You’re not arrested for posting this, so that is a pretty big difference to Russia (and other authoritarian nations like China and Turkey), no?
- "You’re not arrested for posting this"
For what it's worth, it's widely reported that ICE is trawling social media to find targets (targeted for their speech/viewpoints). HN itself is one of their known targets.
Which is a long way of saying the executive can blackhole anyone it wants to a foreign country and no one is going to do anything because god forbid we step on the executive's role to give up people in our country to other countries.
Do you have examples of the executive doing this to citizens or are you being hypothetical here?
Countries generally grant far fewer rights to non-citizens. Have you considered how allowing non-citizens to spread discontent within a country could be abused?
"Do you have examples of this severity-11 CVE being used in the wild, or are you just being hypothetical here?" It's a horrifically exploitable bug, were it left unpatched.
It's not some fringe conspiracy theory that this is how the law works and how the law would work on contact with US citizens; the Garcia SCOTUS concurrence explicitly underscored this perversity,
- "The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U.S. citizens [sic!], without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene... That view refutes itself."
> Mr Garcia, a Salvadoran
And on top of that this case should be horrifying to anyone regardless of whether they want to split hairs because:
A) they admitted he was deported in error
B) they are now effectively trying to argue there is no way to get him back
So even if you believe they would never knowingly do this to an actual citizen they are only one slightly different mistake from disappearing a citizen, whether or not it has happened yet.
Nevermind the fact that Trump himself has repeatedly floated the idea of deporting citizens: https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/04/10/trump-...
And then lastly and most importantly IMO it is wildly un-American to believe anyone (regardless of citizenship or legal status) is not entitled to due process.
He was granted "withholding of removal" status in 2019, which protected him from deportation to El Salvador (for fear of gang violence/extortion, which is why he came to the US).
The current DOJ acknowledges that at the time (2019) the "[first Trump admin] government did not appeal that decision [to grant withholding of removal], so it is final". It also seems like they never previously made any allegation that he was a gang member, and that they don't have any solid proof now that he is (other than supposedly one informant who incorrectly claimed Garcia lived in NY, so basically no credible evidence whatsoever).
By jumping the gun on deporting Garcia without due process, the current admin seems to unwittingly be forcing the issue to the Supreme Court very soon. (UPDATE: SC has just ruled unanimously 9-0 that the admin must try to release Garcia.) Looks like the SC's going to be very busy this May-June.
[*] Withholding-of-removal is a pretty rare status, rarely granted by court (>99% rejection rate), much rarer than Green Card, and applicants have to demonstrate credible fear. [0] This procedure is defined in INA § 208 (INA = Immigration and Nationality Act) [1]
As of 12/2024 there were over 100,000 individuals (from Cuba, China, Venezuela, Mauritania, Nigeria, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, etc.) with orders of removal remaining free in the US due to various special interest statuses, including withholding of removal, according to a report from FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform). [2]
(Does anyone have stats on what historically happened to people in withholding-of-removal (what % became citizens, what % got GC, what % voluntarily left, what % got deported, what % moved to a different status etc.)?)
[0]: https://www.justice.gov/eoir/reference-materials/ic/chapter-...
[1]: https://www.uscis.gov/laws-and-policy/legislation/immigratio...
[2]: https://www.fairus.org/news/executive/new-data-show-over-100...
[3]: https://time.com/7276642/kilmar-albrego-garcia-error-deporta...
It doesn't matter anyways because the government admitted he was deported due to a administrative error and because they actively undermined and sidestepped the courts authority on several occasions, there is effectively nothing stopping them from doing it to full blown citizens. Honestly, it sounds like it's just a matter of time if this keeps up.
I'm not sure why there's a need to mislead when what's actually happening is bad enough.
You're arguing whether a car wrapped around a tree has a bad alternator. Surely a fact useful to someone, somewhere, and worth knowing. But also certainly not the reason there's a problem.
>"The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U. S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene. " From https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf
I suspect that is one of the main reasons behind the order. It's very obvious that citizen vs legal resident matters very little here, if due process is not given.
Less than 25% of people who were eligible to vote voted for him.
Yes, he won the election and was the most popular candidate.
That doesn't mean "half of America wanted him".
It’s still ~45% now when in any sane world it would be in the single digits..
She says only the most violent dangerous criminals -- although I feel like we've heard that line before...
At this when they say something absurdly unhinged and unthinkable and if you still don’t believe they will try it.. well.. maybe you’re in the market for a bridge?
You seem as if you're trying to leverage that to actual citizen rights... "look, he could be a citizen someday, so that means he has these same rights reserved to citizens". But it does not work that way.
>there is effectively nothing stopping them from doing it to full blown citizens.
Be sure to raise the alarm when they do. I'd be curious if it ever got that far. I think that some on the left worry that it might not, because if they don't have the absurd slippery slope argument then many people would never be concerned about this at all.
All people in the us, legal or illegal, citizen or not, have fourth amendment protections, and if you strip those rights from anyone, you remove them from everyone.
The supreme court has upheld many many times that the fourth amendment applies to all people within the borders of the US.
One might think that the only process due to such a person would be the opportunity to contest that they were a citizen and to provide evidence to that claim. Was he denied this? Did they slap a muzzle on him as he tried to scream "but my birth certificate's in the sock drawer, just take a look!"? If the agents who detained and deported him ran any sort of check that would have discovered his citizenship in time to prevent a deportation (had he been a citizen), this seems about all the process that could or should be due.
PS Am I the only one that notices how the news media always describes him as "from Maryland" when he wasn't born there, didn't attend school there, etc?
They should have the due process to prove they are here legally. And yes, they were denied that.
Even if you imagine due process is for citizens only, you can't prove citizenship status without due process, so it has to be given to everyone.
Otherwise, nothing's stopping ICE from just claiming you're not a citizen and shipping you off to El Salvador. How would you prove otherwise?
This sounds like a nonsense statement. Non-citizens are only ever here legally at the pleasure of the United States. If we allow them in for 2 weeks, or 3 months, or whatever on a visa... we can change our minds and cancel it early.
The idea that they can have some absolute temporary right to be here ignores what it means to be a non-citizen. You have no right to be here, just a temporary privilege that can be revoked at any point for entirely arbitrary reasons.
>And yes, they were denied that.
I've heard no evidence that this was the case. "Due process" rights are, in many cases administrative. No trial, no judge.
>Even if you imagine due process is for citizens only,
I did not say this, and I do not imagine it. I just happen to know what due process rights actually are.
>you can't prove citizenship status without due process,
Was he denied his opportunity to prove citizenship to the agents who detained him? Did he try to get them to look in his wallet for papers, but they ignored that? Did he beg them to just look in his closet and see his birth certificate? That would be denial of due process.
>Otherwise, nothing's stopping ICE from just claiming you're not a citizen
So you claim. But it's absurd to think that will happen. If you believe it will happen, then just wait and sound the alarm when it does. I'll be genuinely surprised.
Really? The things that are happening now are so absurdly insane that nobody could have imagined them just a few years ago, and you are still gullible enough to say something as silly like that...
> sound the alarm when it does
The loons will just move the goalposts yet again. So what would that achieve?
Yes, yes, and yes some more.
Did you just wake up from a coma?
That's not due process. Due process rights do not guarantee you any sort of court hearing or trial. It does not require a judge. 90% or more of due process is administrative in nature. The bureaucracy infringes your due process rights when they don't "go through the motions" of how to handle a particular situation. How should they handle deporting someone? By checking that they're not deporting a citizen. If they failed to check, if they failed to give him the opportunity to prove citizenship, they denied his due process rights. Did they do this?
>It doesn't matter if your birth certificate is in the other room. Without due proces
You miss the point. I wasn't asking if his birth certificate was there or not. I'm asking "did they give him the chance to claim as much, and did they follow up and make sure it wasn't there". If they didn't give him the opportunity to make the claim, if they ignored such a claim, this is a denial of due process.
And there was no denial. If you had more than a second grader's understanding of due process, you wouldn't be so confused here.
> What are you gonna do? You don't get due process,
"Look Mr. ICEman, you're making a mistake. We can clear this up in minutes, pull my wallet out and take a look at my identity documents, some of which indicate I'm a citizen. It'll only take two minutes to reveal me as a liar if that's not the case."
And if they refuse, then my due process rights have been denied.
>Also Garcia had full legal permission to be here
He showed up without such permission, then weaseled his way into getting contested permission after the fact. Which was always the case under previous policy, there was no practical way to send them back if they made it 100 yards across the border.
I didn't imply this, in fact if you go up a few comments, I specifically say that due process rights are often administrative in nature. If the bureaucracy lets everyone file paperwork and processes it the same way every time, but when you show up with your paperwork to file it they throw it away without looking at it and say "we're already rejecting it"... that's a due process rights violation. In fact, that's pretty much the textbook definition of it. It's not that hard to understand. The "but he didn't even get a trial!" whiny-assed ijits don't seem to get that, or you. The "police officer" has already arrested you (though not in this case, because it wasn't an arrest, and not a police officer). They're allowed to do that, that's their job. Even when they do it to the wrong person.
Did the police officer check if he was a citizen or not? When (if?) he protested that he was, did they double-check? If those things didn't happen, no due process was skipped, ignored, or infringed. You don't know what due process is either... it's just this phrase you've heard and read from time to time in popular news media without ever thinking about it.
> The executive branch doesn't have the authority to be judge, jury and executioner.
Since these aren't criminal cases, they don't get a judge, jury, or executioner. They get a deportation. And by law, the executive branch really does have this legitimate power and authority. Deportations aren't penalties for crimes.
>The police don't get to determine your rights, the courts do.
This is a strange, distorted view. The courts aren't used to create new rights, only to determine the correct interpretation of rights when there is a dispute. It won't go your way at all. No matter how many times the media calls him a "Maryland man" despite being from El Salvador.
Well a federal judge thought otherwise. The government ignored him and did what they wanted anyway. That’s your definition of due process?
> Am I the only one that notice
So your comment is actually sarcastic?
But how can this judiciary enforce anything, or the legislative for that matter?
The executive branch is obeying the courts, with some pushback.
Because if enough people chant that, then it will become a real possibility.
I take this as "Just ignore the rhetoric and threats from Republicans because they are empty and you're helping them spread the hate which gets more them support"
>Because if enough people chant that, then it will become a real possibility.
I'm not sure what you mean. Can you provide an example?
No, you need to stop them. You need a plan for victory. Testifying that they have unstoppable power is an indulgence in cowardice. At halfime, do athletes say 'we can't possibly stop them!' It's just someone acting out their fears.
Who is doing that?
The only way to stop them is to vote.
Language is important from leaders. So is consistency and some degree of integrity. Even disingenuous cowtowing to appearances and political norms constrains power and abuse.
Propaganda is targeted to keep the majority passive while awful things are done by the government regime.
Your argument seems to be "ignore them and they will go away". That's not how authoritarian takeovers are prevented.
>> The [District Court] order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf
The only question at this point is how detailed in demands the District Court can be.
The administration attempted to push the boundaries of executive power and lost in court, as has been happening.
Turns out, conservative justices with lifetime appointments aren't too legally thrilled about an unbridled executive either.
All John Roberts is doing is asking Trump to go further next time. Whether it's intentional or just cowardice on his part doesn't really matter to the rest of us.
A long game player might even say Roberts is angling for that, by tailoring consensus opinions that nonetheless leave room for the administration to demonstrate further stupidity.
> The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.
Which is such a ridiculously bullshit line of thought. This wasn't some person who willingly went to some random country, this is someone the executive illegally put there against the person's will in coordination with said foreign government. I can guarantee you that any order with teeth will be struck down by SCOTUS on this line of thought.
The court is obviously saying that (1) it's correct and necessary to bring him back but that (2) the District Court doesn't have unbridled authority to order any foreign policy-influencing remedy it wants.
I.e. a US court couldn't order a president to sign a treaty
If the administration tries to foot drag further, the Supreme Court will likely order more specific remedies.
By not taking the L here, the administration is just burning whatever conservative goodwill they might have started with on this Supreme Court.
What makes you think the administration cares about goodwill after that? Disobeying direct court orders is crossing the Rubicon. There's no going back to the illusion that judicial judgements will be respected by this administration.
They tried to weasel around the verbal vs written order, and the consequences of that are still being worked out.
They then appealed the order to immediately bring him back, and the Supreme Court paused that while it decided.
The decision then directed the District Court to clarify the how of what it was demanding.
So "somewhat" and "no": they haven't directly ignored the Supreme Court.
Unless you'd care to cite a specific case and quote from a ruling?
> Disobeying direct court orders is crossing the Rubicon.
Appealing a decision is different than ignoring.
And like the multiple other times it historically happened? https://www.fjc.gov/history/administration/executive-enforce...
On numerous occasions (not just the one you mention), they did not obey the direct order by the time specified, meaning they directly disobeyed the court. For example, post-supreme-court-order, they were obliged to provide the lower court with a status update of the victim, and a list of things they've done so far to retrieve them. They directly violated that court order.
It's important to draw a bright, flashing distinction between:
1. Arguing that you think you should not have to comply with an order, but then complying if you don't receive a ruling in your favor in time.
2. Directly violating a court order, and then tossing out a cynical pretext as an excuse which hasn't been preapproved by the judge (they're called that for a reason).
Unless a stay is placed before the deadline, you must comply with every single court order, by the court-ordered deadline, no matter what you think.
At least, that's how it was before. Now the USA has crossed the Rubicon, with the government itself ignoring court orders at will, in order to imprison political enemies.
It was a decent liberal democracy while it lasted.
Feels like moving the goalposts. First they were going to clear out "illegals" by any means, now the line includes any non-citizens. Granted maybe you personally didn't say both though.
> Have you considered how allowing non-citizens to spread discontent within a country could be abused?
Is it meaningfully different from allowing citizens to "spread discontent"? Why not just start taking everybody's 1st amendment rights, by the same logic? I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure there's long precedent that non-citizens are granted most of the same rights, including freedom of speech and assembly.
If non-citizens are being supported, instructed, etc by their government in spreading discontent, there are probably laws like espionage for that; you don't have to take away everybody else's freedom to stop them.
If non-citizen have been human trafficked without due process, what additional protection against it is provided to citizens? Where is that stated?
However the current administration is explicitly considering the idea of deliberately deporting citizens: https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-bl...
The most powerful person in the country lied and still is lying about elected fraud, undermining the basis for our Democratic system and was rewarded with a 2nd term.
However then buried in the article is something like they overstayed their visa, etc. Take a sibling comment's link to an article with a "second student arrested" in the title. As in that seems like there isn't a "large number". This is nothing like the reports of arrests in Russia. Especially as some of these pro-Palestinian protestors advocate violence or intifada pretty freely. I've seen that with my own eyes.
If I were a foreign national protesting and advocating for violence against any other country or people group I'd expect to be denied a visa or possibly deported for participating in such events. It'd be arrogant not to expect that outcome IMHO.
Visa applications in European Union countries often include things such as "indicators of good civil behavior". Take the quotes from that sibling comment's linked BBC article:
> The DHS statement says that Ms Kordia had overstayed her student visa, which had been terminated in 2022 "for lack of attendance". It did not say whether she had been attending Columbia or another institution. > She had previously been arrested in April 2024 for taking part in protests at Columbia University, according to DHS. > "It is a privilege to be granted a visa to live and study in the United States of America," said Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in a statement. > "When you advocate for violence and terrorism that privilege should be revoked, and you should not be in this country."
Nor did Rasha Alawieh: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Rasha_Alawieh
Full disclosure, i’m not arguing in good faith. As a Canadian I don’t believe the US has a future, so I’m merely highlighting an argument which is symptomatic of the country’s downfall.
Also I’m more likely to be arrested and deported for silently praying in the UK.
However there’s also political tactics of “look at that poor student being deported” when said student was calling for jihad, intifada, and antisemitism and violating visas on top of that, which was sort of my original point.
Heh and is Canada fairing any different? Remember when Trudeau froze bank accounts for truckers protesting Covid lockdowns or whatnot. Maybe Trudeau shutting down parliament to seemingly avoid scrutiny. Hopefully it’s just news sensationalism and not the downfall of Canada.
> “But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the ‘German Firm’ stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.
And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying ‘Jewish swine,’ collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose. The world you live in—your nation, your people—is not the world you were born in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God. The system itself could not have intended this in the beginning, but in order to sustain itself it was compelled to go all the way.” ― Milton Sanford Mayer, They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1933-45
---
You have to say "No" loudly and clearly at the _first offense_, and not wait until it's too late.
> A boycott sign posted on the display window of a Jewish-owned business reads: "Germans defend yourselves against Jewish atrocity propaganda. Buy only at German shops!" Berlin, Germany, April 1, 1933.
It seems that a number of these students have been participating in events and protests calling for violence. After all there’s probably 10’s of thousands of student protestors, and likely many of them foreign students too. So it doesn’t seem like a “deport all Muslim students” either.
Peaceful protests are one thing, but I’ve seen some of these protests in person and it’s clear they’re not all peaceful demonstrations. Also supporting Hamas and Hezbollah is not supporting peaceful innocent freedom fighters. Both groups are clear and open on their stance for genocide against Israelies.
However we shouldn’t deport students who are peaceful and haven’t called for violence against others. It’s great that those cases are being called out and publicly criticized . But not every one of these cases are an innocent student getting caught up either. What is happening is Gaza is terrible all around. It shouldn’t be used as an excuse to call for more violence against Jews or Muslims.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/18/us/columbus-ohio-neo-nazi-mar...
Also the US is hardly unique in deporting extremists: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2016/06/16/france-to-deport-n... https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy48v8n389ro
How is this argument over right or wrong? The US has a unique system of rights and the first modern Democracy.
>They're American citizens and our problem to handle and tolerate?
Why can't it be our problem to tolerate and handle green card holders, students with Visas, etc
The there’s the question of private ownership of the platform. You certainly can’t say whatever yiu want on YouTube, for instance.
as a person of jewish faith, I ask that you please not falsely conflate these two completely different concepts
someone who opposes jewish people in general is bad, but someone who opposes the ongoing genocide of palestinians is good
your usage of "or" here would indicate that the above good person is grouped together with the above bad person
> If anything some of those pro-Palestinian protests were more reminiscent of the 1933 “German Firm” boycotts
structuring your metaphor like this, strikes me as an example of DARVO [0], considering what is being done to innocent palestinians. how many israelis patronize businesses based in palestine? how many such businesses do you patronize?
His coworkers at SentinelOne (almost certainly most of who are citizens) also had their clearances revoked, despite never speaking out on the topic, purely as a North Korea style "punish the whole family" approach to strike fear into people of guilt by association, so that those who have spoken out in any shape or form become social pariahs.
Citizens having their career taken away for saying an election wasn't rigged, or for happening to work at the same place as someone who said this.
If you think the status quo hasn't yet changed to "In countries like China, Russia and the US, speaking out against the government puts both your livelihood and that of those in your vicinity at serious risk", you're dead wrong.
There is a list of things
Instead of just making accusations, back them up.
However many of my issues with CISA are based on my own professional work in security, and that of accomplished professors like J Halderman & M Blaze saying our election infrastructure is insecure.
We’ve been saying the same thing in hackerdom for 30 years!
If my career has been completely about the security of federal & military systems, then some lawyer like Krebs saying our infrastructure is secure when it’s running Windows 7 is a giant slap in the face, particularly given all of the censorship.
You wanted evidence. Here goes:
The censorship & viewpoint discrimination pressure CISA was bringing to bear has been over the top.
At the same time Krebs was talking about how secure our election infrastructure was, prominent professors such as Matt Blaze & J Halderman that have researched election security said the opposite.
This historically has been a bipartisan& Aceademic issue with more Dems & Repubs & Academia supporting claims of insecurity.
Those of us in security are convinced that all this unpatched windows7 usage is crazy and Chris Krebs lying about election security isn’t being open and truthful with the American people.
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-j...
- The Associated Press reported in 2019 on the use of vulnerable Windows 7 software in election systems, highlighting risks in swing states. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/new-election-systems-u...
- NBC News revealed in 2020 that ES&S installed modems in voting machines, making them susceptible to hacking. [Note: The exact NBC News article from January 2020 titled "Voting Machines Vulnerable to Hacking Due to Modems" is not directly linked in the web results, but this matches the description in the thread. The full URL is not available in the provided web results, and I cannot search for it in real-time. You may need to look up the NBC News article from January 2020 for the precise link.]
- The Guardian exposed in 2015 that WinVote machines used weak passwords like "abcde," easily hackable from a distance. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/15/virginia-vot...
- The New York Times reported in 2015 on a leaked database of 191 million voter records, raising concerns about phishing and identity theft. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/us/politics/voting-record...
- Wired noted in 2016 that many voting machines ran on outdated Windows XP, lacking security patches since 2014. https://www.wired.com/2016/08/americas-voting-machines-arent...
- Politico detailed in 2016 how a voting machine was hacked in minutes by replacing ROM chips with malicious firmware. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/2016-electio...
- CBS reported in 2016 that hackers demonstrated voting machine vulnerabilities, showing a $15 hack could alter votes. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hacker-demonstrates-how-voting-...
- ABC News confirmed in 2016 that voting machines can be hacked, especially in close elections, with malware erasing itself post-attack. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hack-election-experts-russia...
- The Atlantic warned in 2016 about electronic voting risks, citing a case where a machine was turned into a Pac-Man console. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/08/elect...
- FOX News covered a 2016 demonstration by a Princeton professor hacking a voting machine to shift votes undetected. https://www.foxnews.com/video/5126932108001
- Fortune reported in 2016 that Cylance researchers hacked a Sequoia AVC Edge machine, altering vote counts via a memory card. https://fortune.com/2016/11/04/voting-machine-hack-demonstra...
- Vox highlighted in 2016 that voting machines on Windows XP and voter databases online were vulnerable to hacking. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/7/134 educed/hackers-election-day-voting-machines
- PBS noted in 2016 that five states used digital voting systems without paper trails, increasing hacking risks. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/heres-how-hackers-migh...
- Slate reported in 2016 that 42 states used decade-old voting machines, prone to hacking and lacking paper trails. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/11/our-decrepit-vot...
- PBS revealed in 2016 that Pennsylvania's paperless machines made it impossible to verify vote tampering. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/recounts-no-u-s-electi...
- Politico warned in 2016 that 15 states, including Pennsylvania, used electronic voting machines without paper trails. https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/us-elections-hacking-...
- Scientific American stated in 2017 that voting systems could be hacked by foreign powers, advocating for paper ballots. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/our-voting-system...
- Politico reported in 2017 on a Georgia election center's server misconfiguration, exposing voter data and passwords. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/14/will-the-...
- NPR cited a 2017 NSA report on Russian attempts to hack election systems, potentially targeting ballot programming. https://www.npr.org/2017/06/14/532824838/if-voting-machines-...
- HuffPost noted in 2017 that 15 states used hackable touch-screen voting machines without paper trails.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/voting-machines-hackable_n_59...
- Senator Elizabeth Warren's 2019 article highlighted vulnerabilities like outdated voter databases and paperless machines. https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/strengthening-our-democrac...
- Senators Warren, Klobuchar, Wyden, and Pocan sent letters in 2019 to voting machine companies about security concerns. [Note: The direct link to the letters is not provided in the web results. These letters were sent to the private equity firms owning voting machine companies, as noted in the thread. You may need to search for "Warren Klobuchar Wyden Pocan voting machine letters 2019" to find the original source, possibly on a government or senator's website.]
- A 2019 compilation of media articles detailed election system vulnerabilities over four years post-2016 election.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/new-election-syste...
You are a random person on an internet forum, the onus is in you to provide data to back up incredible claims.
The censorship & viewpoint discrimination pressure CISA was bringing to bear has been over the top.
At the same time Krebs was talking about how secure our election infrastructure was, prominent professors such as Matt Blaze & J Halderman that have researched election security said the opposite.
This historically has been a bipartisan& Aceademic issue with more Dems & Repubs & Academia supporting claims of insecurity.
Those of us in security are convinced that all this unpatched windows7 usage is crazy and Chris Krebs lying about election security isn’t being open and truthful with the American people.
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-j...
- The Associated Press reported in 2019 on the use of vulnerable Windows 7 software in election systems, highlighting risks in swing states. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/new-election-systems-u...
- NBC News revealed in 2020 that ES&S installed modems in voting machines, making them susceptible to hacking. [Note: The exact NBC News article from January 2020 titled "Voting Machines Vulnerable to Hacking Due to Modems" is not directly linked in the web results, but this matches the description in the thread. The full URL is not available in the provided web results, and I cannot search for it in real-time. You may need to look up the NBC News article from January 2020 for the precise link.]
- The Guardian exposed in 2015 that WinVote machines used weak passwords like "abcde," easily hackable from a distance. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/15/virginia-vot...
- The New York Times reported in 2015 on a leaked database of 191 million voter records, raising concerns about phishing and identity theft. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/us/politics/voting-record...
- Wired noted in 2016 that many voting machines ran on outdated Windows XP, lacking security patches since 2014. https://www.wired.com/2016/08/americas-voting-machines-arent...
- Politico detailed in 2016 how a voting machine was hacked in minutes by replacing ROM chips with malicious firmware. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/2016-electio...
- CBS reported in 2016 that hackers demonstrated voting machine vulnerabilities, showing a $15 hack could alter votes. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hacker-demonstrates-how-voting-...
- ABC News confirmed in 2016 that voting machines can be hacked, especially in close elections, with malware erasing itself post-attack. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hack-election-experts-russia...
- The Atlantic warned in 2016 about electronic voting risks, citing a case where a machine was turned into a Pac-Man console. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/08/elect...
- FOX News covered a 2016 demonstration by a Princeton professor hacking a voting machine to shift votes undetected. https://www.foxnews.com/video/5126932108001
- Fortune reported in 2016 that Cylance researchers hacked a Sequoia AVC Edge machine, altering vote counts via a memory card. https://fortune.com/2016/11/04/voting-machine-hack-demonstra...
- Vox highlighted in 2016 that voting machines on Windows XP and voter databases online were vulnerable to hacking. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/7/134 educed/hackers-election-day-voting-machines
- PBS noted in 2016 that five states used digital voting systems without paper trails, increasing hacking risks. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/heres-how-hackers-migh...
- Slate reported in 2016 that 42 states used decade-old voting machines, prone to hacking and lacking paper trails. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/11/our-decrepit-vot...
- PBS revealed in 2016 that Pennsylvania's paperless machines made it impossible to verify vote tampering. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/recounts-no-u-s-electi...
- Politico warned in 2016 that 15 states, including Pennsylvania, used electronic voting machines without paper trails. https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/us-elections-hacking-...
- Scientific American stated in 2017 that voting systems could be hacked by foreign powers, advocating for paper ballots. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/our-voting-system...
- Politico reported in 2017 on a Georgia election center's server misconfiguration, exposing voter data and passwords. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/14/will-the-...
- NPR cited a 2017 NSA report on Russian attempts to hack election systems, potentially targeting ballot programming. https://www.npr.org/2017/06/14/532824838/if-voting-machines-...
- HuffPost noted in 2017 that 15 states used hackable touch-screen voting machines without paper trails.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/voting-machines-hackable_n_59...
- Senator Elizabeth Warren's 2019 article highlighted vulnerabilities like outdated voter databases and paperless machines. https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/strengthening-our-democrac...
- Senators Warren, Klobuchar, Wyden, and Pocan sent letters in 2019 to voting machine companies about security concerns. [Note: The direct link to the letters is not provided in the web results. These letters were sent to the private equity firms owning voting machine companies, as noted in the thread. You may need to search for "Warren Klobuchar Wyden Pocan voting machine letters 2019" to find the original source, possibly on a government or senator's website.]
- A 2019 compilation of media articles detailed election system vulnerabilities over four years post-2016 election.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/new-election-syste...
HN is a public forum, if you don’t want your statements here being public, don’t post.
If there's one law of the universe it's that nothing is permanent.
You don’t need the right to be forgotten outside of specific tech because human brain forgets by default, paper rots, and all of the above is restricted geographically and does not scale.
What's the functional difference to writing a bunch of hate speech with your username and wanting it scrubbed from the "public record" (which I would argue a popular forum such as HN would be classified) using RTBF?
Same thing if you wrote a "Letter to the Editor" to the New York Times expressing something distasteful. I don't see how anyone should be allowed to wield RTBF as a tool for suppressing information.
Maybe you got drunk and climbed on stage naked 10 years ago. Should you be that guy forever?
> Re GDPR: our understanding based on the analysis done by YC's legal team is that HN does not fall under the GDPR, so for the time being we're sticking with the approach of not deleting account histories wholesale but helping with privacy concerns in more precise ways.
> Re "aren’t these comments owned by the person who wrote them"? That's a complicated legal question, no doubt, and also philosophically. From my perspective, two other factors are that (1) the threads are co-creations (see pg on that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6813226) and (2) posting to an internet forum is publishing something, not dissimilar to sending a letter to the editor of a newspaper.
> Obviously there are many reasonable takes on this. Ours is that we're trying to balance the community interests of a public forum (mainly the interest of commenters not to have their comments deprived of context, and the interest of the community in preserving its archive) with the need to protect individuals. That's a lot of work—we end up taking care of requests manually for people every day—but we're committed to both sides of it because it seems like the only way to do justice to both sides.
Maybe I'm just a dumb one that speaks up, everyone else has gone dark forest.
You can accelerate this effect by doing sabotage. The WW2 CIA sabotage manual contains a lot of ideas that have pretty good ratio of problems created to personal risk.
This regime is a rogue autocracy strangling anything good about this once great country.
I hope every single person responsible for the many crimes they have committed (and they have committed crimes) faces justice, if not in this life, then the next one.
Oh, that feels good to get off my chest.
IME the authoritarian politics had much more support here; I'd say it was the majority of voices heard. It diminished considerably when Trump was elected and then took office.
But the silence has been a long-standing problem: HN has long been largely silent on the social and political dangers of IT - really an outrage; here are the people most responsible, and the outcomes are predictable. That would include especially disinformation and misinformation, and propaganda more generally; and also the power of social media. Those are what makes it impossible to do anything.
When things became so polarized, years ago, shutting down discourse everywhere, HN didn't work to solve the problem - they stopped talking too. Again, a big failure of the people with the knowledge, skill, and power. But shutting down discourse is not politically neutral - it's a great help to the corrupt and evil to hide what they do and prevent people from responding to it. Democracy dies in darkness, I've heard.
The undeniable long term trend during this period has been increasing surveillance, control, centralization of power in the executive, weakening of rights, due process, legal authority, politicization of the judiciary, and majority minority slowly building a core base of manipulatable populism.
Maybe I'm naive about the past, even the last 75 years of what was really going on in Washington, but a Seig heil on national television with no pushback or consequences beyond grassroot pushback (and it has been ALL grassroot) was a crystallizing moment.
This isn't stuff to roll your eyes over as just Godwins law style hyperbole.
The only in the I mean only saving grace, is that the stock market exists for immediate political blowback. But the fact that the only functional political bulwark against trump is the second by second ticker of financial health of the oligarchs is really depressing.
Not very surprising given the current political environment.
IMO both approaches should have been more measured, but who do you think will propose the ceasefire agreement?
I think the anti-mask people had some valid points, but they sank their own boat by ranting about 'masktards' and 'face diapers' while also demonstrating callous indifference to the large number of deaths.
https://www.charliekirk.com/news/georgia-data-scientist-prov...
If you check their work based on the publicly available data, you find that based on their logic there was a clear case for Trump cheating. Right wing media reporting the story, of course, did not.
Same thing with Covid. Nobody was mad if you thought masks were stupid. They were mad if you didn’t wear your mask, putting immunocompromised people at risk for your own selfish reasons.
There’s a difference between speech and actions. Doing things that actually, literally, kill people is a problem.
Did anyone have their, and their coworkers', security clearance revoked just for saying either of those? (There are other activities that could have been taken by people saying the election was rigged that could have led to a loss of security clearance, but I don't think that just the statement did it.)
Large swathes of people were first identified for being antivax when they self-registered under the religious exemption scheme and then were harassed and fired. It was cunningly done with the media paying no attention.
People can take any relativistic position they want, but that difference is essential to anything and everything: The truth about database i/o performance is essential to your project; the truth about climate change is essential to preventing catastrophe; the truth about Covid was essential to saving millions of lives - and many died and much blood is on the hands of the liars.
But the liars were not, and shouldn't have been, arrested, deported, extorted, threatened, etc.
No they weren't
Not in the amount of court cases, elected politicans stating the view, and January 6th
When a few Democrats starting objecting to the 2016 results. Joe Biden, in congress during the certification, slammed the gavel down and said "it's over"
https://www.npr.org/2017/01/06/508562183/biden-to-democrats-...
To even compare the two situations it's insane.
To that end, I am quoting a portion of the text on the WH at the end of my comment here.
Anyone would be right to question CISA’s misallocation of resources to narrative control, and little emphasis on actual cyber security work. That CISA was getting in bed with former IC folks doing Censorship Ops, not computer security, is a very bad look.
There is a reason CISA is viewed as a joke with the federal space and it has everything to do with the lack of performance for a 2-3B dollar agency.
“ Christopher Krebs, the former head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), is a significant bad-faith actor who weaponized and abused his Government authority. Krebs’ misconduct involved the censorship of disfavored speech implicating the 2020 election and COVID-19 pandemic. CISA, under Krebs’ leadership, suppressed conservative viewpoints under the guise of combatting supposed disinformation, and recruited and coerced major social media platforms to further its partisan mission. CISA covertly worked to blind the American public to the controversy surrounding Hunter Biden’s laptop. Krebs, through CISA, promoted the censorship of election information, including known risks associated with certain voting practices. Similarly, Krebs, through CISA, falsely and baselessly denied that the 2020 election was rigged and stolen, including by inappropriately and categorically dismissing widespread election malfeasance and serious vulnerabilities with voting machines. Krebs skewed the bona fide debate about COVID-19 by attempting to discredit widely shared views that ran contrary to CISA’s favored perspective.”
Considering how Republicans control all three branches (to an extent), the "2020 election fraud" was a key talking point of Trump, and how stealing an election would be a historic crime in American history....the justice department has done nothing so far.
The Republican House spent a year or so investigating Hunter Biden to obtain a gun plus tax charge (also with the hopes of tying Biden to a crime) but not trying to find who stole the 2020 election?
The attempted framing is as government oppression by "the elites", but half the country - the regular people - they're all for this.
I am in fact far more afraid of pro-palestine speech from USA as an immigrant than I was in my home country- and please trust me I am not exaggerating here.
I would have laughed at this until pretty recently. How wrong I was.
But the people doing the doxxing complain that any criticism of Ire* for their war crimes makes them feel like there is no place they are safe, I don't buy it but the complainants have a lot of allies.
Michigan-based attorney Amir Makled [a US citizen] was detained by federal immigration agents while returning home from a family vacation
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/09/nx-s1-5357455/attorney-detain...
(Not saying it's good or anything - just not new).
And Israel, where a history teacher was arrested for making a post on Facebook:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/03/magazine/israel-free-spee...
America is changing. What was true before isn't necessarily true now, and may get worse, depending on election outcomes.
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/54123/were-over...
(many links in the responses and comments, eg: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-... - " 625 arrests were made for alleged section 127 offences in 2010 " just in london)
I can't tell what you mean by this? Is it sarcasm? Is there another group who is like this?
But back to my original point. A few days ago, I happened to come across some pro-Israel propaganda, and honestly, I was stunned. It was just an Instagram profile claiming to be part of a pro-Israel lobbying organization, but the content was deeply disturbing. They were pushing a heavily distorted narrative, even going so far as to post photos and names of students, accusing them of supporting terrorism. It was all incredibly manipulative. The presentation was slick and more polished than rusias work of course, but the whole thing strongly reminded me of their methods.
The "end of history" theory today comes across, if not arrogant, then at the very least deeply naive.
I don’t understand why we keep forgetting that authoritarianism is a slippery slope.
It's almost as though the framers of the Constitution foresaw the possibility of the two elected branches of government (executive and legislative) being monopolized by the same group, at some point.
And that the very flexibility of regular, open, direct elections also required a check to protect the fundamental rights of all people in the country.
The prevention is literally in the Constitution! Do you think other branches of government would be deferring to the Supreme Court if it weren't spelled out that they must?
This has been going on for decades.
> Have you not heard of the arrests and recent deportations of student protestors?
The legality of which will be decided (hopefully) by the courts. If this turns out to be legal, the fault doesn't lie at the hands of Trump and his cronies, but at a broken system we've had - for decades. Getting rid of him won't solve this. Having checks and balances will.
Much of his and Elon's actions are within the power that has been legally granted to them. And that is the problem. Congress is not limiting those powers. Voters are another part of checks and balances, and they happily wanted to give him those powers.
The problem isn't Trump. It's the country. Been broken for a while, but it took time for someone to clearly demonstrate how broken it is.
The western endorsement of the genocide in Gaza has been some of the best PR Putin could ever have hoped for.
It simultaneously underlined the viciousness, the lack of moral credibility and extreme hypocrisy of western leaders in the eyes of the nonaligned world (e.g. the global south), none of whom sanctioned him.
I do not know what the state of free speech in Russia is, but that explanation is not credible.
People often think that bot farms are only from Russia and China, but on the other side, paid commenters are also used. Unfortunately, it will only get worse with modern AI.
Your funds might be cut off though: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/07/trump-...
Or your president might declare a wartime law to deport all the immigrants: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp34ylep987o
Or you, a honors student (but not a citizen) might find yourself in an unmarked van if you dared to question the powers that be. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czrn57340xlo
Sure it happens to immigrants only for now, brings memory to this poem:
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
... and they're trying to end birthright citizenship. I.e. people who are literally not immigrants (were born here and perhaps have never lived anywhere else) are already being lined up for this.
The president's literal argument for doing it is that the activist groups are coming for all of American life.
I'm not a big fan of either side's rhetoric, but clearly the horseshoe has become a ring.
Either side? Tell me which "side" does that sound like?
- hostility towards non traditional sexuality
- immigration being used as the scapegoat for economic problems
- strong feeling of national exceptionalism
- assault on women's productivity rights
- politicizing of science
- deportation for political reasons
- "Roman" salutes
It brings parallels with some things happening in Europe some time ago.
> activist groups are coming for all of American life.
I wonder who's actually going for all of American life though. Let's take Birthright citizenship, which has been established in 1868. Is that American life enough for you?
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
And guess who goes against this American way of life value? An orange grandpa married to an immigrant. You really can't make this up.
https://www.npr.org/2025/03/14/nx-s1-5327552/trump-takes-bir...
Up until you got to the "Roman" salutes, it sounded like both sides in the US.
Or rather, it will sound like whichever side you aren't. That's the point.
But using "Then they came for the Jews" when you're discussing deportation of these particular people is perhaps a new level of absurdity in the discourse.
The liberals / Dems can barely organize a picnic. They can't agree on anything. There is no Fox News, there is nobody they bow down to. The obsequiousness to Trump is unprecendented.
Birthright citizenship was to ensure freed slaves could not be denied citizenship.
It's served its purpose and we can repeal it and join the vast majority of nations that don't have this pathway.
If a president stretched the limits of executive power to go after guns, half of the country would cheer for it.
The Constitution is a living document, and the line is constantly pushed back and forth on its interpretation and enforcement.
That's speculation about specuation about an undefined interpretation. We are bounded by law, including by the Constitution.
> The Constitution is a living document, and the line is constantly pushed back and forth on its interpretation and enforcement.
There is variation in interpretation, but within bounds. If you want to eliminate Constitutional gun rights, you would need to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
> The president's literal argument for doing it is that the activist groups are coming for all of American life.
What is American life? Why can't people criticize whatever they want - that is American life.
> "Then they came for the Jews, and the administration finally deported the people who were coming for the Jews"
The vast majority of antisemitism is on the right. The administration does nothing about it (and supports and legitimizes much of it).
Also, the Jews will be next. By attacking critics of Judaism, they are entrapping Jewish people (and others) in legitimzing this oppression, and in making themselves into targets of hate. Then when the white supremecists turn on them, and say Jews are conspiring to control American, what will these Jewish supporters of arrests, oppression, and deportations say?
Most of the pro-Palestine or anti-Zionist content I see is denouncing Israeli war crimes and genocide. No one is bashing Jews because of their ethnicity or religion.
Also a lot of this comes from the Jews (who are then attacked for being confused or..... antisemitic)
We're not at the point of people hunting Jews because they're Jews. We are at the point when opposing targeting/killing medics, press, children or hospitals may result in being kidnapped from the street and either locked up without charges or trafficked to the torture camp.
I do not disagree with your comment in general, I disagree with you putting "Judaism" while the almost all the critique and rebuke is aimed at the Israeli war crimes or the Zionist supremacy ideology.
It's good that you brought this up!
It's a common right-wing tactic to conflate themselves with the purest version of something that is highly regarded and hide behind it. E.g the Nazis conflated themselves with "pure" Germanness, the fascists in Italy conflated themselves with "pure" Italianness, the same way now Israel conflates itself with Judaism/Jewishness. Then it naturally follows that if you attack Israel's genocide of the people in Palestine, you are attacking Judaism/Jewishness. If you question Netanyahu's genocidal ultra-supremacist ideology (which many Holocaust survivors, Jewish themselves, have done repeatedly), you are anti-Jewish, and so on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4OdkaTqmDs
A similar thing is happening in the US where the current administration is trying to position itself as America-first, so naturally any critique on them must be anti-American, right? You will find that this playbook is always the same. First will be immigrants, then non-traditional sexual orientations and women's reproductive rights, then the press and universities and finally just whoever they feel like.
Fortunately, if history goes to show us anything, it's these hate-fueled-orders always end up imploding.
That's taking the 'in the long run' analysis to an extreme.
In WWII, after hundreds of millions died - including over 10 million murdered by the hate-filled - major parts of the world were devestated, and the free world united in a massive war, the hate-fueled were stopped. They didn't implode.
The idea that they will implode is a common fantasy that you (and many others) won't have to do anthing, face their fears, fight an uncertain fight. If you really believed they would implode, the fight would be certain. They won't stop until you stop them.
Amen!
And the same way now progressives conflate Zionists with White supremacists / Nazis.
Nazism and Zionism are both ultra-right-wing nationalistic ideologies. The conflation doesn't stop on the surface though, but it runs deep in the actions of the two states: The Nazi state during WW2, and the Israeli state:
1. Dehumanizing of "the enemy"
A) Israel dehumanizing Palestinians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_stereotypes_of_Palestin...
B) Nazis dehumanizing Jews: https://english.elpais.com/society/2022-12-04/how-nazi-propa...
2. Using war crimes like starvation to "get rid of the enemy":
A) Israel starving Palestinians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip_famine
B) Nazis starving Jews: https://www.nobelpeacecenter.org/en/news/hitler-s-hungerplan
3. Detention camps and torture
A) Israel detaining and torturing Palestinians: https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/...
B) Nazis detaining and torturing Jews: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps
Glad to have helped! Here is a quiz to see if you can spot the differences between a Zionist and a Nazi: https://zionism.wtf/
By the ways, nowadays it's called a "detention camp":
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/05/10/middleeast/israel-sde-tei...
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn7vje365rno
But the torture is still torture. Also, this (satirical?) article by the Onion somehow (tragi)comically seems super relevant:
https://theonion.com/historians-quibbling-over-exact-definit...
I am sure I won't hear the end of it how the torture concentration camp of the Nazis is completely different from the much more civilized and completely different torture detention camp of the Israelis. Israelis' of course, have a high regard for their prisoners' well being, especially considering they call them "animals": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr24GcCDgyM
> Yes Zionists are the Nazis and Hamas are the good guys I got it
I probably shouldn't bite, but here it goes: Here are some stats even before the current war started.
https://www.statista.com/chart/16516/israeli-palestinian-cas...
From 2008 to 2020, the death toll is:
- 251 Israeli
- 5590 Palestinians
Does this seem like a fair exchange, cause it seems like 22x higher death toll on one side?
And the current death toll can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_co...
- 9,901–10,239 Israeli
- 104,701–110,887 Palestinians
Does this look like a fair exchange?
I am sure when some Nazis were killed by the French Resistance, somebody Nazi apologist was saying: "see, French are also bad, because they are killing the poor Germans". However, there is a very important distinction:
Palestinians are not the ones stopping humanitarian aid (https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-defense-mi...), nor the ones shooting medics and ambulances (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajBouTY-45c), nor the ones repeatedly blowing up hospitals (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjr7l123zy5o) all 100% war crimes.
And nobody says Hamas are the good guys: both the leaders of Hamas and Netanyahu and his genocidal posse are sought to be trialed by the ICC for war crimes (https://www.icc-cpi.int/defendant/netanyahu).
But the parallels between Zionism and Nazism are so obvious, that they even have a wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparisons_between_Israel_and...
I am happy to provide you a summary of the parallels:
- War crimes and crimes against humanity both by Nazis and by the Israeli state
- Dehumanizing the enemy both by the Nazis and by the Israeli state
- Withholding aid and using hunger as a weapon both by the Nazis and by the Israeli state
- Doing an ethnic cleansing (https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/03/tragedy-fore...) both by the Nazis during WW2 and the Israeli state
- Both are far-right ideologies based on some feeling of superiority (racial or national/religious)
I mean, yeah, there are differences in the "flavor", like fascism in Italy was different from Nazism in Germany and is different than the contemporary genocidal Zionism by the Palestinian state, but the similarities are far more than the small differences.
- 9,901–10,239 Israeli
- 104,701–110,887 Palestinians
Not sure what "fair exchange" would mean here. It looks like
a) A war / protracted conflict , not some kind of one sided genocide. Jews haven't killed thousands of Germans or tried to bring down the German state. Also, if there is one side that is sympathetic to Nazi ideology it is actually historically the Palestinian side (see Mufti relations with Hitler and his contributions to the final solution).
b) One side is clearly stronger than the other side (however, the weak side is doing everything it can to bring the casaulties numbers up. We know Hamas is doing this).
Israel is not going to try get more Israelis killed just so progressives become happier.
Total silence from you on this one.
> Not sure what "fair exchange" would mean here. It looks like
Again, when a nation occupies another nation's territory, it's normal that there are resistance movements. The numbers actually suggest not a war of army vs army but instead warfare on Palestinian territory, in which thousands of innocent Palestinians are caught in the crossfire.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147512
https://apnews.com/article/un-gaza-war-children-killed-malnu...
Are those 13,000+ children that Israel killed part of Hamas? Is everybody in Palestine Hamas? Or is it the excuse of a Zionist-apologist for bombarding innocents?
> Israel is not going to try get more Israelis killed just so progressives become happier.
Well, actually again, you are conflating the actions of the genocidal Israeli state and of the wanted war criminal Netanyahu, with the will of the Israeli people, who repeatedly protested against his genocidal regime.
Now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUT_D31mo8k
And a month ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4vwIM1zE4U
And four months ago: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/tUtS3POWiJ4
And three years ago: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/HH0Lr2nM2qY
Zionism is the same as Nazism, a type of fascism, predicated on the fact that some are "better" and "chosen" and have a right to and deserve more than others just because of their race/skin color/nationality/religion.
Unfortunately for those of us in the diaspora, Israel has really muddied the waters by convincing people that anti-Israel = antisemitism, because it's given real antisemites cover. E.g., like when the ADL came to Musk's defense after his Nazi salute because he officially supported Israel.
- The Zionist project is an ethno-state, just like those groups want for their countries. This also echoes the Zionist-nazi collaborations before WWII to move jewish population out of Germany to Palestine.
- Israel works as an spearhead of the global imperialism configuration, if you support imperialism on the Middle East -as those groups and their bourgeoisie do- you must support Israel.
- European neo-nazi groups are militant against immigration, and a big chunk of that immigration to their countries is muslim, so they are more than open to the Israel narratives against the muslim world... even the most extremist ones that de-humanizes Gaza children ("those children are future terrorists").
American life is defined by the acceptance of dissent and the encouragement of even distasteful free speech. If that's not American, what even is American?
It's like watching the rebels and the Empire shoot at each other, and saying "There's no difference, because they're both violent."