Things I confirmed during my fourth viewing of CACW yesterday (don’t judge, each time as been with a different person and like I’m going to turn down an offer to go see a Captain America film no matter how many times I’ve seen it ;))…
The orders for all local law enforcement regarding Bucky as conveyed by Sharon to Steve after the UN bombing were ‘shoot on sight’.
After Steve finds Bucky and the whole tunnel chase happens, Steve asks Everett Ross point blank if Bucky is going to get legal representation. Everett Ross (Martin Freeman) laughs incredulously and condescendingly in answer.
After the airport battle and Tony accuses Nat of being a double agent, he gets the notification that the body of the real psychiatrist who was supposed to interview Bucky was found in his hotel room and figures out Zemo’s involvement. He orders Friday to send that information to Thaddeus Ross.
Upon landing on the Raft following that notification, Tony asks Thaddeus Ross if he’s going to do anything about Zemo. Ross gets belligerent and tells Tony ‘why should I believe you (about Zemo)’ and makes it clear he’s still after Rogers and Barnes despite being in possession of enough empirical evidence for reasonable doubt regarding Barnes involvement in the UN bombing.
When Clint accuses Tony of being a backstabber at the Raft Tony mentioned he didn’t know that Thaddeus Ross was going to put Clint, Wanda, Scott and Sam in the Raft. It is also revealed during that conversation that the MCU Raft, like the comic Raft, is meant for real hardcore, insane, sociopathic criminals. If we’re going by just the airport battle the worst charges Clint, Scott, et al would have against them would be resisting arrest, maybe aggregated assault (assuming someone from Tony’s team filed that charge), and destruction of property. None of which merits a Raft lock-up. And certainly, no charge, no matter how heinous, would merit a lock-up without due process.
To remind everyone, this is what due process means:
Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.
Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.
The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
The right to know opposing evidence.
The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.
Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
Requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented.
Requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.
…I wonder if any of those 117 countries backing the Accords understood that Ross (both of them) intended to enforce them in a way that violated human rights.
jimmyeatworldofficial
vaporwave
dailybridgerton
romaincrisis
turnnoffyourmind
kianamaiart
ellievsbear
blakekathryn
