Read other letters about this article

• Wednesday, November 19, 2008 01:22 PM

  beating a dead horse

  Sorry, but I'm a little shocked that Chiquita is so easily dismissed. When one defends a white supremacist or a nazi, it is because one believes in freedom of speech or a right to a fair trial for all. Chiquita was never in danger of receiving an unfair trial. The state has defended and protected them for years.

  Nor am I saying that I think the government should now determine who is and isn't guilty beforehand. I am arguing that our government should prosecute those that carry out these actions. I also am saying as a individual, rational person that this situation is beyond the pale. Fellow human beings in the south are being raped, tortured, and killed in pursuit of profit. Chiquita did not dispute that fact. Now there is a legal decision that others can plug in to a cost/benefit analysis to determine if they can continue doing so. To defend the powerful in a system designed to accomodate them is unethical.

  Thinkers from Marx on down have argued that the dominant ideology, including law, is the ideology of the dominant class. I think Glenn's pretty legal maxim is no different. Perhaps it has some function to it because it allows us to defend the weak and the despised. But it does have another function which we see here. It is a defender of the status quo. Let's examine how it works in practice. Looking at our jails we will see an overwhelming majority of the weak and the despised, and 0 Chiquita execs.

  Please take a step back and think about what you are saying here. A rich and powerful man helped clear the way for mass murder, rape, and torture. This man will now be our attorney general.

  —slicknickoner Read slicknickoner's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel