A Lack of Justice

[a_unique_person]

David Hicks may be as guilty as hell. However, I don't have even the vaguest sense of justice being seen to be done. An interrogator has appeared on 60 minutes to tell the world, without a hint of natural justice or a chance to defend himself, Hicks was up to all sorts of hijinks with Al Queda.

This may all be true, but since when has justice been dispensed via anonymous interviews on TV? Even Judge Judy gives you a chance to put your point of view, and she sticks to the strictly trivial.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/15/1081998299892.html?from=storyrhs

Justice is as a much a process as anything else. It is pretty fragile as it is in the normal world. This process is a show trial, and nothing less.

[Reginald]

This may all be true, but since when has justice been dispensed via anonymous interviews on TV?

It seemed a perfectly reasonable route earlier this week when a British officer did the same when talking about the US troops and strategy in Iraq.

Why the change of heart?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Reginald


It seemed a perfectly reasonable route earlier this week when a British officer did the same when talking about the US troops and strategy in Iraq.

Why the change of heart?

We are talking about an individual who may get the death penalty. That is, the justice system. Observations on a group are a different matter, IMHO.

[Skeptic]

Observations on a group are a different matter, IMHO.

Of course. As we all know unsubstantiated accusations are fine as long as they blame a group and not an individual. For example:

WRONG: "Sgt. X killed Mr. Ali for no reason".

RIGHT: "The Americans are nazis!"

WRONG: "David killed Hussein for no reason."

RIGHT: "The jews are evil!"

etc.

[Reginald]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Observations on a group are a different matter, IMHO.

Of course. As we all know unsubstantiated accusations are fine as long as they blame a group and not an individual. For example:

WRONG: "Sgt. X killed Mr. Ali for no reason".

RIGHT: "The Americans are nazis!"

WRONG: "David killed Hussein for no reason."

RIGHT: "The jews are evil!"

etc.

It's a little more subtle than that.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Observations on a group are a different matter, IMHO.

Of course. As we all know unsubstantiated accusations are fine as long as they blame a group and not an individual. For example:

WRONG: "Sgt. X killed Mr. Ali for no reason".

RIGHT: "The Americans are nazis!"

WRONG: "David killed Hussein for no reason."

RIGHT: "The jews are evil!"

etc.

I am not a court of law passing sentence. I am an individual with a personal opinion. It is called 'free speech', ditto the officer that was quoted.

This person on sixy minutes was an interrogator, part of the process to pass legal judgement on an accused. It is every bit as bad as justice under stalin.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I am not a court of law passing sentence. I am an individual with a personal opinion. It is called 'free speech', ditto the officer that was quoted.

This person on sixy minutes was an interrogator, part of the process to pass legal judgement on an accused. It is every bit as bad as justice under stalin. ????

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion but you haven't made a case for a miscarriage of justice. Furthermore your last sentence is not supported in any way. It is a claim however. I'm reasonably confident that I could show it wrong but I would like you to support your position.

A link to an article and a statement do not constitute an argument.

Could you state the premises to support your proposition "It is every bit as bad as justice under Stalin? Bear in mind that Stalin could simply have someone taken out and shot. If a defendant was lucky enough and given a trial, his attorneys could be taken out and shot. Furthermore should a judge rule in favor of a defendant, the Judge, lawyers (prosecuting and defending) along with the defendant could still be taken out and shot.

So I think you have a tough row to hoe but I would like to see you try.

[Skeptic]

I am not a court of law passing sentence. I am an individual with a personal opinion. It is called 'free speech', ditto the officer that was quoted.

Of course it is. But the question is, what basis do you have for the opinion? That you have the RIGHT to make unsubtantiated, disparaging remarks about groups hardly means you should, don't you think?

This person on sixy minutes was an interrogator, part of the process to pass legal judgement on an accused. It is every bit as bad as justice under stalin.

Yes, the media circus that goes on at "big" trials in the USA is EVERY BIT AS BAD as justice under Stalin, where those declared by him "enemies of the people" simply disappeared, usually together with their families.

Same thing, 'fer sure.

You just have NO IDEA what life under Stalin was like, do you? If you did, you wouldn't be making such boneheaded comments.