• @QuarterSwede@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    477 days ago

    Hey ICE, if the President tells you to do something illegal, you don’t do it! You can still be held liable.

    Is it really that hard to have ethics anymore?

    • @TachyonTele@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      407 days ago

      ICE doesn’t care. They’re obviously enjoying being able to do what theyve been doing the past few months.

      • Basic GlitchOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        117 days ago

        There are federal agents that have been reshuffled to ICE as punishment for the Jan 6 investigations, and have been accused of leaking information to the press.

        I originally just thought the termination of civil rights offices would mainly be to use polygraphs on these employees and refuse due process rights because so many were trying to warn people of what this administration is doing.

        I wasn’t expecting something like this memo so soon.

        There are definitely plenty of loyalists carrying this shit out, but I believe the administration may be intentionally trying to reshuffle as many federal employees as possible (and now city police to ICE) to increase civil unrest and increase the chances the public will turn on the same people leaking information.

        If Congress won’t do their job, it will come down to these people willing to refuse orders and face termination if not arrest. The only reason I bring this up, is that if this happens we should keep in mind that there have been people inside ICE trying to warn the country about this stuff for a long time.

        If we are too quick to dismiss all of them as loyalists, the administration will be able to downplay any dissent when orders are refused, and possibly convince others who are on the fence that it’s in their best interest to comply bc the public is not on their side.

    • Basic GlitchOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      10
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      The things is based on their legal interpretation of the constitution, the people chose the president to uphold law and order and do what’s best for the people. If the president determines this is what is necessary in order to protect the people from terrorists, his legal team will argue for a constitutional interpretation that says individual liberty is always secondary to the common good.

      Just to be clear, this is not what I believe or support. This is what they will argue. I am writing this to try and warn people what they have in mind when they talk about constitutional interpretation

        • @Formfiller@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          11
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          But how are they going to enforce it? They’ve enforced 0 rulings so far. Trump has been publicly mocking them while defying their orders

        • Basic GlitchOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          57 days ago

          I am hopeful if it does, but the memo is saying they can just do this. So it will take this actually being enforced and someone’s (or multiple people’s) rights being violated for this to end up before the supreme court.

          I think it’s no coincidence there was such a high profile arrest of that judge in Wisconsin just before this happened.

        • Basic GlitchOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          47 days ago

          I hope so. If the Senate and representatives won’t take a stand (which seems they won’t), it will be up to police, federal agents, and military leaders taking a stand and refusing orders, probably being terminated if not jailed/court martialed, and public support for them.