Faustine wrote:
> Aimee Farr wrote:
1. No, she didn't. You falsely attributed this statement to me.
The relevant post:
======================
Tim May quoting Zakas:
> At 3:39 AM -0400 4/22/01, Phillip H. Zakas wrote:
> > > > May says:
> >> > People have constitutional rights and these rights are not
> abrogated by
> >> > an "intervention."
> >>
> >> > A person may only be held or confined against his will if
> due process is
> >> > satisfied. This usually means at least a preliminary
> hearing, after the
> >> > usual "initial period" has passed.
> >
> >Bell's AP includes neither a system of due process nor a method for the
> >accused to confront his accusor. do you think he's rejected the AP as
> >invalid, or simply realizing how beneficial simple rights as
> these are when
> >being accused of crimes? is it relevant to refer to these rights when he
> >himself rejected those rights for others?
>
> 1. Bell was not charged with writing an illegal essay.
>
> 2. Bell was not charged with plotting to set up an AP lottery.
>
> 3. What Bell may or may not have written about does not affect in any
> way the operation of the U.S. legal system.
>
> 4. You need to think more critically.
<snip>
At nigh 4 a.m. on the tail of a "Saturday night" ...people get points for
typing.
~Aimee
========
> >>is it relevant to refer to these rights when he
> > >himself rejected those rights for others?
2. The list is configured to reply-to-sender. If you are going to directly
attribute or engage, copy the relevant individuals. :) The exceptions I have
noted: when you wish to use the list as an intermediary to avoid subpoena
parties, certain third party inboxes, "friendship trees," and people that
have "plonked" you (since there is no point in copying them).
3. The quote you attributed to me was written by one certain VC-affiliated
Greek God, and he did so at 4 a.m. on a "Saturday night." Again, while I
can't say, circumstances might call for a certain degree of tolerance.
> 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.
A lawyer would probably the last person to take such a line of argument. I
have finished my "coursework." Recon the archives before you engage somebody
to avoid "tickling tiger tails," in the wise words of Mr. John Young. :)
> 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.
You are preaching to the choir, Faustine.
> I can't think of anything more fundamental than this.
I can't either.
> 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.
I don't think the individual was questioning a "fair trial," I think his
intent was to inquire as to the lines of ethical thought that were going on
at the time.
> 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.
Well, even though I did not make these comments or even allude to them, I
have thought about it. I'm thinking this is how the world works. I know of
some people that have had intensive legal battles that might even agree with
this statement within the context of civil litigation.
> The one thing I know is this:
> Everyone deserves a fair trial.
> Even lunatics. Even you.
What is a "fair trial?" A "trial-by-the-rules?" Does Choate want to quote
the Constitution? I always have to explain to people where the 'real' rules
come from, the rules that have direct bearing on the outcome. They often
don't seem 'fair' to them. While US lawyers are great champions of the
American justice system, we are also the greatest discontents.
~Aimee
