inverted justice

Trippy discussions of moral issues, conspiracy theories, the paranormal and other otherworldly phenomenon.

Moderator: Dracofrost

inverted justice

Postby TerraFrost » Wed Jun 04, 2003 5:53 pm

it's kinda ironic... the US justice system is based on the idea that everyone is "innocent until proven guilty"...

but in Iraq, it operates somewhat differently... assume they have WMD's, until proven that they don't. or atleast that's what i gather from reading the posts of nimble at another message board, heh.

of course, this "inverted justice" is nothing new - zero tollerance states that anything that can be used as a weapon will be used as a weapon - that we're all guilty default. kinda like the MPAA's take on DeCSS and DVD ripping programs, in general - anything that can be used to pirate DVD's will be, regardless of other useful purposes they may serve.
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby Nyufrost » Thu Jun 05, 2003 9:44 am

From a non-philosophical perspective ....

"Innocent until proven guilty" looks good in writing but is rarely practiced in real situations.

CA vs. OJ Simpson -- the public was convinced of OJ's guilt before his trial began. He was "proven" not guilty.

CT vs. Michael Skakel -- Skakel was convicted in the media and public before he went to trial where he was also convicted.

CA vs. Scott Peterson -- In a poll taken today, only 2.9% of the people believe Scott is innocent and his trial isn't even in the preliminary stage yet.

It's the same thing in the case of the WMD's in Iraq except the US was not going on street gossip but trusted intelligence from various sources.

Analogy: It's like if I talked to 10 of your real life friends without your knowing and each one of them told me you kept a hand grenade hidden somewhere in your apartment then I would believe them even if you denied it.
<BR><center> "Snowflakes are one of nature's most fragile things, but just look <br> what they can do when they stick together.." ... Vesta M. Kelly</center>
User avatar
Nyufrost
Frost Advisor
Frost Advisor
 
Posts: 5534
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 7:03 am
Location: Out There

Postby TerraFrost » Thu Jun 05, 2003 5:48 pm

that's a good point about opinions being influenced by others, but... in the case of the US and Iraq... to the best of my knowledge (which admittedtly, isn't much, with regard to this, heh), the US was the only country saying that Iraq had WMD's... so it sorta seems as if, in this case, that the US was the only country influencing it's own opinion?
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby Nyufrost » Thu Jun 05, 2003 9:25 pm

I'm no expert on the topic and am going strictly by memory here and not relying on any research but ...

From what I remember of watching the news reports at the time, the US was acting on intelligence from not just our own operatives but those from other countries as well as a couple of Iraqi defectors.

Saddam Hussein himself made statements that made it seem as though he indeed possessed WMD's. If he did not have them then it was a pretty stupid time to bluff with them IMO when being told to disarm or face the consequences.
<BR><center> "Snowflakes are one of nature's most fragile things, but just look <br> what they can do when they stick together.." ... Vesta M. Kelly</center>
User avatar
Nyufrost
Frost Advisor
Frost Advisor
 
Posts: 5534
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 7:03 am
Location: Out There

Postby Javafrost » Sun Jun 08, 2003 6:10 am

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a worthy concept, but I don't think our courts always work that way. And if I was in such a situation, I wouldn't want my attorney to sit around assuming the jury or judge was going to presume innocence, either.
Where Iraq is concerned, I think maybe the US leadership was sort of like the eyewitness to the crime, because of intelligence they had. I think it was the Prime Minister of Great Britain who laid out the evidence first, before Colin Powell presented to the UN, so I wouldn't say the US was the only country saying Iraq had WMDs.
"Endeavor to persevere." -- Lone Watie, The Outlaw Josey Wales
User avatar
Javafrost
Recruit
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:08 am

Postby Nuxius » Sun Jun 08, 2003 7:55 am

Yeah, Javafrost is right, the U.K. is our major ally in all this, Tony Blair was saying Iraq had WMD's pretty much as long as Bush has.

Anyway, on the "Innocent until proven guilty" thing, another thing of this is that people are put into prision and have to pay lots of money for bail if they want to get out, before their trial has ever begun. Although I can definitely see why this is done (most of them would run, run, run, and never show up in court) it also isn't a "Innocent until proven guilty" thing for sure.

One thing I do have to say about this is that if someone posts bail, and they are found to be innocent, then I think their bail money should be paid back to them. I'm not sure if it is though (who knows, maybe it is and I just don't know it :lol).
Image
User avatar
Nuxius
Head Moderator
Head Moderator
 
Posts: 2608
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2002 8:39 am
Location: Texas!


Return to Twilight Zone

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron