|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
How did America get here? How did we get to a point where crime fighters are accused of “weaponizing” the criminal or civil justice system against anyone?
When the government enacted tough laws for crimes involving drugs, did anyone suggest we “weaponized” the system against drug dealers?
When we enacted strict laws against securities fraud and Rudy Giuliani arrested stock brokers and the Mafia in New York, did anyone suggest he had “weaponized” the laws against fraud and organized crime?
When Richard Nixon was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Watergate affair, did anyone say the law was “weaponized” against him?
What happened to the notion of crime fighting district attorneys and United States attorneys rigorously enforcing all of our laws—felonies and misdemeanors—against all perpetrators? Is every criminal charge a “weaponization” of the law?
Before going any further, I have a confession to make. I was recently travelling 67 miles per hour in a work zone on the New York State Thruway. It was a stupid failure to slow down in the zone. Sure enough, the state legislature, in conjunction with some former governor, “weaponized” a little roving speed detection vehicle that snapped my license plate and sent me a ticket.
Was that speed detection vehicle “weaponized” against me? Nonsense, it simply recorded my speed, determined it was in excess of the posted limit and sent me a ticket.
My point is simple: when anyone gets caught violating a law and is prosecuted by lawful authorities, the temptation is to yell “the system is weaponized against me!”
It is not true and it is time to stop yelling it when anyone is charged with lawful process for breaking any one of our laws—from parking violations to felonies.
In the last decade, when politicians from Donald Trump to New Jersey Senator Menendez to Hunter Biden to the January 6 rioters at the Capitol were charged with crimes—serious felonies—the cries of “weaponization,” erupted, suggesting that prosecuting the alleged crimes was somehow unjustified.
No one “weaponized” anything against them. The prosecution followed the facts and the law. Several of those defendants were legally indicted by grand juries of their peers, tried before juries, represented by competent attorneys, extended all their constitutional protections and convicted or acquitted as the proof justified, subject to the right to appeal.
If America believes in law and order, then we should enforce all the laws, enacted by elected officials, to their fullest extent and doing so does not mean those laws are “weaponized” against anyone.
The word may evoke emotion and anger throughout the world of politics. It suggests that enforcing the law—any law—is somehow inappropriate or undemocratic. But its use to somehow undercut our system of law—and order—is unjustified and destructive hyperbole.
So, to all my friends in the world of politics on all sides—stop using that word to describe our justice system and the consequent accountability of everyone to each other under our laws.
And, a word to the wise, slow down in the Thruway work zones.
Richard A. Dollinger
The Beacon welcomes comments and letters from readers who adhere to our comment policy including use of their full, real name. See “Leave a Reply” below to comment on this post. Comments of a general nature may be submitted to the Letters page by emailing [email protected].
The system may not be a weapon, but it’s hard not to see how this administration has not weaponized it.
Using your example, it would be as if the town supervisor ordered the police chief to target an otherwise lawful citizen.
The Chief then assigns an officer to follow that person in their car hunting for any little violation. This is what Trump has done with his DOJ and AG. It’s a corruption of the system.
I agree that the term “weaponization” is inappropriate in most cases, and is causing
damage to the civil discourse regarding law and the rule of law. With the huge responsibility
that lawyers and politicians have in choosing their words, it is especially imperative
that they avoid using the term.
However, there is one circumstance in which a different term, perhaps “lawfare”, would
be justified in describing a situation of selective prosecution, and that is whenever the
U.S. president uses the power of the Dept. of Justice (DOJ) to prosecute political rivals
or institutional adversaries and there is insufficient (or no) evidence for a case.
President Trump, who has falsely claimed being the target of selective prosecution by
the DOJ (in cases where sufficient evidence of the crime involved was clearly present),
has actually been the worst abuser of directing the DOJ to attack his perceived enemies.
Letitia James, Jim Comey, Ilhan Omar, Lisa Cook, Adam Schiff…the list is long. Even
in the recent midterm elections, District Judge Tanya Chutkan had to bar the DOJ (and
DHS) from harassing Democrat-led states and forcing unreliable voter data onto them.
Donald Trump has uniquely damaged the integrity of both his office and the DOJ, and
has eroded the rule of law and presumption of regularity that had long been a trademark
of both institutions.
And, of course, your recommendation to slow down in contruction zones is always good advice.
Unbelievable! Rick, how can you say this after the statemets by Donald and the actions by Pam and Todd . . . or is this just tongue-in-cheek.
Anyone born and/or raised in this thoroughly racist, white-supremacist-based nation-state – who does NOT know that the racist, criminal, so-called “justice system is [and ALWAYS has been] weaponized” against certain groups – is either disingenuous (to say the very least), or necessarily, has been hiding under a very old, big rock. There has NEVER been a time in the history of this thoroughly racist, white-supremacist-based nation-state when “United States attorneys [have] rigorously enforced all of our laws—felonies and misdemeanors—against all perpetrators” equitably!!! We would necessarily have to be idiots (in the original sense and meaning of the term) to believe otherwise. It’s important to remain mindful of the fact that the so-called “justice system” includes, police, probation and parole officers, judges, legal aides, etc… (in addition to “United States attorneys”). If we want to pretend that NONE of them are bias, prejudice, and/or racist – then once again – we would necessarily have to be straight-up idiots, or in deep-seated, irrational denial. Of course, “we should enforce all the laws, enacted by elected officials, to their fullest extent,” and EQUITABLY. However, again, unless we are deep-seated-denial, idiots, or hiding under old rocks – WE KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT, AND NEVER HAS BEEN REALITY – PERIOD!!! Of all the people in the world – those who are attorneys, and who have been judges ought to KNOW this better than most!!!
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/resources/human-rights/archive/how-you-start-how-you-finish-slave-patrol-jim-crow-origins-policing/
Mr. Dollinger, one question to you as such a fine representative of anachronistic conservatism: who won the 2020 presidential election?
Go sit down.
(Evidently this man has never heard of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and their murderous rampages.)
The article once would have some credibility. It does not hold up under Nixon or under our long history of Jim Crow. It seems absurd during the Trump Administration with Trump’s and AG Blanche’s prosecutions for free speech in Minneapolis and elsewhere. How about the demotions and terminations at the FBI and Justice Department lawyers if assigned cases based on Trump lies of election fraud or his failed coup on January 6, 2021? Do we even have to mention the false charges of wholesale vandalism of the Reflecting pool? The list of weaponizations based on facts and the very unusual refusal to charge by many Grand Juries is to long for this response. You were a better public servant and Judge than this article indicates.
Agreed and well said! But what about the other words that politicians use.
It seems that the word socialism has become whatever some politicians don’t like instead of what its real meaning is, which is public ownership of the means of production (like taking shares in corporations that this administration wants). The Cato Institute has a list of those corporations that the Trump administration has take shares in.
Quite awhile ago, Republicans came up with something they called “partial birth abortion.” Sounds horrible. But there’s no such medical procedure. Late-term abortion is what they mean but it sounds so benign.
Last on my list, which is hardly exhaustive, is using Democrat rather than Democratic. This goes back, I believe, to the 1940s and was meant as an insult (maybe because it ends in “rat”?). It’s the Democratic Party, not the Demcrat Party (and certainly not Dumocrat).
Much is communicated by language. Pres Trump and his minions are masters of this.
I believe you are mistaken about how this term is being used and what weaponization is. In the past the department of justice was very careful to carry out its own investigations based purely on the specific actions of those investigated. As an independent branch of the government they were not directed to investigate specific people or told what conclusions to reach about their guilt or innocence. That is no longer the case. President Trump has made prosecutors swear loyalty oaths to him and the executive branch, and fired those involved in past investigations of his many federal crimes. He has used the DOJ to pursue lawsuits against individuals whom he has a beef with and has had his pet lawyers invent crimes they have committed. In many many cases these “crimes” never even make it past a grand jury indicting the “criminals” and yet they still make the news and besmirch the reputation if those accused. This has the general effect of making people reluctant to call out his crimes (of which he has been convicted in both criminal and civil court) because he uses the justice department for vengeance not actual criminal prosecution. Innocent victims of his who do end up going to court must fight expensive legal battles to prove that innocence. And for the most part these folks are innocent of anything other than bringing down Trump’s wrath.
This perversion of an independent branch of our government (Congress, Justice and the executive branch should be independent) is why people object to and label this as “lawfare” or weaponization of the legal system. It is an accurate observation of a tactic Trump uses both as president and a businessman. As a rich person (and now as president) he has the legal firepower to bring these mostly vengeful and frivolous cases against whom he perceives as his enemies as a bullying tactic. He filed 60 lawsuits to try to overturn the 2020 election. None of them successful. Not one. That is a perfect example.