Uncategorized
Legalizing Murder
The heroic James Bovard reminds us just how thin the “rule of law” really is. According to the President’s lawyers:
“The necessity defense may prove especially relevant in the current circumstances.
First, the defense is not limited to certain types of harms. Therefore, the harm inflicted by necessity may include intentional homicide, so long as the harm avoided is greater (i.e., preventing more deaths).
Second, it must actually be the defendant’s intention to avoid the greater harm….
Third, if the defendant reasonably believed that the lesser harm was necessary, even if, unknown to him, it was not, he may still avail himself of the defense….”
Pardon me for insisting that this is not okay.
Buy Scott's Stickers
Social Bookmarks
-
Blinklist -
Blinkbits -
Blogmarks -
DotNetKicks -
Connotea -
Del.icio.us -
Del.irio.us -
Digg -
Fark -
FeedMeLinks -
Furl -
Google -
LinkaGoGo -
Ma.gnolia -
Yahoo MyWeb -
Netvouz -
Newsvine -
RawSugar -
Reddit -
Scuttle -
Shadows -
Simpy -
Smarking -
Spurl -
TailRank
© 2007 Stress. 
…I’m no lawyer, but I get the idea that it’s legally acceptable to practice torture in the name of National Security as well. The primary reason being that “Stay Awake” Yoo and other legal scholars and authorities, said it was. Then a majority of Federal Magistrates agreed with them and upheld their argument…Such is a deduction of the Law’s operation by one of the laity…Rather like a child who, when he questions a beating, the parent tells him “Because I said so.”
Posted by Mace Price | February 6, 2007, 7:41 amThe rule of law continues to work as it always has.
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
They’re just writing it on the side of the barn now.
Posted by Cous Cous | February 6, 2007, 4:15 pm