Log In
Search
Freddie Sayers debates the killing of Renee Good by ICE Agent Jonathan Ross in Minneapolis with civil liberties attorney Jenin Younes and UnHerd’s US editor Sohrab Ahmari, examining the incident through the lens of the “Rashomon effect” where observers draw diametrically opposite conclusions from the same evidence. Was the shooting a catastrophic violation of civil liberties and potentially an illegal execution, or does the responsibility lie with Good for obstructing a lawful federal operation and “weaponizing” her vehicle, a view echoed by the Trump administration’s branding of the event as an act of domestic terrorism. The discussion concludes with YouGov’s David Montgomery, who reveals how the broader American public view the use of force, and what significant long-term political risks the incident may yield for the Republican project.
A couple weeks ago, when Ahmari arranged for a very friendly interview with V.P. Vance, with whom he is close friends, I wrote in this comments section that Ahmari was a really bad choice as the U.S. editor for Unherd. Unlike Freddy, who is exemplary in his fairness and absence of political bias, Ahmari’s political views and bias are widely known here in the U.S. — very much including his well-known role as advocate and apologist for Vance. It does not surprise me that here he is again, advancing the perspective that Vance put forth in a press conference shortly after the Minneapolis event. So, I again urge Unherd (I have been a subscriber for several years) to appoint a U.S. editor who is impartial (and seen to be impartial). Let Ahmari write articles for Unherd, if you like, but it is inappropriate to have him shape your perspective on issues in the U.S. It undermines trust in Unherd, which I hate to see happen.
Often when Freddie Sayers interviews people with opposing views his questions are so pointed for both sides that it is difficult to know what he thinks himself. That’s as it should be, and what makes him so good at it. If I had to guess what his opinion is on the ICEcapade, perhaps it might run something like this: officers of the law shouldn’t be roaming the streets in masks and all geared up in cosplay as if they were entering Fallujah in 2004; the ICE shooter should never get to wear a law enforcement badge again, at the least, with a jury to decide the most he should get ( perhaps no more – who knows? ); suburban mothers in turn shouldn’t be cosplaying as anti-fascists under any circumstances, but particularly when they are so hopelessly out of their depth and haven’t a clue what the play is all about.
But that’s just me.
Think American polarization is an exaggeration? As the pollster who puts a bow on the whole business reports: asked whether the ICE shooter should be criminally charged, 90% of Democrats said yes while only 14% of Republicans said as much. Bridge that divide.
What a great debate! So good to hear two sides both with compelling arguments, but my question is, are ICE officers following the law? As I understand it, a law enforcement officer can detain someone for a few minutes if the officer has “reasonable suspicion” of a crime, but said officer may not arrest a person without a higher standard. The officer must havew “reasonable cause” to believe a crime has been committed. When ICE officers pick up individuals abruptly, how can they be thought to have “reasonable cause?” And there are many statistics, which if true, state that the great majority of people detained do not have criminal records.
Being in the US illegally is a crime! Entering the US illegally is a crime!
Entering the country illegally is a misdemeanor, and I think the focus should be on arresting violent criminals. And there are many reports that ICE is detaining people who are trying to gain legal status, but are stymied by the limitations of our legal process. I think that’s a waste of taxpaper money. The focus should be on arresting violent criminals.
Question for the editors: About a week ago, shortly after I listened to Freddy conduct this interview, I posted the comment above, saying in essence that it was a mistake for Unherd to have chosen, as its U.S. editor, a person who is a well-known advocate for all things J.D. Vance and who, like Vance, is part of a small, fringe movement of self-described post-liberal integralists. The last time I was on the Unherd site, which was a couple days ago, my Comment had 7 or 8 “likes.” Now those have been completely erased. If done deliberately, this is a serious ethical violation. Please explain.
I had sympathy for the arguments Jenin Younes brought until, out of nowhere, she brought Gaza into the interview. Why?! It has nothing to do with domestic American law or US immigration. It seems she has her own personal axe to grind and, unfortunately, this undermines her perfectly reasonable arguments.