inverted justice

[TerraFrost]

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.

[Nyufrost]

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.

[TerraFrost]

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?

[Nyufrost]

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.

[Javafrost]

"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.

[Nuxius]

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 ).