By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump’s proposal to deport American criminals to the notoriously harsh Salvadoran prison, CECOT, has sparked legal controversy. Attorney General Bondi declined to comment on the legality of the plan, despite legal experts deeming it clearly illegal. This follows the administration’s refusal to repatriate Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a legally protected American mistakenly deported to CECOT, despite a Supreme Court order. The plan also raises concerns regarding the legality of deporting Venezuelans to CECOT, given human rights abuses and the questionable invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. The administration, however, maintains the plan enhances national security.
Read the original article here
Pam Bondi’s response to the question of whether Trump’s plan to jail Americans abroad is legal was, to put it mildly, underwhelming. Instead of directly addressing the legality of such a drastic measure, she deflected the question, focusing instead on characterizing the individuals targeted as dangerous criminals. This tactic, while seemingly designed to garner sympathy for the proposed action, completely avoided the core issue at hand: the legal ramifications of imprisoning US citizens overseas without due process.
The evasion of the legal question itself is striking. A former Florida Attorney General, Bondi should be acutely aware of the legal framework surrounding incarceration and extradition. Her failure to even attempt a legal justification strongly suggests that she either knows the plan is unlawful or is deliberately choosing to ignore the potential illegality. This isn’t just a simple matter of disagreeing with a policy; it’s about the blatant disregard for fundamental legal principles.
The characterization of the targeted individuals as “dangerous” is equally problematic. While it’s reasonable to assume some level of criminal activity among those slated for imprisonment, the use of such broad, accusatory language serves as a convenient means of dehumanizing them. This allows for the justification of extreme measures without having to justify them within a legal framework. The implication that these individuals are somehow outside the protections of the law is deeply troubling, suggesting a potential erosion of fundamental rights.
Beyond the evasion and dehumanization, Bondi’s response exposes a more sinister reality. It reveals a disturbing acceptance of a president acting outside the bounds of the law, prioritizing political expediency over legal processes. It suggests a willingness to embrace authoritarian power grabs and erode the rule of law in the name of security. This isn’t simply a disagreement over policy; it’s a tacit endorsement of potentially illegal, even tyrannical actions.
This isn’t a new phenomenon. Bondi’s history reveals a pattern of unwavering loyalty to Trump, often prioritizing his agenda over legal considerations. Her appointment to her current position strongly suggests this loyalty played a significant role in her selection, emphasizing a willingness to prioritize personal allegiance above adherence to legal norms. Her response in this instance merely reinforces this pattern.
The international implications of such a plan cannot be ignored. The arbitrary imprisonment of US citizens abroad risks damaging relationships with other countries, creating further international instability. Such a move undermines the principles of international law and jeopardizes the safety and well-being of American citizens both at home and abroad. The lack of even a cursory mention of these potential consequences underscores the reckless nature of the plan and its defenders.
It is crucial to recognize the potential abuse of power inherent in this proposal. If the government can arbitrarily imprison citizens without due process, it sets a dangerous precedent that erodes individual liberties and undermines the rule of law. This lack of accountability represents a significant threat to democratic principles and raises serious concerns about potential abuses of power.
Ultimately, Bondi’s response is more than just a failure to adequately address a pressing legal question; it represents a profound failure of leadership. Her silence on the illegality of the plan speaks volumes, showcasing a disregard for the very principles she swore to uphold as Attorney General. It highlights a disturbing trend of prioritizing political loyalty over legal integrity and underscores the urgent need for a robust response to protect democratic institutions and individual rights. The potential for such a plan to metastasize into widespread human rights abuses is alarming and demands immediate attention and vigorous opposition.