Iraq

[jbor]

on 9/2/03 3:58 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. 

No, I didn't ask for a spurious counter-example, and what I wrote was that
not one system of jurisprudence or defence (no "sic" required, thanks
anyway) attorney would countenance a case on this basis (i.e. the "why
select Iraq" argument, as per the subject header and comment I was
responding to). We weren't talking about parking tickets; at least, I
wasn't. Or Rhode Island.

There's no flaw. The argument, call it what you will, is still a dud and a
load of old bollocks. And, thankfully, it won't wash. Period.

best