this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2025
485 points (98.8% liked)
US News
544 readers
68 users here now
US-specific news
Rules:
- Try to keep the political or Trump-related content to a mild torrent.
- Reliable sources only.
- Articles are good. Self-posts or blog posts by professionals or journalists are fine. Memes or random blogs, no.
- Post title must match the headline. Edits for clarity are fine.
- Don't be a jerk.
- No racism, no bigotry, no spam.
- Be productive.
Other communities of interest:
Icon courtesy Dighital - Flaticon
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You're conflating my questions with a defense for the one you're disagreeing with. They were honest questions. I would understand if you didn't wish to opine upon them, but at least don't straw-man my honest questions.. I'd really rather have honest debates and thoughts, even if I didn't necessarily agree with them. Not thought-terminating arguments.
I'm addressing what you said, in a succinct way. If it's a little too unclear, then:
No, they're not. But, you have no idea who has violated the social contract unless you have due process.
Those that you're not sure yet have violated the social contract, because it hasn't been proven, are due the protections of said social contracts. Yes. That's the trial phase. Then, after that, we decide they might not be due the protection of the same social contract. That's the punishment phase. They're different. It is extremely popular in times of crisis to start to skip ahead to punishment without trial, as part of the official process, because things are so dire, and that's explicitly what this person was advocating for. That is wrong. Because you'll wind up punishing people who haven't violated any social contract at all.
No. But once it gets to a broad scale, and due process breaks down on all sides as people start a big melee for their own safety against their enemies, things can get very very bad.
Sometimes there's no way around that, of course. That's what we call a war. Maybe that's where we are headed. But deciding ahead of time that you're going to abandon due process within a civil society, because of how dangerous it is that your opponents want to abandon due process, is just hastening the phase of "might makes right." It's pretty hard to come back from that once it happens. A lot of people have had to grapple with this, notably the allies after World War 2 trying to figure out how to punish the guilty. If they'd gone with this "they're SO bad that they don't deserve due process" type of thing, Oskar Schindler would probably be dead.
No. Not having the trial and doing nothing, or having the trial and then not doing the punishment, is tolerance. Having the trial and then punishing is justice. Not having the trial and doing the punishment anyway is terror. I'm not aware of a time when that was the solution that didn't go horribly sideways almost instantly.
There are times when there was some massive crime against humanity and the paradox of tolerance prevented effective resolution, and it was very bad. Reconstruction is a good example. But just doing arbitrary punishment for anyone some random person decides is guilty is ten times worse. Even if you get it right 100% of the time, which you won't, it sets a precedent that is horrifyingly hard to stop once people have gotten in the habit.
Seems a little more clear spelled out that way?
Thank you, and upvoted!
This is well said, and satisfies as an answer. As well as your break down of trial and punishment phases and how they fit into the social contact model. This gives a great deal of missing insights and helps me round out my world view where my thought process was sorely lacking. Your view has helped shape my own, I wish I got to say that more from my online interactions.
This is where my real concern lies, the suspension AND partial application of habeas corpus is essentially -- in my view -- a casus belli due the public. Habeas corpus must be universal in its application by the state, or the federal-state must be seen as a direct threat to the civilian public. They've tested the waters on this already in prior protests. At what point do we admit that it's no longer being honored by the federal-state and realize that we've been stripped of our right to accuse those who have wronged us -- also part of due process -- and take matters into our own hands to restore our rights?
At what point is tolerance indistinguishable from cowardice in the name of tolerance?
Perhaps I'm being rhetorical. The issue I have is that I don't see a meaningful way forward to even exercise due process, and even if we did have one, how that prevents catastrophic social consequences happening meanwhile. Due process is a reactive measure, after all.
I don't believe the state, whether federal or not, will prosecute agents of the state that violate my rights -- human or constitutional. Therefore, as important as discussions about habeas corpus/due process are, for me it's putting the cart before the horse. Nothing you suggest prevents state-agents from murdering people -- due process or not. (After review, it wasn't a failure to address this point -- it was just outside the scope of the point you were making).
Apologies for the long winded response, apparently I had more to say on this than I realized. TL;DR we agree, apparently -- as I've just come to realize -- the only difference is that I believe that we're already at war, just not entirely de facto. Might does not make right, but it can correct a wrong and the people can be mighty.
Much more so, I thank you for taking the time and effort to respond as well as you did.
Yeah. The entire concept of American governance was that the people in the country fight to maintain control of their own government, and then take responsibility for it running properly. We’ve wandered pretty far from that at this point. To a large degree because the tools that we might use to coordinate and organize the fight have been co-opted by people who want to run the government on their own behalf.
Agreed. Yeah, I was talking just about what the desired end state should be once democracy is reestablished, not saying we shouldn’t be vigorously defending ourselves right now.