Skip to main content

View Diary: How do I say this without seeming anti-Semitic? (267 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If a person or a country commits an illegal act, (5+ / 0-)

    he or it does not get a pass because somebody else was not charged with the illegal act before him or it. The proper question is whether he or it done it, not whether somebody else got off who also did it, or this is the first time out for the charge.

    •  Yes, but I recognize the concern expressed about (0+ / 0-)

      "selective prosecution" (often here termed as "selective outrage.")  I think that people saying it are (often) sincere.  But it doesn't erase the problem.

      In my avatar, the blue bars show how many want Reps who COMPROMISE; the aqua bars show who wants Reps who STAND FAST no matter what. (Left=Overall; Center=Democrats; Right=Republicans.) And there's the problem!

      by Seneca Doane on Wed Sep 21, 2011 at 07:59:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Selective prosecution is a form of defense, but it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Seneca Doane

        does not change the question as to whether No. 1 in fact did the illegal act, which is the core of the question. It only comes up when the response is that it doesn't matter whether No. 1 did it, because that other guy over there didn't get charged with this. Not that No. 1 didn't do it. A proper response to a selective prosecution charge is NOT to refuse to charge No. 1 but also to charge No. 2.

        In some cases, the charge of selective prosecution is based on the notion that no law applies to the doer unless somebody else has gone done for it first, that is, it does not even become a law which can be broken by the complainer unless someone else has gone down first. First bite is a freebie. This guts the effect of every new law, and every law which may be old but where the facts in prior cases were not identical., so the situation can be argued to be 'different' and with a new First Bite rule.

        And in the subject matter of the diary, selective prosecution has been used as a defense so many times, no matter what the facts are, that it loses its power, save for those who want a law to be other than what it is and what it says literally, but can't get the law, and the illegality of what No. 1 did, erased. It wouldn't be a law unless those who had made it so with the authority to do so meant what they said.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site