>There is something odd about some of this discussion. It's as if
>many people believe that Saddam's trial isn't "just" if American
>officials aren't indicted along with him.
It is an odd application of the word "just" to be sanguine about some being permitted to commit barbaric crimes while others are punished for identical acts. There's nothing odd about the notion that "justice" is only "just" where it is impartially applied.
> That's kind of a high standard for justice, given the likelihood of
>the indictments coming through.
Equality under the law is too high a standard for you now? You really have to re-think your position then. The alternative is discrimination, it is not in any sense justice, so I would appreciate it if you cease using the word "justice" to describe discriminatory treatment.
> It'd be interesting to see how far one might go with punishing
>Saddam's benefactors. We talk about dragging U.S. officials into the
>dock... but haven't other countries supplied him with weapons,
>chemicals, and other support? What about them?
>
>>Justice has to be impartial. This clearly isn't, it is a highly
>>selective application of criminal sanctions. There can be no
>>satisfaction or security for anyone in that.
>
>Justice is never perfect.
Perfection isn't the issue either. Justice must at least aim for impartiality though.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas