2 ms·
> That's a separate issue though - intransparent law enforcement is bad, but that doesn't justify making assumptions. ... I mean it absolutely does. What on ea
by rsynnott 1y ago
> That's a separate issue though - intransparent law enforcement is bad, but that doesn't justify making assumptions.
... I mean it absolutely does. What on earth are you _supposed_ to do? Give the unaccountable secret police the benefit of the doubt?
- dlubarov 1y agoI think the appropriate reaction would be suspicion, not jumping to assumptions. Speculation can be okay too, but we should be forthright about it, whereas The Guardian headline above tries to misleadingly pass off speculation as fact.
- nobody9999 1y ago>... I mean it absolutely does. What on earth are you _supposed_ to do? Give the unaccountable secret police the benefit of the doubt? Exactly. Even if this guy holds beliefs that aren't aligned with those of the US government, so what? That is not a reason to detain or refuse entry to a place that's supposed to embrace freedom of expression and of the press. This is blatantly anti-democratic (small 'd'), capricious and just one more example of the current administration's attempts to destroy a free and open society. Yet here you guys (@ajroos, @dlubarov, etc.) arguing about why the US government is abandoning the rule of law and trying to normalize authoritarianism and bad-faith governance. It doesn't matter why. It's wrong and evil on its face.