More important, look at the mentality being expressed — and about to be implemented — here: there may be instances where we cannot get convictions because of witness unavailability or other logistical problems, so we’ll just imprison them anyway. Does it really require any effort to demonstrate how dangerous that mentality is — that the President will have the power to order people imprisoned wherever there are some logistical barriers to obtaining convictions? If there’s one principle that can be described as fundamental to the American founding, it’s that the state — and certainly the President — do not have the power to order people imprisoned without charges. Thomas Jefferson said that trials by jury is “the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” Why is this painfully obvious proposition still necessary to defend after the November election?
“…the only anchor ever yet imagined…”
Advertisement
Why, Jeff? Well, in good measure because a lot of people who should have known better jumped on the bandwagon to support or at least stayed silent about a man who lauded Ronald Reagan, acted as if gays have cooties, made misogyny cool and won by using smears, dirty tricks and outright fraud.
You looked the other way when his advisors included people who were actively involved in causing the problems, and/or were on public record as espousing conservative, regressive policies.
You did that so you could have your biracial ultra-symbolic candidate who you could pat yourselves on the back about voting for.
Well, you got him. Unfortunately, the rest of us are stuck with him, too. Good luck on that “feet to the fire” thing.
Actually, Glenn Greenwald has been the one voice that has been speaking out about this, even before the election. It’s why I link to him so much.