America’s Legal System: Advocating for Human Rights Abroad While Ignoring Injustices at Home

To Effectively Confront Hostage-Taking Nations, We Must First Hold Ourselves to a Higher Standard

Having worked on wrongful detention and hostage cases involving regimes such as Cuba, China, and Iran, among others, I can say with confidence that the treatment some January 6 (J6) defendants have endured in U.S. custody—prolonged solitary confinement, denial of due process, and political targeting—is deeply troubling. In some cases I have reviewed, the U.S. appears no better than the authoritarian regimes we, and policymakers, often criticize.

As a nation that prides itself on the rule of law and the protection of fundamental individual rights, we must confront a difficult question: How can we credibly advocate for hostages and the wrongfully detained in foreign lands when our legal system increasingly mirrors the very abuses we condemn abroad?

While it is undisputable that laws were broken on January 6 and that those responsible should be held accountable, the prosecutions that followed have exposed troubling precedents that challenge the core tenets of American justice. The selective enforcement, harsh sentencing, and disregard for due process seen in these cases are not hallmarks of a free and just society but rather echoes of the authoritarian tactics we decry in oppressive regimes. If we fail to address these injustices, we risk eroding the values that distinguish America as a beacon of freedom and fairness.

To effectively end hostage diplomacy in foreign nations, we must never lose the moral high ground. When we do, American leadership suffers, our credibility on the world stage diminishes, and we endanger the Americans and others we seek to protect abroad. Congress should take a long, hard look at what happened to the J6 defendants beyond what has already been done. These individuals should be interviewed and, if needed, allowed to tell their stories at public congressional hearings.

The erosion of due process, selective prosecutions, and the weaponization of the justice system for political purposes should alarm every American, especially those in the legal profession. The rule of law is not a tool to be applied selectively based on political ideology or convenience. It is the foundation of our constitutional republic, and when compromised, it threatens the very fabric of our society.

Beyond the J6 defendants, one standout case of prosecutorial overreach is that of Ross Ulbricht. A fellow liberty advocate closely connected to the case and his family brought this matter to my attention. Ulbricht was operating in a space fraught with legal and policy uncertainties—the wrongly called “dark web,” or what we today call the Internet. Some of his actions crossed legal boundaries, but the sentencing defied logic. And some of the crimes he was accused of used laws made for a brick-and-mortar world, not the Internet.

I was shocked by the extent of prosecutorial overreach, the denial of due process, and the harshness of his sentence. Ulbricht’s life sentence without parole for non-violent offenses stands as a glaring example of disproportionate punishment. This injustice should concern every American who values fairness and due process. Politically motivated or tinged prosecutions erode trust in institutions and weaken our republic.

Ulbricht’s case, the J6 cases, police officers prosecuted due to political agendas, and other similar cases I've reviewed but have not mentioned here raise serious concerns about the fairness of our justice system. Excessive sentencing and the selective application of the law by politically motivated judges are alarming trends. Judges often use sentencing guidelines as an excuse, but that rationale can only go so far. Blaming the guidelines is a cop-out and a blemish on the legal profession. These cases were not about guideline abuse; Congress should investigate and act.