A psychotic take on the situation. An unrelated politician states "We got him"; Telegraph hysterically projects that US is finding someone guilty without a trial.
Innocent until proven guilty? How about you don't treat the whole country as guilty until it is proven guilty?
I understand the broader point but it is not actually constitutionally problematic for the executive branch to assert that a suspect committed a crime - of course they believe that, that's why the suspect was arrested! It is better for an elected official to preface things with "allegedly" "we believe" etc, but the governor is ultimately speaking on behalf of the prosecution, not the judge. The first half of this article is based on a bad-faith misreading of the governor's words.
bigbadfeline•4mo ago
Well, I don't care about splitting hairs but using the arrest of the suspect as an indictment of America as an ideal is a major warning sign and I can't think of another "broader point" that would be applicable to this article. To me that's not only bad faith, it's dirty and malicious propaganda.
Yeul•4mo ago
It makes for great television though.
sigma02•4mo ago
Cultural issue: I think in Britain you just cannot publicly say things like that without backpedaling with 'allegedly' etc. Perhaps a public official saying "we got him" is somehow more outrageous than scribbling 'catch that, fascist' on a casing and shooting a person for their beliefs (whatever they may be).
Perhaps American Dream will be redeemed if the barristers wear wigs?
sigma02•4mo ago
Innocent until proven guilty? How about you don't treat the whole country as guilty until it is proven guilty?