Iraq

[vze422fs at verizon.net]

on 2/8/03 6:22 AM, jbor at jbor at bigpond.com wrote:

> on 8/2/03 3:28 PM, vze422fs at verizon.net at vze422fs at verizon.net wrote:
> 
>>>> First, there are numerous other unjust and murderous regimes out there; so
>>>> why select Iraq?
>>> 
>>> This is such a dud argument. There is not one system of jurisprudence, not
>>> one defence attorney, who would even think to countenance a case on this
>>> basis: "Your Honour, whether or not my client is guilty is irrelevant. There
>>> are many other criminals who are just as guilty who are not being tried in
>>> this court, ipso facto it's erroneous and unjust to try my client at this
>>> time. I demand that we arraign the prosecutor instead." It's a load of
>>> bollocks.
>>> 
>> Sorry dude, but you're wrong. Selective prosecution is an arguable defense.
>> Comes under the heading of equal protection under the law.
> 
> Ah, "selective prosecution", that desperate wail of protest in the condemned
> man's throat, the bleating cry of the rightfully accused, last refuge and
> final trump up the sleeve of the hired charlatan. Effectively, it's an
> admission of guilt. It was Milosevic's defence as well, if I recall
> correctly.
> 
> Go ahead, make your case for Saddam. Show how SC Resolution 1441 is an
> instance of "selective prosecution".
> 
> best
> 
I make no case for Milosevic nor Hussein. I simply pointed out the flaw in
your argument. Obviously, they are both despotic psychopaths. You asked for
an example of a system of jurisprudence or even a defense attorney etc...

Your argument was flawed. I pointed that out. That does not mean that I
support Slobidan or Saddam. I made no reference to SC resolution 1441.

You said "not one system of jurisprudence" and "not one defence (sic)
attorney". Those are absolute statements. Minor traffic tickets are
overturned due to "selective prosecution". Obviously, you are incorrect.
Period. 

Joe