 |
In the
intricate tapestry of the USA and global politics, the thread of justice often
seems frayed, with cases of political prosecutions serving as stark reminders
of the fragility of democracy in the USA and elsewhere. Recent events involving
figures like Alexei Navalny, J. Robert Oppenheimer, and former President Donald
Trump cast a spotlight on the complexities and challenges of maintaining
democratic principles in the face of power struggles and partisan agendas in
the USA. No longer, should one honestly say that the USA is a beacon of
democracy, in my view.
Navalny's
relentless battle against corruption in Russia culminated tragically in his
untimely demise, underscoring the dangers faced by political dissidents in
authoritarian or democratic regimes, when it comes to holding onto power by a
political party or its leaders. His poisoning and subsequent imprisonment
epitomize the lengths to which governments will go to silence opposition voices
and maintain their grip on power. The parallels between Navalny's ordeal and
the struggles of other opposition leaders around the world, including Trump in
the USA or others in Iran, China and beyond, highlight a troubling trend of
injustice and suppression.
J. Robert
Oppenheimer's story offers a different lens through which to examine the
intersection of politics and justice. As the architect of the atomic bomb and a
key figure in the Manhattan Project, Oppenheimer found himself ensnared in the
web of Cold War paranoia, suspicion, and power. His security clearance hearing,
marked by trumpeted-up allegations of communist ties and political intrigue,
serves as a cautionary tale of the dangers of conflating scientific innovation
with political dissent for the sake of government power over others. While
Oppenheimer's case may not align neatly with contemporary notions of opposition
leadership, it underscores the broader challenges of navigating political
minefields in pursuit of truth and progress against the weaponization of
political party power.
Today in the
USA, the legal entanglements of Donald Trump by his political enemies embedded
in the deep state of government’s nonelected bureaucrats and the opposition
democratic party during and after his presidency offer a contemporary example
of the complexities of political prosecutions within a so-called democratic
framework. Facing a barrage of legal actions ranging from alleged financial
misconduct, with no injured parties, to alleged interference in democratic
processes, Trump's legal battles have laid bare the fault lines of partisan
politics in America.
None of
these very questionable weaponized legal proceedings can be conceived as
essential checks on executive power, they are all politically motivated
attempts to undermine a duly elected leader or a candidate for election against
the ruling political party. The debate surrounding Trump's legal woes
underscores the inherent tension between accountability, partisanship and
weaponization of institutions in much-heralded democratic governance by those
in power.
At the heart
of these disparate narratives lies a fundamental question: What does it mean to
uphold democratic principles in an imperfect world? The answer, perhaps, lies
in a nuanced understanding of the delicate balance between justice and politics
before this weaponization of government institutions and supported by the media
and social media corporations who do not have a legal right, in my view, or
constitutional right to curtail free speech. All these social media platform
communities stipulated that they wanted your voices to be heard and that is how
they got you all to sign up to their various forms and platforms of Facebook,
Twitter, LinkedIn, Amazon, Google etc.
Yet, when
all these tech companies/private corporations and media believe that their
rights, along with governments, to control the users (inhabitants) of these
various public internet communities, (domains) platforms, and forums, then they
are in fact coextensive with the right of that (user)/ inhabitant/homeowner to
regulate or censor its guests (users/members) is legally NOT an acceptable
contention under existing laws and constitution.
When the
institutions of justice, from law enforcement to the judiciary, or media and
social media private Teck companies become weapons in the hands of political
actors, a political party fully supported and non-questioned by a so-called
free press, democracy itself hangs in the balance.
The
weaponization of democratic values against dissenters represents a betrayal of
the very principles upon which democracy is built. Freedom of speech, equality
before the law, and protection of minority rights are not mere slogans but the
bedrock of democratic governance. When these principles are subverted to serve
partisan agendas or suppress opposition voices, the health and vitality of
democracy are called into question.
In
confronting the challenges of political prosecutions and maintaining democratic
health, vigilance is paramount. Civil society must remain steadfast in its
commitment to defending democratic norms and holding those in power
accountable. A free and independent media, robust checks and balances, and an
engaged citizenry are indispensable bulwarks against the erosion of democratic
values. Ownership, by any private corporation, does not always mean it is their
absolute dominion. The more these private Tech companies (owners), for
their own advantage to make money off those using their domains for the
advantage of a specific political party, or ideology, they have opened up
their (domains), platforms, forums, and
media communities (property) for use by the public in general and worldwide,
and thus, legally then, their so-called private corporation rights become
circumscribed by the statutory, legal, and constitutional rights of those who
use it.
As such,
these private tech companies, or the owners of privately held bridges, ferries,
turnpikes railroads or airplanes may NOT operate them as freely as a farmer
does with his farm. These facilities are built and operated primarily
to benefit the public by wanting the public's voices to be heard and to engage
other members of the public in sharing feedback and open dialogues. Since all
these private tech company operations are essentially a public function, they
all are subject to State, Federal and Constitutional regulations, and laws
already on the books.
As we
navigate the murky waters of politics and justice, let us remember that
democracy is not a destination but a journey—a journey fraught with challenges
and pitfalls, but one worth embarking on nonetheless. In the face of adversity,
let us stand united in defence of democracy, for it is only through collective
action and unwavering commitment that we can safeguard the principles that
define us as free and equal citizens.
FACTS:
Based on the text of the executive
law, it appears to grant the attorney general of New York broad authority to
seek injunctions against individuals or businesses engaged in repeated
fraudulent or illegal activities. However, the language used in the law raises
potential concerns regarding due process rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth,
Eighth, and Ninth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution:
The provision grants the attorney
general of the state of New York the authority to seek injunctions against
individuals or entities engaged, without ever having prior convictions or
charges, for repeated unfound fraudulent or illegal acts or demonstrating
persistent unfounded fraud or illegality in business transactions conceivably are
unconstitutional at least.
Restitution and Damages: The law allows the court to order restitution
and damages, which are common remedies in civil cases involving ACTUAL fraud
and VICTIMS or illegal conduct and VICTIMS. However, the imposition of such
penalties based on a political prosecutor who ran for office on “Charging Trump”
without a prior criminal conviction raises concerns about double jeopardy or
the imposition of punishment without a proper finding of guilt. While civil
remedies like restitution and damages serve different purposes than criminal
penalties and can be justified based on the need to compensate victims in this
case NO victims are sighted or came forward other than the prosecutor who
sought office on the unethical basis of going after a specific person nothing
else.
Requirement of
Prior Conviction: The law does not
explicitly require a prior conviction for the attorney general to take action.
Instead, it allows for action based on repeated yet unfounded fraudulent or
illegal acts or persistent fraud or illegality in business transactions. While
due process typically requires a criminal conviction before imposing certain
penalties or restrictions, civil actions like injunctions have different
standards of proof. Injunctions are preventive measures aimed at stopping
ongoing harm, and they can be sought without a prior criminal conviction based
on purely political status or political association.
Scope of
"Fraud" and "Illegality":
The law defines "fraud" and "illegality" broadly to include
various deceptive practices and unlawful conduct in business transactions. Such
broad definitions could potentially raise concerns about vagueness and
overbreadth, which are constitutional issues. Laws that are too vague or overly
broad conceivably violate due process rights by failing to provide adequate
notice of prohibited conduct or by potentially infringing on constitutionally
protected activities.
Judicial
Oversight: The law requires the attorney general
to apply to the Supreme Court of New York for an injunction. This judicial
oversight helps ensure that any action taken under the law is subject to review
by an independent judiciary, which is a fundamental aspect of due process. Yet
all judicial appointments are politicly made.
The Politicization of
law enforcement: When law
enforcement agencies are used to target individuals or groups based on their
political beliefs rather than their actions, it undermines the rule of law and
undermines public trust in the justice system.
Manipulation of
the media: When media outlets are controlled or
influenced by a particular party or ideology, they propagate biased or
misleading information, stifling dissenting voices and shaping public opinion
in favour of those in power.
The Undermining of
democratic norms: When democratic
norms and institutions are disregarded or undermined in pursuit of political
gain, it weakens the foundations of democracy and can pave the way for
authoritarian rule.
In Conclusion: While
the law grants significant authority to the attorney general to combat fraud
and illegal conduct in business transactions, its constitutionality would
ultimately depend on how it is applied in practice and whether it adheres to
fundamental principles of due process, including notice, judicial oversight,
and protection against overly vague or broad restrictions. Any challenges to
the law would likely involve careful consideration of these constitutional
principles by the courts.
.jpg)
.jpg)
