3 ms·

Do you think it’s acceptable to persecute people who don’t agree with you? Who you don’t like? Equal rights under the law means equal rights. Not that you defe

Do you think it’s acceptable to persecute people who don’t agree with you? Who you don’t like? Equal rights under the law means equal rights. Not that you defend your friends, hang your enemies.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mhh__ 5y ago
Couldn't this argument basically be used against any court case short of there being footage of the defendant holding a gun next to a body? You can nearly always construe some kind of narrative like this in a "political" case, I'm not sure it's specific enough.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
  No. Because - until recently - government critics rarely ended up in court.
  - mhh__ 5y ago
    But you're kind of doing it now. You could be right, but currently the reference point of our comments is the political aspect to the case rather than whether he committed a crime or not.
  - lazide 5y ago
    That's pretty clearly not true - there have always been politically motivated prosecutions, witchhunts, and shady dealings of various flavors in every government I've been able to find decent records for. Recently here in the US, it's been everything from 'The Red Scare' and McCarthyism to Hoover era FBI attacking and undermining every 'revolutionary' group that wasn't upholding the status quo in the 60's-70's - and many more. That includes everything from attempted blackmail on Martin Luther King to COINTELPRO (documented, not a conspiracy theory). And that's what has leaked - there is almost certainly more that never had a solid paper trail.
teddyh 5y ago
“For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.”
CRConrad 5y ago
Do you like criminals? Say, armed robbers, murderers? If someone is on trial for stuff like that, and the evidence seems to support their guilt, wouldn't most people take a dislike to them? You reasoning feels like having "equal rights under the law" mean that then you'd have to let them go free, because convicting them would be "just because you don't like them".

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

mhh__ 5y ago

Couldn't this argument basically be used against any court case short of there being footage of the defendant holding a gun next to a body? You can nearly always construe some kind of narrative like this in a "political" case, I'm not sure it's specific enough.

TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
No. Because - until recently - government critics rarely ended up in court.
- mhh__ 5y ago
  But you're kind of doing it now. You could be right, but currently the reference point of our comments is the political aspect to the case rather than whether he committed a crime or not.
- lazide 5y ago
  That's pretty clearly not true - there have always been politically motivated prosecutions, witchhunts, and shady dealings of various flavors in every government I've been able to find decent records for. Recently here in the US, it's been everything from 'The Red Scare' and McCarthyism to Hoover era FBI attacking and undermining every 'revolutionary' group that wasn't upholding the status quo in the 60's-70's - and many more. That includes everything from attempted blackmail on Martin Luther King to COINTELPRO (documented, not a conspiracy theory). And that's what has leaked - there is almost certainly more that never had a solid paper trail.

teddyh 5y ago

“For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.”

CRConrad 5y ago

Do you like criminals? Say, armed robbers, murderers? If someone is on trial for stuff like that, and the evidence seems to support their guilt, wouldn't most people take a dislike to them? You reasoning feels like having "equal rights under the law" mean that then you'd have to let them go free, because convicting them would be "just because you don't like them".