Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Souss That is very weak argumentation. To make a comparison, you deal with teenagers almost on a daily basis, as you state elsewhere on the forum. I don't see any evidence that you are a child rapist. Of course that does not prove that you are not a child rapist. It only proves I lack access to the pieces of data that incriminate you as a child rapist, if they do exist. |
Even though political influence on politically initiated processes are, to a normal observer, more logically tied to one another than associating child rape to generally dealing with teenagers (parents, doctors, teachers, ice-cream sellers etc..), you are still absolutely correct. Of course, unless you yourself are one of those teenagers involved in daily interactions with me, you wouldn’t know for sure. The same way lack of access to data on your jins does not prove that you are not a fagg0t or lesbian.. model 3atil.
Also with this, not so very intelligent, attempt at making a valid comparison, you proved the more my point: You lacking access to evidence, if they do exist, does not prove that they do not exist, but only that you don’t know they exist.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Souss The burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the tribunal is bogus. Simple presumption of innocence principle. |
Is gravity bogus? Certainly not, you can prove it exists, through indirect observation of its effect on objects all around you. The same can safely be deduced in regard to the US influence. When you don’t have effective tools to wire-tap or video record each and every conversation and encounter that took or takes place between US, French or British officials and UN folks, you are left with
indirect observations. Those are the sum of a more than a thousand current, as well as past, events that demonstrate without a grain of doubt that the US does indeed exercise political influence on and interference in politically conditioned procedures and mechanisms that take place on the international arena, including tribunals. Heck, it is a fact the americans tampered with another political process, the so called WMD evidence, presented to the UN when asking for its support to invade Iraq. Or when,
back in 1999, major papers ran front-page investigative stories revealing that the CIA had covertly used U.N. weapons inspectors to spy on Iraq for the U.S.'s own intelligence purposes.
So, sure,
presumption of innocence principle is one principle that respectable courts of law, that strictly serve at the domain of justice, have to always rely on. Such principle can be easily maintained and also monitored through the simple tool i mentioned in my previous reply :
Transparency, on all levels. Rarely the case with politics, politically generated events, or when politically initiated processes like tribunals are usually set up, and neither in political analysis thereof.
I give you an example on why you don’t usually apply the “innocent until proven guilty” principle 3al 3imyene and everywhere outside courts of justice, including in politics: Tell me, Is Joumblat’s blood-guilt bogus? Have your, or others’ eyes, seen him kill people with own hands? Or heard him order genocide? Is he, or is he not, still largely perceived as a mass killer and not so “innocent until proven guilty”, by you, and the majority of those who did directly experience his influence on the course of their mass killing and cleansing?