AG Draws Criticism From Civil Liberties Advocates For Suggestion to Crackdown on Protesters

2개월 전

The AG is under intense criticism from a variety of civil liberties groups, including the ACLU, for suggesting that federal prosecutors should go after protesters more aggressively, seeking federal charges when possible and even sedition charges.
Legal experts have asserted that this would be difficult and require evidence that those protesters were actively engaged in some conspiracy to overthrow the government or attack some certain government official; that they posed some imminent threat to the nation.

It's a thought that's too tempting for political rivals to turn down, they can't help by fall for it and oblige with the proposed crackdown on their rivals. After all, it's much easier to support liberty for someone when they act and think just as you do.

More boot on the throat please, for the sake of liberty.

It is a suggestion which would move the U.S. in a direction more in-line with tyrannical dictators that they so frequently like to criticize overseas.
We have seen government officials declare that they want someone like Edward Snowden dead for simply telling the truth to the people that they were being unconstitutionally spied upon by their own government, lied to by the people in charge. Is their concern safety? No, it's control. Because we see state agents engage in thousands of unsafe actions every single day against individuals around the country, with one unconstitutional policy after the next.
"Treating protest as a form of sedition won't stand up in court, but that is clearly not the point here,... This is a tyrannical and un-American attempt to suppress demands for racial justice and an end to police violence. Independent and ethical prosecutors should reject this administration's authoritarian impulses." - S. Trivedi, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Criminal Law Reform Project

One driver who abuses their privilege to drive on the road, shouldn't and does not impede the right of other drivers to continue on their own journeys or decide to get into their cars. The actions of one, or a few, or even many protesters, that turn violent, shouldn't then impede the Constitutionally protected right of others to still be out on those streets and move freely when they've remained peaceful and done nothing wrong.

But if people are too blinded by hatred just over the fact that their political opponents are voicing their opinions and are out on the streets potentially inconveniencing them, then it's going to be hard for them to retain some sense of reasonable judgement. They aren't likely to be quick to entertain the notion that not all of those individuals on the streets are a violent threat. The government can try once again, as usual, stomping on constitutionally protected rights but they are just going to fuel more of a negative economic cost on society with the lawsuits that come with that wrongdoing.

Government servants should be in the habit of trying to foster liberty, not tyranny, but unfortunately that's not useful to them and doesn't afford the same control. It isn't the nature of the beast.


Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  trending

Here's a small tip my friend 👍🏾 @tipu curate


still someone using steem hey lol:)


😂😂👍🏾 good to see you still here to


No problems 👍🏾