Invisible Fan pretty much answered the first part. In regards to Bush vs Saddam, they're just dangerous in different ways. The fact that Bush could go to war outside the framework of international law and without much regard to world opinion when the results could be so catostrophic is perceived to be pretty dangerous and irresponsible from someone as powerful as the President of the United States. I think Jordanians, Saudis, and Iranians fear Bush a *lot* more than they fear Saddam.
Saudis and Iranians have a lot to fear from the United States, seeing as how they are some of the biggest state sponsors of terrorism. I don't know that that makes Bush dangerous. Besides, Saddam violated the cease-fire agreement from the Gulf War. As such, we should be legally covered no matter what the UN or anyone else says.
I don't thing they should fear either, but fear of Bush is understandable considering the propoganda of most Arab nations against the United States. As any particular Saudi or Iranian could die were we to move against those countries, it is reasonable that they would fear the US more than Saddam (no one will need fear Saddam in a while), but I don't think the United States should be very frightening to anyone but terrorists and enemy soldiers.
I have said it in my earlier post. I was not saying that we should give power to police to violate the law. I said we should punish cops that act illegally. I am just arguing that focusing on the illegal act of the cop and letting the criminal walk is twisted justice.
1. How is Bush working "outside the framework of international law" other than enforcing a UN resolution without the support of the UN security council? 2. The danger you are talking about would only be real if Bush was a dictator like Saddam. The fact is, even if Bush can ignore the international opinion, he cannot ignore the congress. Unlike Saddam, Bush cannot pose any danger to anybody without the support of his own people.
Our society is based on guaranteed rights of every individual, and the principle to it is that if we cross the line, then it leaves the door open to cross it again and again. You also have to think that not every cop who does this will get caught, so if there wasn't this system in place, they'd do it again and again until they do get caught. If we put a criminal in jail for many years based on the trust a corrupt overzealous cop, then the cop isn't punished in the sense that he carried out what he planned to do and can twist that into a sense of martyrdom while his punishment is given to him. Whether or not any person thinks a criminal's life is worth less than a normal person's, the law doesn't because if there's reasonable doubt, then there's the possibility that the person on trial is innocent. Letting the criminal go is not rewarding the criminal, it is punishing the cop. We only have the cop's word that he didn't plant the evidence and that all the evidence found is really the evidence of the criminal and did not come from somewhere else. Breaking two laws doesn't make a right, and I don't think the cop's punishment would be as severe as the guy who was sent for 30 years. It does sicken me that bad men go free based on the incompetence of law enforcement to follow the letter of the law, but there good intentions that the law is designed the way it is.
Originally posted by Easy 1. How is Bush working "outside the framework of international law" other than enforcing a UN resolution without the support of the UN security council? Resolution 1441 doesn't call for military action but rather for serious consequences. The unanimous voters of that resolution obviously had different views on the meaning. Before the first Gulf War the UN Resolution allowed for all necessary means to eject Iraq from Kuwait, a far cry from what 1441 says. The US has taken an interpretation of international law that doesn't fit in with what the majority of the body who passed the law believes. In the drug analogy (not perfect obviously) it would be kind of like the Texas legislators passing a law that said dealers will be given stiff penalties without actually spelling it out and then the judges start handing out life sentences to drug dealers. It could be said, I'm not sure if I would say it but, that the US accepted a watered down version of resolution 1441 knowing full well that it was open ended enough politically at home for them to take whatever action they wanted even though there was an assumption by the other SC members that a second resolution authorizing force would be required. 2. The danger you are talking about would only be real if Bush was a dictator like Saddam. The fact is, even if Bush can ignore the international opinion, he cannot ignore the congress. Unlike Saddam, Bush cannot pose any danger to anybody without the support of his own people. The Republicans control Congress. Bush also can use tactics like in this situation where Congress was politically shamed into authorizing force before all of the facts were known (forged nuclear documents, no UN resolution authorizing force, no NATO unity, lies from Powell about tubing, etc.). Republicans brought this to Congress in October, right before the election. It was pretty startling to see in the days before the war that the Houses of Commons in both England and Canada were debating the hell out of this issue while the US Congress was sitting around talking about the budget.
First off, the assumption is that the evidence abtained illegally is decisive. It's not just the cop's word against the suspect's. Whether the evidence is decisive is subject to the judgment of the jury, and should not be thrown out simply because it is taken illegally. I don't agree that letting the criminal free is punishing the cop. It doesn't have as much a deterring power as real punishment (jail, fine, etc.). Think about this, if you are a cop, what would encourage you to illegally get evidence more? (1) "I'm gonna break some rules to get this piece of evidence. If I don't get caught, this guy is nailed. If they catch me, then that sonofabitch will walk and we'll get him the next time." or (2) "I'm gonna break some rules to get this piece of evidence. If I don't get caught, this guy is nailed. If they catch me, I'll be in jail for a couple of years and they'll still prosecute this criminal. I'm gonna go down with him." To me, #1 gives the cop more incentives to break the law. Most cops with senses won't risk getting punished simply to get a minor criminal. The martyr mentality can only happen if the crime is so horrific that it stirs the conscience of the cop AND the cop is very sure of the evidence. In that case, I'd say let him be the martyr and take out the bad guy. I simply don't see the slippery slope theory that you and MacBeth are arguing.
The fact that Bush needed to play politics in order to get the Congress's support means that this is not a clear cut black and white issue (as the extremists on both sides presume). If Bush were doing 10% of what Saddam did, you think the Congress (yes, even a Republican controlled Congress) would support him? On the other hand, you think Saddam needs to go through all the political hoops as Bush does before he can order the deployment or the sale of WMD? To say that Bush is as dangerous to the world (not to mention evil) as Saddam is simply absurd. The Arab nations may be more afraid of Bush than of Saddam. But that's because (1) they don't trust the West in general and the US in particular due in part to the Israel-Palestine issue, and (2) Bush is simply more powerful than Saddam.
