TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2025
...right through to the bitter end: A crazily tribal juncture like this may produce a remarkable set of anthropology lessons.
Watching The Five, then watching Gutfeld!, is a lesson like few others. So too with what Scott Jennings—to all appearances, a good, decent person—said last night on CNN.
The situation starts with one of President Trump's recent unusual statements. Taking questions on Air Force One this past Sunday, he made a striking suggestion.
The question: Now that the ice has been broken, would he be willing to ship prisoners who are American citizens into El Salvador's gulag-adjacent prison?
"I love [the idea]," the thoughtful president said:
PRESIDENT TRUMP (4/6/25): I love that. If we could take some of our 20-time wise guys that push people into subways and hit people over the back of the head and then purposely run people over in cars, if [the Central American strongman] would take them, I would be honored to give them.
I don’t know what the law says on that, but I can’t imagine the law would say anything different. If they can house these horrible criminals for a lot less money than it costs us, I’m all for it but I would only do according to the law.
We'd be getting a very good price, the sitting president basically said, this echoing Brian Kilmeade.
The president continued to state this view as people continued to ask him. Although he said he loved this rather unusual idea, he said he could only engage in this practice depending on "what the laws says."
For the record, the Constitution says one or two things about "cruel and unusual punishment." Be that as it may, there things stood until last night, when Abby Phillip raised the topic on CNN NewsNight.
Scott Jennings has become a person who can sometimes (not always) be slow to relent. To watch videotape of the fuller attempt at discission, you can just click here. But eventually, this is what was said:
PHILLIP (4/7/25): So you’re saying, "What’s wrong with sending Americans to a prison in El Salvador?"
JENNINGS: I’m saying what's—
PHILLIP: Is that what you’re saying?
JENNINGS: I’m saying, "What’s wrong with sending people who are convicted of violent crimes to prison?" Period!
PHILLIP: No, no, no. That’s not what he said. He said he’s going to send them to a prison—
JENNINGS: Yeah. So?
PHILLIP: The vice president called it a gulag in El Salvador. Is that OK with you?
JENNINGS: If you—if you are convicted of a violent crime in this country, and a court finds you guilty of whatever, those things he just listed, and it’s—and it’s OK by the law, which he said at the end of his answer, I mean—
PHILLIP: How is it OK by the law to extradite Americans to a foreign country for crimes they committed here?
Quickly, did Vance really call it "a gulag?" We think Phillip misunderstood what he said.
That said, the yes/no continued a bit from there. Let's move directly to the main anthropology lesson:
For now, let's abandon the question concerning what's "OK by the law." To our ear, Jennings seemed to be saying that this new approach to crime and punishment would be OK by him!
There is, of course, no ultimate way of saying what's OK, and what isn't OK, in some such region of the realm. Given the nature of that particular Central American lockup, we think it's remarkable that Jennings wouldn't or couldn't simply say that this seems like an odd idea.
That seems odd all by itself. But the core of today's anthropology lessons came when Jennings finally retreated to this:
JENNINGS: I know—I know you want all the illegals and all the violence [violents?] out of jail. I know that.
Was someone saying that they wanted to let everyone out of jail? It's hard to believe that Jennings really thought that, but this is where hard tribal division can take our human minds.
A similar rhetorical play is general over the Fox News Channel and the Trump administration. If a person says he wants to see migrants afforded due process before they're shipped to a violent gulag, the Fox News employee will simply assert that all the detainees are vicious / violent / terrorist murderers., end of discussion.
Routinely, they will seem to believe that their hot insistence on this claim ends the need for any possible further debate. Judge Jeannine, come on down!
Sad! "Due process" is designed as a way to separate out those who aren't vicious / violent / terrorist murderers. Quite routinely, the Fox News pundit—or the young White House spokesperson—will simply insist that all the detainees are vicious rapists! End of discussion right there!
(They don't need your stinkin' due process! They know what due process would yield.)
"Man [sic] is the rational animal," Aristotle is widely said to have said. If he meant what it may sound like he meant, we will only remind you of this:
Aristotle never saw the behavior of us the persons in this remarkably tribal time—in this age in which "the democratization of media" has been fueled by "segregation by viewpoint."
At such times, segregated by tribe, we humans are inclined to resist the most obvious points. We're inclined to balk at the most obvious points right through to the very end.
That's the way we humans are wired. Every top expert says this!
"Cruelty is the point," online pundits have long said. It's not hyperbole.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteWhy do you, Bob, assume that El Salvadorian prisons are not as good as American ones? Do you feel that Americans are somehow superior?
In fact, judging by various TV dramas, there can hardly be anything worse than American prison, with its endless violence, and gangs and shit. Gangbangers are probably way better off in a brand-new El Salvadorian prison.
"judging by various TV dramas"
DeleteThere's a reliable source of information.
I don't want to hear how special a country is, when everyone knows the prison "drop the soap in the shower joke", because prison rape is acceptable.
DeleteWhat is your reliable source, DNC talking points? Where Elon Musk is your God today, your Satan tomorrow?
DeleteWhy do men only take rape seriously when it happens to them?
DeleteWhy do Democrats only take rape seriously when the rapist is a white male instead of a violent illegal gang member?
DeleteWe Democrats only take rape seriously when the Catholic Church and Southern Baptists rape little boys. We are totally OK with other gangs raping, you fucking jaggoff.
DeleteSomerby seems a bit hazy about what the Constitution says. It isn't that shipping people off would be "cruel and unusual punishment" but that it is expressly forbidden by the 4th Amendment, which prohibits arbitrary arrests. The right to due process is guaranteed by the 6th Amendment. The "cruel and unusual punishment" clause is part of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishments. In addition, the 14th Amendment says that our Constitution applies to all people here, not just American citizens or lawful residents.
ReplyDeleteThese constitutional rights cannot be set aside simply because some Fox TV host is OK with it. Not even the president is allowed to violate them. It is irrelevant what any of these guys think. Somerby doesn't seem to be any better than the people he is describing, when it comes to knowing what our rights are.
We created the Constitution. That some of us might want to set it aside (out of ignorance or malice) doesn't not condemn the entirety of humanity to Aristotle's low opinion. Why should any of us care what Aristotle thought when he was living in a time that was very different than today, especially in terms of the evolution of thought, technology, living conditions, and treatment of others. Aristotle may have been right to condemn his backward heathen neighbors to disparagement, but Aristotle would not hold a candle to the best of us today. There are also still a lot of bad people, but arguably fewer than in Aristotle's time. Somerby is and remains an asshole. No one thinks humanity should be judged by the words or deeds of Fox News, Trump, Musk or any of the craven Republicans. But they haven't locked anyone in a church and set it on fire, as the Vikings used to do. This has to be one of the stupidest essays Somerby has written, since this morning.
ReplyDeleteAristotle was arguing that people are rational and thus better than Somerby thinks they are. But Aristotle is irrelevant and so is Somerby. If he couldn't get up off his fat ass and join a "Hands Off" rally last Saturday, then he doesn't get to have an opinion any more.
DeleteDemocrats are the party of violence.
DeleteA new report from the Network Contagion Research Institute shows the Left are increasingly normalizing violence. For those identifying as left of center
- 55.2% say it’s justified to kiII Trump
- 48.6% say it’s justified to kiII Elon
- 57.6% say it’s acceptable to destroy Tesla dealerships
You can read more about the NCRI survey here;
Deletehttps://networkcontagion.us/reports/4-7-25-ncri-assassination-culture-brief/
Take a look and you'll see how brazenly 3:46 is lying in your face.
I hope Musk drowns in a giant vat of his own self-pity.
Delete2:30,
DeleteAristotle is irrelevant but you are?
“ you'll see how brazenly 3:46 is lying in your face.”
DeleteShould I pity him?
Naaah.
"That's the way we humans are wired. Every top expert says this!"
ReplyDeleteThis is as big a lie as anything Trump has ever said, and it shows that Somerby is not a serious person.
I think Courts will not allow American citizen prisoners to be held in a prison in El Salvador. So, this discussion is academic.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, let's imagine some American who has committed a heinous crime and was sentenced to imprisonment for life or for a great many years. Eg., suppose he set fire to a black church and burned some people to death. He has already had due process. He was convicted after a fair trial. How horrible is it if he serves his sentence in a prison in El Salvador rather than the US?
The history of America is that people in England were transported to the colonies as punishment. The founders didn’t like that happening so they put a prohibition against it into our constitution. It would need to be changed via amendment. How horrible that is to the transportee depends on their circumstances but it was bad enough that our nation prohibited it after their experiences with it.
DeleteWhat good is a homeland if your right to live there can be abridged at the will of others?
Leave it to DiC to write something so stupid the day after the USSC shadow dockets leaving an innocent man in a foreign gulag. This level of idiocrarcy is almost inconceivable to me, but idiots like DiC have an inexhaustible supply of conflicting very serious opinions.
DeleteCosts are a key factor. Government doesn't have enough money to do all the good things it might do. Suppose it costs $100,000 a year to imprison him in the US and only $25,000 to keep him in El Salvador. By keeping here we lose $75,000 that could have been spent on health care or education. How do you feel about the American citizens who will go without health care because this prisoner is kept here?
Delete
DeleteYou should've tried to avoid becoming a gangbanger, 3:29 PM.
Once you became one, don't complain.
Suppose the richest nation in the world can't afford its prison system. I would suppose the person saying this is a dupe prone to stupid thoughts.
DeleteArty -- Even the richest nation in the world can overspend and overcommit so that we can't afford some things we would like to do. In round numbers, the federal government currently spends $3 trillion on everything excluding SS and Medicare. Our taxes of $2 billion only cover 1/3 of the $3 billion spent, because $1 billion has to be used to pay interest on the national debt. The othe4r $2 billion we borrow.
DeleteEven worse, the cost of interest will rise as the national debt rises. Also, right now, we don't have a recession or a war. Imagine how big this deficit will become when do have the next recession. Or, God forbid, a war.
Current spending is simply not sustainable.
That's why Musk is a hero, even though he is curtailing some valuable programs.
Sending a student rounded up at Tufts to a Louisiana prison instead of home is apparently cost effective. As usual, DiC is FOS.
DeleteSpending 300 million dollars for Trump to golf the first 3 months of his second term is cost effective. Imagine how much science could be funded, but Trump needs his participation trophies.
DeleteEven the richest nation in the world can house a larger prison per capita population than any other democracy. And charge rich people not nearly enough nearly enough in taxes.
Delete"Current expenditures are not sustainable."
DeleteSo the (heroic) solution is to nibble around the edges of expenditure levels, leaving the big ones alone, while deceiving the public about how much is actually being cut.
And of course, extend the 2017 tax cuts, ensuring future deficit expansion.
Truly heroic reasoning.
3:33,
DeleteI have a better idea. Trials themselves cost too much of my goddamn money. Can't we get rid of those too?
"Costs are a key factor."
DeleteCosts are not a factor. Check your pocket Constitution. You won't find any mention of the notion that a citizen's rights depend on cost.
"Current spending is simply not sustainable."
DeleteAnd so it's a great idea to cut taxes AND fire a bunch of tax enforcement workers.
Scott Jennings is not a good decent person.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court has BLOCKED a rogue judge's order requiring Trump to rehire "probationary employees" at six federal agencies.
ReplyDeleteTrump is winning every challenge by corrupt Democrat judges.
Correction, Leonard Leo's fascist judges are winning at destroying the American judicial system. Thanks Mitch McDonnell..
DeleteQuite a few of the lower court judges ruling against the Trump administration were appointed by Republicans, 3:39.
DeleteSCOTUS ruled the plaintiffs (a group of non-profits) did not have standing to sue. They didn't rule on whether Trump could fire civil service employees in violation of existing rules.
DeleteSo don't get such a boner, 3:39.
We humans will fight and claw and scratch not to be sent to El Salvador without due process. Imagine if they grabbed your son or daughter off the street and you had no idea what had happened to them! There is no excuse for that in a civilized country like ours.
ReplyDeleteFrom Digby:
ReplyDelete"But that 60 Minutes story is even more horrifying in light of what the Supreme Court did yesterday. I don’t have the heart to go into it in detail. It’s pretty clear that they’re going to give Trump what he wants. Just read this piece by Steve Vladek if you want the full horror.
In essence they said that the administration can do this but they have to allow the deportees notice and the ability to claim habeas which requires adjudication where they are being held. That means they’re going to put them in prison in Texas where it will be heard by the 5th circuit who will happily and gleefully agree with Tom Homan and Steven Miller that gay make-up artists are terrorists and must be rendered to the hellhole in El Salvador. In other words they just put some lipstick on Donald Trump’s deportation pig.
We cannot count on the Supreme Court to do anything to stop him. They let him completely off the hook for trying to steal the election and inciting an insurrection against a joint session of congress when it was certifying the votes. They let him off the hook for stealing classified documents and keeping them in the toilet at his public beach resort. Why in the world would we think they’d stop him turning the presidency into a dictatorship? They pretty much already did that for him."
If they can do this to others, then they can do this to any of us. Don't think that not being in a gang is going to protect you. Don't think that having voted for Trump will protect you. When due process goes away, anyone can be deported to El Salvadar. Smart people will be learning Spanish about now.
Thousands more American citizens are slated to be sent to Salvadoran prisons. I say good riddance. Don't let the door hit you in the buttocks.
DeleteAnnnd…ICE just knocked on 7:53’s door, he’s now in El Salvador. Didn’t think it would happen to such a nice Trump supporter.
DeleteI have a lot of respect for Digby. But, here she is criticizing Trump, for something imaginary, something she imagines he will do.
ReplyDeleteBTW although the SCOTUS decisions give (or acknowledge) that Trump has great powers, their decision applies to any President. If the next President is a Dem, s/he will have all that power.
If the next President is a Dem, s/he will have all that power.
DeleteOh, yippee!! We can have a democratic dictatorship too, so even steven, eh Dickhead? You really are a dumb little shit.
Take a look at the current state of our DOJ and tell me we aren't already a dictatorship. Watch the testimony of the fired pardon attorney Liz Oyer from yesterday and tell me you think we still live in a democracy.
DeleteMore BS David. The Presidential immunity is based on three types of actions taken while Presidenting. Only Trump gets a free pass for every action being "Official". Any D President will be in trouble for any of the shit the Convicted Felon does without consequence as it will not meet their definition of "Official".
Delete