Critics Blast Memo Softening Blow on ICE Abuse: 'Abolition' Isn't Enough After Skull Pins
The discussion zeroes in on alleged human rights abuses, specifically within ICE detention facilities, triggered by a memo that sought to downplay systemic failures by focusing only on mitigating 'cruelty.'
Commenters fiercely rejected the memo's scope, finding the focus on abolishing only 'cruelty' an inadequate and dangerous deflection from the systemic problem. The primary battleground is the defense of 'following orders'; users like MarxMadness and Rojo27 mocked this defense as a facile excuse for complicity in violence. Conversely, some highlighted the human element of agents' potential unwillingness to commit acts, a point countered by Texas_Instruments_TI_69 who noted that even bringing toys doesn't erase overall moral failings.
The consensus among the most vocal critics is that the offered remedy is fundamentally insufficient. The discussion reveals a split between those who see the required action as a simple moral conclusion (Rom) and those who demand total systemic dissolution, with Hestia arguing the policy failure demands outright 'liquidation' rather than weak fixes.
Key Points
The memo's effort to limit critique to mere 'cruelty' is seen as insufficient damage control.
The general consensus argues that minimizing systemic abuse this way is a dangerous deflection.
The defense of 'following orders' was widely mocked.
Users like MarxMadness and Rojo27 treated this defense as an invalid attempt to justify complicity.
External oversight (civilian phones, dash cams) is superior to internal body cameras.
Powderhorn argued this provides better deterrence because guards lack routine external oversight.
The failure requires a drastic solution beyond mere policy tweaks.
Hestia demanded 'abolish' was too weak a term, suggesting outright liquidation.
Historical symbols used by agents draw severe condemnation.
D61 pointed out the specific critique regarding challenge coins stamped with a skull resembling the Nazi Totenkopf.
The conflict frames the issue as a stark moral failing, not just an ideology dispute.
d_cagno argued the problem is a stark moral reality where oppression occurs, dismissing ideological framing.
Source Discussions (4)
This report was synthesized from the following Lemmy discussions, ranked by community score.