Leveling and what qualifies as senior has been different at every stop in my career. So, yes, ask questions and look for clarity before you start working on something and while that’s an excellent approach, it’s not that simple.
> The Trump administration has repeatedly claimed that the men sent to El Salvador were overwhelmingly violent criminals; Pro Publica reported that the administration knew at least 197 of the men had not been convicted of crimes in the United States, and six had been convicted of violent offenses.
This is an interesting question because it goes to show you just how hard it is to know how or why the government is using its power to deprive people of life, liberty, or property.
I wonder if we could set up a system where the government has an opportunity to share its evidence and the public gets an opportunity to scrutinize it on a case-by-case basis so they can fully understand whether their government is acting appropriately.
does it matter? they were Venezuelans and they were sent to El Salvador. I know that some folks just lump all Latinos into one bucket but Venezuela and El Salvador are, in fact, not the same country.
Hmm maybe walk us through this. If they were convicted of crimes in other countries, is the idea here that they have escaped their punishment? Like thats a significant concern? Seems like a lot of prison breaks!
Or is it that perhaps they were convicted but not punished enough (for us), so we have to correct that?
Or something else? If they were convicted of a crime in another country, it suggests that justice has been doled out already, right?
Watch the video or read this report from Human Rights Watch [1].
> The Trump administration claimed that the majority of Venezuelans sent to CECOT were members of the Venezuelan organized crime group Tren de Aragua.
> Only [3.1% of the 226/252 Venezuelan prisoners in CECOT] had been convicted of a violent or potentially violent offense.
> Human Rights Watch reviewed documents in 58 of the 130 documented cases of people held in CECOT, and all indicated that they did not have criminal records in Venezuela or other countries in Latin America.
CECOT was already found to violate the UN’s minimum treatment of prisoners rights (aka “The Nelson Mandela Rules”) [2] by a report of the US.
Trump’s administration blatantly violates human rights.
Finally, here is a report investigating why the US can use the El Salavador prison [3].
> It has been clear from the beginning what Trump wants from El Salvador: an ally who would accept, and even imprison, deportees. Less clear has been what Bukele might want from the United States. In striking the deal with the Salvadoran president, Trump has effectively undercut the Vulcan investigation and shielded Bukele from further scrutiny, current and former U.S. officials said.
Literally not a journalist. She went from the opinion pages to writing opinion on substack. And for "some reason" was put in charge of a news organization.
She has worked as a staff editor in newsrooms, most notably at Tablet. It’s not accurate to say her career has solely been in the opinion section.
Also, it’s not unheard of for people working on the op-ed side of the house to become editors in chief. Most notable example I can think of would be Katharine Viner at the Guardian. And in the reverse, James Bennet went from being editor in chief at the Atlantic to running the op-ed page at the NYT.
Her upward trajectory has been facilitated mainly through pleasing select silicon valley billionaires by echoing their views back to them in her ironically named The Free Press outlet, which they also helped found.
This really is the future of journalism. Just make content that a few deranged billionaires like and rise up and up and up and up. CBS doesn't have to care whether ordinary people like it. What matters is the asshole with billions of dollars.
She is more or less an Israeli propaganda agent. She was hired at CBS because, after purchasing CBS from Zionist Shari Redstone, Zionist Larry Ellison and his son needed a reliable Zionist editor in chief. Weiss’ primary qualifications are her extremely pro Israeli career path.
Larry Ellison needed a woman like Weiss because he’s invested in Israel’s success. He’s both a close personal friend of Netanyahu and the number one private donor to the IDF. Netanyahu has declared US public perception of Israel as the 8th front of their war, and Ellison (with the help of Trump) is doing his part stateside.
Why we have so many powerful “Americans” exercising their power on behalf of a foreign country is the real discussion here.
Hundreds of comments and the only one speaking the truth is downvoted. Bari Weiss is unqualified and the only reason she was put into this position is to be a useful idiot for Israel.
Postman pulled this same stunt in 2022, limiting how many times you can run your own API class from your machine. To this day I've never reconciled with them or their product management decisions.
I think the Administration is likely to get its toys taken away soon.
the Major Questions Doctrine, the end of Chevron deference, the mandate for Article III courts from Jarkesy, have been building towards this for a while. the capstone in this program of weakening the administrative state, overturning Humphrey's Executor when Trump v. Slaughter is decided, will likely revive the Intelligible Principle Doctrine, as Justice Gorsuch has hinted. the same trend is apparent in the IEEPA tariffs case, where non-delegation got a lot of airtime.
EOs lose a lot of their punch when the Executive's delegated rulemaking and adjudication powers are returned back to their rightful owners in the other two branches.
But they rule in his favor more often than not. They gave him freaking immunity for any crimes he may commit. This alone enables him to disregard the law without any fear of repercussions.
> This alone enables him to disregard the law without any fear of repercussions.
That does not apply to his lackeys though (unless there's a preemptive pardon).
If (!) there's a change in the President eventually, there needs to be a reckoning for everyone that didn't push back on instructions/orders (including all the folks down the line who are blowing up (alleged) drug boats).
I fear by reducing control over executive power to one, squishy standard like the Intelligible Principle Doctrine will let SCOTUS pick and choose which laws have intelligible principles. When conservatives are in power, suddenly all laws will have them. And swing back when liberals are in control.
reply