Khashoggi

[firstfloor]

Knowledge of guilt by whom? The actor? His legal representative? The constabulary? And there's the fact that a man can look awfully guilty, and in fact be innocent.



Absolutely wrong. It just means that a person APPEARS to have performed some action that MAY BE a criminal offense. It is PROBABLE CAUSE, not ABSOLUTLEY CAUSED.



Ya finally got something right, with regard to conviction.



Wow - I'm sure glad you're not a judge! Many times the "foundation" for the accusation has been found to be false, or supposed, or imagined, or even "planted".



And, again, THAT part is true.



That part actually made me laugh.

I suspect that you are missing the difference between the well defined infringement by a person of a well defined law which means that the person is guilty by definition, and the verdict of a jury. Do you agree?

[Cow Poke]

I suspect that you are missing the difference between the well defined infringement by a person of a well defined law which means that the person is guilty by definition, and the verdict of a jury. Do you agree?

I'm not missing anything at all. I think you're playing with words.

It's entirely possible that somebody can be guilty of something, and nobody else knows that. There can be a suspicion, or even a conviction (not in the legal sense) that the person is guilty, but we can't always know that short of a video tape and/or a confession.

On the other hand, you can be absolutely totally convinced that a person can be guilty of something, and even "find him guilty" in a trial, and the person actually be innocent.

Here is what you said...

You will hear it said that he is innocent until proven guilty

He is, of necessity.

but if that person is actually guilty then it is not true that he is innocent unless proven otherwise.

It's not always knowable that he's guilty.

What is really meant is that during a trial, the burden of proof in on the prosecution and not on the accused to prove his innocence. There is no presumption of innocence before a trial because no one then would be indicted.

This last part is what is problematic -- just because somebody is accused, indicted and arrested of something does not mean they are guilty. THAT is the reason for the presumption of innocence.

Even AFTER a court finds him guilty, it's entirely possible he wasn't guilty at all.

[Cow Poke]

ff, why don't you try rewording what you're trying to say, cause we're probably talking past each other.

Start from scratch, please?

[oxmixmudd]

ff, why don't you try rewording what you're trying to say, cause we're probably talking past each other.

Start from scratch, please?

Oddly enough, on the topic of the OP, we have the CIA saying that the evidence is overwhelming the Saudi Crown prince was involved in the killing of Khashoggi, and the President, once again, trying to cast doubt on that fact for what appear most likely to be personal issues.

Are the voices of Trump on this site defending Trump again in this, or does the slaughter and dismemberment of a US green card holder at the orders of the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia and Trump trying to cover it up finally rise to level of immorality and indecency that can no longer be supported?


Jim

[MaxVel]

Oddly enough, on the topic of the OP, we have the CIA saying that the evidence is overwhelming the Saudi Crown prince was involved in the killing of Khashoggi, and the President, once again, trying to cast doubt on that fact for what appear most likely to be personal issues.

Are the voices of Trump on this site defending Trump again in this, or does the slaughter and dismemberment of a US green card holder at the orders of the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia and Trump trying to cover it up finally rise to level of immorality and indecency that can no longer be supported?


Jim

If a particular level of immorality and indecency means we should stop supporting a person or organisation, then you'd agree that everyone should stop supporting the existence of most countries, organisations, and just about everything else there is. Right?



You're (again) assuming that others have to base their evaluation of the morality of something or someone on points that are still in dispute. Since others may not agree with you on some of those points (rightly or wrongly), their evaluation will be different than yours. That doesn't make them morally evil. So you're jumping ahead in the debate by assuming points still in contention and then condemning people for not agreeing with your conclusions from those disputed points.



Examples from this post: Some people may not believe or trust the CIA on this. Some may not feel that Trump is 'casting doubt for personal reasons'. Some may think that Trump is not 'trying to cover it up.' Disagreement with your view of either or both of those points is going to change their evaluation of the morality of the situation.


People who do not accept your views on these points are drawing their moral conclusions from a different data set than you. Of course their conclusions will differ. That doesn't make them evil, or even wrong. It's only if they agree with you on the data, AND draw a different conclusion that you have the beginnings of a case.

[Tassman]

Still, 70% claiming to be religious is nothing close to being "irrelevant" as you claimed.

52% claim to be Christian but the reality of this is belied by the virtually empty churches...to the extent of hundreds of churches being sold off for other purposes (as linked to previously). OTOH over 31% claim "no religion" and "Those reporting no religion increased noticeably from 19% in 2006 to 30% in 2016. The largest change was between 2011 (22%) and 2016, when an additional 2.2 million people reported having no religion".

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]

[Cow Poke]

Oddly enough, on the topic of the OP, we have the CIA saying that the evidence is overwhelming the Saudi Crown prince was involved in the killing of Khashoggi, and the President, once again, trying to cast doubt on that fact for what appear most likely to be personal issues.

Are the voices of Trump on this site defending Trump again in this, or does the slaughter and dismemberment of a US green card holder at the orders of the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia and Trump trying to cover it up finally rise to level of immorality and indecency that can no longer be supported?


Jim

Jim, please don't respond to my posts as a way of launching into a "Are the voices of Trump" rant.

This has a tendency to imply that I'm one of those voices, and I really don't appreciate that.

I have not voiced any support for Trump over this issue, and this whole thing concerns me quite a bit.

Thanks

[Cow Poke]

52% claim to be Christian....

.... but only Tassman knows their hearts.

[oxmixmudd]

Jim, please don't respond to my posts as a way of launching into a "Are the voices of Trump" rant.

This has a tendency to imply that I'm one of those voices, and I really don't appreciate that.

I have not voiced any support for Trump over this issue, and this whole thing concerns me quite a bit.

Thanks

Your post was just the post in the sequence of posts not on the current developments on the Khashoggi case that I chose to try to steer the conversation back to what is happening with the Khashoggi case.

CP, please try to understand that TWEB is a mostly hostile environment for me at this point. I am not always able to make sure that everything I say does not display a reaction to that. That said, I will attempt to maintain a policy of excluding you from accidentally being included in that reaction if I can. My 'voices of trump' was indeed sarcasm - but my goal in saying that is to see if there is a conscience out there. I am very hopeful this way Trump is handling the Khashoggi murder is too much - a bridge to far. I am very happy to see it appears to be just that for you. Indeed, consider that Trump today or yesterday has explained in more or less direct terms that he is willing to overlook this murder because the Saudi's have pledged to spend Billions of dollars in the US. And that will help our economy.

Which makes an explicit statement to the world that if an autocracy wants to keep the US out of their business, off the human rights train, we can be bought.Toss us some cash, and our leader will defend you and look the other way, even if you kill a US resident.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

If a particular level of immorality and indecency means we should stop supporting a person or organisation, then you'd agree that everyone should stop supporting the existence of most countries, organisations, and just about everything else there is. Right?

No. That is ridiculous. There are lines that when crossed require action. You can't nit pic, but then again this is not nit picking! And we do not have to lobby for the destruction of Saudi Arabia. We just can't be looking the other way and sending the message there will be no consequences for such actions if you give us enough money.

You're (again) assuming that others have to base their evaluation of the morality of something or someone on points that are still in dispute. Since others may not agree with you on some of those points (rightly or wrongly), their evaluation will be different than yours. That doesn't make them morally evil. So you're jumping ahead in the debate by assuming points still in contention and then condemning people for not agreeing with your conclusions from those disputed points.

There is little dispute here. There is a tape of the torture and execution which Trump refused to listen to and which apparently implicates the Crown Prince directly.

Examples from this post: Some people may not believe or trust the CIA on this. Some may not feel that Trump is 'casting doubt for personal reasons'. Some may think that Trump is not 'trying to cover it up.' Disagreement with your view of either or both of those points is going to change their evaluation of the morality of the situation.

That is Trumps go to place. He casts doubt on our law enforcement, our intelligence organizations, our press, anything that would offer information or conclusions contrary to what he wants to hear. And his base is with him. Even at this level if depravity.

People who do not accept your views on these points are drawing their moral conclusions from a different data set than you. Of course their conclusions will differ. That doesn't make them evil, or even wrong. It's only if they agree with you on the data, AND draw a different conclusion that you have the beginnings of a case.

The CIA has concluded there is no doubt the execution was carried out at the direct orders of the Crown Prince. It was brutal and inhumane. Turkey has concluded the same thing. There isn't really any reason for anyone like you or me to have any doubt here, and there is especially no reason for the POTUS to try to cast doubt - he has direct access to all the classified information that produced the CIA and Turkish government's conclusions. IF there was any substantive reason for doubt, he of all people could make that case, but he has not.

The only reason I can see to doubt the CIA and others on this is fealty to Trump. He doesn't want to deal with this, so his followers will oblige him.

Jim

[Sparko]

52% claim to be Christian but the reality of this is belied by the virtually empty churches...to the extent of hundreds of churches being sold off for other purposes (as linked to previously). OTOH over 31% claim "no religion" and "Those reporting no religion increased noticeably from 19% in 2006 to 30% in 2016. The largest change was between 2011 (22%) and 2016, when an additional 2.2 million people reported having no religion".

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]

Which is bigger Tassman? 70% or 30%?

[firstfloor]

ff, why don't you try rewording what you're trying to say, cause we're probably talking past each other.

Start from scratch, please?

Trump and others have used the ‘presumption of innocence’ or ‘lock her up’ to help their friends and demonise their enemies. All I am saying is that the presumption of innocence amounts to the requirement for a prosecutor in a trial to prove his case to a certain level.

It is never appropriate to use that term other than in a trial.

Examples of incorrect usage:

Trump also spoke about the presumption of innocence a couple of weeks before Kavanaugh's nomination was approved, saying, "Always I heard you are innocent until proven guilty. I have heard this for so long, and it is such a beautiful phrase."

Trump likened the situation with Kavanaugh to the allegations against Saudi Arabia during an interview with The Associated Press.

"You know, here we go again with, you know, 'you’re guilty until proven innocent,'" the president said of claims that Saudis were involved in Khashoggi's disappearance. "I don’t like that. We just went through that with Justice Kavanaugh. And he was innocent all the way."

What Dan Abrams says about it:

"He is cherry-picking legal standards to benefit a particular political argument that he wants to make, so trying to establish a Trump legal doctrine based on his varying statements about political figures would be quite difficult," said ABC News chief legal analyst Dan Abrams.

"Innocent until proven guilty and proof beyond a reasonable doubt are two criminal law standards, together which recognize the power of the government to take away someone's freedom," Abrams said.

Abrams added that the concepts are standards in criminal law but do not always apply outside of the justice system, such as in decisions by employers and educational institutions.

"We too often throw around the phrase 'innocent until proven guilty' and 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' as if it's un-American to not apply those standards in everyday life, and yet that's simply not the case," Abrams said.

[NorrinRadd]

No. That is ridiculous. There are lines that when crossed require action. You can't nit pic, but then again this is not nit picking! And we do not have to lobby for the destruction of Saudi Arabia. We just can't be looking the other way and sending the message there will be no consequences for such actions if you give us enough money.




There is little dispute here. There is a tape of the torture and execution which Trump refused to listen to and which apparently implicates the Crown Prince directly.

I thought Trump's advisors recommended he not listen to it. In essence, it was full of noise and horror, not information.

That is Trumps go to place. He casts doubt on our law enforcement, our intelligence organizations, our press, anything that would offer information or conclusions contrary to what he wants to hear. And his base is with him. Even at this level if depravity.

I think most conservatives are too quick to trust law enforcement and intel orgs, and most liberals are too quick to trust media.

The CIA has concluded there is no doubt the execution was carried out at the direct orders of the Crown Prince. It was brutal and inhumane. Turkey has concluded the same thing. There isn't really any reason for anyone like you or me to have any doubt here, and there is especially no reason for the POTUS to try to cast doubt - he has direct access to all the classified information that produced the CIA and Turkish government's conclusions. IF there was any substantive reason for doubt, he of all people could make that case, but he has not.

The only reason I can see to doubt the CIA and others on this is fealty to Trump. He doesn't want to deal with this, so his followers will oblige him.

I sort of trust the CIA. I don't trust Turkey.

I think MBS probably was involved. I did not like a lot of Trump's rambling statement. I also did not like the way critical pundits caricatured it.

This really is not as simple as "The prince did very bad things, so we should dump SA." Saddam Hussein was probably much worse than MBS, but we supported Iraq ca. 40 years ago because we considered Iran even worse. Then we turned around and deposed him ca. 15 years ago, and the results have been less than stellar.

[rogue06]

Anyone else find it interesting how the MSM didn't seem to care very much when Iran was killing journalists and bloggers like Omid Reza Mir Sayafi and Sattar Beheshti and Obama was playing kissy face with the mullahs in Iran sending them pallets of cash? It makes one wonder what changed.

[MaxVel]

No. That is ridiculous. There are lines that when crossed require action. You can't nit pic, but then again this is not nit picking! And we do not have to lobby for the destruction of Saudi Arabia. We just can't be looking the other way and sending the message there will be no consequences for such actions if you give us enough money.

Why not in this particular case? America has done the like many, many times before, under all sorts of Presidents. Why - apart from your dislike for Trump - is this case objectively worse than all the others?

There is little dispute here. There is a tape of the torture and execution which Trump refused to listen to and which apparently implicates the Crown Prince directly.




That is Trumps go to place. He casts doubt on our law enforcement, our intelligence organizations, our press, anything that would offer information or conclusions contrary to what he wants to hear. And his base is with him. Even at this level if depravity.



The CIA has concluded there is no doubt the execution was carried out at the direct orders of the Crown Prince. It was brutal and inhumane. Turkey has concluded the same thing. There isn't really any reason for anyone like you or me to have any doubt here, and there is especially no reason for the POTUS to try to cast doubt - he has direct access to all the classified information that produced the CIA and Turkish government's conclusions. IF there was any substantive reason for doubt, he of all people could make that case, but he has not.

The only reason I can see to doubt the CIA and others on this is fealty to Trump. He doesn't want to deal with this, so his followers will oblige him.

Jim

My point has gone over your head, it seems. Until you have secured agreement on the facts of a matter, you can't reasonably conclude that someone's view of the morality of the case is wrong, much less evil. If they have a different set of data from you, their conclusion will be different. They may be wrong (because they accept different data points that they should or shouldn't) but that doesn't therefore make them morally evil.


Imagine two scientists analysing a set of data to draw a conclusion about the number of people who X.

Here's the data set: A: 20 B: 12 C: 15 D: 20 E: 10

Scientist Oxmix includes A-E in his analysis, and comes up with a total of 77
Scientist OBP rejects B as a valid data point, so his total is 65

What can be concluded? Is Scientist OBP bad at maths? (No) Is he a bad scientist? (No, unless he objectively should include B in the data set)

If Scientist oxmix accuses OBP of 'bad science' or 'being a bad mathematician' is he correct? (No). Is doing that addressing the actual root of the difference in their conclusions? (No)


I submit that you tend to focus on your conclusion, which derives from the data points that you accept, and accuse others of being immoral when the difference is not their moral values or judgments, but the data points they and you accept to derive those judgments from.