4 ms·

El Salvador Tells UN That US Has "Exclusive" Jurisdiction over Detainees

54 points by nadermx 1y ago

h4ck_th3_pl4n3t 1y ago
[flagged]
- CamperBob2 1y ago
  Good thing (for the government, military, and police) that the Democrats have spent 100 years convincing themselves that only the government, military, and police should have access to decent weaponry. It'll be a short war. Maybe the French will bail us out again.
  - ok_dad 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - CamperBob2 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - ok_dad 1y ago
        Read up! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act Regan was the reason I had to sell most of my guns when I was in the military and was moved to California. Edit: Anyone who says “democrats did x” these days is probably not worth conversing with anyways, 99% you’re a facist loving troll who will just waste my time.
        CamperBob2 1y ago
        [flagged]
  - forgotoldacc 1y ago
    Not taking any sides in this, but from a purely historical perspective: the US has a strong record against well-armed militaries. It has an endless losing streak against barely armed but very angry ragtag groups of peasants.
    - plugger 1y ago
      > It has an endless losing streak against barely armed but very angry ragtag groups of peasants. Internationally. Domestically the US is 1 for 1 in this space as evidenced by the US Civil war.
    - csomar 1y ago
      The cold war and war on terror are real and not just some ragtag peasants. People think modern warfare is some high tech shit but it’s just some dude in a basement making a bomb for the subway commute financed by a labyrinth of schemes and loosely controlled by adversary governments.
- wordofx 1y ago
  [flagged]
- tehlike 1y ago
  This won't be true, it's a gross exaggeration. We will have elections in 3 years, and another 4 years after it.
  - darig 1y ago
    [dead]
- pfannkuchen 1y ago
  Technically speaking, the rule of law was also abandoned to get us into the illegal immigrant situation in the first place. If rule of law was honored the entire time, we would have no problem. It does feel a bit "rules for thee, but not for me".
  - Ar-Curunir 1y ago
    ICE enforcement has been on the rise since the first Trump admin including Biden’s presidency, and Harris promised to increase those enforcement actions. Both camps have been doing this bullshit, but clearly Trump is performing a fascist takeover of the US. If you can’t see that, I recommend going to an eye doctor.
    - pfannkuchen 1y ago
      I don’t really understand the team sport framing. Whoever was in charge over the past N years did not uphold the rule of law with respect to humans moving across the border. I don’t really care what party they were from, it’s not relevant. So whoever cares about fixing the problem is now more constrained in the fix than the people who allowed it to happen in the first place. That is kind of interesting, and I could understand how some people would feel justified in bending the rules to fix the problem.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - anigbrowl 1y ago
        This is like arguing that state governments have ignored the rule of law because some people get away with speeding. Additionally, illegal presence (as opposed to entry) is a civil violation, not a criminal one. And the law as written grants broad (indeed nigh unlimited) discretion to the executive branch in how administrative law is enforced and decisions are made, rather than mandating specific outcomes or methods. So I don't think your premise is valid at all.
  - cookiengineer 1y ago
anigbrowl 1y ago
This is rather significant because the US has maintained in court filings that El Salvador has jurisdiction and any action by the US would be a violation of that country's sovereignty: https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-administration-appeal-order-granting-el-salvador-deportees/story?id=122691862 https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-administration-appeal-order-... It now appears the administration has been straight up lying to the court.
- southernplaces7 1y ago
  This is a surprise because? All presidential administrations use mendacity to one degree or another, but The Trump government has elevated official, public lying to a new rate that would take a plane to hypersonic speeds if it were a fuel source.
  - spwa4 1y ago
    I'd argue compared to the UN itself the Trump administration is positively polite. Take the last few ICC incidents. South Africa and Mongolia have in the past 2 years publicly used the ICC for proceedings AND taken very, very, very public action ... to protect individuals convicted at the ICC against the court. And then there's Saudi Arabia, and allegedly India using diplomatic personnel as assassins. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwy527yex0no https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwy527yex0no https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-33157407 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-33157407 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-65759630 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-65759630 There's another semi-country that has done a lot worse, even more publicly, but I don't want to turn this in the 20th Israel discussion. When push comes to shove you have 3 groups at the UN: 1) the US, and to a much lesser extent France and UK, who are the only members of the UN security council that actually do anything to enforce UN principles. And frankly, they are generally attacked for doing so, and attacked when they decide not to. 2) there's countries that will provide lip service to UN principles but won't take action (and violate UN principles on a small scale themselves e.g. all European prison systems, oh and including Israel's and Canada's). Or who will, at most, provide small amounts of support to US efforts. I'd say this describes 80% of the EU, Canada, Switzerland, a few others. And of course, very publicly, it describes Israel. Israel definitely used to be in group 1, making significantly more than token efforts to support the UN, despite having no power in the security council. That hasn't stopped, but it gets sabotaged to the point of nonexistence. 3) countries who actively oppose UN principles, at the UN, in word and deed. This describes 20% of the EU (e.g. Hungary, Serbia, ...) and essentially everyone else (including security council members Russia and China, all muslim countries. Turkey used to be the exception, more in group 2, but not anymore, under Erdogan) So you could as well say it's more of a case of the US joining the EU's style of politics. But many people would consider that offensive. More general I would say it's the evolution we're seeing towards war. 5 years ago there were 3 active conflicts, and 100 "frozen" ones. 2 years ago there were 10 active conflicts. Now there are at least 30 active wars and increasing. Sadly, it isn't as simple as this being Trump's administration or any individual government's doing, in fact I am of the opinion that Trump's administration is trying to stop it, and on the other side Russia and China definitely deserve to be called out as a major cause. A lot of countries now sabotage international cooperation for political and ideological reasons rather than cooperate, with China's actions against shipping in the pacific (Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam, even Australia at times) as currently as the worst example, but far from the only one (Russia, boycotts against Israel, ...), and it certainly seems like it's still getting worse. For 3 years now we're doing about 1 new armed conflict breaking out every 2 months. It reminds me a lot of the pre-WW1 situation. Plenty of groups of countries that are belligerent as groups. EU/Turkey/Israel vs Russia/North Korea/Iran/"the non-aligned movement" who are doing trench warfare. US/Taiwan/Phillippines/Indonesia/Australia vs China. India vs Pakistan/Iran/Afghanistan. Muslim countries vs Africa. All of these groups have either constant naval warfare or entrenched warfare.
drivingmenuts 1y ago
> Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whom the US accidentally shipped to El Salvador Why does the media insist on calling this an accident? It was a mistaken act committed intentionally.

54 points by nadermx 1y ago

h4ck_th3_pl4n3t 1y ago

[flagged]

CamperBob2 1y ago
Good thing (for the government, military, and police) that the Democrats have spent 100 years convincing themselves that only the government, military, and police should have access to decent weaponry. It'll be a short war. Maybe the French will bail us out again.
- ok_dad 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - CamperBob2 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - ok_dad 1y ago
      Read up! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act Regan was the reason I had to sell most of my guns when I was in the military and was moved to California. Edit: Anyone who says “democrats did x” these days is probably not worth conversing with anyways, 99% you’re a facist loving troll who will just waste my time.
      - CamperBob2 1y ago
        [flagged]
- forgotoldacc 1y ago
  Not taking any sides in this, but from a purely historical perspective: the US has a strong record against well-armed militaries. It has an endless losing streak against barely armed but very angry ragtag groups of peasants.
  - plugger 1y ago
    > It has an endless losing streak against barely armed but very angry ragtag groups of peasants. Internationally. Domestically the US is 1 for 1 in this space as evidenced by the US Civil war.
  - csomar 1y ago
    The cold war and war on terror are real and not just some ragtag peasants. People think modern warfare is some high tech shit but it’s just some dude in a basement making a bomb for the subway commute financed by a labyrinth of schemes and loosely controlled by adversary governments.
wordofx 1y ago
[flagged]
tehlike 1y ago
This won't be true, it's a gross exaggeration. We will have elections in 3 years, and another 4 years after it.
- darig 1y ago
  [dead]
pfannkuchen 1y ago
Technically speaking, the rule of law was also abandoned to get us into the illegal immigrant situation in the first place. If rule of law was honored the entire time, we would have no problem. It does feel a bit "rules for thee, but not for me".
- Ar-Curunir 1y ago
  ICE enforcement has been on the rise since the first Trump admin including Biden’s presidency, and Harris promised to increase those enforcement actions. Both camps have been doing this bullshit, but clearly Trump is performing a fascist takeover of the US. If you can’t see that, I recommend going to an eye doctor.
  - pfannkuchen 1y ago
    I don’t really understand the team sport framing. Whoever was in charge over the past N years did not uphold the rule of law with respect to humans moving across the border. I don’t really care what party they were from, it’s not relevant. So whoever cares about fixing the problem is now more constrained in the fix than the people who allowed it to happen in the first place. That is kind of interesting, and I could understand how some people would feel justified in bending the rules to fix the problem.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - anigbrowl 1y ago
      This is like arguing that state governments have ignored the rule of law because some people get away with speeding. Additionally, illegal presence (as opposed to entry) is a civil violation, not a criminal one. And the law as written grants broad (indeed nigh unlimited) discretion to the executive branch in how administrative law is enforced and decisions are made, rather than mandating specific outcomes or methods. So I don't think your premise is valid at all.
- cookiengineer 1y ago

anigbrowl 1y ago

This is rather significant because the US has maintained in court filings that El Salvador has jurisdiction and any action by the US would be a violation of that country's sovereignty: https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-administration-appeal-order-granting-el-salvador-deportees/story?id=122691862 https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-administration-appeal-order-... It now appears the administration has been straight up lying to the court.

southernplaces7 1y ago
This is a surprise because? All presidential administrations use mendacity to one degree or another, but The Trump government has elevated official, public lying to a new rate that would take a plane to hypersonic speeds if it were a fuel source.
- spwa4 1y ago
  I'd argue compared to the UN itself the Trump administration is positively polite. Take the last few ICC incidents. South Africa and Mongolia have in the past 2 years publicly used the ICC for proceedings AND taken very, very, very public action ... to protect individuals convicted at the ICC against the court. And then there's Saudi Arabia, and allegedly India using diplomatic personnel as assassins. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwy527yex0no https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwy527yex0no https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-33157407 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-33157407 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-65759630 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-65759630 There's another semi-country that has done a lot worse, even more publicly, but I don't want to turn this in the 20th Israel discussion. When push comes to shove you have 3 groups at the UN: 1) the US, and to a much lesser extent France and UK, who are the only members of the UN security council that actually do anything to enforce UN principles. And frankly, they are generally attacked for doing so, and attacked when they decide not to. 2) there's countries that will provide lip service to UN principles but won't take action (and violate UN principles on a small scale themselves e.g. all European prison systems, oh and including Israel's and Canada's). Or who will, at most, provide small amounts of support to US efforts. I'd say this describes 80% of the EU, Canada, Switzerland, a few others. And of course, very publicly, it describes Israel. Israel definitely used to be in group 1, making significantly more than token efforts to support the UN, despite having no power in the security council. That hasn't stopped, but it gets sabotaged to the point of nonexistence. 3) countries who actively oppose UN principles, at the UN, in word and deed. This describes 20% of the EU (e.g. Hungary, Serbia, ...) and essentially everyone else (including security council members Russia and China, all muslim countries. Turkey used to be the exception, more in group 2, but not anymore, under Erdogan) So you could as well say it's more of a case of the US joining the EU's style of politics. But many people would consider that offensive. More general I would say it's the evolution we're seeing towards war. 5 years ago there were 3 active conflicts, and 100 "frozen" ones. 2 years ago there were 10 active conflicts. Now there are at least 30 active wars and increasing. Sadly, it isn't as simple as this being Trump's administration or any individual government's doing, in fact I am of the opinion that Trump's administration is trying to stop it, and on the other side Russia and China definitely deserve to be called out as a major cause. A lot of countries now sabotage international cooperation for political and ideological reasons rather than cooperate, with China's actions against shipping in the pacific (Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam, even Australia at times) as currently as the worst example, but far from the only one (Russia, boycotts against Israel, ...), and it certainly seems like it's still getting worse. For 3 years now we're doing about 1 new armed conflict breaking out every 2 months. It reminds me a lot of the pre-WW1 situation. Plenty of groups of countries that are belligerent as groups. EU/Turkey/Israel vs Russia/North Korea/Iran/"the non-aligned movement" who are doing trench warfare. US/Taiwan/Phillippines/Indonesia/Australia vs China. India vs Pakistan/Iran/Afghanistan. Muslim countries vs Africa. All of these groups have either constant naval warfare or entrenched warfare.

drivingmenuts 1y ago

> Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whom the US accidentally shipped to El Salvador Why does the media insist on calling this an accident? It was a mistaken act committed intentionally.