I’m with you, and I’m all for due process. However, I have some questions that I would like to ask, as you seem well grounded.
Are soldiers in a war that engage in active combat due the civil treatment of due process before they’re retaliated against?
What constitutes a soldier in this case? Uniforms? Acting against people without any expectation of due process holding them accountable? State sanctioned? I must be missing something.
Isn’t the states desire to suspend habeas corpus a tacit admission of desire for civil war against ones own peoples?
I’m a bit confused – at what point we’re supposed to defend ourselves and not rely on due process? What is the proverbial line-in-the-sand where tolerance cedes way for intolerance – especially in regards to fascism?
I think I must be missing something. Due process is great, but it doesn’t stop people from killing my family. It just holds them accountable after the fact. I’m not necessarily agreeing with the one you’re disagreeing with, I’m just wondering if your sense of tolerance will protect my loved ones from violent fascists and I’m starting to get the sense that doesn’t matter. I’m starting to get the sense that others will tell me I’m wrong for using violent means to protect myself and others from violence and I hope I’m wrong about that. Not trying to be disingenuous.
Exactly, this isn’t to find the innocent among ice, it’s to put the expected behavior of the justice system into place so that way it doesn’t have a precedent like this. If we go from one government that ignores trial tights to another we aren’t getting the rule of law, and governments don’t cede power out of the goodness of their hearts. It’s also to establish and maintain legitimacy.
The Nuremberg trials are the gold standard for a reason. The crimes were established, laid out, and the obviously guilty had the opportunity to defend themselves. This means that no legitimate historians doubt the crimes against humanity and the degree to which all 11 sentenced to execution (ten hanged, Göring killed himself after being sentenced) were responsible.
Part of why fair trials are so good is that they serve as a steel man to your right to punish. And right now that matters.
You’re missing the point. It doesn’t matter how obvious their guilt is. We still need a formal process.
We should never trust the government, or any authority, to call someone a criminal outright.
Not to mention that capital punishment is barbaric. Yes, they are acting barbaric as well, but we should hold ourselves to a higher standard.
I’m with you, and I’m all for due process. However, I have some questions that I would like to ask, as you seem well grounded.
Are soldiers in a war that engage in active combat due the civil treatment of due process before they’re retaliated against?
What constitutes a soldier in this case? Uniforms? Acting against people without any expectation of due process holding them accountable? State sanctioned? I must be missing something.
Isn’t the states desire to suspend habeas corpus a tacit admission of desire for civil war against ones own peoples?
I’m a bit confused – at what point we’re supposed to defend ourselves and not rely on due process? What is the proverbial line-in-the-sand where tolerance cedes way for intolerance – especially in regards to fascism?
I think I must be missing something. Due process is great, but it doesn’t stop people from killing my family. It just holds them accountable after the fact. I’m not necessarily agreeing with the one you’re disagreeing with, I’m just wondering if your sense of tolerance will protect my loved ones from violent fascists and I’m starting to get the sense that doesn’t matter. I’m starting to get the sense that others will tell me I’m wrong for using violent means to protect myself and others from violence and I hope I’m wrong about that. Not trying to be disingenuous.
These are good questions I will have to think about more to answer.
Edit: OP lays it out pretty well. . I know you have already seen that but for anyone else reading this.
Exactly, this isn’t to find the innocent among ice, it’s to put the expected behavior of the justice system into place so that way it doesn’t have a precedent like this. If we go from one government that ignores trial tights to another we aren’t getting the rule of law, and governments don’t cede power out of the goodness of their hearts. It’s also to establish and maintain legitimacy.
The Nuremberg trials are the gold standard for a reason. The crimes were established, laid out, and the obviously guilty had the opportunity to defend themselves. This means that no legitimate historians doubt the crimes against humanity and the degree to which all 11 sentenced to execution (ten hanged, Göring killed himself after being sentenced) were responsible.
Part of why fair trials are so good is that they serve as a steel man to your right to punish. And right now that matters.