91–100 of 112 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Which means any criminal convictions would be thrown out. and in the meantime people rot in jail but i guess no harm no foul :shrug:
> in the meantime people rot in jail but i guess no harm no foul Nobody claimed no foul. Constraining a problem isn't the same as saying it's not one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to mention the monetary costs of defense
Against all that it seems miserly to complain about the costs of destroyed, seized, lost drones, equipment, gates, doors et al that will never be reimbursed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The authoritarianism is getting worse and more accepted" is not a great response here.
It's the truth. Would you prefer I lie and tell you everything will be okay after Trump?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the truth. Would you prefer I lie and tell you everything will be okay after Trump?
I'd prefer you join us in condemning it rather than tacitly helping to normalize it. Describing it as some inevitable trend diminishes the focus on those responsible for the latest escalations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd prefer you join us in condemning it rather than tacitly helping to normalize it. Describing it as some inevitable trend diminishes the focus on those responsible for the latest escalations.
Where did you get the impression I don't condemn it? Acknowledging that it exists and getting worse isn't admitting defeat, unless you're unable to hold ideals with less-than-optimistic prospects. The inevitability of trends is a trick of the mind, not the person pointing out that trends exists. Pretending as if this is something Trump started and that will end with him is much more dangerous, IMO. That ignores the b…
> Pretending as if this is something Trump started and that will end with him is much more dangerous ... The problem didn't start with Trump, and it won't end with him if you approach it as a Trump problem.
I completely agree with this.
> That ignores the bipartisan consensus among political elites that the common people are to be herded and managed and that liberty and human rights are out-of-date
While I agree with this as well, I often see similar things from Trump supporters who then use it as license to support accelerationism / nihilism / oppression of others they enjoy / etc. That's what I have a problem with - this shameless tyrant has been channeling widespread frustration with many longstanding problems unacknowledged by the political establishment ("a breath of fresh air!"), but it's only a marketing trick and those exact problematic dynamics are being cranked up to 11. He's certainly honed in on many varied things that are rotting in our society, but rather than doing constructive things to address any of them he's just accelerating the rot while setting himself up as a speedbump to line his own pockets.
For reference here I'm a libertarian who was both-sidesing up until 2020 or so. But a critical assumption of both-sidesism is that both parties are similarly bad in magnitude, just with different focuses. And Trumpism is a marked escalation in the blatantly shameless anti-liberty stance of the government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ambiguous laws (which in this case are by definition impossible to comply with) which are capriciously enforced are a hallmark of authoritarian and fascist regimes. Sadly ironic, the US government used to highlight this fact: "Authoritarian regimes’ unclear laws make anyone a suspect" - https://ge.usembassy.gov/authoritarian-regimes-unclear-laws-...
Of note, the article seems to mention 3 things: 1) Vague laws 2) Arbitrary Enforcement 3) Lack of due process All three seem to be important facts for an Authoritarian Regieme I point this out, because I believe the US has long had vague laws, and our Due Process helps kick out arbitrary enforcement. I also believe that our Checks and Balance system (part of Due Process) is currently broken
AreWeTheBaddies.jpeg
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of note, the article seems to mention 3 things: 1) Vague laws 2) Arbitrary Enforcement 3) Lack of due process All three seem to be important facts for an Authoritarian Regieme I point this out, because I believe the US has long had vague laws, and our Due Process helps kick out arbitrary enforcement. I also believe that our Checks and Balance system (part of Due Process) is currently broken
Vague laws were/are a hallmark of racist American law enforcement. It's what the US has always done.
"See look, our terrible law that gives the government arbitrary power to levy ruinous fines treats all races equally, therefore it is not racist, therefore it is fine."
It might actually be racist sometimes but that's beside the point. The whole premise of much of this crap is flawed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Before you know it, they'll be detaining people without legal representation, shipping them to overseas black sites, and murdering citizens in the street. Oh, wait that's been the entirety of this treasonous administration.
> Oh, wait that's been the entirety of this treasonous administration. That's been the case for at least 25 years. Still bad, but not new or unique to Trump. I'm too young to have a good idea of what the pre-Patriot Act American military/intelligence/secret police was like, but the historical stuff that comes to light from time to time doesn't lend much confidence that they were all that much better - they just did i…
pre patriot bad things happened people were not even allowed to know the charges against them, not allowed discovery of evidence, compelled to allocute under duress, and court proceedings in total darkness, as in knowledge of the place, procedures, and persons involved could not be allowed.
..and then there was the really bad stuff, when the patriot act became a thing. when the text of law could not even be divulged, when people where interrogated by dog, locked in a cage and fed "leaks" of total defeat, and humiliation and death.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> it's just suddenly defense attorneys care because of the immigration/deportation angle instead of just someone losing their home, job, car, life. 1.) This has nothing to do with defense attorneys who are not available in these cases nor dealing with them. 2.) The scale of it is massively larger. 3.) The defense attorneys were actually talking about it for years, I know because I read about similar issues for years.…
Defense attorneys could boycott the system and force reform. How old is the saying 'you can beat the rap, but not the ride' now? You are right, defense attorneys have known that the justice system can destroy anyone just for being a target, for a very long time. I guess I should have written 'they suddenly have energy to challenge it'.
[flagged]
To answer your edit, I'd say your framing of those questions is likely considered antagonistic. - No one is saying they need to know what vehicles contain ICE agents - Not sure your meaning exactly, but there's no expectation for plainclothes officers to be locatable by the general public - Concern for whom? Whose mistaken identity? - This isn't about "knowing" a vehicle contains ICE agents. - Government officials *s…
Look, I agree that this is a poorly implemented policy. But it's obvious and inarguable that the clear intent is to prevent people from following ICE around with drones, whether to surveil them (and thus perhaps warn others of their approach; despite the fact that there is no logical reason for anyone to be concerned about their approach beyond actual law breakers who legally should not be in the country) or harass them (which would not be okay if done to anyone).
> Government officials should be held to higher scrutiny than the general public.
Sure. Law enforcement is also entitled to legal protections that the general public is not; in particular they are specifically entrusted with the use of force that would almost never be accepted from civilians.
> Their objective was to prevent legally permitted public recording of these operations
No, there is no such objective, because even if enforced as described this is laughably far from actually doing any such thing.
In particular, you can still record from the ground. And if your actual purpose is to show clearly and honestly what the officers are doing, that is better and more easily done from the ground.
Again, this is about flying drones, and people are crying literal fascism over it. This is technology that didn't exist when the actual Fascists were in power, and is still only feasibly accessible to a privileged few.
> You are attempting to flip this on it's head and make it out like people are saying they have to know ICE vehicles and such.
No, I am doing nothing of the sort. I'm saying they are trying to know ICE vehicles, and people who are mistakenly identified as such may suffer as a result. And that it is therefore better that they don't have the idea in their heads that it should be morally okay to harass law enforcement officers, or to try to create an information network to obstruct lawful work.
The recurring pattern with all of these things people complain about with how ICE operates, that I've noticed, is that every single one of them is a response to how they've been unlawfully interfered with previously.
> Given that many people in that status are guilty of civil infractions
If you have a "final order of removal", that is because the national government has conclusively determined that you have violated the law by entering the country, that you are not legally entitled to be within the country, and that you inherently continue to violate the law by being within the country.
This is, definitionally, not something that can be dealt with by issuing a fine and letting the person stay in the country. To allow this is to deny the nation's right to determine who is and is not allowed to stay. It is, in fact, definitionally "open borders" policy. And with this you do not have a nation any more, only lines on a map.
> the level of force being deployed is highly disproportionate
This is entirely ignorant of how law enforcement works. Force is deployed as need to be superior to the threat to the operation. If you come at a police officer with a knife, for example, you should expect to get shot. It does not matter that you have not yet caused any injury, nor does it matter why you are being apprehended.
Similarly, any law enforcement officer may (from what I have had to research over the last several months; these things are not that much different from Canada, frankly) legally order you out of a vehicle on "reasonable suspicion"; and citizens are legally not entitled to interpose themselves physically between a law enforcement officer and the target with the purpose of interfering with law enforcement action (or persist in doing so after being advise that they are in the way). The fact that said citizen is recording with a cell phone at the time does not change that, any more than shouting political slogans during a hold-up would exonerate a bank robber.
If you interfere in such a manner, you thereby commit a crime in full sight of an officer, and are therefore a valid candidate for arrest. And resisting arrest generally justifies physical force, no matter how bad it might look on a citizen's cell phone recording. (Activists specifically train to resist arrest in ways that make the response look bad, despite being completely legally justified, and always having been completely legally justified, in many other countries as well as the US.)
> I mean, it may be an issue for some other conversation, but not this one.
Well, you are the one who brought up levels of force and "civil infractions", so.