� ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gregory Reinhardt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 5:24 PM Subject: [Mpls] Mpls Somali activist found guilty of immigration fraud
> Situational truthfulness? I'm just a simple civil servant; but if I lie I > could and should lose my job. JSK - you are right. however, you have colleagues (ie Minneapolis police officers) who often lie and do not lose their jobs, much less face criminal prosecution. (See book by Mike Quinn). The reason comes down to power. The criminal laws are generally used against the least powerful. > When it comes to values, where is the line in the sand drawn? Or does it >shift with this or that advocacy or political inclination? JSK - You hvae asked an abstract question and rhetorical question. An underlying point of my previous post was that values are already enforced through the criminal "justice" system based on political considerations. It is not a question of suggesting that values should be upheld based on political inclination, but a reality that this is what is happending. Those in power are already usually immune from enforcement of values whereas those whom the government seeks to suppress or oppress are quickly subject to enforcement of law, generally in order to keep the power relationships the same. When considering when values should be upheld, is it not more reasonable based the decision on which violations do more damage? The violation of values and laws by those in power might have a far more devastating effect. This was the purpose for contrasting between Omar Jamal who allegedly made false statements to stay in the U.S. vs. George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzalez and company whose lies and promotion of other crimes cause the deaths of thousands of people. Why go after a person who steals a loaf of bread to feed his family when someone else is stealing billions? > To generalize the misdeeds of others, shroud the jury with a cloak of blame, > and imply that justice has tainted because of the inherent "original sin" of > a government is an over simplification. I don't know where you read anyone shrouding the jury with a cloak of blame. there was no mention of the jury. However, why is it an oversimplification to suggest that justice is tainted by the unjust actions of the government responsible for enforcing justice? The oversimplification is to ignore this. > What evidence exists that the jury, >judge or prosecutor acted improper? there was no suggestion. It is not the individuals but the system. There could be an impropriety on some level with those responsible for enforcing the law refusing to acknowledge the actual role that they are performing in furtherance of more powerful interest. >One may not results of the trial but to decry the whole judicial system >(because someone or everyone else is an evil doer) is throwing the baby out > with the bath water. There was not any decrying of the whole judicial system because someone else is an evil doer This is a complete distortion of my previous post. Jordan S. Kushner Golden Valley REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
