Read other letters about this article

• Wednesday, November 19, 2008 10:36 AM

  DCLaw1, Glenn

  I appreciate the principles that you two espouse. Everyone has a right to a presumption of innocence. (though I question whether a corporation falls within this, or whether they should even exist) But Chiquita admitted its guilt. The history of the rape of South and Central America by that corporation is well documented. What Holder did was use his power and connections to ensure that no one paid a price for these latest atrocities.

  Everyone has a right to representation. Yes. So perhaps Holder did nothing wrong in using whatever he had at his disposal to get this corporation, and its officers that ordered these actions, off without any serious consequences. It just seems that the system is broken when someone can order mass murder, rape, and torture and not serve a day in prison. It seems to me that someone that acts as you argue he should in such a corrupt system acts unethically.

  Now I am not some rabid authoritarian here, as some would have it. I can be persuaded by reason. It is not as if I am defending torture here. But it is in fact you all that seem to be defending the defenders of torture. Perhaps Gonzalez and Yoo are right and they were merely serving the best interest of their client by finding legal grounds for torture. But maybe this comparison is incorrect because Holder acted with the highest moral standing in his representation. Perhaps he only made sound legal arguments in his representation and did not in fact use extra-legal means (connections, good ol boys club, etc) to secure a favorable judgment. Surely it is speculation, but is it really hard to see how one could be troubled?

  —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