• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A Thread for Democrats Being Useless

Just to clarify things...

...Indeed, a White House official told The Free Press that the basis for targeting Khalil is being used as a blueprint for investigations against other students.

Khalil is a “threat to the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States,” said the official, noting that this calculation was the driving force behind the arrest. “
The allegation here is not that he was breaking the law,” said the official...
 
Across the country in the custody of an agency that does not have jurisdiction?
I'm pretty sure the exact agency doesn't matter, for jurisdiction. It's whether the federal government has jurisdiction. The idea that Immigration and Customs Enforcement can't arrest people suspected of terrorist associations seems to be entirely invented.
There are federal detention facilities in Manhattan and Brooklyn. Even if ICE had jurisdiction, there is a facility in Orange County, about 90 minutes north and in Elizabeth, NJ about the same to the west.
Agreed.
They claimed they had a warrant.
They who? Claimed where?
Across the country in the custody of an agency that does not have jurisdiction?
Begging the question.
They are entitled to see the warrant.
In court? Sure. Pursuant to a FOIA request? Sure. And again, a warrant is not usually necessary for an arrest.
You can't justify this
Of course I can; I just did. What you mean is I can't convince you it's justified. Good thing convincing you was never my goal.

I will assume that you agree in principle that deporting foreign supporters of terrorism is good policy. I will also assume that you believe these charges have been trumped up, and that Khalil is being persecuted for leading pro-Palestinian protests.
 
I wonder what the ratio of people who love this ◊◊◊◊ is to people who don't really like that this happened, but suffer from an obsessive need to defend or handwave everything their cult leader does. I imagine some trumpkin reading about the student being arrested, putting their head in their hands for a few seconds, sighing deeply, and getting to work defending, excusing, or misrepresenting the arrest and disappearance. Then a few days or weeks pass and they'll have internalized that the arrest was neccessary and/or okay for some reason, or Dump and the fascists will come up with something else to grab the headlines and the cult will forget about the whole thing.

i mean, you have to hope it’s more of the latter than the former. i don’t really care, a decade of it and i can’t tell if there’s really even a difference. a nagging feeling of guilt and shame at having to debase yourself constantly rather than admit you were wrong about politics must not be fun to live with, but that it’s there and doesn’t alter their behavior isn’t much consolation to everyone they inflict themselves upon. and then there’s the sheer pointlessness of it all.
 
If Mahmoud had a warrant for his arrest from New Jersey, it would have taken more work to extradite him than it did to ship him off to Louisiana. It is still unclear why he was moved to Louisiana in the first place (outside the obvious nefarious reasons), but I'm not gonna hold out hope that the resident Republicans will be able to make sense of this obvious government overreach.
They're "making sense" of it by going full brownshirt. Mahmoud is an "untermenschen" and went against their fuhrer so he deserves everything.
 
So they're doing him because he's a modern day Sophie Scholl.
You can argue about the message he is sending and who he is supporting, but this was a White House official stating that it isn't about him breaking any laws. It really is about the message he is delivering.
 
So they're doing him because he's a modern day Sophie Scholl.
Nice inversion you've got going there. Someone who supports terrorist murder of Jews is totally like an anti-Nazi activist. And getting deported is totally like getting executed.
 
You can argue about the message he is sending and who he is supporting, but this was a White House official stating that it isn't about him breaking any laws. It really is about the message he is delivering.
And? Are you saying that we shouldn't deport foreign nationals who advocate terrorism?

That seems... dumb.
 
And? Are you saying that we shouldn't deport foreign nationals who advocate terrorism?

That seems... dumb.
There were some posts earlier in the thread talking about what crimes we may or may not have committed. I just thought that a White House Official specifically saying that it was not about any crimes was relevant.

For good or bad, the Executive Branch is saying that they are trying to deport this guy based on what he was saying, not based on any criminal activity.
 
There were some posts earlier in the thread talking about what crimes we may or may not have committed. I just thought that a White House Official specifically saying that it was not about any crimes was relevant.

For good or bad, the Executive Branch is saying that they are trying to deport this guy based on what he was saying, not based on any criminal activity.
The law allows deportation of green card holders under certain conditions even without crimes.
 
Nice inversion you've got going there. Someone who supports terrorist murder of Jews is totally like an anti-Nazi activist.
Who are you referring to? Khalil did no such thing. You must be referring to some of the Charlottesville or J6 terrorists.
And getting deported is totally like getting executed.
It is a silly comparison. Now, getting your TV show canceled, THAT is like an execution.
 
And? Are you saying that we shouldn't deport foreign nationals who advocate terrorism?
First, this sounds like even more right-wing fantasy presented as fact. Yesterday, he was a committer of felonies. Today, it's been downgraded to "supporting terrorism." I'm sure this one is just as true. Go ahead and quote him if you can.

Second, you're just throwing buzzwords into the argument without stating appealing to a definitive, coherent government policy. So I'll just ask the question directly:

Ziggurat, should the government have the power to deport someone (who would otherwise not be deportable) based solely on that person's Constitutionally protected speech?
 

Back
Top Bottom