3 ms·

It's telling that in a nation with 4% of the world's population and 25% of its prisoners, one still finds complaints about "unchecked pardons". That's before on

It's telling that in a nation with 4% of the world's population and 25% of its prisoners, one still finds complaints about "unchecked pardons". That's before one even considers the odious racial history.

rsynnott 6y ago
My concern about unchecked pardons is, well, the subject of the article; the use of the pardon power to arrange a quid pro quo. Obviously, separately, the US has major criminal justice problems, but you won't solve those by letting an individual pardon anyone they feel like.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  Assange's case is a perfect example of USA's (and, by extension, USA lackey UK's) "major criminal justice problems". This is a man whose only crime was exposing war crimes to the consideration of the general public. His persecutors have argued in court that he doesn't have 1A rights because he's not a USA citizen, but he is still bound by the most maximalist interpretation of an obscure USA law because "fuck him". I wish I still wondered where this vehement hatred for innocent victims of the state comes from...
  - rsynnott 6y ago
    Assange's prosecution can be bad, and yet attempting to gain favours from him with the offer of a pardon can also be bad... In fact, in _very_ corrupt systems, it is common to put people you need something from in legal jeopardy _for the purpose_ of dangling a pardon to get the thing you wanted in the first place. To be clear, I don't think that's the case here; Trump was attempting to get a quid pro quo but probably didn't set up the initial situation.
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      These aren't different bad things. They are the same bad thing! Trump wouldn't be able to blackmail Assange without credibly threatening him in the first place. No previous president has countenanced a prosecution so extremist in its attacks on basic journalism and whistleblowing. Even Obama, who certainly was trending in that direction, stopped before he got to this point. His administration didn't "set up" this prosecution because he correctly saw it as a threat to the freedom of the press. [0] Yet, somehow the legions of nattering Trump opponents who pretend to accept nothing he does have fallen into line completely with this outrageous miscarriage of justice. Some of them probably are stupid enough to think they oppose Trump by enjoying Assange's plight. [EDIT:] They aren't all that stupid, and weasel words like "To be clear, I don't think that's the case here" are a good sign of that. [0] https://theintercept.com/2018/11/16/as-the-obama-doj-concluded-prosecution-of-julian-assange-for-publishing-documents-poses-grave-threats-to-press-freedom/ https://theintercept.com/2018/11/16/as-the-obama-doj-conclud...

rsynnott 6y ago

My concern about unchecked pardons is, well, the subject of the article; the use of the pardon power to arrange a quid pro quo. Obviously, separately, the US has major criminal justice problems, but you won't solve those by letting an individual pardon anyone they feel like.

jessaustin 6y ago
Assange's case is a perfect example of USA's (and, by extension, USA lackey UK's) "major criminal justice problems". This is a man whose only crime was exposing war crimes to the consideration of the general public. His persecutors have argued in court that he doesn't have 1A rights because he's not a USA citizen, but he is still bound by the most maximalist interpretation of an obscure USA law because "fuck him". I wish I still wondered where this vehement hatred for innocent victims of the state comes from...
- rsynnott 6y ago
  Assange's prosecution can be bad, and yet attempting to gain favours from him with the offer of a pardon can also be bad... In fact, in _very_ corrupt systems, it is common to put people you need something from in legal jeopardy _for the purpose_ of dangling a pardon to get the thing you wanted in the first place. To be clear, I don't think that's the case here; Trump was attempting to get a quid pro quo but probably didn't set up the initial situation.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    These aren't different bad things. They are the same bad thing! Trump wouldn't be able to blackmail Assange without credibly threatening him in the first place. No previous president has countenanced a prosecution so extremist in its attacks on basic journalism and whistleblowing. Even Obama, who certainly was trending in that direction, stopped before he got to this point. His administration didn't "set up" this prosecution because he correctly saw it as a threat to the freedom of the press. [0] Yet, somehow the legions of nattering Trump opponents who pretend to accept nothing he does have fallen into line completely with this outrageous miscarriage of justice. Some of them probably are stupid enough to think they oppose Trump by enjoying Assange's plight. [EDIT:] They aren't all that stupid, and weasel words like "To be clear, I don't think that's the case here" are a good sign of that. [0] https://theintercept.com/2018/11/16/as-the-obama-doj-concluded-prosecution-of-julian-assange-for-publishing-documents-poses-grave-threats-to-press-freedom/ https://theintercept.com/2018/11/16/as-the-obama-doj-conclud...