Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: skinowski who wrote (90592)	4/6/2003 7:45:08 AM
From: maceng2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

like the Supreme Court You for forgot to mention OJ Simpson. MW always mentions him as if no other horrific murders occurred in the USA. They tried to nail that guy three times in the face of overwhelming evidence of police corruption. Subsequent enquiries have shown other likely suspects. His son for one. The fact is.. OJ probably didn't do it. He is just the wrong color and famous to boot. It's an outstanding case where the integrity of the USA justice system has been seen to work as it's supposed too (imho -g-) pb.

To: skinowski who wrote (90592)	4/6/2003 2:15:23 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Skinowski, when victims see the uniform of the attacker, you might think the attacker isn't representing the uniform, but that's not how the victim sees it. Perhaps a court of law wouldn't see the mukkity mucks as guilty either, [such as the hand grenade attacker in Kuwait who was obviously not operating on his commander's instructions]. But the court of public opinion is higher than the courts of law and the public generally see the uniform first and as in the low reputation of the Los Angeles Police some time ago if not now, they blame the individuals on the uniform. Especially when there is a consistent pattern. Saddam is not guilty of crimes or attacks perpetrated by coalition forces. The coalition is operating totally on their own free will. Attempting to blame Saddam for their decisions is dishonest or stupid. That's the old "You are making me do this because you've made me so angry" argument as the husband smashes his wife's skull in with a brick. Even under some provocation, courts don't usually let them get away with that line. It's an issue of free will. People are not Mindless Zombies. They just try to get away with that line when it lets them off and they can avoid responsibility for their own decisions and actions. < She gave you a basic Common Law theory about how guilt gets assigned. You dismissed that theory - on the grounds, it seems, that it was created by men - like the Supreme Court and such. > I don't know where you got that bit. Especially the part about men doing the inventing of common law. I was laughing at the Supreme Court and legal stuff in general. I am aware that the Supreme Court has got some excellent gender. Maybe you meant men in the people sense rather than the gender sense. Legal systems are fraught with logical stupidity not to mention being absurd in many ways and more involved with repression and confiscation than protection of property and people. Mqurice