4 ms·

“The lack of criminal records does not indicate they pose a limited threat. In fact, based upon their association with Tren de Aragua, the lack of specific info

“The lack of criminal records does not indicate they pose a limited threat. In fact, based upon their association with Tren de Aragua, the lack of specific information about each specific individual actually highlights the risk they pose, https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration/article302299534.html https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration/article30...

actionfromafar 2y ago
The lack of evidence is evidence. Right. Also, war is peace.
- ForOldHack 2y ago
  "Arbeit macht frei (Work Sets You Free."
- frankharv 2y ago
  [flagged]
- lazide 2y ago
  It’s even better - the lack of evidence is apparently evidence they are even more dangerous than those who they have evidence on.
bsder 2y ago
"We don't have any evidence, but we just know they are bad people. Because ... reasons ... that we don't have to share with silly plebians like you." Perhaps this sounds familiar ... "While I cannot take the time to name all the men in the State Department who have been named as members of the Communist Party and members of a spy ring, I have here in my hand a list of 205." -- Senator Joseph McCarthy
- lazyasciiart 2y ago
  Boy, just think how communist the guys NOT on that list must have been!
jandrese 2y ago
The argument is basically that because the deportees had no due process to be deported that no due process can bring them back. The Trump administration claims that they are gang members, but provided no evidence to support this claim, and then refused to work with any members of the judicial system attempting to provide oversight. In any other administration this would be a scandal that rocks the media for months and ends with the resignation of several top officials. For the Trump administration it was Tuesday.
- weaksauce 2y ago
  yeah well on thursday he shit the bed on the economy so i guess we've moved on. stupid tariffs are one thing but the extrajudicial deportation and imprisonment is quite a worse thing if unchecked.
  - sterlind 2y ago
    Comfortably wealthy US citizens aren't personally affected by these extrajudicial disappearances. It's just a headline to them. The stock market, on the other hand...
  - lazide 2y ago
    It’s classic narcissist behavior - get caught with their pants down somewhere? Set somewhere else on fire so you get distracted.
  - lazyasciiart 2y ago
    They’re still in court. The judge today set a deadline of April 7 for the specific guy “accidentally” deported to return to the US, and seems like there may even be people held in contempt of court (can’t tell how much that’s wishful thinking on my part). https://apnews.com/article/trump-deportations-el-salvador-justice-contempt-6085e64a04b5d6455f368175af83e724 https://apnews.com/article/trump-deportations-el-salvador-ju... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-el-savador-father-maryland-return-judge-b2727714.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic... Doesn’t fix everyone else who is there, but ugh.
milesrout 2y ago
The powers under the Act don't specify a standard of proof required. It just says: >all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. The President is authorized in any such event, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed on the part of the United States, toward the aliens who become so liable; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which are found necessary in the premises and for the public safety. Nothing there about the President needing to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Presumably he would need to prove the particular facts, in habeus corpus proceedings, should they be brought, only on the balance of probabilities?
- nitwit005 2y ago
  You skipped the bit at the front: > Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/21 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/21 Which nation is invading us? All of them? It's extremely obvious ordinary crime wasn't what this was intended for.
  - lazyasciiart 2y ago
    And who declared war? Because of course that is reserved to Congress.
    - ipython 2y ago
      Don’t worry congress up and abdicated their responsibility to provide oversight on this “war”. https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hres211/BILLS-119hres211rh.pdf https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hres211/BILLS-119hres211r... - page 4 In other words, they are so afraid to publicly vote on whether this “war” should continue that they have to play stupid games with the legislative calendar.
lazide 2y ago
So essentially - ‘They are super dangerous because we have no evidence they are dangerous, which provides they are the most dangerous threat - the one that we can’t prove exists’

actionfromafar 2y ago

The lack of evidence is evidence. Right. Also, war is peace.

ForOldHack 2y ago
"Arbeit macht frei (Work Sets You Free."
frankharv 2y ago
[flagged]
lazide 2y ago
It’s even better - the lack of evidence is apparently evidence they are even more dangerous than those who they have evidence on.

bsder 2y ago

"We don't have any evidence, but we just know they are bad people. Because ... reasons ... that we don't have to share with silly plebians like you." Perhaps this sounds familiar ... "While I cannot take the time to name all the men in the State Department who have been named as members of the Communist Party and members of a spy ring, I have here in my hand a list of 205." -- Senator Joseph McCarthy

lazyasciiart 2y ago
Boy, just think how communist the guys NOT on that list must have been!

jandrese 2y ago

The argument is basically that because the deportees had no due process to be deported that no due process can bring them back. The Trump administration claims that they are gang members, but provided no evidence to support this claim, and then refused to work with any members of the judicial system attempting to provide oversight. In any other administration this would be a scandal that rocks the media for months and ends with the resignation of several top officials. For the Trump administration it was Tuesday.

weaksauce 2y ago
yeah well on thursday he shit the bed on the economy so i guess we've moved on. stupid tariffs are one thing but the extrajudicial deportation and imprisonment is quite a worse thing if unchecked.
- sterlind 2y ago
  Comfortably wealthy US citizens aren't personally affected by these extrajudicial disappearances. It's just a headline to them. The stock market, on the other hand...
- lazide 2y ago
  It’s classic narcissist behavior - get caught with their pants down somewhere? Set somewhere else on fire so you get distracted.
- lazyasciiart 2y ago
  They’re still in court. The judge today set a deadline of April 7 for the specific guy “accidentally” deported to return to the US, and seems like there may even be people held in contempt of court (can’t tell how much that’s wishful thinking on my part). https://apnews.com/article/trump-deportations-el-salvador-justice-contempt-6085e64a04b5d6455f368175af83e724 https://apnews.com/article/trump-deportations-el-salvador-ju... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-el-savador-father-maryland-return-judge-b2727714.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic... Doesn’t fix everyone else who is there, but ugh.

milesrout 2y ago

The powers under the Act don't specify a standard of proof required. It just says: >all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. The President is authorized in any such event, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed on the part of the United States, toward the aliens who become so liable; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which are found necessary in the premises and for the public safety. Nothing there about the President needing to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Presumably he would need to prove the particular facts, in habeus corpus proceedings, should they be brought, only on the balance of probabilities?

nitwit005 2y ago
You skipped the bit at the front: > Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/21 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/21 Which nation is invading us? All of them? It's extremely obvious ordinary crime wasn't what this was intended for.
- lazyasciiart 2y ago
  And who declared war? Because of course that is reserved to Congress.
  - ipython 2y ago
    Don’t worry congress up and abdicated their responsibility to provide oversight on this “war”. https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hres211/BILLS-119hres211rh.pdf https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/hres211/BILLS-119hres211r... - page 4 In other words, they are so afraid to publicly vote on whether this “war” should continue that they have to play stupid games with the legislative calendar.

lazide 2y ago

So essentially - ‘They are super dangerous because we have no evidence they are dangerous, which provides they are the most dangerous threat - the one that we can’t prove exists’