4 ms·

How do you arrange this when not allowed to speak with anyone?

gpm 1y ago
The mother and child were in custody, the father was not, and was prompt in acquiring legal counsel, arranging this, and suing, leading to exceptionally clear circumstances in this case. This is the docket for the lawsuit: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69940863/v-m-l-v-harper/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69940863/v-m-l-v-harper... The mother was also technically able to speak with the father, though monitored, for less than a minute, and they were interrupted when the father attempted to give a number for the attorney to the mother. To be clear, I'm not defending any of ICEs actions here, I'm saying that they kidnapped this child who had arrangements made to remain in the US despite ICEs best (also almost certainly illegal) attempts to prevent that from happening.
- op00to 1y ago
  You do seem to be defending the actions by asserting that it was the parents decision rather than an action forced by ICE.
  - gpm 1y ago
    I don't see how you come to that conclusion. I am arguing by pointing to the most clear and egregious violation of the law and human rights, that isn't meant to excuse any other violations. I am not asserting that ICE followed any of the parents decisions, so I don't see that I could have possibly accidentally implied that ICEs actions were ok because they made the parents make an impossible choice and then followed it.
- Kim_Bruning 1y ago
  > The mother was also technically able to speak with the father, though monitored, for less than a minute, and they were interrupted when the father attempted to give a number for the attorney to the mother. Based on your wording alone, would it be safe to say the mother was unable to avail herself of counsel before making a decision?
  - gpm 1y ago
    To the extent that they let the mother make a decision, which is itself unclear, I would say all evidence points to that. We only really have the father's and judge's account of events here.
    - chasd00 1y ago
      > We only really have the father's and judge's account of events here Given that, then this whole thread is pointless. I just assumed people were more informed based on what they’re claiming.
      - gpm 1y ago
        The fact that there's a lawsuit here with briefs describing what happened in detail, and rulings from a judge with detailed timelines, means we have a great deal more accurate information than most news stories provide. If you're not willing to make a judgement off of this information, when it is so unambiguous, you're never going to be able to make a judgement in time to react to anything.
      - shadowgovt 1y ago
        The point of due process is to construct such a record. The fact that due process is being denied in these circumstances is one of the reasons that so much of the public discussion is rumor and innuendo. And this is actually one of the many things that this executive doesn't seem to grasp about the fundamentals of how this England-inherited, American-modified government functions. Due process doesn't just protect the people. It protects the king from rumors abounding about his tyranny that eventually lead to his beheading, because if there is no record to show then there is no record to justify the actions of the crown either. The Magna Carta has stood for about a thousand years. But it has stood because every monarch who tried to place themselves above it found themselves much shorter by the end of their reign.
        Terr_ 1y ago
        > The point of due process is to construct such a record. Right a lack of records is itself an indicator due-process wasn't provided. So in this case, a common saying does not apply: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence!

gpm 1y ago

The mother and child were in custody, the father was not, and was prompt in acquiring legal counsel, arranging this, and suing, leading to exceptionally clear circumstances in this case. This is the docket for the lawsuit: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69940863/v-m-l-v-harper/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69940863/v-m-l-v-harper... The mother was also technically able to speak with the father, though monitored, for less than a minute, and they were interrupted when the father attempted to give a number for the attorney to the mother. To be clear, I'm not defending any of ICEs actions here, I'm saying that they kidnapped this child who had arrangements made to remain in the US despite ICEs best (also almost certainly illegal) attempts to prevent that from happening.

op00to 1y ago
You do seem to be defending the actions by asserting that it was the parents decision rather than an action forced by ICE.
- gpm 1y ago
  I don't see how you come to that conclusion. I am arguing by pointing to the most clear and egregious violation of the law and human rights, that isn't meant to excuse any other violations. I am not asserting that ICE followed any of the parents decisions, so I don't see that I could have possibly accidentally implied that ICEs actions were ok because they made the parents make an impossible choice and then followed it.
Kim_Bruning 1y ago
> The mother was also technically able to speak with the father, though monitored, for less than a minute, and they were interrupted when the father attempted to give a number for the attorney to the mother. Based on your wording alone, would it be safe to say the mother was unable to avail herself of counsel before making a decision?
- gpm 1y ago
  To the extent that they let the mother make a decision, which is itself unclear, I would say all evidence points to that. We only really have the father's and judge's account of events here.
  - chasd00 1y ago
    > We only really have the father's and judge's account of events here Given that, then this whole thread is pointless. I just assumed people were more informed based on what they’re claiming.
    - gpm 1y ago
      The fact that there's a lawsuit here with briefs describing what happened in detail, and rulings from a judge with detailed timelines, means we have a great deal more accurate information than most news stories provide. If you're not willing to make a judgement off of this information, when it is so unambiguous, you're never going to be able to make a judgement in time to react to anything.
    - shadowgovt 1y ago
      The point of due process is to construct such a record. The fact that due process is being denied in these circumstances is one of the reasons that so much of the public discussion is rumor and innuendo. And this is actually one of the many things that this executive doesn't seem to grasp about the fundamentals of how this England-inherited, American-modified government functions. Due process doesn't just protect the people. It protects the king from rumors abounding about his tyranny that eventually lead to his beheading, because if there is no record to show then there is no record to justify the actions of the crown either. The Magna Carta has stood for about a thousand years. But it has stood because every monarch who tried to place themselves above it found themselves much shorter by the end of their reign.
      - Terr_ 1y ago
        > The point of due process is to construct such a record. Right a lack of records is itself an indicator due-process wasn't provided. So in this case, a common saying does not apply: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence!