Iraq

[vze422fs at verizon.net]

on 2/9/03 2:37 AM, jbor at jbor at bigpond.com wrote:

>>> 
>>> 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 
> 

One more time. Selective prosecution is a defense in many courts of law due
to the principal of equal protection. My counter-example was not spurious. I
simply took your argument to its logical extreme. That is a time honored
technique for exposing the flaw in an argument. You made an absolute
statement. One example is all that is necessary to refute your statement
whether we are talking about parking tickets or disgusting crimes of
inhumanity. "If it was ok for that guy to do it, why are you prosecuting
me?"

Selective prosecution will always be an acceptable defense because of its
potential to expose prosecutorial corruption, venality, and graft. It does
not say "I'm innocent." It says "My prosecutors are culpable too."

The Bush administration is nothing if not corrupt and venal.

Saddam Hussein is definitely guilty. I know for a fact that he is a
murderous animal. I know South Americans who feel the same way about Henry
Kissinger. I have a personal reason to hate Saddam which I would not ask you
to understand, but the Iraqi people are humanized for me for the same
reason. I have no wish to see their troubles increased by an apocalyptic
firestorm of death unleashed by corporate criminals of either side.

I feel that your argument was spurious. I have said so. I will accept and
respect your response. I will not make light of it. Then, this particular
argument will be over.

Peace
Joe