Re: Saddam Hussein: A Trial of Error?

quoth Andreas Pour:

| Quite correct, and if there were a strong motive for someone to
| impersonate me than you would be quite correct to require proper
| identification.  Indeed in cases where the defendant pleads mistaken
| identity it is up to the prosecution to prove identity beyond a
| reasonable doubt.

but how would we know whether such a reason exists or not? and surely 
identification could be faked. especially if there is some hostile 
government who has sponsored replacing andreas with whoever you are. 
what's more, the records could be faked, also, replacing his 
fingerprints with yours, his voice prints with yours, and so on. his 
dna with yours. no, it is not possible to prove that you are who you 
claim to be; all that is possible is expanding the size of the 
conspiracy that might be involved. a truly fiendish deception would 
have you yourself actually believing that you are andreas pour.

or, as a friend put it in his column today: "The very idea that Saddam 
Hussein needs the niceties of Blackstone's laws prescribing judicial 
procedure and the means of protecting the innocent is a surrender to 
epistemological pessimism: the notion that you can't ever really prove 
anything. Built into that nihilist surrender is doubt about first 
principles. If there is anybody in town who believes that Saddam 
Hussein is not guilty of crimes however described, what we need to 
worry about is him, not Saddam." of course, that friend refined things 
a step farther -- that saddam is saddam -- than you have allowed; hence 
my point that you cannot prove that you are you; indeed, you cannot 
prove that you are you *even to yourself.* 
-- 
dep

Writing takes no time. It's finding something to say that takes forever.

Kde-cafe mailing list - [email protected]
http://ofb.biz/lists/listinfo.cgi/kde-cafe

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this mailinglist are the personal
opinions of the author and do not represent OfB.biz: Open for Business, KDE or the author's employer.