You’re following rules no one else does and only wanting to try if it’s guaranteed to succeed.

That’s categorically an opposite of what “that said, it’s still worth going after the guy criminally. He deserves prison and the AG should give it a shot” means, right?

I said try even if it’s not guaranteed. My contribution to our conversation was opining on the likelihood of success.

Throw his ass in jail for murder with no bail

I’d love this, and think it’s unlikely.

He can beat the charges, but he’ll never get the months/years of his life back while awaiting trial

Make it so in the back of every ICE agent’s head there’s a constant reminder: “There could be consequences”.

Regardless of how we accomplish it, nothing gets fixed till that thought is always in their minds.

Yes to all of this!

I’m hopeful that a civil lawsuit would succeed, but I think the officer will escape criminal liability because federal courts get to determine scope of duty/egregiousness of conduct before state courts can touch federal officers.

That said, it’s still worth going after the guy criminally. He deserves prison and the AG should give it a shot.

You don’t have to support Maduro (I sure as fuck don’t) to know that the Trump administration is definitely in the wrong to play world police, invade Venezuela, and kidnap a foreign leader. Originally they claimed operations in Venezuela were in defense of democracy, and now some vague accusation about drugs are supposed to explain why all of this is necessary. Both excuses are complete bullshit, but it’s especially hypocritical (although not surprising in the least) for Trump to threaten to cancel U.S. midterms days after kidnapping Maduro and pretending to be protecting the U.S. or some kind of global defender of free speech and the democratic process.

Yeah most of that is right I think. I’d caveat that the attack was more about the naked imperialism in Trump’s publicly articulated “Donroe Doctrine” than drugs or oil specifically.

I don’t really think the Chevron stuff Trump did is odd. Chevron has a longer history operating in Venezuela than any of the other companies. Bad, certainly. I have no love for Trump or Chevron. but not odd.

I kinda miss Chevron deference. As an aside, it is ironic that the namesake for a legal theory providing more administrative authority to the federal government was a private oil company, instead of, like, “administrative deference.”

I wrote this in a different thread, but there’s something vaguely slimy about framing Chevron as the first beneficiary of Trump’s actions when it has been operating for profit in Venezuela for decades with the agreement of Venezuelas government under Maduro. Neither of them are really pro-Palestine if the line being drawn is anti-Chevron.

Obviously Palestinians deserve way better than the hand dealt to them, no question there.

Edit; and to spell out why this felt kinda slimy to me at first: if:

(1) Chevron was operating in Venezuela with Maduro in charge for years without any real issue with Maduro,

(2) Chevron supports Israel, and

(3) the fight is against those enabling Chevron,

it follows that fighting for Maduro is not directly fighting for Palestine.

Fighting for Maduro would qualify as fighting US imperialism for sure, and therein lies that pesky question about the utility of fighting for someone who had every opportunity to shutdown the imperialist problem (Chevron) on his own by virtue of his political power, and did not.

I fall on the side that it’s fine after thinking it through, but I’m also someone who thinks Democrats are broadly good even if they mostly make for small victories for left-liberal ideologies. Ymmv.