[flagged]
This is the exact opposite of the Boy who Cried Wolf. How many sheep need to be eaten before you trust the shepard? Or you know, the wolf who keeps saying "I'm going to eat these sheep"?
>I understand completely that if he could get away with it, he would detain citizens, but I am not convinced yet that he can.
He already did. Thars the issue. Visa holders are already citizens. Do I need to to show you thr footage of a college woman being kidnapped off the street by un-badged men?
> If "oopsy-doopsy, it was a mistake" has no remedy then there is no remedy when it is a citizen who gets sent to a gulag.
What's more, now that the executive branch is disobeying direct orders from the judicial branch, what recourse do you think you'd have if you got on the wrong executive branch official's bad side?
Imagine for a moment that the judicial branch orders the executive branch to get Iran to release some American prisoners. The ruling to return the El Salvadorian is well-intentioned but even more absurd, considering the person is a citizen of El Salvador.
The role of the judicial branch, and of each judge, is to listen to all those beliefs and opinions as appropriate, and decide which one is correct, and to make orders as necessary in furtherance of that aim.
That has happened, and the administration then disobeyed the orders and asserted that the judges' judgements were invalid (an irrelevant personal judgement, because they are not the judge).
So, that's where we're at now. With that in mind, please address the posts to which you replied, specifically, the below 2 points:
> If "oopsy-doopsy, it was a mistake" has no remedy then there is no remedy when it is a citizen who gets sent to a gulag.
> What's more, now that the executive branch is disobeying direct orders from the judicial branch, what recourse do you think you'd have if you got on the wrong executive branch official's bad side?
You're being specifically asked to talk through your options and choices in such scenarios. What would they be? We'll take turns: You play the part of the victim; I'll play the part of the administration; we'll game it out. POV: You're walking down the street and a group of 7 or 8 plainclothes individuals wearing masks surround you, restrain you, and force you into an unmarked vehicle. Maybe one of them says they're a cop, but otherwise they refuse to say anything while they transport you to a foreign gulag. You are not permitted a lawyer, you are not permitted a phone call, and nobody, no family, no lawyers, no judges, not even your local police department, is notified what is happening to you. PERHAPS (it wouldn't change the outcome, but whatever) unbeknownst to you or them, this is a case of mistaken identity.
Ready for your turn? Go.
I think it'd be more appropriate to put "it" in a way that answers the question that I and UncleMeat asked
That means your response is completely unfairer! ;)
Seriously though, multiple people asked you that question, so it's not my question. That may be a clue that it isn't actually "unfair". But I don't doubt that you nonetheless hold your opinion that we're unfair and you're fair. Now that you've said your opinion, it'd be awesome if you answer the question we asked you.
> the probability of it happening to a random person of a certain group before happening to say a thousand others from the same group is close to zero
Ignoring for a moment that it's impossible for something to happen to 1000 people without first happening to the first of them: your position assumes that it isn't bad if this happens to a single person (maybe you), even though it is.
Beyond that, I'm not sure we're qualified (data-wise) to judge the probabilities you mentioned and whether they're close to zero, given the data we have available. If you think we are, then I submit the probability is close to 100%. We can then average our two estimates to get to a probability 50%, still well worth considering when you answer.
Anyways, it'd be much appreciated if you could go ahead and answer the question multiple people are asking you. I believe you are a talented human capable of answering questions which you personally think are unfair and which others don't think are unfair.
I respectfully don't agree with your opinion here -- the question multiple people asked you, is what it is. There's no point relating it to a totally different question when we could simply discuss it directly.
It reminds me of the current situation we're discussing -- the administration, when pressed by a judge to answer what they've tried so far towards returning their victim, refused to do so, giving some pretext about fairness or whatever. The judge essentially responded, okay, thanks for the opinion, but just because you have an opinion about the question doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't answer it.
Same goes here: a personally-held opinion that a question is unfair, or biased, or mean, or like this or like that, doesn't mean one can't or shouldn't answer it. What kind of meaningful discussion can be had when everyone avoids answering questions that they don't like, or whose answers make them uncomfortable, and they justify it by claiming that they personally hold the opinion that the question is "unfair"? Bor-ing!
> Capture a guard, change clothes with them, and escape
See? That said, is this really your proposed recourse for someone (US citizen or otherwise) deported to the gulag in question by the current administration (mistakenly or otherwise)? Seriously?
Huh? They are sending more people even now, and discussing sending US Citizens. Where is the sign they are taking care not to repeat it?
Why is this an appropriate conclusion?
Stephen Miller went on TV to say that this man is a terrorist and is in the right place, despite sworn statements from the solicitor general that this was a mistake. I see absolutely no reason to believe that the Trump administration sees any reason to prevent further errors.
> Imagine for a moment that the judicial branch orders the executive branch to get Iran to release some American prisoners.
Hey look, a completely different situation. Here the US sent this person to El Salvador and is paying the Salvadoran government to house people we send there. Not even remotely comparable to the Iranian government capturing somebody.