Aimee Farr wrote:
>>is it relevant to refer to these rights when he
> >himself rejected those rights for others?
What are you talking about? Let me spell it out for you: we refer to rights
because we live in the goddamn United States of America. We have these really
interesting little old things in our country known as the Constitution and the
Bill of Rights. You might have a look at them sometime, if your law school
isn't keeping you too busy with all the coursework.
I hope you'll remember this one thing: to paraphrase Chomsky,
IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN THE IDEA OF RIGHTS FOR PEOPLE YOU DESPISE, YOU DON'T
REALLY BELIEVE IN THE IDEA OF RIGHTS AT ALL.
I can't think of anything more fundamental than this. Whether or not Bell is a
raving headcase stalker who should be in jail is an entirely separate issue
from whether or not he deserves a fair trial. If you really rejected the idea
of arbitrary personalized enforcement of justice without the rule of law, you
wouldn't dream of making this argument. Are you saying you want to ignore the
bill of rights and let it come down to thug versus thug, where the innocent
never have a chance either way? Is that what you really want? Think about it.
The one thing I know is this:
Everyone deserves a fair trial.
Even lunatics. Even you.
~Faustine.
****
'We live in a century in which obscurity protects better than the law--and
reassures more than innocence can.' Antoine Rivarol (1753-1801).
