h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I wasn't going to go see that movie...but sense you have brought it's been brought up on the thread so much I think I had better head over to AMC 25 after work (and becides that will be some more points for my movie watchers card )

I think there is a mixture of diffent feelings among Americans in General...I can only say what I think for sure (and sometimes I am a little unsure about that) yes the WTC attacks are direct consequnces from the US meddling in forgin afairs in the last century but I also know of some good that's come from US meddling in forgin affairs in the last century and some of them are also directly realated to the WTC attacks

also I don't belive all "terrorists are all crazy or religious zealots" but I do believe that purposly attacking civilian populations isn't a very nice thing....at least with the bombing of the Marine baraicks in Beruit (if your wondering the beruit memorial is in Jacksonville, NC where I grew up) and the USS Cole bombing were aimed at military targets...but to blow up a mall or cafe or bus station or a plane carrying not military supplies even but people mabye out for vacation somewhere...the Pentagon the white house a power station a radio station a phone switch that would seriously slow down comunication and control in a wartime situation understandable (not very nice but understandable)


()
"the some time cold and heartless"

Going back to an old, slightly off topic now, post of Zagreb's (I've been away for a bit):

""You can't see ANYTHING wrong with getting rid of it? Do you know why it was there (and still is for the moment) in the first place?"

Double Jeapordy means that someone cannot be tried twice for the same crime. Correct?

So, if someone is put on trial for, say, murder and aquitted but (years later) evidence is uncovered that, yes, they did do it, they can't be placed on trial and so get away with it.

Sorry, but this strikes me as taking the p**s.

If you're worried about "stitch-up" jobs consider this: If the state wanted to stitch someone up, why not do it on the first trial. Also, if someone is wrongfully jailed they can appeal. With double jeapordy, there is no "appeal" against someone who could turn out the be a proven criminal."

The worry isn't stitch-up jobs but hounding, i.e. repeatedly taking someone to court for the same offense for the purpose of disrupting their lives. You can say that this would be prevented by requiring new evidence before a retrial, but there is no objective way of deciding what is or isn't relevant or significant new evidence. What is or isn't relevant becomes clear in the process of the trial, and by the time it gets to that point the defendant has already had their life disrupted (and it's probably costing them a lot too).

The second point is that if you are innocent and have been acquitted of a crime it isn't going to hang over your head for the rest of your life, ready to potentially ruin your life at any moment. Changing the double jeopardy rule would mean that EVERY innocent person acquitted of a crime would have it hanging over their head for the rest of their life.

It all depends which you think is more important: not harming the innocent, or punishing the guilty. Personally, I'm more concerned with first doing no wrong because it seems to me that wrongfully punishing an innocent person is infinitely worse and more unjust than not punishing a guilty person.

At the risk of getting more people angry with me.

The reason I made my statement was that I tried thinking about I would react. The first thought I had was anger. Bush and previous governments are playing with american lives. Politicians have protection, they are in less danger from the decisions they make than the average citizen.

Eg, (to be on topic) previous governments support Sadam and look what happens. The current government wants war. Do they know they are putting the lives of their own citizens at risk from reprisals? - yes. Do they care?

>>U.S hints Saddam may stay<<

This is as good a time as any to bring in the *best* book I've read for a while, 'The New Rulers of the World', in which John Pilger talks about Iraq (among other things) and the immorality of sanctions, also the fact that Saddam Insane, like Osama Bin Laden, was the U.S's creature in the first place!

No, I'll probably wait to see it on video or something. Michael Moore is funny, but it's no shock what he's going to say.

"The WTC attacks are a result of US government actions."

As was the bombing in bali,the blowing up of the french tanker,the russian theater and dozens of other terror acts around the world. It is all the americans fault. {lets not forget Nigeria it was most likely americans not muslim extremist that chopped up and shot 200 people because of a sentence in the local news paper}

Apparition you are so absorbed in your need to blame america for the worlds woes that you are unable to even consider any other .


Where would Sadam be now without US government help?

In excactly the same place he sits now. While the US did do buisness with him and it was a mistake that we have and will pay for he came to power through his own cunning and murderous ways.

I liked the movie Mike Moore did on the car industry and what there closing of some of their factorys did to people in the surrounding suburbs of detroit. However he does tend to go overboard and take it to the extreme. Have not seen the most recent but would not shell out $9. Will wait for the dvd release at block buster.

"Apparition you are so absorbed in your need to blame america for the worlds woes that you are unable to even consider any other . "

Starbirth - you either did *not* read my two posts or this is your usual derision of anything I post. Your ranting is nonsense and tries to claim I said the opposite of what I did.

It's obvious that subcom read my post.

apparition why do you get so angry when I disagree with you? Would it make for more interesting conversation if I just insert *Your 100% right * after everyone of your posts?

....Not really ...if u ask me..



TD....

.......Still having fun

http://www.cowhosting.com/upload/bushandclippy.jpeg

Is this what you do at work all day?

Mark Thomas for Prime Minister, George Monbiot for Foreign Secretary;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,847656,00.html

hear hear!

blues shark not only speaks a good deal of sense but also highlights, for me, the most interesting articles and links within his arguments.

blues shark for Chancellor (a.k.a. PM in waiting)

oh, and i have posted the bush/clippy cartoon to many friends - thanx to apparition...

You're too kind.

I was went on a tour of the UN recently and it was said when we went into the main council chamber that the UN couldn't make I don't think she used the word laws but she said something along the lines that the UN could only make sugestions in how to deal with things....does anyone know what if anything she ment by this?...I didn't think to ask further at the time and I don't think I wanna go through the tour again so soon just to ask


()

"The worry isn't stitch-up jobs but hounding, i.e. repeatedly taking someone to court for the same offense for the purpose of disrupting their lives. You can say that this would be prevented by requiring new evidence before a retrial, but there is no objective way of deciding what is or isn't relevant or significant new evidence. What is or isn't relevant becomes clear in the process of the trial, and by the time it gets to that point the defendant has already had their life disrupted (and it's probably costing them a lot too)."

If someone is "hounding" someone then the law should be changed (again) to deal with this. Introduce a judges disretion whereby he decides that a defendant has *definitely* proved his or her innocence to prevent either the State or a bitter and twisted person from hounding someone. Double Jeapoary as it stands is the polar opposite of this, allowing someone to escape a crime if the evidence wasn't available on the day.


"The second point is that if you are innocent and have been acquitted of a crime it isn't going to hang over your head for the rest of your life, ready to potentially ruin your life at any moment. Changing the double jeopardy rule would mean that EVERY innocent person acquitted of a crime would have it hanging over their head for the rest of their life."

This already happens. Look at Colin Stagg. This is a completely irrelevant point as regards Double Jeapoardy.

"It all depends which you think is more important: not harming the innocent, or punishing the guilty. Personally, I'm more concerned with first doing no wrong because it seems to me that wrongfully punishing an innocent person is infinitely worse and more unjust than not punishing a guilty person."

Ah, this one. The liberal version of the authoritarians "If it saves just *one* life.....". This is a nonsense argument. An innocent person wrongly convicted can still appeal. A criminal who is later found guilty is let off scott-free. Try and imagine this in the context of a murder trial before resorting to this knee-jerk response. The law as it stands can let off a guilty person and that *must* be changed.

"Introduce a judges disretion whereby he decides that a defendant has *definitely* proved his or her innocence to prevent either the State or a bitter and twisted person from hounding someone."

If new evidence turns up that undermines the evidence that "proved" his innocence would you be able to cancel out his judgement of "definite innocence"? Whatever level of evidence was required to prove your "definite innocence", there will be innocent people who can't meet the requirement. In fact, assuming you want to make it very unlikely that a guilty person could prove their "definite innocence" then probably few people could prove their "definite innocence" of most crimes.

I'm not sure what the relevance of the Colin Stagg example is to what I said.

"Try and imagine this in the context of a murder trial before resorting to this knee-jerk response."

Any estimates of how many murderers murder again? I would guess not that many, but I don't know. Your emphasis on this point suggests that you think the primary purpose of imprisoning a murderer is to stop them doing it again. Again, my guess is that this is important in a small minority of cases.

"The law as it stands can let off a guilty person and that *must* be changed."

Why is this SO important? What is your conception of justice that makes this paramount?

"If new evidence turns up that undermines the evidence that "proved" his innocence would you be able to cancel out his judgement of "definite innocence"? Whatever level of evidence was required to prove your "definite innocence", there will be innocent people who can't meet the requirement. In fact, assuming you want to make it very unlikely that a guilty person could prove their "definite innocence" then probably few people could prove their "definite innocence" of most crimes."

I meant when it was clear someone was "hounding" someone, there should be a get-out clause. I wasn't sure what you meant to be honest. Anyway, surely to get a re-trial more evidence will be needed. If more evidence shows up, what is your problem?

"I'm not sure what the relevance of the Colin Stagg example is to what I said."

You said cancelling the law as it stands mean a defendant has the trial "hanging over their heads" for the rest of their life. Being put on trial already does stain a person's character, so this is irrelevant.

"Try and imagine this in the context of a murder trial before resorting to this knee-jerk response."

"Any estimates of how many murderers murder again? I would guess not that many, but I don't know. Your emphasis on this point suggests that you think the primary purpose of imprisoning a murderer is to stop them doing it again. Again, my guess is that this is important in a small minority of cases."

Murderers often do kill again, if they are involved in organised crime or are just pathologically violent. Even if they don't murder, they often do harm again. This also asks the question, what is the chance of a violent criminal re-offending if released after a short jail sentence? From what I know, high. My sympathy is with the victim not the perpetrator. If you believe this makes me "right-wing" , just remember that the left was very hard on violent goons and anti-social elements until the "liberals" got involved. You might also ask yourself why so many of the so-called "Left" side with the strong (perpetrators) against the weak (victims) when it comes to law and order. I know what I believe in.

"The law as it stands can let off a guilty person and that *must* be changed."

"Why is this SO important? What is your conception of justice that makes this paramount?"

What?! The purpose of justice is to protect the public and punish/rehabilitate the guilty. That means that someone who was wrongly released as innocent should be charged and tried again if *new evidence* shows up, otherwise we have the absurd situation of "yes, we eventually found a witness and a murder weapon with his fingerprints, but we can't try him because he's already been found innocent." I honest-to-god can't understand why you find this reasoning hard to accept except perhaps a bullish desire not to agree with "The Tories" or something.

"What?! The purpose of justice is to protect the public and punish/rehabilitate the guilty. That means that someone who was wrongly released as innocent should be charged and tried again if *new evidence* shows up, otherwise we have the absurd situation of "yes, we eventually found a witness and a murder weapon with his fingerprints, but we can't try him because he's already been found innocent." I honest-to-god can't understand why you find this reasoning hard to accept except perhaps a bullish desire not to agree with "The Tories" or something."


The old philosophy of preferring a guilty man to go free then an innocent man to be imprisoned should, IMHO, be *always* followed.

"...we eventually found a witness and a murder weapon with his fingerprints..."

If that is the case, then I suggest the police should have done their job correctly in the first place. By presenting such cruicial evidence so far after the fact indicates incompetence. The whole point of not being able to try someone more then once is to ensure the police have a case before they charge an individual. And thus:
1) Makes the "charge" itself more serious.
2) Does not overburden the legal system with "light-weight" evidence charges.