• 0 Posts
  • 16 Comments
Joined 8 months ago
cake
Cake day: February 27th, 2024

help-circle



  • just think this is an incredibly irresponsible and flagrant way to phrase the title specifically. Data doesn’t support it, the sheer numbers don’t support it either. Like the actual number is 0.000004% percent of the US population have been sentenced to death, and executed in the US since 1976.

    You’ve completely lost the plot, mate. Nobody is saying that a significant percent of the population is being executed.

    How many people have been executed on Putin’s orders? A hundred? So that’s only like 0.00007% of the Russian population. no big deal then.

    The VAST majority of that coming from the south.

    I wonder why.

    because we’re talking about a specific state, exercising independent rights over capital punishment,

    Independent rights granted by the supreme court. AKA the federal government. The 9 robed, tenured individuals are part of the regime. You’re just uncritically accepting the federalist society’s position here.

    Did you know there was once a moratorium on all executions in the US? But you seem to think of it as a natural law that Missouri has the right to execute whoever they please.

    The title reads as if the “US government” (an entity, which is not an appropriate description) solely and single handedly murdered a guy

    You’re inferring way too much here. Nobody said or implied that the US federal government was solely responsible for this execution. When a headline reads that the Russian regime assassinated a political dissident, do you take the time to point out the federated nature of the Russian government? Would it matter that the evidence points more to an official act of the Dagestan government instead of a direct order from the Kremlin?

    Obviously this isn’t a perfect analogy. But the “US government” (the entity, which is an appropriate description) has given the greenlight for these executions. The supreme court has approved these punishments, and the executive and legislative branches have done nothing to prevent it.











  • I’m not making a legal argument against searches, I’m making a moral argument for international solidarity.

    The lawyer’s statement isn’t that objectionable in a vacuum. But it’s representative of how Americans view the world. We see something terrible in our own society, and we say, “How can this happen here? This isn’t [a country we completely fucked over]!” Then the rest of the discussion is how to solve the problem here, instead of addressing the root cause.

    If Afghanistan or Gaza have something similar to the fourth amendment, then maybe I can see your take.

    Think of the context the bill of rights was written in. Most of those amendments were a reaction to the fear of an occupying force. Obviously these anti-occupation policies don’t apply to a people under occupation.

    Here’s the thing: does a citizen in a crime ridden neighborhood in America have something similar to the fourth amendment? Legally they do. In reality, many don’t. After you have the police bust into your home for no reason without a warrant, you have a different take on the constitution.

    Thanks to SCOTUS, the fourth amendment is functionally non-existent for a large number of americans, and the police operate as an occupying force. They use the same weapons as international occupying armies. They train each other. They fund each other. They’re all part of the military industrial complex. It’s all the same struggle