Judge Finds 'Likelihood' of Vindictive Charges, US Keeps Prosecuting
The New York Times reports a judge found a 'likelihood' that charges against Abrego Garcia were vindictive. This isn't unprecedented; the U.S. has a rich history of politically motivated prosecutions, especially against whistleblowers or those challenging state power. Remember the COINTELPRO operations against civil rights activists? Or Daniel Ellsberg, whose Pentagon Papers leak led to charges
Nixon tried to weaponize? The pattern of using legal machinery to silence dissent is as American as apple pie, just less publicized. (Unless you're Julian Assange.) We loudly condemn other nations for using their courts to silence opposition, yet when a U.S. judge essentially hints at it here, the system rarely self-corrects. Instead, we're told to trust the process—the same process often
weaponized against marginalized communities and inconvenient truths. How many 'likelihoods' of injustice do we need before acknowledging the system's actual priorities?