BigFatNips@sh.itjust.works to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish · 3 months agoTikTok Rulefedia.ioimagemessage-square171fedilinkarrow-up11.38Karrow-down12
arrow-up11.38Karrow-down1imageTikTok Rulefedia.ioBigFatNips@sh.itjust.works to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish · 3 months agomessage-square171fedilink
minus-squareCethinlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·3 months agoThe last bullet for determining if it’s punishment: “Was that a congressional intent for the statute to further punitive goals.” It fails that test. It isn’t any sort if punishment. It’s for “national security”.
minus-squareMaggoty@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·edit-23 months agoOh? Could have fooled me. The anti-China statements from politicians are admissable. If the government is allowed to hand waive anything under “national security” then it’s a short trip to the work camp for us all.
The last bullet for determining if it’s punishment: “Was that a congressional intent for the statute to further punitive goals.”
It fails that test. It isn’t any sort if punishment. It’s for “national security”.
Oh? Could have fooled me. The anti-China statements from politicians are admissable.
If the government is allowed to hand waive anything under “national security” then it’s a short trip to the work camp for us all.