this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2024
40 points (97.6% liked)

politics

18828 readers
4748 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Got to say, these fuckers have been subjected to extrajudicial torture and no due process over the last twenty plus years. Clearly what they did is fucked up, but I don't think it's right to handle things this way.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

WTF

Courts are separate from the executive branch for a VERY good reason

If people get in the habit of people from the White House calling up and saying hey no, I want you to treat those defendants more harshly than that, then it becomes commonplace. You need to be diligent about preventing the habit BEFORE it starts getting abused.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago (2 children)

They are being tried in military tribunals so the Defense Secretary is in the position that the Attorney General would be in if it were in civilian courts. He didn't, and can't, override the court. He overrode the military prosecutors who initially agreed to the plea deal and withdrew the deal before it went to court.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Yeah. I mean I don’t agree with the whole concept of Guantanamo or the military tribunals or the torture or any of it. You have a point about how it’s supposed to work, in this construction… but this is why the courts are supposed to be civilian things.

There’s a reason why Ginny Thomas was talking about barges off Guantanamo for the Democrats, in the days leading up to January 6th. They haven’t forgotten how awesome it would be for it to work that way; we don’t gotta hand the infrastructure over to them all ready made.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The military part of it isn't the point being made. The point is the chief prosecutor is stopping the offer made by his underlings. He isn't overruling the court.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

Yes. I understand that part of it. Let me rephrase my part that I already restated and expanded on a little.

People who work in the White House are absolutely not supposed to call a federal prosecutor and say, hey I don’t like this deal you made, take it back. Lloyd Austin isn’t a chief prosecutor.

The idea that someone who isn’t a US service member is going to be subject to a military tribunal, and in particular to a political appointee (which is what Lloyd Austin is, in addition to being the overling in this case so to speak) calling up and weighing in on their sentencing, has no place in a democracy at all, let alone one where there are people with credible plans to build that exact type of White-House-directed machinery and use it for horrifying ends. This is a time when every single person who works for the US government should be getting weekly briefings on the constitution and separation of powers, not having them bent (just a little) so we can settle some old and by now pretty much irrelevant scores.

I get that letting the 9/11 hijackers be subject to being paroled in 20 years by some theoretical future administration is unacceptable. I get that Lloyd Austin is the boss in this case and that military prosecutions don’t work like civilian law enforcement or have the same stringent safeguards built into it. That is, in fact, EXACTLY the reason I don’t like it.

I just don’t think this slight erosion of democratic norms of how law enforcement works is ever a good idea, let alone right now of all times.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

That's still not a 1:1. The President can't actually call up the DOJ in the same way they can the DOD.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

He’s going to spend the rest of his life in prison, anyway. The military system can’t try him, and US politics won’t allow the US legal system try him.

It was a stalemate that showed zero signs of ever getting resolved. The plea agreement just made it official.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Well we aren't going to get them into a court anytime soon. The government doesn't want the full scope of the torture and human rights abuses to come to light. And every bit of evidence will be challenged on that front. These guys simply were not apprehended in a way conducive to a fair trial.

So what the hell? This was our best chance to shut down Guantanamo.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

Is he really guilty, or just tired of 20+ years of torture?

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 month ago

Associated Press Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)

Name: Associated Press Bias: Left-Center
Factual Reporting: High
Country: United States of America
Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/associated-press/

Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News


Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.

Footer

Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.