Subject:
|
Re: Justice for all.....
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:23:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1641 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Don Heyse wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Don Heyse wrote:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva wrote:
> > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Don Heyse wrote:
> > > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva wrote:
> > > > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Don Heyse wrote:
> > > > > > > Does it really matter who or what money?
> > > > > > Yes. And "to what end" as well, don't leave that one out.
> > > > I stress again that I find this relevant.
> > > Yes, but I don't, so I can't really add much here. Perhaps if you tell
> > > us *why* you find it so relevent I might be able to reply to that.
> > Ok.
> > I find it relevant because *you* brought it up, and have not
> > ellaborated what you meant. It's very easy to leave vague suspicion
> > in the air, so what I'm asking you is to be blunt and say whom, in
> > this regard, bribes/is bribed and *to do what*. Names and purposes -
> > otherwise your accusation remains void.
> >
> > In other words, "to bribe" is a transitive verb, isn't it?
>
> Actually I think Scott brought it up and the answers you seek are
> in the article he provided earlier in this thread:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3035296.stm
>
> which for some reason you mysteriously deleted in this post:
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=23015
>
> If you so desire, you can reprint the entire BBC article here.
> That should be blunt enough, I think.
Let me get this straight, then: the article only mentions "pressure" by the USA,
when trying to make sure others *EXEMPT* US citizens from prosecution in ICC. In
essence, are you accusing your own country of covertly "bribing" those who grant
it immunity? It's a long rhetorical jump, IMHO, but it can be right.
Somehow, I feel this was *not* what you had in mind when you first launched
charges of bribery. That was why I asked "whom is bribed, who bribes, and to
what end". If my interpretation witten in the above paragraph is correct, then I
must have misread your earlier statements and I therefore apologize - is this
the case?
> > > > > Here's a little experiment you can try at home. Get yourself a
> > > > > traffic ticket and then go to court to try and fight it. Take note
> > > > > of whether or not burden of proof ever enters into the picture.
> > > >
> > > > The burden of proof enters the picture, yes. It is on your side if you
> > > > choose to contest the fine. For instance, last year there was a lady
> > > > here who was fined for speeding at 800+ kph. She just took the photo
> > > > to court and the case was dismissed.
> > > Give me an example where the charges aren't obviously ridiculous to
> > > the average court system bureaucrat.
> > There isn't such a thing. The whole concept of proof is based in
> > reducing the other party's arguments ad absurdio... or as close as
> > possible to allow for reasonable doubt, if things prove too complicated.
>
> I don't follow that at all, but no matter, I already gave up. You're
> completely right. Moral superiority is yours. You win.
At least we agree sarcasm is fun... :-)
Merry Christmas.
Pedro
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Justice for all.....
|
| (...) Actually I think Scott brought it up and the answers you seek are in the article he provided earlier in this thread: (URL) for some reason you mysteriously deleted in this post: (URL) you so desire, you can reprint the entire BBC article here. (...) (21 years ago, 23-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
52 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
