• SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    194
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Why aren’t these guys in jail? Seriously. I mean, I know the theory of the rule of law and all, but even our widely-acclaimed greatest president suspended habeas corpus when insurgent seditionists tried to overthrow the Union.

    • takeda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      He was going to face a trial and likely prison, but trump pardoned him and the rest.

    • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Throughout human history, laws have never stopped conservatism. Jails have never stopped conservatism. Pacifism has never stopped conservatism. Only force has ever stopped conservatism. Only force.

        • barsquid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          People get called that when they’re pretending to be far left while urging everyone to take the exact actions the Repubs want them to take.

            • barsquid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              It’s code for “antifascist” “leftists” who are urging people to do the exact same things that the Republican party wants them to do.

                • barsquid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  If you’re upset about being called a tankie, you could cross-reference what you are urging people to do with what the Republican party wants people to do. And then stop that.

                  In general I would recommend being antifascist in a way that isn’t the exact same actions as overt fascism with the only difference being the rhetoric justifying the actions.

            • pyre@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              5 months ago

              that would be people who are essentially voting for trump, so yeah, why not.

            • Censored@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Tankie is the pro-authoritarian left. The Stalinists essentially. The ones who think it’s appropriate to send in the tanks to quell a socialist or communist uprising because it has a tint of democracy in it, which may cause their strong leader to lose dictatorial power.

        • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          Tankies these days are conservatives wrapped in an authoritarian shell. Instead of just being supportive of their own authoritarian government they try to destabilize other governments for their gain.

        • Pips@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          19
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Tankies are literal authoritarians. People say they’re “authoritarian communists,” which ignores they’re mostly Maoists or Stalinists, both of whom were closer to fascism than the left. It sort of ignores the basic premise of communism or even socialism to have a single authoritarian ruler. Kind of like how the Nazis called themselves socialists. I guess they were a workers’ party to start, but I don’t think you can reasonably conflate their ideology with the tenets of socialism.

          • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            5 months ago

            The Nazis only used the label socialists to deceive the working class. They said so plenty of times when meeting with the industrialists whose bidding they were doing. They never were a workers party and they knew that it was only in name to be more palatable. This deception now has been replaced with “owning the libs” and whatever the local version of neoliberal, conservative or fascist ideology you have around the world.

          • nyctre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            No, you don’t understand. The problem is that those people haven’t had enough time to bring upon real communism. Real communism hasn’t been reached yet. They want to let the Maos and Stalins of the world have enough time to reach communism. Things will surely be different with the next guy.

            • Dkarma@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              5 months ago

              Trump is just Stalin and mai with less power.

              There is no difference between authoritarianism at either end of the spectrum.

              The issue with authoritarianism isn’t “communism or fascism” it’s a symptom of shitty PEOPLE NOT TYPE OF GOVERNMENT.

              STalin wasn’t a shithead BECAUSE he was commumist, but in spite of it.

      • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’m not sure if I’m joking. In any case, the writ of habeas corpus is the legal tool that a court can theoretically use to compel the appearance of a prisoner before it. It is the legal doctrine that underlies the right to trial, and I say “theoretically” because courts rarely need to issue one; it’s just standard procedure to bring people to court to face charges.

        By suspending it, Abraham Lincoln could detain those people he deemed dangerous seditionists indefinitely, because the detainees would have to go to court to challenge their detention, and there was no way to get to court. The effect of suspending it again is that it wouldn’t matter that Baboon (autocorrect and I’m leaving it) and Stone were pardoned, or that there were even criminal charges.

        Lincoln did it, George W. Bush did it. Barack Obama did it. The Constitution contains a clause which allows it to be suspended due to rebellion or threats to public safety. It’s a dangerous thing to allow a president to do, but the MAGA danger might be greater.

        • Tryptaminev@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          In other words the US is neither a state of law nor is it a democracy as separation of power can be overturned whenever the president feels like it.

          • Censored@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            Emergency powers are in most constitutions because people generally understand that during war things have to operate a little differently. You can’t allow the enemy, who is attacking you physically, to go and publish propaganda that attacks you rhetorically and turns the populace’s loyalty towards the other side. The problem we have now is the constant use of emergency powers. That needs to be shut down. Emergency powers should be limited to a certain timeframe, and reviewed by congress after that. Not these multi decade states of emergency.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Worth noting that, historically speaking, if a state official wanted to punish someone without going through the court system he could always just turn the prisoner over to a lynch mob.

          So while suspending habeaus corpus is a danger to democracy, it is not a singular method by which mayors, governors, or Presidents have disposed of political opponents.

      • CraigeryTheKid@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        82
        ·
        5 months ago

        it’s still unfathomable that trump was “allowed” (I know it was “legal”, don’t point that out) to pardon his literal partners-in-crime. He basically has already self-pardoned himself by proxy by allowing these traitors to walk free.

        • takeda@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          5 months ago

          We messed up when we allowed Ford’s pardon of Nixon before he was convicted. We should only allow pardons after the person was convicted. That created all kinds of paradoxes:

          • creating a blanket pardon “from any crime that we don’t know yet about”
          • possible pocket pardon, where a president could pardon themselves secretly
          • hiring thugs on president benefit and giving pardon right before leaving office. They know they can do anything and will receive a blanket pardon. If president had to wait for conviction then there was no guarantee he would be there to pardon them. So it would make whole escapade more risky
          • total immunity which trump is arguing about would be even less likely if there was no blanket and pocket pardon and he had to wait until being convicted before being able to be pardoned
        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Ford pardoned Nixon.

          Bush Jr pardoned Scooter Libby.

          Governor Abbott pardoned a pedophile for shooting a black girl’s white boyfriend

          Why is this even remotely surprising?

    • Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Huh? Why would anyone with power go to jail in an oligarchy? Unless you upset the more powerful oligarch.

      • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        5 months ago

        As in my other reply, the Constitution allows the suspension of habeas corpus in cases of rebellion or threats to public safety, and without that writ, charges and sentences are irrelevant.

        • rsuri@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          5 months ago

          The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution contains a right to habeas corpus in Boumedine v. Bush. The Lincoln thing was never fully litigated and was probably unconstitutional.

          • hglman@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            The Constitution doesn’t empower the court to interpret the constitution. If the executive chose to ignore the court it would be perfectly legal.

            • rsuri@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              Well that’s an even older decision:

              Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that established the principle of judicial review, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws and statutes they find to violate the Constitution of the United States. Decided in 1803, Marbury is regarded as the single most important decision in American constitutional law.

              • hglman@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                Yes, the supreme Court gave itself that power. To that end the other branches could justifiably choose to not find that to be valid.

    • Censored@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Roger Stone’s been to jail a number of times. He really doesn’t care because he knows he’ll get pardoned. Also he’s basically a mafia don, so I imagine he gets a lot of respect in prison from republicans.

      • beetlejuice0001@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        In what capacity does he resemble the mafia? He’s a snake. These guys want to desperately be associated with the mafia but they’re just con men. The Mafia were intelligent criminals.

        Everyone needs to remember this guy shaking hands with world leaders during his years in office. In every single picture he is smiling like a pig in shit. It is only after the indictment photo he is attempting to rebrand himself as some sort of tough guy criminal instead of a slimy, smug con artist.