4 ms·

While others have pointed out his pro-Hamas rhetoric, I would also point out that we don't actually know why he was detained. The Guardian is just citing specul

While others have pointed out his pro-Hamas rhetoric, I would also point out that we don't actually know why he was detained. The Guardian is just citing speculation from an advocacy group friendly to him. The headline is technically accurate, but it could just as well read "journalist detained after eating cheerios for breakfast". (ICE's lack of transparency is a valid, but separate, concern, and The Guardian could have at least attempted to contact them before publishing speculation.)

ajross 1y ago
> I would also point out that we don't actually know why he was detained That's always the way it works with secret police. The idea of due process of law and norm following is (1) expressly designed to provide assurances in cases like this and (2) being deliberately degraded and evaded by ICE and DHS at all levels. Trying to make the story actually about bland journalism criticism is doing their jobs for them. To borrow your framing: your critique is technically accurate, but...
- dlubarov 1y ago
  That's a separate issue though - intransparent law enforcement is bad, but that doesn't justify making assumptions. Or if it did, then why this particular assumption? Why not assume that Hamdi was arrested because of his hair style or something?
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    > Why not assume that Hamdi was arrested because of his hair style, for example? Because he was arrested in the US?
  - ajross 1y ago
    > That's a separate issue though Right, which is why I called you out for bringing it up. Make your bland criticism of the Guardian in a journalism forum. If the standard for criticizing clear ICE overreach (and yes, an unexplained detainment is very clear overreach for a department who are statutorily just supposed to be checking visas) becomes "You have to be able to prove that ICE was wrong before saying anything", then that simply makes them the secret police.
    - dlubarov 1y ago
      My point isn't really "no speculation is allowed", but that we should be honest about the assumptions we're making. The Guardian headline that kicked off this thread uses misleading wording to hide the assumption being made. It's fine to criticize ICE based on informed speculation if we're honest about it.
      - ajross 1y ago
        And my point, again, is that focusing on this particular criticism[1] seems like a transparent attempt on your part to deflect from the very serious story (ICE transparently harrassing "enemy" journalists without apparent cause) because, hey, maybe he failed to declare an agricultural product in his luggage. We don't know, amiright?! It just doesn't seem to be a good faith discussion of the situation, and in particular it makes your position seem decidedly pro-secret-police. [1] Which amounts, basically, to "Mildly sensationalist mid-tier news outfit used a sensational headline". It's boring.
        dlubarov 1y ago
        I'm not pro secret police, just pro factual discussions. We shouldn't ignore the deceptive headline when it's the whole basis of this discussion.
  - rsynnott 1y ago
    > That's a separate issue though - intransparent law enforcement is bad, but that doesn't justify making assumptions. ... I mean it absolutely does. What on earth are you _supposed_ to do? Give the unaccountable secret police the benefit of the doubt?
    - dlubarov 1y ago
      I think the appropriate reaction would be suspicion, not jumping to assumptions. Speculation can be okay too, but we should be forthright about it, whereas The Guardian headline above tries to misleadingly pass off speculation as fact.
    - nobody9999 1y ago
      >... I mean it absolutely does. What on earth are you _supposed_ to do? Give the unaccountable secret police the benefit of the doubt? Exactly. Even if this guy holds beliefs that aren't aligned with those of the US government, so what? That is not a reason to detain or refuse entry to a place that's supposed to embrace freedom of expression and of the press. This is blatantly anti-democratic (small 'd'), capricious and just one more example of the current administration's attempts to destroy a free and open society. Yet here you guys (@ajroos, @dlubarov, etc.) arguing about why the US government is abandoning the rule of law and trying to normalize authoritarianism and bad-faith governance. It doesn't matter why. It's wrong and evil on its face.
bigyabai 1y ago
> While others have pointed out his pro-Hamas rhetoric I refuse to accept these accusations by word-of-mouth. The White House is currently accusing former presidents of "pro-Hamas rhetoric" (which they never expressed). It would seem to me that "pro-Hamas" is a meaningless cudgel used by the ruling party to justify mistreatment of those who oppose Israel.
- dlubarov 1y ago
  It's not word-of-mouth, you can see his remarks about Hamas' Oct 7 massacres for yourself: "celebrate the victory", "how many of you felt the euphoria", etc. https://www.memri.org/reports/british-political-commentator-sami-hamdi-speaking-london-mosque-dont-pity-palestinians-%E2%80%93 https://www.memri.org/reports/british-political-commentator-...
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    What you quoted is, by definition, not pro-Hamas rhetoric. Hamas is mentioned a total of zero times in the entire article. His language is simply anti-Israel.
    - dlubarov 1y ago
      It's glorifying the Hamas-led attack; it seems accurate to call that pro-Hamas (as well as anti-Israel) rhetoric.
      - bigyabai 1y ago
        Once again, it cannot be "pro-Hamas" if he doesn't even acknowledge they exist. His comments are wholly non-rhetorical: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rhetoric https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rhetoric You cannot quote a single part of the article you listed where he argues in-favor of Hamas, because he does not mention them at all. You are casting aspersions that do not exist, much in the way the White House has to resort to defaming former presidents instead of setting a morally-consistent example.

ajross 1y ago

> I would also point out that we don't actually know why he was detained That's always the way it works with secret police. The idea of due process of law and norm following is (1) expressly designed to provide assurances in cases like this and (2) being deliberately degraded and evaded by ICE and DHS at all levels. Trying to make the story actually about bland journalism criticism is doing their jobs for them. To borrow your framing: your critique is technically accurate, but...

dlubarov 1y ago
That's a separate issue though - intransparent law enforcement is bad, but that doesn't justify making assumptions. Or if it did, then why this particular assumption? Why not assume that Hamdi was arrested because of his hair style or something?
- bigyabai 1y ago
  > Why not assume that Hamdi was arrested because of his hair style, for example? Because he was arrested in the US?
- ajross 1y ago
  > That's a separate issue though Right, which is why I called you out for bringing it up. Make your bland criticism of the Guardian in a journalism forum. If the standard for criticizing clear ICE overreach (and yes, an unexplained detainment is very clear overreach for a department who are statutorily just supposed to be checking visas) becomes "You have to be able to prove that ICE was wrong before saying anything", then that simply makes them the secret police.
  - dlubarov 1y ago
    My point isn't really "no speculation is allowed", but that we should be honest about the assumptions we're making. The Guardian headline that kicked off this thread uses misleading wording to hide the assumption being made. It's fine to criticize ICE based on informed speculation if we're honest about it.
    - ajross 1y ago
      And my point, again, is that focusing on this particular criticism[1] seems like a transparent attempt on your part to deflect from the very serious story (ICE transparently harrassing "enemy" journalists without apparent cause) because, hey, maybe he failed to declare an agricultural product in his luggage. We don't know, amiright?! It just doesn't seem to be a good faith discussion of the situation, and in particular it makes your position seem decidedly pro-secret-police. [1] Which amounts, basically, to "Mildly sensationalist mid-tier news outfit used a sensational headline". It's boring.
      - dlubarov 1y ago
        I'm not pro secret police, just pro factual discussions. We shouldn't ignore the deceptive headline when it's the whole basis of this discussion.
- rsynnott 1y ago
  > That's a separate issue though - intransparent law enforcement is bad, but that doesn't justify making assumptions. ... I mean it absolutely does. What on earth are you _supposed_ to do? Give the unaccountable secret police the benefit of the doubt?
  - dlubarov 1y ago
    I think the appropriate reaction would be suspicion, not jumping to assumptions. Speculation can be okay too, but we should be forthright about it, whereas The Guardian headline above tries to misleadingly pass off speculation as fact.
  - nobody9999 1y ago
    >... I mean it absolutely does. What on earth are you _supposed_ to do? Give the unaccountable secret police the benefit of the doubt? Exactly. Even if this guy holds beliefs that aren't aligned with those of the US government, so what? That is not a reason to detain or refuse entry to a place that's supposed to embrace freedom of expression and of the press. This is blatantly anti-democratic (small 'd'), capricious and just one more example of the current administration's attempts to destroy a free and open society. Yet here you guys (@ajroos, @dlubarov, etc.) arguing about why the US government is abandoning the rule of law and trying to normalize authoritarianism and bad-faith governance. It doesn't matter why. It's wrong and evil on its face.

bigyabai 1y ago

> While others have pointed out his pro-Hamas rhetoric I refuse to accept these accusations by word-of-mouth. The White House is currently accusing former presidents of "pro-Hamas rhetoric" (which they never expressed). It would seem to me that "pro-Hamas" is a meaningless cudgel used by the ruling party to justify mistreatment of those who oppose Israel.

dlubarov 1y ago
It's not word-of-mouth, you can see his remarks about Hamas' Oct 7 massacres for yourself: "celebrate the victory", "how many of you felt the euphoria", etc. https://www.memri.org/reports/british-political-commentator-sami-hamdi-speaking-london-mosque-dont-pity-palestinians-%E2%80%93 https://www.memri.org/reports/british-political-commentator-...
- bigyabai 1y ago
  What you quoted is, by definition, not pro-Hamas rhetoric. Hamas is mentioned a total of zero times in the entire article. His language is simply anti-Israel.
  - dlubarov 1y ago
    It's glorifying the Hamas-led attack; it seems accurate to call that pro-Hamas (as well as anti-Israel) rhetoric.
    - bigyabai 1y ago
      Once again, it cannot be "pro-Hamas" if he doesn't even acknowledge they exist. His comments are wholly non-rhetorical: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rhetoric https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rhetoric You cannot quote a single part of the article you listed where he argues in-favor of Hamas, because he does not mention them at all. You are casting aspersions that do not exist, much in the way the White House has to resort to defaming former presidents instead of setting a morally-consistent example.