X, are you a defense lawyer? Or a corporate lawyer? If so, is it your practice to dodge questions and/or obfuscate them? (I speak here as The Judge.)
Responding to your remark that "a country has a right to kill its own citizens," Steven Rogers asked the following question:
Purely for purposes of argument, would you say that the US Government has the right to kill you if it pleases? If the US Government suddenly had a mind to kill, say, all lawyers and their families (don't think it hasn't been suggested) would you argue that nobody ought to intervene or provide you with refuge?
Your answer:
yes- but I have the right to run away.
1) Yes -- to what? Yes a) to the question of whether the US government has the right to kill you if it pleases, or b) to the question of whether you would argue that nobody ought to intervene or provide you with refuge, or c) to both questions?
2) If the correct answer is (b) or (c), where would you run away to? Who would take you in, if everyone had accepted your argument that nobody ought to provide you with refuge?
3) If the correct answer is (a), why did you not respond to Steve's second question? Are you, in fact, not serious about the rules you have established for country-X? Or do you foresee that country-A will be too humane to introduce similar rules? Or do you plan on buying your way into refuge with all that money you hid under the mattress (assuming your bedroom was not burned down, mattress and money and all, during the anti-lawyer pogrom orchestrated by the authorities before you escaped)?
Just curious. :>}
jbe
|
