Presumption of Guilt: How Trump Turned Crown Tattoos and Air Jordan Sneakers Into Deportation Evidence
Or From ‘Jumpman’ to Jumpsuits: The Symbolic 'Crimes' Landing Hundreds in a Notorious Salvadoran Prison
On March 12, 2025, Kilmar Abrego Garcia finished up at his job as a sheet metal worker, picked up his 5 year old, and was heading to his Maryland home. Garcia, a legal U.S. resident, was then pulled over by Homeland Security agents. They informed him that his “status has changed” and arrested him.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents allegedly told Garcia that his child would need to be picked up within ten minutes or would be handed to Child Protective Services. His wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, arrived to find her husband “confused, distraught and crying,” but, like the spouse of the Columbia University student, Mahmoud Khalil, she was given no explanation for his arrest. Days later, Garcia was put on a plane along with hundreds of other alleged gang members to a maximum security prison in El Salvador, a country with a record of violating the rights of its prisoners.
Garcia’s deportation occurred in spite of the fact he was under the protection of a 2019 court order. Protected from what? From being sent to his home country, El Salvador, a country his lawyers say he fled after being threatened with death by gang members attempting to extort his parents.
The U.S. government admitted, in court filings, that they were aware of Garcia's protection from removal to El Salvador but claimed he was deported anyway due to “administrative error.” Thus the government sent a working father and husband who came to the United States fleeing gang violence to a prison specializing in incarcerating the most violent gang members. Garcia’s case exemplifies the Trump administration’s prioritization of political aims over legal and ethical integrity.
A Maryland father protected by court order was shipped to a Salvadoran prison over an “administrative error” — while ICE admitted knowing his life was in danger.
In mid-March 2025, the Trump administration deported more than 200 Venezuelan nationals alleged to be members of the gang, Tren de Aragua (TDA) to El Salvador. The men, who included non-Venezuelans like Garcia, were sent to the maximum-security prison “Terrorist Confinement Center” known by its Spanish acronym CECOT. A 2023 U.S. State Department report concluded that El Salvador had" “[s]ignificant human rights issues” that include “credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killings; enforced disappearance; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by security forces; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions…”
In a March 16 post to Truth Social, President Donald Trump shared an El Salvadorian propaganda video showcasing detainees being received from the United States. The footage showed the men Trump called “monsters” shackled, shoved around, and forcefully shaven.
In 2022, El Salvador's President Nayib Bukele declared a state of emergency and oversaw a rounding up of more than 80,000 people suspected of gang membership. According to the Central American human rights group, Cristosal, at least 265 people have died in state custody or shortly following their release. The group presented evidence that prisoners have been subjected to “the use of torture, as well as other forms of cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment.” Interviewees reported “being hung by the wrists” and extreme forms of physical abuse. One woman described being forced to perform 1,200 squats and was then hung by her wrists when she dared to advocate for a fellow detainee.
President Trump has invoked the Aliens Enemies Act of 1798, declaring wartime authority to exercise maximum unilateral action against TDA. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, the Alien Enemies Act provides presidents’ wartime authority “to detain and deport natives and citizens of an enemy nation.” Under the law, the president is entitled to target people for arrest and deportation based on of their country of origin.
Prior invocations of the law occurred during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II. During World Wars I and II, the executive branch directed the detention and expulsion of immigrants from Germany, Austro-Hungary, Japan, and Italy. During World War II, more than 100,000 people of Japanese descent were incarcerated, a majority of whom were U.S. citizens.
Many legal experts believe Trump's enactment of the Alien Enemies Act is illegitimate since it requires a declaration of war. Congress, not the executive branch, is singularly entitled to declare war. And the U.S. Congress has not declared war on the TDA. And even if the United States was at war with TDA, the government is failing to treat the accused with the same legal respect Nazis were extended during World War II. During a late March hearing on the deportations before the U.S. Court of Appeals, Judge Patricia Millett observed that “Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemies Act” than the people flown to a Salvadorian prison in mid-March.
Join the humanistic revolt.
Stand up to the deportation of truth, justice, and the innocent.
Nevertheless, the Trump administration continues to unilaterally deport members of gangs it insists the United States is “at war” with El Salvador, denying them due process proceedings. On the last day of March 2025, the administration announced that it deported an additional 17 people to El Salvador. The men were alleged to be “violent criminals” and members of TDA and the MS-13 gangs.
Given the risks posed to those being deported to El Salvador and the rushed nature of the deportations, which took place before those accused of wrongdoing could respond to the accusations, family members and friends of the deported have demanded to know what evidence the Trump administration is relying on to determine TDA gang member affiliation. On April 1st, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) asked the Supreme Court to uphold a prior judge's order that the Trump administration halt it's deportations under the Alien Enemies Act.
Human rights groups and people of humanistic conscience are further demanding to know on what legal and ethical grounds anyone regardless of criminal history can or should be sent to a nation credibly accused of violating essential human freedoms. Such inquiries may prove of importance to U.S. citizens in light of El Salvador’s president’s offer to the Trump administration to jail U.S. citizens if asked to do so. The publicly available answers reveal fallacious and unethical reasoning and an overreach of executive power indicative of authoritarianism.
Circular Logic: How ICE Officials Defend the Indefensible
During an interview with ABC’s This Week ICE’s acting director, Tom Homan, declared everyone sent to El Salvador by the Trump administration were gang members. “That plane removed 240 terrorists from the United States,” said Homan.
When asked how the Trump administration determined gang membership, Homan equivocated, refusing to specify the criteria used by the government. Instead of listing the (dubious) criteria, Homan said he noticed many in the media highlighting that many of those deported did not have criminal records. “Well, a lot of gang members don't have criminal histories. Just like a lot of terrorists in this world, they're not in any terrorist database, right?” Homan evaded the question at hand to observe that gang members don’t always leave evidence of their gang membership.
Though Homan’s observation is accurate, it doesn’t answer the question of how the administration determines gang membership. Homan appears not to have considered that sometimes evidence isn’t found because, well, a crime hasn’t been committed. Most of us don’t leave evidence of gang membership because most of us aren’t gang members. Those of us who don’t leave evidence of gang membership who are gang members are a much smaller group. And it is the job of law enforcement to ascertain the evidence to prove the conclusion rather than to assume the conclusion in question. Homan, it seems, prefers to deploy the fallacy of beginning the question.
Arguing From Absence: When No Evidence Becomes “Proof”
Homan isn’t the only Trump administration figure deploying fallacies to defend unilateral deportations of people to a prison system known for allowing its people to be brutalized and killed. Robert Cerna, the acting Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations for ICE, insisted that the administration was justified in sending the Venezuelan nationals to the Salvadorian prison because many of the men are “terrorists.” What supports this claim? According to Cerna, the evidence is the lack of “specific information about each individual.”
In a sworn declaration, Cerna argued that “the lack of specific information about each individual (alleged gang member) actually highlights the risk they pose' and 'demonstrates that they are terrorists with regard to whom we lack a complete profile.”
But an absence of evidence that these men committed a crime no more proves their guilt than proves their innocence. Cerna committed—some might say deployed—the appeal to ignorance fallacy, also known as arguing from ignorance. This is the fallacy of using a lack of evidence as proof for our claim.
Imagine Samantha claims the BeeHive restaurant is amazing because no one has written any bad reviews for the restaurant. Samantha's friend, Ryan, asks what the good reviews say about the restaurant. Samantha replies that no one has yet written any reviews, good or bad, about the place. But the absence of reviews doesn't prove anything. That absence is just a question mark. Maybe the BeeHive will be great, maybe it will be bad or just mediocre.
As scientist Carl Sagan put it, echoing many before him, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” We aren’t obligated to assent to a claim until its supporters have presented evidence that proves the point. The lack of evidence for a given claim proves, well, nothing. Similarly, Cerna proves nothing about the guilt or innocence of the men in question when he cites the government’s lack of evidence regarding their criminal activity.
Symbolic Crime: How Crowns and Air Jordans Became “Evidence”
If Trump administration officials admit that they lack the kind of hard evidence typically expected of legitimate law enforcement efforts to determine guilt, what information are they relying on to decide which Venezuelan nationals ought to be condemned to a dangerous, rights-violating prison system like El Salvador’s? Internal Trump administration documents filed in March 2025 court proceedings shed new though lurid light on the matter.
According to the government’s documents, Venezuelan nationals are deemed members of the Tren de Aragua (TDA) gang and subject to deportation without due process if they receive 8 points of the government's rubric for determining TDA membership. Those scoring as few as 6 points may also be considered for the same deportation process if approved by officers’ supervisors. The point system and deportation penalization apply to anyone who is 14 years old and older.
The symbolic criteria for determining membership to TDA include being observed displaying “hand signs used by TDA” (2 points) and “insignia, logos, notations, drawings, or dress known to indicate allegiance to TDA, as observed by law enforcement in person or via virtual mediums” (4 points). TDA membership can also be established when law enforcement observes “tattoos denoting membership/loyalty to TDA” (4 points).
The government’s rubric: A Bulls jersey (4 pts) + clock tattoo (4 pts) = deportation to a Salvadorian prison.
Thus, a Venezuelan national could be deemed a member of TDA and subject to immediate deportation to a prison in El Salvador without the opportunity to defend oneself against any allegations of wrongdoing for 1) possessing tattoos and dressing in a manner indicative of TDA membership (8 points).
So what are the kinds of tattoos that the government believes are indicative of TDA membership? Here are seven of the nine listed by the government.
1) "Jump Man" (Michael Jordan) symbol
2) AK-47s
3) trains
4) crowns
5) clocks
6) stars
7) “Real Hasta La Muerte” Quote
The first is a reference to the iconic American basketball player, Michael Jordan. The “Jumpman” symbol features Jordan about to slam dunk the ball with characteristic flare— his arm is stretched upward, ball in hand, and legs spread out, in this case, over his jersey number, 23.
The next five tattoos are shown in the government's document as generic examples of each symbol. The government believes Venezuelans with tattoos of stars, or crowns, or trains, or clocks, or AK-47s are rightly suspected of TDA membership. The criteria are as unimaginative as frightening.
The quote “Real Hasta La Muerte” was popularized by Puerto Rican rapper Anuel AA. Its American English equivalent is “ride or die,” denoting unwavering loyalty “until death.”
Possessing one of the aforementioned tattoos appears to have been enough to make a Venezuelan national an immediate suspect of being a member of TDA and earning them 4 points toward the 8 required to be deported under the Alien Enemies Act.
Now let's look at some of the styles of dressing the government believes are indicative of TDA membership and meriting another 4 points toward wartime deportation.
“Dressed in high-end urban street wear;
Favor the Chicago Bulls basketball jersey, specifically Michael Jordan jerseys with the number ‘23’, and Jordan ‘Jump Man’ footwear/sneakers; and/ or
Often wear sports attire from U.S. professional sports teams with Venezuelan nationals on them.”
So-called “urban” athletic attire was cited as “evidence” by ICE officials in claiming that Kilmar Garcia was a member of the MS-13 gang. Garcia was never “convicted” as a member of the gang as Vice President J.D. Vance claimed. Garcia was accused of being a member of the gang, according to law enforcement’s Gang Field Interview Sheet, on grounds that an unidentified confidential informant claimed he was a member of the gang and—this is not a joke—he was wearing a Chicago Bulls hat and hoodie. The claims were never substantiated in a court of law and Garcia was not convicted. According to Snopes, Garcia has no criminal record in the United States or El Salvador.
It’s the Trump administration, not Garcia, who has acted illegally. On April 4, 2025, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis described Garcia’s deportation as an “illegal act,” and ordered the administration to return the Maryland resident to the United States. “The record reflects that Abrego Garcia was apprehended in Maryland without legal basis, wrote Judge Xinis. In 2019 an immigration judge ruled that Garcia was protected from deportation to El Salvador where he was likely to endure persecution from gangs. The Trump administration has claimed that Garcia’s deportation was an error. Meanwhile, as Garcia’s lawyer, Lucia Curiel, explained to Breaking Points, it is the man and his wife and three children that are now forced to bare the burden and pain of that illegal “error.”
If this work unsettles you, like and share it.
Exposing authoritarian logic requires witnesses.
From Fashion to False Accusations
The criteria are bewilderingly insipid. Where do we begin in identifying the fallaciousness of the government’s criteria for determining TDA membership? Let’s start by observing that even if we obtained evidence of someone’s past TDA membership, we would not know if the person was still in the gang. People sometimes get tattoos they regret but may lack the means or opportunity to remove them. But even this line of criticism gives too much credence to the faulty assumptions built into the government’s criteria.
The government's use of interest in Michael Jordan to determine gang loyalty is disturbingly dubious. Jordan is one of the most accomplished and noteworthy athletic figures in sports history, globally. His Air Jordan brand, which launched in the 1990s, has the Jumpman symbol as its logo. The sneaker and sportswear line is one of the most popular in U.S. fashion history. Air Jordan sneakers significantly contributed to the rise of the “sneakerhead” culture in which sneakers such as Air Jordans are fashion staples. In other words, Jordan is not only a global athletic icon but also a global fashion icon.
Even if it were true that all members of TDA dress in “high-end urban street wear” and adorn their bodies with some combination of the Jumpman, stars, trains, and crowns, it would not mean that every Venezuelan national who does the same is a member of the TDA. These symbols are as likely to prove TDA membership as drinking orange juice is. The government fails to grasp the difference between something being a necessary condition for group membership—a common characteristic shared by all members of a particular group —and a sufficient condition—a characteristic that guarantees someone is a member of the group.
Think of it like this, liking sports is a necessary condition for liking soccer. If you didn’t like sports at all then you definitely wouldn’t like soccer since it’s a kind of sport. But we wouldn’t know if you like soccer if all we knew was that you liked sports. Maybe you like basketball and hate soccer. Liking sports is a necessary condition for liking soccer just as having a particular fashion style or tattoo (might) be a necessary condition for being a member of TDA. On the other hand, if you were an avid fan of Real Madrid (a soccer team), we would have a sufficient condition—a guarantee—that you liked soccer. Similarly, being found guilty in a court of law of committing a crime on behalf of the TDA would be a sufficient condition for determining that you are a participating member of that gang.
No reasonable person would endorse those in power assessing their innocence or guilt based on such “symbolic crime” criteria. The idea that men have been sent to one of the world’s most notorious prisons on such patently absurd conditions ought to unsettle the lovers of reason and liberty alike.
Join the humanistic revolt—a fellowship of thinkers holding power to account.
Exporting Cruelty: The Fallacies Behind Trump’s “Gang” Deportations
The government’s faulty criteria for determining gang membership helps explain officials’ reliance on equivocation and fallacious reasoning to explain the denial of due process and deportation of accused gang members.
“Where was Laken Riley’s due process?” — the Trump administration’s grotesque equivocation between an individual act of murder and state-sponsored deportation.
When the Trump administration’s border czar, Tom Homan was further pressed on the government's denial of due process for the accused, Homan replied, “Due process? Where was Laken Riley's due process? Where were all these young women that were killed and raped by members of TDA? Where was their due process?” Laken Riley was a 22-year-old Augusta University nursing student who was murdered in Athens Georgia by a Venezuelan man who entered the U.S. illegally.
The Presumption of Guilt: A Betrayal of American Values
Homan’s response features a package of fallacies. In the first place, he changes the subject and does so with an emotional smokescreen meant to distract from the legitimate question about whether or not those accused of a crime are allowed to defend themselves in a court of law. Yes, the crime committed against Laken Riley—one of the approximate 22,000 homicides that takes place in the United States each year, a rate of murder that has significantly dropped since the 1990s even as the percentage of the immigrant population of the U.S. has grown during that same time—was morally repugnant. Humane and emotionally sensitive people are all pained by the murder of an innocent and unsuspecting person whatever her name or age. But that moral concern is here weaponized against rational inquiry.
Homan’s response attempts to analogize the denial of Venezuelan nationals’ opportunity to defend themselves against the state’s accusations of being members of a violent criminal gang and the denial of Riley’s right to life. The problem here is that the state is responsible for denying the Venezuelan nationals due process rights. A single murderer, who was held accountable for his crime, was responsible for denying Riley’s right to life. The two situations are not comparable and the wrong endured by Riley is unrelated to due process; it was due to a repugnant act of murderous violence on the part of a single individual who, in this instance, happened to be in the country illegally and of Venezuelan origin.
The question is not whether or not a young woman should have been murdered. That is a question rational persons give the same answer to. The question pertains to the due process of those accused of being members of a gang and sent to a dangerous prison. After all, Riley’s life is no more or less valuable than Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s. And no amount of pain and coerced penance, wrought from the wrongfully deported, will undo the wrong done to a single individual such as Riley.
Moreover, those concerned about the denial of due process of alleged violent gang members are motivated by a respect for innocence. Ironically, it is precisely those like Homan who betray and condemn the innocent by presuming their guilt and denying them the ancient right to defend themselves against such accusations.
If you value this work and have the means, consider upgrading to a paid subscription. Your support enables Humanities in Revolt to be a space for uncompromising and uncommodified thought. (Free subscribers are just as cherished!)
Better the Guilty Go Free than the Innocent be Punished, a Bedrock Principle of Civilization
The legal presumption of the innocence of those accused of crimes was affirmed as a bedrock principle of U.S. law in the 1895 Supreme Court case, Coffin v. United States. In a ruling signed by all eight of the Justices, we read
“The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.”
The Justices note that the origins of this principle are ancient, referencing a book 48 of a compendium of Roman law compiled in 530-533 CE1 called the Digest or the Pandect. That text states that the Roman emperor, Trajan (53-117 CE), insisted it was wrong to convict people purely off of suspicion of criminal wrongdoing. According to the text, Trajan believed:
“It is better to permit the crime of a guilty person to go unpunished than to condemn one who is innocent.”2
Centuries of ethical wisdom reduced to dust: Trump’s policy declares it better that ten innocent suffer than one guilty escape.
This principle has been subsequently expressed by a range of thinkers. It is often described as “Blackstone's ratio,” a reference to the contention of English jurist William Blackstone conclusion that “the law holds that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.”3
The American Benjamin Franklin more forcefully expressed the rightness of presuming innocence in a 1785 letter.
“That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape, than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long & generally approv’d, never that I know of controverted.”4
The Two-Wrongs Fallacy: Weaponizing Grief to Justify Abuse
The other flagrant error of reasoning committed by Homan is the two wrongs make a right fallacy. “Due process?” Homan asked. “Where was Laken Riley's due process?” The implication of this response is that since Riley was denied her basic right to life everyone accused by the government of being a member of a violent gang should also be denied their basic rights.
That we adults are capable of committing such vivid errors in reasoning is a reminder of just how easy it is to be wrong and how difficult it is to consistently think critically. Tethered to intellectual humility, we may coolly recall that just because someone else misbehaves or commits a wrongful act does not entitle us to do the same. This is a lesson most of us learn as children but some of us forget as we age.
Beneath the moral and logical obstinacy that sometimes comes with age, we know two wrongs do not make a right. If everyone succumbed to such a “logic,” we would not only violate our most cherished values—like the protection of the innocent against false accusations—we would also generate a world of mayhem.
Responding to Injustice with Justice and Love
The great spiritual and philosophical traditions of the world consistently teach us that responding to injustice with injustice simply perpetuates wrong and undermines our humanity. In Plato’s Crito (399 BCE), Socrates states, “Nor must one, when wronged, inflict wrong in return, as the majority believe, since one must never do wrong” (49c). Rather than reciprocating wrong for wrong, we are to hold ourselves to the standard of excellence, even as others fall short.
To more fully make the point, the great thinkers of the world have not only instructed us not to follow the model of the badly behaved but also to treat justly those who have treated us badly. Socrates, in Crito, states, “One should never do wrong in return, nor mistreat any man, no matter how one has been mistreated by him…..” (44, 49d). Some years later, a prophet named Jesus declared loving one’s enemies the central requirement of his followers:
“Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.”
Not only is it irrational and unethical to do wrong because others have done wrong, but it is also fundamentally wrong to treat badly those who have treated us badly, say Socrates and Jesus. A policy of sending people—even if they are members of a violent gang—to another nation’s prison system known for rampant abuses would be deemed wrong by such an ethic of love.
Jerce Barrios, a youth soccer coach with no criminal record, was deported for tattoos of his family’s names. His ‘crime’? Looking like a ‘monster’ to power.
The Human Cost: Stories of the Wrongfully Deported
Among those deported into El Salvador's prison system, known for its human rights abuses, was Jerce Reyes Barrios, a youth soccer coach with no criminal record. As reported by
Barrios is a former Venezuelan professional soccer player. His family discovered his whereabouts through the horror of seeing him in El Salvador's propaganda video showing immigrants deported from the U.S. being taken off of a plane and having their heads shaved.
Similarly, the mother of Francisco José García Casique, a barber, expected her 24-year-old son to be deported back to Venezuela only to see him, head shaven, in the Salvadorian government’s “promotional” video touting the harvest of their newly received inmates. Casique’s mother said her son’s tattoos are not gang-related but instead read “peace” and list the names of his grandmother, mother, and sister.
In a March 20 report, The Guardian presents the cases of several young men that the U.S. government rendered to El Salvador on grounds they were gang members. The report details the cases of several young men taken including Franco Jose Caraballo Tiapa, Daniel Alberto Lozano Camargo, Neri Jose Alvarado Borges, Luis Carlos Jose Marcano Silva, and Anyelo Sarabia Gonzalez. Each appears to have been identified as a gang member on the basis of their national origin and their tattoos. Yet the young men have tattoos of loved ones’ names, prayer hands, and various messages family members and legal representatives insist are unrelated to TDA. Borges, for instance, has an autism acceptance and awareness ribbon tattoo.
Makeup artist Andry Hernández: Branded a gang member for crown tattoos honoring Three Kings Day — now trapped in CECOT.
Asylum Seeker Branded as Gang Member
The case of Andry José Hernández Romero is also noteworthy. The 31 year old makeup artist and hairdresser entered the U.S. for a prearranged asylum appointment in San Diego. He told immigration officials he was fleeing Venezuela due to his political opposition to the current government and on the basis of his sexual orientation (he's gay).
Like so many others, Hernandez was determined to be a TDA member due to tattoos of crowns “that are consistent with those of a Tren de Aragua member,” according to an immigration agent at California's Otay Mesa detention center. The Guardian reported that Hernández tattooed the crowns on his wrists as an acknowledgment of his Catholic roots and to memorialize the annual Three Kings Day celebrations that his hometown, Capacho, Venezuela, is so well known for.
“From Socrates to Jesus, ethical traditions agree: answering injustice with injustice is a betrayal of our fullest humanity. Trump’s deportations betray this truth.”
The Presumption of Guilt, a Violation of Liberty
The Trump administration’s arguments for denying due process to the Venezuelan nationals sent to El Salvador are not only fallacious they also violate core ethical principles at the heart of any just and non-authoritarian legal system. One such principle is the presumption of innocence until guilt has been proven by our accusers. This libertarian principle is meant to affirm human dignity and protect human beings from tyrannical concentrations of power. When we combine the absence of evidence of criminal wrongdoing committed by many deported to El Salvador that Cerna admits to with the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” we are left to assume these men's innocence.
“ICE admits it lacks evidence for deportations—then argues that absence of proof ‘demonstrates they are terrorists.’”
Those who would reject this presumption of innocence must give an argument for why they would reject the presumption of guilt if applied to their loved ones are so quick to abandon this essential human right when it comes to people of another national origin. It is precisely this kind of logical inconsistency, yet another fallacy, that leads many to conclude this double standard is most likely explained by ethnocentrism. What is not in doubt is that many of the men sent to El Salvador by the Trump administration have been denied their basic human rights. Not only is that irrational, it is unethical and condemnable.
If this piece left you with more fury than hope, transform it. Contact your elected officials to educate them on the issue and tell them where you stand. Sample script below. Silence is the ally of injustice. Speak.
“People are being labeled Tren de Aragua members and deported to El Salvador's abusive CECOT prison based on tattoos of crowns (4 pts) and Michael Jordan imagery/ Sports Jerseys (4 pts). No evidence. No trial. Just a point system that would criminalize countless innocents. This violates the bedrock American principle that people are innocent until proven guilty. Where do you stand on the denial of due process and the deportation of U.S. residents like Kilmar Abrego Garcia?”
If you made it this far, you’re part of the humanistic revolt. Chose your next move.
1️⃣ Tap ❤️ to amplify this piece’s reach (algorithms are watching)
2️⃣ Comment – Make your voice heard
3️⃣ Share – with someone who needs these ideas
4️⃣ Subscribe (free) – join the revolt for justice and love of life
5️⃣ Upgrade to paid subscription or leave a tip – Sustain uncompromised truth-telling
The project was organized by Byzantine emperor Justinian I.
See Title 19, “Concerning punishments,” No. 5, “Ulpianus, On the Duties of Proconsul, Book VII.”
This statement is found in book IV of his 18th century work, Commentaries on the Laws of England.
Before becoming the United States’ second president, John Adams warned that more harm was done in persecuting the innocent than permitting the guilty to go free. In a December 1770 legal defense, Adams said,
“We are to look upon it as more beneficial, that many guilty persons should escape unpunished, that one innocent person should suffer. The reason is, because it's of more importance to community, that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt should be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in the world, that all of them cannot be punished.... But when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, it is immaterial to me, whether I behave well or ill; for virtue itself, is no security. And if such a sentiment as this, should take place in the mind of the subject, there would be an end to all security what so ever.”
The French Enlightenment thinker, Voltaire, also affirms this principle in his work, Zadig (1747). In chapter VI of the book, we read that Zadig believed “the Nations round about were indebted for that generous Maxim; that ’tis much more Prudence to acquit two Persons, tho’ actually guilty, than to pass Sentence of Condemnation in one that is virtuous and innocent.”
A detailed and frightening summary of a reality we deny: Law does not assure justice, just as a constitution does not assure a social contract - it is the culture which does - and if the culture is rotten to the core both law and constitution are really tools of oppression and exploitation - and any justifications given for obviously illegal and unconstitutional overreach - are just window-dressing to enthuse one' s rabid followers.
I woke up this morning saying to myself...the terrorist I most fear is the one in the White House. It is NOT okay to disappear people in my name. How many innocent men have been torn from their families and are now being tortured due to a so-called "administrative error." It is not an administrative error when you choose to disregard the law and a basic sense of fairness. There are terrorists running our country now. In the White House and in Congress.