> Now we have to go through all this theatrics simply so those people can say things like "he got a fair hearing" and "the magistrate ruled against him so that must be the law".
This means that the countries involved (in this case, in order: Australia, Sweden, the UK, and the US) don't have the rule of law. It means that the law is theater, always potentially subordinate to dictatorial control should it ever be exercised to overrule it.
It's okay to say it, despite it feeling silly. Identifying one of the problems allows us to address it.
These countries only pretend to have the rule of law, insofar as the law doesn't contradict what the dictatorial authority wants to happen.
It's weird to think of the US or UK or Sweden or Australia, supposedly "free countries", as top-down military dictatorships, because it goes against every fiber of branding they've spent billions to explicitly promote.
There's lots of evidence for it, however: what mainstream party in the US wants to reign in the US military's insane overfunding, or illegal US military bulk surveillance, for example?
Once you see it, it's hard to unsee.
These countries place state security far above almost every other value, including equal protection of the law. Any attempts to change this priority by those with any semblance of power will be frustrated, by force if necessary.
If you want to name a country that has rule of law, in your opinion, it works make your point stronger. The US isn't a particularly good example of the rule of law right now, true, but I think you would be hard pressed to come up with an example that passes your apparently stringent purity test.
If you can't point to such examples, your point comes off as trivially weak.
This means that the countries involved (in this case, in order: Australia, Sweden, the UK, and the US) don't have the rule of law. It means that the law is theater, always potentially subordinate to dictatorial control should it ever be exercised to overrule it.
It's okay to say it, despite it feeling silly. Identifying one of the problems allows us to address it.
These countries only pretend to have the rule of law, insofar as the law doesn't contradict what the dictatorial authority wants to happen.
It's weird to think of the US or UK or Sweden or Australia, supposedly "free countries", as top-down military dictatorships, because it goes against every fiber of branding they've spent billions to explicitly promote.
There's lots of evidence for it, however: what mainstream party in the US wants to reign in the US military's insane overfunding, or illegal US military bulk surveillance, for example?
Once you see it, it's hard to unsee.
These countries place state security far above almost every other value, including equal protection of the law. Any attempts to change this priority by those with any semblance of power will be frustrated, by force if necessary.