiction over active-duty military personnel. It may be that Michael Aquino was not on active-duty status at the time of these alleged crimes.

The fact is NOBODY brought formal charges against Michael Aquino—not the military, not a civilian criminal court.

[biaothanatoi]

The fact is NOBODY brought formal charges against Michael Aquino—not the military, not a civilian criminal court.

There's been some ambiguity around precisely what "titling" signifies, but you might recall, about an hour ago, I stated "To my mind, the issue is not whether Aquino has faced criminal charges, which we know he has not".

So if the issue of charges is your focus, then that's OK, but nobody is arguing that point with you.

The question has always been, in my mind, as to whether the allegations against Aquino are, as you say, "unsubsantiated". You appear to base this claim on the fact that Aquino has never faced criminal charges, and I've raised some arguments to challenge you rlogic here. I believe the allegations against Aquino have some substance, and the military ruling speaks to that, as does the treating clinician and other documentation around the Presidio case.

So we disagree. That's OK. But insisting on restating a fact that we have both agreed on, from the outset, doesn't really advance this discussion.

[Eldritch]

Eldrith, this isn't a pissing contest, but I do want to make the point: the allegations in relation to Aquino were not "unsubstantiated".

You are, of course, free to believe that the matter against Aquino was "substantiated" if you want.

But when weighing (A) the "substantial" allegations that have been raised against the man, with (B) the absence of any formal charges, the lack of any trial, and the certainty that he was never convicted of any crime whatsoever, I come away from this discussion with another point of view.

[Brighid_Moon]

Look, here are the issues from my point of view:

First we have a man who is a Satanist (bad enough, if he's beyond the simple "Hi, I'm a narcissist trying to get power and make a buck off of you") and who worked for Psy-Ops in the military (worse bad). Now, personally, my buttons are pushed to really despise this guy from the get go (not due to the Satanist thing, but I really despise malignant narcissists). So the first thing I have to do is weigh my own personal dislikes and make sure I've set them aside.

Then you add to the mix that this guy has been investigated, and that there is some kind of proof (obviously not valid enough, though from my viewpoint of what I've read it should have been) that makes him obtain a "titling" for paedophelia. I wouldn't care who the hell it was, just that in and of itself sets off all my bells and whistles. I have extreme prejudice against this. So I have to also be aware of that on top of everything else.

But these two things are not the only things which are going on here.

Underneath all of this is the question: Who do we believe?

That goes even beyond the question of whether we believe the military or Aquino, if that were all this were it would be too simple. I could easily allow myself to despise the man as a person if that were all it was.

However:

We have the added ingredient of both the possibility of believing a child and it's parents, combined with the "witch hunt" craze of the 80s and SRA. (Which may, in and of itself have been some form of presdigitation by the gov't to cover for other things such as MKUltra, or to cover their own asses... I have yet to really figure that one out either. And knowing what the government has already done to children...) I fully believe SRA is real. I am not so sure that what happened in the 80s with the SRA craze is necessarily real. But to me, Aquino is too easy of a target. He is too obvious. And there are other players here aside from Aquino who may have something to hide or gain from that whole mess.

You want to talk about believing or not believing the military? Aquino was Psy-Ops. He had accesses and clearances. He wrote reports and papers. So now, in light of the fact of everything I have learned about the government and it's history in the past eight years, I have to ask myself, "What do others stand to gain from this? Who or what might be being covered up? What was going on under the surface that we don't know about, and due to Aquino's clearances, accesses, etc. and the fact that he did, indeed, retire honourably (despite being titled) that he may still not be saying?"

This complicates matters greatly. His being titled may very well have been an excuse to "get rid of him", and the Satanist thing may only have been some form of ruse for the military. With what I've learned that the government is capable of, am I honestly able to look myself in the eye in the mirror and say for certain that something may not have been set up?

From everything that I've learned, it's generally not the well-known, well-observed people who are in the lime-light (as Aquino was) who are actually doing things... bad things are done by people in the dark and the shadows. Really bad things done by really bad people are rarely ever actually found out or proven. People who put themselves into an obvious public position (such as Aquino with his Satanism) realize that all eyes are upon them. And narcissists, while thinking they can get away with anything, still are self-serving enough to watch their backs. (Sociopaths are a different story, and Aquino is not a sociopath.)

So this puts me in a moral and intellectual dilema, as I don't have enough information on this to allow myself to hate him beyond the fact that he's just a narcissistic creep like any other narcissistic creep. Sorry for the fence-sitting here, but I can't condemn a person falsely over something so deadly serious as what his charges are. If I can get more information about not only what happened but the situations involved around it, then perhaps I can make an opinion.