politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's still not a 1:1. The President can't actually call up the DOJ in the same way they can the DOD.