Today in Supreme Court History: August 25, 1998

8/25/1998: Justice Lewis Powell dies.

Justice Lewis Powell

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Guey Heung Lee v. Johnson, 404 U.S. 1215 (decided August 25, 1971): Douglas denies stay of San Francisco desegregation order as to Chinese-ancestry children; holds that Brown v. Board of Education did not apply just to black children, and believes plan was “thoughtful” though not for him to approve it at this stage (stay was sought by Chinese parents who wanted to remain segregated)

Gray v. Kelly, 564 U.S. 1301 (decided August 25, 2011): Roberts denies condemned man’s motion to stay not the judgment of death, but the District Court habeas petition scheduling order; Circuit Justice has no power to “exercise supervisory authority” over District Court (defendant’s case went up and down the courts and after a final stay was denied he was executed on January 18, 2017; defendant and his nephew had gone on a 7-person killing spree in 2006, including nephew’s girlfriend who started as an accomplice and ended up as a victim)

[Krayt]

stay was sought by Chinese parents who wanted to remain segregated

"Don't force our kids into classrooms of all the other stupid kids with lazy parents who say they care but don't, and instead mock us as tiger moms and whatever for doing too much!"

"Sorry! In you go. If it's any solace, your kids' kids will be proper fat lazy Americans struggling with school."

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Today in Democrat history is the day after the Democrats turned to arresting political opponents as their campaign strategy.

Shameful.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'm reminded of what Lindsey Graham said to the Democrats at the Kavanugh hearing -- "God help this country if you ever assume power."

I'm starting to see what he meant...

[Krayt]

We covered this 20 years ago after Iraq fell. Bush was riding very high in popularity, people were throwing shoes at Saddam statues and ripping them down, and my mother in law regurgitated the echo chamber meme of the week : what if he (Bush) does to us what we’ve been doing to them, OH NO!”

You (the left) know exactly what you are doing, and why, which is why you, properly, fear retribuition in kind. Or slightly edged up, as this tit for tat bs is on a slow incline over the decades.

Rrmember: you know what you are doing.

Join in trying to put a stop to it. If Trump is too much, then next time. If it’s a Democrat under assault, I think you will, but the Republicans won’t, and the roles will be reversed.

Then we can all post endlessly about how shocked, shocked we all are.

[Sarcastr0]

Here's the thing - Trump did crimes. Open, provable crimes. Crimes understandable by the public, no matter how many post-truth right wingers try to sell 'perfect phone call.'

If a Democratic President does that kind of stuff, I'm quite happy for them to go down as well.

But this kind of threat, the one you made with some confused anecdote from the Iraq war years? It's not about truth, it's about retribution. 'You know what you are doing.' Sure! But you seem out to lunch on what you think we are doing, so that doesn't mean much.

'If you indict Trump for crimes we will make up crimes and indict your guy' is just a threat against the Republic. The Republic requires accountability when its leaders try and bring it down, both when that leader is the President trying to overturn an election with criming, and when Congress tries to overturn an election with investigations based on revenge not facts.

If we let either happen it's over. So all one can do is hope the American People won't fall for that bullshit.

[Commenter_XY]

Remember that, when the shoe is on the other foot, Sarcastr0. It surely will be.

The jury will determine POTUS Trump's guilt, or innocence.

[Sarcastr0]

Juries (or maybe judges). And I reserve the right to call the jury wrong, but as an institution/process guy, I also know so it goes with juries.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"If a Democratic President does that kind of stuff, I’m quite happy for them to go down as well."

Biden: Taking bribes from the CCP, classified documents in his garage (from when he was a Senator), possibly supplying classified info to the CCP.

Obama: Pallets of cash for the Iranians in violation of US law.

Hillary Clinton: The email server, missing emails, and mishandling classified docs.

Bill Clinton: Bribes (campaign donations in 1996) from the CCP in exchange for missile/rocket guidance technology. The Chinese missiles were going off course and blowing up, they needed our guidance technology to make them fly straight and because Clinton gave it to them, their nukes on ICBMs are now a threat to us.

27 years later, we are at risk of incineration because of Bill Clinton's crimes -- compare that to whatever Trump might have done....

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Sarcastr0 meant if there hypothetical future crimes committed by some hypothetical future Democrat president he would be happy for them to go down.

Not current or previous Democrat presidents and their actual real crimes.

[Sarcastr0]

I know you love right wing nonsense, but the speculation and lies from the right-wing fever swamps do not actually count as crimes.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, this is a different dimension of visceral hatred that started with the Inauguration in 2017 and the very clear dual standards of justice. That, I think is what Lindsey Graham was talking about and he undoubtedly knew stuff that wasn't public.

Take our nation's 5 Presidential Impeachments (I'm including Nixon even though he was *not* impeached) -- Clinton actually *did* something -- lie under oath. Nixon actually *did* things -- it wasn't just Watergate. Andrew Johnson fired Stanton and violated the Tenure of Office Act, he *did* something.

With Trump it is far more nebulous. And impeaching someone who isn't even in office anymore? The Democrats back in 1974 had too much honor to do that -- today they don't. His crimes? Other than bypassing red tape (something we once called "leadership"), I can't for the life of me see what he did. There's no malum in se, things that are inherently and clearly wrong.

He took the advice of lawyers advocating a novel legal theory -- how's that different from Maura Healey (then MA AG) suing Exxon on the quite novel theory of purportedly lying about global warming hurting Massachusetts shareholders of Exxon stock. How about the asbestos and cigarette litigation -- that initially was a novel theory.

And then the rioting -- the FBI can search the earth for anyone involved in January 6th but no one really cares about the earlier attacks on the White House -- the USSS did a far better job of securing its perimeter than the CHPD did, but the USSS also had a lot of people hurt. (I don't know if they are technically "officers" but that's a distinction without a difference.) And putting Trump in the nuke shelter underground tells you how serious the attacks on the White House were.

Two government buildings -- I'd bet that the majority of the public wouldn't be able to tell which was which if you showed them pictures of both. Can we agree that an attack on either is equally serious? And yet I'm not reading in local newspapers of people being arrested for being involved in the attack on the White House.

Dual standard of justice -- that actually is new.

And what's going to come out in a couple of weeks is that the Atlanta DA is herself guilty of the very crimes she's accusing Trump of...

[Sarcastr0]

It's very clear Dems bad.
But with Trump it's nebulous.

Whatever, dude. You're way out there, you know it, we know it. Your thinking crimes happened does not matter because your understanding of the facts and law don't comport with anything anyone else cares about.

[David Nieporent]

And impeaching someone who isn’t even in office anymore?

I'll take "Things Dr. Ed made up" for $600, Alex.

[Krychek_2]

Maybe if the Democrats' political opponents would stop committing crimes they wouldn't get arrested.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Like using $1B in loans as leverage to extort the Ukranian government to fire the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma who had paid the VPs son a butt ton and asked the son to get him fired?

Against US policy?

[Krychek_2]

Oh, were you talking about Joe Biden when you said political opponents get arrested?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

No I'm asking you if that was a Democrat politician committing a crime.

I understand that in 2023 Democrats cannot commit crimes, so its just a hypothetical. Of it helps you to reason about the legality put "Trump" in place of Democrat or some other non-elite political outsider.

[Krychek_2]

BCD, neither the legal system nor most American voters gives a damn about your what aboutism. You seem to think that if you can find a Democrat who did something bad, that it insulates any Republican from being charged, and that’s not the way it works. If you were to make the argument that Trump didn’t actually commit crimes, that would be laughable but at least it would be relevant.

Next time you’re ticketed for speeding, try telling the nice hearing officer that other people were speeding too and let us know how it works out for you.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The key requirement of Trump’s actions being crimes was that he didn’t believe the election was stolen from him. 60% of Americans believe the election was stolen from him.

You don’t even consider the possibility of him being innocent and these being motivated indictments. You believe what you do because the people who control the messaging and narratives you receive have made you hate him and have had you living in a constant state of fear for 6 or 7 years over one crisis or another and the stress hormones constantly filling your body day after day after day have made you delusional and deranged.

No one can live under constant existential fear and existential stress but that’s what the Democrat braintenders have been doing to you people for going on 8 years now. That's why you're all deranged and filled with uncontrollable hatred.

[apedad]

You don’t even consider the possibility of him being guilty.

FTFY.

[Mr. Bumble]

...as you don't consider the possibility of him being innocent?

[Krychek_2]

Mr. Bumble, Bertrand Russell once compared the probability for the existence of God to the probability that a china teapot is orbiting the planet Mars: It can't be ruled out to a 100% certainty but the probability is so small that there's no reason to take it into account.

Is it possible that Trump is innocent? Yes, in the same sense that it's possible that a china teapot is orbiting the planet Mars.

[Mr. Bumble]

Until he is found guilty in a court of law he is presumed to be innocent so take your teapot and shove it.

[apedad]

I’m sure he’ll be found not guilty and also guilty on some of the (90+?) charges across the four investigations.

It's simply childish to say He's guilty! or He's innocent!

[Krychek_2]

I agree with apedad that Trump will likely be convicted on some charges and acquitted on others, and Mr. Bumble doesn't understand what "presumed innocent" means.

Almost all of pre-trial procedures are based on the assumption that the defendant is probably guilty: An arrest warrant requires probable cause to believe that he committed a crime, an indictment requires that a grand jury believe that there is sufficient evidence of his guilt to take to trial. No one could ever be arrested for anything if the police were presuming him to be innocent.

"Presumed innocent" kicks in once a jury has been seated. It's the jury that starts out with the presumption that he's innocent, not the police, the grand jury, or the magistrate that signed off on the arrest warrant.

So yes, Trump's juries (all four of them) should begin by presuming him innocent. Doesn't mean everyone else has to.

[Drewski]

"Until he is found guilty in a court of law he is presumed to be innocent"

The judge and jury must presume innocence. Nobody else has to.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

1776 Americans believe in a presumption of innocence.

Also I saw what the Democrats and establishment Republicans did for the 2020 election. I know it was a complete fraud.

[apedad]

"I know it was a complete fraud."

I guess I really don't need to further comment.

Have a good weekend wrapped in your favorite fantasies!

[Krychek_2]

No, BCD, that's not the standard. Let's suppose that not only did Trump believe the election was stolen (and I don't think he did believe that; I think he knew damn well that Biden won fair and square). Further, for sake of argument, let's suppose that the election really was stolen; suppose Democrats printed millions of phony ballots and rigged the counting machines.

Now, supposing all of that to be true, it would still be a crime for Trump to try to steal it back. You cannot exert pressure on state election officials to engage in what would have amounted to election fraud by coming up with phony votes for you, even if you sincerely believe you were robbed. That's like me breaking into your house to retrieve some piece of property of mine that's inside; it's still breaking and entering even if you really do have my property. There are other ways for me to get it back that don't involve me breaking one of your windows and trespassing inside your house. And if I get indicted for breaking and entering, it will be no defense that something that belongs to me was inside.

Now, this is an interesting academic discussion because in point of fact the election was not stolen, Trump knew it was not stolen, and tried to steal it himself. Why on earth are you hitching your wagon to such an obvious con artist?

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Key to this case: Trump’s state of mind The prosecution will argue there’s one thing that neither Trump, nor any American citizen, has a right to do: knowingly perpetuate a fraud.

The case turns on Trump’s state of mind. On whether he knew the election was lost (fairly)*, and continued insisting it wasn’t.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-capitol-case-indictment-1.6925039?cmp=rss

The Fulton County indictment requires the same state of mind. Why are you arguing that isn’t the case?

----

, this is an interesting academic discussion because in point of fact the election was not stolen, Trump knew it was not stolen, and tried to steal it himself.

Point of say what now?

[Krychek_2]

A news story written by a reporter, who may or may not be an attorney, is not the final authority on what the law requires for a conviction. And, you and I are talking about two different things.

I'm talking about the ultimate facts that need to be proven to obtain a conviction. Trump's state of mind is evidence as to those facts, but it's not the facts themselves. If he tried to steal votes, then it doesn't matter what he subjectively believed. If the prosecution can prove that he knew it was a fair election and went full steam ahead anyway, that makes it worse, and probably makes it more likely that a jury will convict him. But his state of mind isn't necessary to the question of whether he tried to undo an election.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Are you for real?

Him believing he fairly lost the election is the linchpin to both Smith's and Fani's cases. Without that, then all those tweets and room reservations aren't evidence of any conspiracy.

I can't believe you didn't know that are actually arguing it isn't the literal main thing they need to prove.

[Krychek_2]

BCD, my statement of the law is correct. That you intuitively disagree with it is irrelevant.

And you know what, it doesn't matter anyway. There's enough evidence that he knew he had lost the election -- mostly in conversations he had with other people -- that I doubt the prosecution will have any difficulty proving it.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Think about this for one second Krychek.

One of his felony charges was asking the SoS to take the "legally correct action" to remedy his fraud claims. That is only a felony if Trump believed he was asking the SoS to violate his oath of office.

You're trying to argue that the State doesn't have to prove what Trump believed. If the State doesn't have to prove what Trump believed then there is no way to refute the charge and the State has to do is play the recording of the request and the legal standard, according to you, is that Trump is guilty. And he's guilty because the State asserts so.

And you believe that's the legal standard. That the State can simply assert someone has an illegal state of mind then their facially lawful act becomes a felony. No burden of proof, just the assertion.

That's completely absurd.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

And regarding your "knowing he lost the election", you haven't even thought about that one either.

Of course he knew the election was declared a victory for Biden and a loss for him. How could he not be aware of that? They have to show he knew he lost the election fairly.

That would put him in a minority of what most people believe about the election.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It's like the Greyhound driver I know who told the judge "I'd like to know where the 45 MPH zone on the Maine turnpike *is* -- back then it was all either 55 MPH or 35 MPH approaching the toll booths. The judge said he'd like to know too and dismissed the ticket.

That's what I see these "trumped up" charges against Trump.
Where's the crime?

[David Nieporent]

Why do you keep saying this, as if it will become any less a lie with repetition?

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe if black people stopped committing crime disproportionate to their share of the population they wouldn't get arrested disproportionate to their share of the population.
See what I did there? I turned your own stupid statement against you and made a point on a different Ish-yew myself.
Seriously, they arrest "45" on some made up "Rico" bullshit that he won't even get convicted on in Fulton County, and Parkinsonian Joe travels to the funeral of some piece of shit thug who died of a Fent-a-nol overdose.

Frank "Checkmate"

[Krychek_2]

Did I say that Black people who commit crimes should not be arrested? What you "did there" was demonstrate your inability to follow a subject.

[Frank Drackman]

I’m sorry you have the mind of a flea. You used the same reasoning that race-ists use and didn’t recognize what you were doing. I’m also sorry you got a mediocre pubic screw-el ed-jew-ma-cation.

[Krychek_2]

Frank, there's a logical fallacy known as "undistributed middle." Look it up.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Hey did you see how the Democrats gave all the White Trumpsters bail and the red carpet treatment but that one black guy they threw the book at and didn't even allow bail?

lol

[David Nieporent]

"The Democrats," of course, didn't do anything there.

[Magister]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2023/08/25/trump-co-defendant-harrison-floyd-denied-bond-why-hes-still-in-jail/?sh=7ba913d57194

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Emily Richardson determined Floyd—one of Trump’s co-defendants in his indictment this month on racketeering charges stemming from his alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election—posed a flight risk as well as a risk to commit additional criminal felonies if released on bail, multiple outlets reported Friday afternoon.

He was previously charged with assaulting an FBI agent serving a subpoena on him. He also doesn't have an attorney who might have negotiated bail before his surrender.

[Sarcastr0]

Voltage!

[Frank Drackman]

it's not the Voltage but the Amperage. Ohm's law, like you've ever heard of it.

[Dr. Ed 2]

But without the voltage, you don't have the amperage.

Or amp -- memory is that 1/10th of an amp is lethal.

[Frank Drackman]

Is that AC or DC? I can never keep those "Straight"

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Hey Rich Woman North of Richmond, did you use your $5000/mo COVID bonus to buy your new McMansipn out in the DC suburbs?

[Sarcastr0]

I had you on mute till I got logged off this morning, but are you calling me a lady as some kind of insult? I’m a man, and you are finding new depths of weird lameness.

I didn’t get a Covid bonus. Nor do I live in a McMansion. You really think working for the government is the way to riches, eh?

Anyhow, back to the mute for you; you are the antisemite in the Jew and the antisemite, and you don’t care about what words you say, all engagement is a win for you, because shredding good faith discussion is your main goal.

I really hope most other folks mute you as well. They can play with Ben or AL or any of the other right wing tools who are true believers.

Voltage!

[Frank Drackman]

BCD should pay you rent for all that space he's taking up in your head.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Why would calling you a lady being an insult? Anyone can be a real authentic lady if they identify as one and they’re just as equal as men and also real authentic ladies.

I came to the conclusion that you were a woman based upon your actions and how you comment. It’s very feminine and pathologically like classic battered woman syndrome. So since you never offered up how you identify, I was just being respectful.

That’s all. I apologize for hurting your feelings, kind sir.

[Mr. Bumble]

Too late, (s)he had a hissy fit and muted you.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These are your fans, Volokh Conspirators. And the reason your employers would pay your airfare out of town.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Did you see that memo that was just released that stated it was official US policy to give Ukraine that $1B loan guarantee unconditionally since they had made so much progress on reform?

Weird how Biden used the $1B to implement his own foreign policy that just also happened to match a request made to his son that got paid a crap ton of money by the requestor.

That's weird.

[David Nieporent]

Nope. No such "memo" was "released."

[Dan Schiavetta]

today’s movie review: The Caine Mutiny, 1954

This film is remembered for Humphrey Bogart’s turn as the paranoid Captain (actually Lt. Comm.) Queeg of a “junkyard Navy” ship in WW II. Bogart was 20 years too old for the part but that’s just quibbling, I suppose. His performance is great but sucks up all the oxygen. The wider story arc is about the young Princeton graduate Ensign Keith (Robert Francis, who died in a plane crash the year after this film came out) and his growth as an officer, in particular his relationship with Queeg’s predecessor DeVriess (Tom Tully). DeVriess runs a tired, sloppy ship but is one of those crusty he-insults-you-because-he-loves-you guys. Keith is offended by his style of running the ship (we first see him naked except for a bandage wrapped around his torso — how did he get that wound?) and at first is impressed by the by-the-book Queeg. At the end of the film when DeVriess returns to command Keith understands why the men love and respect him so much. DeVriess, likewise, starts out with an “attitude” to the supercilious Keith but at the end puts him in charge of bringing the ship out to sea, with a little smile that he hides. “Tough love”.

Van Johnson is the not-too-bright but conscientious second in command Maryk who heads the mutiny. Johnson had facial scars from a real-life auto accident but for this film he eschewed the makeup that usually hid them. Fred MacMurray as the smug house intellectual. He chickens out when the chips are down but he is correct about Queeg, who is by-the-book to the point of ignoring important matters (mishandling a beach landing, allowing a tow line to be cut) while upbraiding sailors for having untucked shirttails, etc. An interesting scene is after the tow line incident, when it is clear Queeg knows he screwed up, and the silent, embarrassed crew knows that he knows it. Afterwards he calls a meeting where he all but apologizes and asks for help and is ignored. This is treated as a pivotal failure by the officers but it was just one meeting.

An analog to Keith’s personal growth is his stateside struggle to gather up the guts to stand up to his mother who doesn’t want him involved with a singer who is beneath their class (May Wynn). This was given more play in the book by Herman Wouk (pronounced “Woke”, folks), which I read in high school. The film was also shown in assembly, and we kids really got into it. The main employer in my town was a defense plant and anything military got a lot of respect. But the film is really of two minds. Half the time we’re seeing inspiring stock footage of naval activity with uplifting music. But then we see that the Navy put in command of the Caine someone obviously unfit for it. The court-martial ends with the attorney Jose Ferrer, having won acquittal for Maryk, upbraiding the officers for not giving Queeg enough support. (This scene might have been insisted on by the actual U.S. Navy.) Somehow Queeg is to be forgiven his many failures under pressure because he was a career Navy man, having joined it in peacetime, not just during wartime when I suppose it was glorious.

A new by-the-book C.O. taking over is also the main plot point of Tunes of Glory, which I reviewed here recently. Though here the former C.O. was actually good at his job and leaves the scene instead of sticking around to sabotage things. The court-martial scene, where it is really Queeg who is on trial, reminds me of the competency hearing in the original Star Trek episode “The Deadly Years”, though the hearing was called by the well-meaning Commodore Stocker because it was clear the aging Kirk was no longer able to do his job.

What’s the lesson of this film? I suppose, like Tunes of Glory, that there are good and bad ways to command. Critically, the new guy can’t come in with an attitude. I’m reminded of Joe Torre, who was successful as a manager because he adjusted to the players he had. He didn’t make sluggers steal bases, or ask singles hitters to swing for the fences. He put Mariano Rivera in as a closer because (to be honest) Rivera was not successful in other roles, not even in non-save situations. Likewise DeVriess adjusted to the men he had, tired and sloppy, but under him they got the job done — his parting words to Queeg are, “Every man on this ship is all right.”

[Frank Drackman]

We had to watch the "Caine Mutiny" at Navy “Officer Indoctrination School” (if the Navy can do anything, it’s Indoctrinate Officers) that’s the training for the various Staff Corpse Officers, Doctors, Nurses, Dentists, Chaplains, Lawyers (except for Ron DiSanctimonious who somehow was a SEAL too) Fred MacMurray was the sleaziest sleazeball ever, a real smooth, smoothy.
We also saw "Run Silent, Run Deep" (Instructor was a "Bubble Head" Google that) seems like all we did was watch Navy movies.

Frank "Anchors aweigh!"

[Paladin_44]

DeSantis was definitely not a SEAL. He was a JAG officer assigned to the SPECWAR community.

[Syd Henderson]

Really amazed I haven't seen that movie since I'm a big fan of "Tunes of Glory." Also "Mutiny on the Bounty."

[Dan Schiavetta]

You can see it for free on the internet archive site.

“Mutiny on the Bounty” is also a good one (though I’ve only seen the Clark Gable - Charles Laughton version).

[Syd Henderson]

I've seen both versions and the Bounty. The Gable/Laughton is the best, although in many ways "The Bounty" is the most accurate.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Captain (actually Lt. Comm.)"

The officer in command of a ship is traditionally called Captain even if the actual rank is lower.

Its why Cap'n Crunch was properly Cap'n even though it took 60 years in command to get that 4th stripe.

[Dan Schiavetta]

True.

Though he can also be called Commander even if his rank is lower (for example Lieutenant).

Interestingly when DeVriess returns to the Caine he’s now a full Commander. Maybe Queeg at least cleaned up the ship so that both it and DeVriess will now be operating at a more “ship-shape” level?

[Frank Drackman]

Didn't realize you had such a Nautical Background, did you serve under LCDR McHale?

[Mr. Bumble]

Well he does go by capt.
Never did get Naval ranks. Now they have lower half and upper half admirals. Sounds half assed.

[Frank Drackman]

"now"? they've always had them, at least since I served, back when Christ was a Corporal...
Now I don't think they've had Commodores (the rank, not the R&B group) since WW2,
Air Farce used to have "Airman Second Class" but it hurt their feelings, so they scrapped it in the 70's.
Sailors are tough, which is why the Navy has 3rd and 2d Class Petty Officers.

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Apparently since 1986 when the current rank system went into effect. Commodore disappeared to become Rear Admiral (lower half) one star and Rear Admiral (upper half) two stars.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The way I understand it is pay grade -- all the services share the same pay grade scale, both for enlisted and officers -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformed_services_pay_grades_of_the_United_States

[Dan Schiavetta]

The officers here are Lt. Commander (O-4), which is like an Army Major, Lt. (O-3), which is like an Army Captain, Lt. Junior Grade (O-2) which is like First Lieutenant, and Ensign (O-1) which is like Second Lieutenant.

How did Queeg get to be O-4? Perhaps by seniority. Sometimes it's by merit. Or luck? My sister was career Army and got to O-5 (Lieutenant Colonel). She was thinking of applying to the O-6 Review Board; full Colonel is a pretty rare rank. But she decided to retire instead. She looked around at the few full Colonels she saw and didn't see anything particularly impressive about them. Also she heard that such high-ranking officers have a hard time finding work after they get out because they have a reputation for being hard to train. That would certainly include Queeg!

[Dilan Esper]

The Caine Mutiny is a great film. Bogart was in so many good films and most of the time, he didn't have to act much, but here and in The Treasure of Sierra Madre, he did, and he is really good at playing guys who crack.

But the key to the picture is Jose Ferrer, the defense attorney. He takes the case because he's a good defense lawyer and knows his clients have a valid defense, but he also knows that if the subordinates had less contempt for Queeg and had actually tried to work with him, there would have never have been a mutiny. In that way, this film, probably more than any other, presents the classic ethical quandry of a good defense lawyer- the obligation to present a legally valid defense even if the clients are actually culpable. So many films about defense lawyers make it easy by making the clients factually as well as legally innocent. Not here- the filmmakers present the issue in the starkest terms.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I don't think I buy that. The mutiny happens because Queeg freezes up during a typhoon and Maryk has to take over to the keep the ship from foundering. I don't think the officers were required to support Queeg in his sudden catatonia. And it was not the first time Queeg blanked out in a crisis. Maybe he would have overcome this debility if the officers were more friendly to him, but it's not the job of subordinates to provide therapy.

[Dilan Esper]

You actually mentioned the key scene that explains it in your original desciription- it's when Queeg asks for help from his crew and doesn't get it. It's the job of subordinates to assist the captain so that the missions are fulfilled; instead, they hung Queeg out to dry and then conducted a mutiny which was necessary under the circumstances but could have been avoided.

And Ferrer explains it all in his post-verdict monologue.

[Dan Schiavetta]

I don’t see how the mutiny could have been avoided. Unless one posits that with prior emotional support from the officers Queeg would have become a changed man and would not have lost his head in the typhoon scene. It’s interesting that the film clearly shows Queeg acting irrationally and putting the ship in danger but his behavior is never specifically elicited in the testimony at the court-martial. It is irrational (and legal malpractice) for the Ferrer character not to bring out that testimony, and in horrifying detail. Also unlikely there would be a “celebration” after the acquittal which allows him to descend from on high and give the officers a scolding. In short, sounds like the U.S. Navy would not cooperate in the making of this film unless it ended with a (tacked-on) message that the mutiny was unwarranted.

[Dilan Esper]

I think that's reading extra-textual materials into the story. The story, as presented, is that had Queeg's cries for help been heeded, there would have been a more cooperative relationship between captain and crew, which would have meant there would have been mutual trust when we come to the key crisis.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Memory is that, in the book, the lawyer is a Jew who is on the beach "recovering from third degree burns" with the implication that those were combat related.

His point was that Hitler was murdering his fellow Jews and he "couldn't go fight Hitler with a law book" and had to first learn how to fight. Hence he owed a debt of gratitude to men like Queeg who -- flawed as he was -- was still initially prepared to fight Hitler while he wasn't.

Of course the thing about the peacetime Navy was that it was quite hard to get into (this was the Depression) and quite political. It was rules and procedure and not making mistakes in a way that the wartime Navy was not.

[Mr. Bumble]

Just how does a foreign government prosecute your political opponent?

[SRG2]

Charge them in absentia. Duh