undefined | Better HN

0 pointsfc417fc8020y ago0 comments

Benefit of the doubt is relative to both the item and setting though. What prior evidence do we have that would cause us _not_ to extend benefit of the doubt to the US government in the specific context of disappearing people?

I can think of plenty of examples of shady things various official bodies in the US have done within the past century, but regular occurrences of "extrajudicial kidnapping without a paper trail" isn't one of them.

If you go through proper channels and leave a paper trail then regardless of whether or not you agree with what's been done it can't reasonably said to be "disappearing" someone.

0 comments

watwut0y ago

US did not used to do whole host thing it is doing now - like trying to destroy law companies that sued politicians. Or, removing security from former government family members while stroking hate. Or, illegally extraditing people because someone misrepresented a tattoo. Or, attacking judges the way current administration do.

Or, threatening to annex Canada and parts of Europe. Or, opening damm because there is fire in a place where water does not go.

Something not happening in the past is not a reason for it to not happen again.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsfc417fc8020y ago0 comments

If you go through proper channels and leave a paper trail then regardless of whether or not you agree with what's been done it can't reasonably said to be "disappearing" someone.

0 comments

watwut0y ago

Or, threatening to annex Canada and parts of Europe. Or, opening damm because there is fire in a place where water does not go.

Something not happening in the past is not a reason for it to not happen again.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse