Won't. Not can't, won't. This was done on purpose, a 1 way legal process where we have authority to say bye bye but then have 0 authority to undo that. It's skipping due process and courts to directly ship human beings en mass somewhere else. This wasn't an error, this is what will happen to gays, jews, democrats, literally anyone who isn't blonde christian and maga eventually. First it's "criminals" (this article proves it's not that) and anyone who looks brown enough. Tomorrow it's the next group maga is upset with (hint, it's everyone on earth who isn't maga)
politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Makes me wonder what "crimes" they'll pin on their next targets. This is crazy beyond belief.
The same ones the Nazis used.
My understanding is that Trump's guys are arguing that the court has no authority to order them to return this guy, not that he can't be returned. In other words, now that he's out of the country, his situation is foreign policy rather than American legal proceedings.
Agreed - I'm somewhat disappointed in the toned down language in the article - "accidentally" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that headline, and "can't get him back" should be "refuses to even try to get him back."
Yea. If we had a proper president, we could get him back. Three step program.
1 Ask them to send him back.
2 Park a CBG off their coast, just inside their territorial waters.
3 Ask them to send him back, or else.
Might not be a great idea, in terms of ongoing international relations, but we would get our guy back.
I don't think a court could reasonably order the government to threaten another country like that - a judge doesn't get to make such major foreign-policy decisions. My very basic understanding is that the government is saying that, according to this principle, a court can't order it to make any foreign policy decisions. (Otherwise who gets to decide what foreign-policy decisions is major?)
The government is clearly in the wrong here morally, and letting them do this would seem to authorize a lot of abhorrent behavior. (Can the government have anything they want done to you without recourse as long as they take you to a foreign country and pay that country's agents to do it?) Still, as a matter of legal principle this isn't entirely straightforward.
I'm not seeing it as a court order. I'm directly addressing the claim that Trump can't do anything to get him back.
I don't think that's a claim that the Trump administration is actually making, even though it's in the title of the article. Here's what the article quotes them saying:
“The individual in question is a member of the brutal MS-13 gang — we have intelligence reports that he is involved in human trafficking,” DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement to The Independent. “Whether he is in El Salvador or a detention facility in the U.S., he should be locked up. Remarkable that The Atlantic and other MSM continue to do the bidding of these vicious gangs and ignore their victims.”
I agree. I made the comment before I read the rest of the article.
Headline writers need to be flogged, or something.
Ah, then I don't think we disagree. Still, the CBG might be overkill when a simple phone call would have sufficed. After all, they don't want him. We're paying them to keep him.
Then again, since we're already threatening Canada and Greenland, maybe we should threaten El Salvador too? We can accuse them of imprisoning residents of other countries who were sent to them extralegally without a trial or any other sort of official procedure. It's unethical! They would be so confused.
Oh so you are saying Trump is too weak to deal with El Salvador
There are certain things that a court can't (Constitutionally) order you to do, like letting soldiers live in your house during peacetime. That's true even if you're alone in a huge mansion and housing those soldiers would be trivially easy for you.
ICE Lawyer: He's out of our custody, there's nothing that can be done.
Judge: I order you to get the State Department involved and demand his return from El Salvador, or else I will hold you and your boss and your boss' boss in contempt.
Shouldn't that be the next step?
That's not exactly ICE's argument. Their argument, as I understand it, is that the judge doesn't have the authority to order the feds to do that.
Consider a similar but more sympathetic example. The government accidentally releases information which reveals the identity of an American agent working in a foreign country, and that agent is arrested. The agent's family sues the government, arguing that the judge should order the government to carry out a prisoner exchange. The government says that revealing the agent's identity was a mistake, but now undoing that mistake would require negotiations with a foreign country and such negotiations are not something that a court can order the government to carry out. The government's argument in such a case would seem reasonable to me.
We're paying for El Salvador to take these people, we can pay to get them out. This is the Trump admin basically boasting about violating the law and ruining lives.
It’s funny how when the court blocks something Trump wants to do but here is can’t do anything.
Is Trump scared of El Salvador? He tried to bully Canada, Greenland, UK, Europe, and many more.
This only gets better if the guilty members of the government get locked up for contempt for ignoring the court's original order. Only then, especially if it gets Signalgate attention, may they start to cave. I realize it's unlikely, but it's not a 0% chance yet.
If America is going to be able to compete with chinas prices, they need their own sweatshops.
In USA it is already legal to force felons to work for free, and now they are expanding it to mean immigrants.
Guantanamo Bay was also just expanded from less than 1000 cells to more than 30.000.
It all paints a clear picture, like the Germans did, USA is placing their KZ camps outside of their own territory.
Torture, forced labor, human trials with stuff like neuralink implants, and murder is gonna be the norm there.
To be fair, they don't appear to actually know how anything works.