ICE putting LGBT and disabled immigrants in solitary...

[Ifreann]

It matters if the government is targetting already vulnerable people for torture, yes.

Are we pulling their teeth out or.....

Solitary confinement is torture. Keep up, man, it's the whole point of this thread.

[Nova Cyberia]

I mean, but there's no need to segregate both LGBT and disabled immigrants, they fit under the people label just as much as someone who's straight or with a working body.

See the "whip up outrage" part. If they're doing it to everyone, they're doing it to LGBT and disabled immigrants too. Probably also children. Isn't that awful?

Holy fuck, you really don't understand the Constiution. Determining what laws are Constitutional and not is the job of the courts, not Congress.

whooooosh

M8, the fact that you're wrong doesn't mean I missed the point. It just means you're wrong.

[Ifreann]

It matters if the government is targetting already vulnerable people for torture, yes.

Are we pulling their teeth out or.....

Solitary confinement is torture. Keep up, man, it's the whole point of this thread.

[Novus America]

Actually it is the opposite.
US courts cannot give advisory opinions.
They determine the legality after the law has had effect, not before.

That's actually what I was trying to get at - "Unless someone's suspected of doing something illegal, they have the right not to be fucked with." Who decides what's illegal? Congress. Therefore, unless someone's doing something Congress (or various relevant state agencies) has outlawed, what was it again? Oh right. They have "the right ... to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects".

That's what I meant by "ruled otherwise" in that quote NC missed the point of - "It's illegal because stopping people to do law enforcement at them is illegal by default unless ruled otherwise, whether that's in their house, on the street, on the bus, or in the goddamned ocean."

Unless you have "probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized", you're not allowed to search and/or seize them. The amendment really isn't that long, guys.

Umm I think you are a bit mixed up here. Congress has passed a law allowing these searches.
Courts have not overuled them, so they are legal.
You are mixing up the provision “against unreasonable searches and seizures” and the requirements for warrants. Not all searches require a warrant.
What is “reasonable” is in fact a quite complex matter and varies based on the place and context of the search in question.

[Twilight Imperium]

M8, the fact that you're wrong doesn't mean I missed the point. It just means you're wrong.

Nobody is talking about determining what laws are Constitutional and not. The fact that you think I was is the reason my point sailing past you made that whooooshing sound.

[Twilight Imperium]

Umm I think you are a bit mixed up here. Congress has passed a law allowing these searches.

They have? Do you have a link? I'm honestly a bit surprised.

Courts have not overuled them, so they are legal.
You are mixing up the provision “against unreasonable searches and seizures” and the requirements for warrants. Not all searches and seizure require a warrant.
What is “reasonable” is in fact a quite complex matter and varies based on the place and context of the search in question.

This is all true, yes.
E: except the part where I'm mixed up - I know not all searches need a warrant. We went over that with Nova's sobriety thing. What I'm saying is that the fourth amendment provides the right to not be searched or seized by the government unless they have specific reason to believe you committed a crime.

[Novus America]

Are we pulling their teeth out or.....

Solitary confinement is torture. Keep up, man, it's the whole point of this thread.

According to some, not to all. That is a controversial point.

[Novus America]

Umm I think you are a bit mixed up here. Congress has passed a law allowing these searches.

They have? Do you have a link? I'm honestly a bit surprised.

Courts have not overuled them, so they are legal.
You are mixing up the provision “against unreasonable searches and seizures” and the requirements for warrants. Not all searches and seizure require a warrant.
What is “reasonable” is in fact a quite complex matter and varies based on the place and context of the search in question.

This is all true, yes.

Here is a link.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.co ... trak-train
This specifically referees to CBP but the provisions apply to ICE agents too.

[Nova Cyberia]

M8, the fact that you're wrong doesn't mean I missed the point. It just means you're wrong.

Nobody is talking about determining what laws are Constitutional and not. The fact that you think I was is the reason my point sailing past you made that whooooshing sound.

You said Congress determines what is illegal or not. Congress's job is to legislate, not make determinations over whether or not certain tactics used by immigration authorities is Constitutional or not.

[Twilight Imperium]

Thanks, once it's edited in. Also, I edited my previous post a bit w/r/t the fourth amendment.

[Novus America]

Umm I think you are a bit mixed up here. Congress has passed a law allowing these searches.

They have? Do you have a link? I'm honestly a bit surprised.

Courts have not overuled them, so they are legal.
You are mixing up the provision “against unreasonable searches and seizures” and the requirements for warrants. Not all searches and seizure require a warrant.
What is “reasonable” is in fact a quite complex matter and varies based on the place and context of the search in question.

This is all true, yes.
E: except the part where I'm mixed up - I know not all searches need a warrant. We went over that with Nova's sobriety thing. What I'm saying is that the fourth amendment provides the right to not be searched or seized by the government unless they have specific reason to believe you committed a crime.

Well my link explains a little better.
They do not just grab anyone.
You do have to have at least some reasonable suspicion for such searches usually, yes.

[Twilight Imperium]

You said Congress determines what is illegal or not. Congress's job is to legislate, not make determinations over whether or not certain tactics used by immigration authorities is Constitutional or not.

Yes....? What's your point? Both of those sentences are true. Congress makes laws, the Supreme Court strikes them down if they're unconstitutional. Until they're struck down, they are The Law.

[Wallenburg]

Solitary confinement is torture. Keep up, man, it's the whole point of this thread.

According to some, not to all. That is a controversial point.

It's controversial like "the earth is warming and its climate is changing". It's obviously true, but anti-science extremists have made it into a debate.

[Twilight Imperium]

Well my link explains a little better.
They do not just grab anyone.
You do have to have at least some reasonable suspicion for such searches usually, yes.

Ah yeah, that is a good link. You might have said you're in Florida. I still think it's a gross overreach for minimal gains, but it is currently legal in the hundred-mile zone, it seems. Thanks!

[Nova Cyberia]

You said Congress determines what is illegal or not. Congress's job is to legislate, not make determinations over whether or not certain tactics used by immigration authorities is Constitutional or not.

Yes....? What's your point? Both of those sentences are true. Congress makes laws, the Supreme Court strikes them down if they're unconstitutional. Until they're struck down, they are The Law.

My point is that you seem to think that these sorts of things are automatically illegal unless Congress or the courts say otherwise. That's not how anything works.

[Novus America]

According to some, not to all. That is a controversial point.

It's controversial like "the earth is warming and its climate is changing". It's obviously true, but anti-science extremists have made it into a debate.

No, this is not a matter of just science.
What is and what is not torture is a rather complex subject at times, and sometimes subjective.

[Twilight Imperium]

My point is that you seem to think that these sorts of things are automatically illegal unless Congress or the courts say otherwise. That's not how anything works.

I think that unless someone's broken the law, they're not doing anything illegal.

I further think that unless you have a good reason to think someone's broken the law (like say, the border agent guidelines NA posted), it's a violation of the rights laid out in the Fourth Amendment to do law enforcement at them.

Therefore, yes, it's automatically against the law of the land (the Constitution) to do so unless Congress or the courts say otherwise (by making or striking down a law).

Which part of that doesn't work?

[Arlenton]

Serve as a warning maybe?

[Fartsniffage]

It's controversial like "the earth is warming and its climate is changing". It's obviously true, but anti-science extremists have made it into a debate.

No, this is not a matter of just science.
What is and what is not torture is a rather complex subject at times, and sometimes subjective.

The vast majority of people suffer when deprived of human contact. That is not subjective, it's fact.

[Ifreann]

Solitary confinement is torture. Keep up, man, it's the whole point of this thread.

According to some, not to all. That is a controversial point.

Nah man.

[Twilight Imperium]

No, this is not a matter of just science.
What is and what is not torture is a rather complex subject at times, and sometimes subjective.

The vast majority of people suffer when deprived of human contact. That is not subjective, it's fact.

Define "suffering".

[Neanderthaland]

It's controversial like "the earth is warming and its climate is changing". It's obviously true, but anti-science extremists have made it into a debate.

No, this is not a matter of just science.
What is and what is not torture is a rather complex subject at times, and sometimes subjective.

Well, let's hear from a man who was actually, and indisputably, tortured:
"It’s an awful thing, solitary ... It crushes your spirit and weakens your resistance more effectively than any other form of mistreatment." - John McCain

[Novus America]

No, this is not a matter of just science.
What is and what is not torture is a rather complex subject at times, and sometimes subjective.

The vast majority of people suffer when deprived of human contact. That is not subjective, it's fact.

People suffering alone does not equal torture. People suffer when subjected to nearly any punishment.

[Nova Cyberia]

My point is that you seem to think that these sorts of things are automatically illegal unless Congress or the courts say otherwise. That's not how anything works.

I think that unless someone's broken the law, they're not doing anything illegal.

I further think that unless you have a good reason to think someone's broken the law (like say, the border agent guidelines NA posted), it's a violation of the rights laid out in the Fourth Amendment to do law enforcement at them.

Therefore, yes, it's automatically against the law of the land (the Constitution) to do so unless Congress or the courts say otherwise (by making or striking down a law).

Which part of that doesn't work?

The part where legality is determined afterwards, not before.

[Fartsniffage]

The vast majority of people suffer when deprived of human contact. That is not subjective, it's fact.

Define "suffering".

Define "define".