3 ms·
Sure. But what Ortiz is pulling here is not a Nuremberg Defense ("I was aware of the injustice, but my hands were tied"). She clearly states that she's complete
by rolux 14y ago
Sure. But what Ortiz is pulling here is not a Nuremberg Defense ("I was aware of the injustice, but my hands were tied"). She clearly states that she's completely fine with "severe punishment" in "appropriate cases", just that with regards to Aaron, it seemed somewhat inappropriate to her and her office. (I agree that her role, and the role of her office, in Aaron's prosecution suggests the exact opposite, but that's an entirely different question.)
- rhizome 14y agoI agree that her role, and the role of her office, in Aaron's prosecution suggests the exact opposite, but that's an entirely different question. It isn't, though. That she comes out with this attitude afterwards is absolutely self-serving and cannot be relied on as an accurate description of her motivations. The "hey, well, that was just the press release" claptrap should be completely disregarded as a mitigating rationale for the ass-covering bullshit that it is. This leaves us with the "hey, Congress passed these laws, don't look at me," attitude that, as Jacques astutely points out, removes her agency from her actions. The concept and practice of prosecutorial discretion, however, casts the lie to that position. Barthes and Derrida's "death of the author" is not a force in the law, so Ortiz attempting to play The Cog role should be seen as nothing more than sarcasm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_Author