The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most ISP NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: Vince Brannigan
Subject: Re: [NEWS]: Probe: U.S. Knew of Jet Terror Plots
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 10:42:10 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 06:42:10 EDT
"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
> Vince Brannigan wrote:
> :> It is this latter position with which I disagree. Facts are facts.
> :> The only place reality actually changes when you look at it is at the
> :> quantum level.
> :guilt is not a fact. it is an analytical conclusion
> No, DETERMINATION of guild is an analytical conclusion. Guilt is a
Guilt is not a fact. It is an operative declaration about a state of facts. Law
is not a science. it does not establish "universal facts" but only operative
facts. Therefore legal facts only have value within the legal system Its
like the difference between what happened in a battle and "who won" Declaring
the winner of a battle is an operative declaration. It depends on the set of
rules you have for determining winners.
> :A crime is not a fact, it is an analytical conclusion.
> No, CONVICTION for a crime is an analytical conclusion. The crime
> itself is a fact.
no the event is a fact. whether the event is a crime is the output of an
analytical process. When Hinckley shot Reagan while mentally ill did a crime
occur? When did we know?
> :that person A pulled trigger B and a bullet hit person c is a fact, but in
> :and of itself tells you nothing as to whether its a crime.
> And the other facts that determine whether or not it is a crime do not
> change based on what is or is not brought out in court.
This is why your Schroedinger's cat example is so good. the "other facts" do
not exist until we open the box and decide what they are.
> :there are an infinite numer of permutaitons that might make it a crime or
> Yes, there are, and none of them change from what actually happened no
> matter what happens in court.
But we do not knwo if its a crime until we go throught the process.
> You want to argue that what happens in court is the 'real' world.
> I want to argue that the world is the 'real' world.
Teh court is not REal.. it si an aritifical process for determining operative
legal facts. that is all.
> Sanity is generally defined at least in part as recognizing the real
> world vice artificially constructed realities. One of us does not
> appear to be sane, under this definition. That one would appear to be
personal abuse noted and ignored.
Whtis the effectof a presidential pardon ?
A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence and the guilt of
the offender; and when the pardon is full, it releases the punishment and blots
out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as
innocent as if he had never committed the offence. If granted before
conviction, it prevents . . . the penalties and disabilities consequent upon
conviction from attaching; if granted after conviction, it removes the
penalties and disabilities, and restores him to all his civil rights; it makes
him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity. Ex
"The disability to testify being a consequence, according to the principles of
the common law, of the judgment of conviction, the pardon obliterated that
effect." Boyd v. United States, 142 U.S. 450 (1892)
Now clearly a Prsident cannot change ahistoricla fact, and if teh issue is
whether a historical fact ocurred, a pardon ahs no effect. But the president
can just as clearly declare that no crime was committed. by the person. It does
not chage what the perosn did, it does change whehter what they did was a
crime. So the criminality of the act is nto an immutable fact, but a conclusion
of the legal system
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of