4 ms·

> the government "disappearing" people (which they have objectively been doing lately) If you know where someone is being held (like Louisiana, for example) th

> the government "disappearing" people (which they have objectively been doing lately) If you know where someone is being held (like Louisiana, for example) they weren't 'disappeared'.

weard_beard 2y ago
If they were abducted by plainclothes agents and moved across state lines (countermanding a judges lawful order) to a facility where their legal representation has no access they were, without a doubt, disappeared.
- kelnos 2y ago
  Those actions are shitty, but irrelevant to the argument. If you know where someone is, then they haven't been disappeared.
  - Grimblewald 2y ago
    except, relevant people didn't know where she was. It took the Turkish consulate getting involved to even make progress on the matter, and the people who took her said they didn't know where she was when asked by a representative of the Turkish consulate. You don't think that's disappearing someone? It doesn't matter that she was later 'found' after media attention got too hot. It is clear as day what was attempted.
- easterncalculus 2y ago
  Okay, so ignoring a lawful order is unlawful. It's still not 'disappearing' someone if you know where they are. There are also some people you could argue are being disappeared because their whereabouts aren't published. That's assuming media outlets simply just aren't reporting on their whereabouts to then create that narrative. Surely US media has never done that in recent history. It's all case-by-case and it's clear that ICE is probably breaking the law at a large scale. Still: > without a doubt With HEAVY doubt, lol. At some point redefining buzzwords to engage in political hyperbole goes further than being intellectually dishonest and presses against the rules of this site.
  - Grimblewald 2y ago
    "A representative of the Turkish consulate went to ICE offices in Burlington, Massachusetts, and was informed that Ozturk was not in that office and ICE could not provide further information about her whereabouts" From recent CNN publication on the matter. At this stage I have to assume you are arguing in bad faith / shilling for a fascist government. I can only hope you're being paid to do something this debased.
hmcq6 2y ago
Wrong. > For the purposes of this Convention, "enforced disappearance" is considered to be the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law. Arresting Mahmoud Khalil and Rümeysa Öztürk is a violation of their first amendment rights, no one in the government has acknowledged this. In addition, moving people to another state in opposition to a judges orders because the judge in Louisiana is favorable to your cause is an attempt to place someone outside of the protection of the law. Khalil was also denied his right to a phone call or legal council for (as far as I can tell) 4 days. But also, the government is unambiguously disappearing people https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-administration-ignored-order-gang-removal-flights/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-administration-ignored-or... And can I add, trusting the government to tell you where the person they just kidnapped is, is a pretty naive way of looking at things. They're violating our first amendment rights and kidnapping people off the street while disguising their identities and refusing to identify themselves when asked directly. What happens if they also refused to tell you where they disappeared people to?

> the government "disappearing" people (which they have objectively been doing lately) If you know where someone is being held (like Louisiana, for example) they weren't 'disappeared'.

weard_beard 2y ago

If they were abducted by plainclothes agents and moved across state lines (countermanding a judges lawful order) to a facility where their legal representation has no access they were, without a doubt, disappeared.

kelnos 2y ago
Those actions are shitty, but irrelevant to the argument. If you know where someone is, then they haven't been disappeared.
- Grimblewald 2y ago
  except, relevant people didn't know where she was. It took the Turkish consulate getting involved to even make progress on the matter, and the people who took her said they didn't know where she was when asked by a representative of the Turkish consulate. You don't think that's disappearing someone? It doesn't matter that she was later 'found' after media attention got too hot. It is clear as day what was attempted.
easterncalculus 2y ago
Okay, so ignoring a lawful order is unlawful. It's still not 'disappearing' someone if you know where they are. There are also some people you could argue are being disappeared because their whereabouts aren't published. That's assuming media outlets simply just aren't reporting on their whereabouts to then create that narrative. Surely US media has never done that in recent history. It's all case-by-case and it's clear that ICE is probably breaking the law at a large scale. Still: > without a doubt With HEAVY doubt, lol. At some point redefining buzzwords to engage in political hyperbole goes further than being intellectually dishonest and presses against the rules of this site.
- Grimblewald 2y ago
  "A representative of the Turkish consulate went to ICE offices in Burlington, Massachusetts, and was informed that Ozturk was not in that office and ICE could not provide further information about her whereabouts" From recent CNN publication on the matter. At this stage I have to assume you are arguing in bad faith / shilling for a fascist government. I can only hope you're being paid to do something this debased.

hmcq6 2y ago

Wrong. > For the purposes of this Convention, "enforced disappearance" is considered to be the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law. Arresting Mahmoud Khalil and Rümeysa Öztürk is a violation of their first amendment rights, no one in the government has acknowledged this. In addition, moving people to another state in opposition to a judges orders because the judge in Louisiana is favorable to your cause is an attempt to place someone outside of the protection of the law. Khalil was also denied his right to a phone call or legal council for (as far as I can tell) 4 days. But also, the government is unambiguously disappearing people https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-administration-ignored-order-gang-removal-flights/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-administration-ignored-or... And can I add, trusting the government to tell you where the person they just kidnapped is, is a pretty naive way of looking at things. They're violating our first amendment rights and kidnapping people off the street while disguising their identities and refusing to identify themselves when asked directly. What happens if they also refused to tell you where they disappeared people to?