ICE putting LGBT and disabled immigrants in solitary...

[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.

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

Oh solitary can be rough. And it can be used as a form of torture. But at times it is also necessary. I do agree it appears to have been overused here.

[Twilight Imperium]

Define "suffering".

Define "define".

I'm not just being sarcastic here, you won't get anywhere with the right-wing brain spiders unless you offer some facts.

[Twilight Imperium]

The part where legality is determined afterwards, not before.

I'm not sure what you mean. I've helpfully labeled these:

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

b) 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.

c) 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).

Do you disagree with a), b), or c)?

[Nova Cyberia]

The part where legality is determined afterwards, not before.

I'm not sure what you mean. I've helpfully labeled these:

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

b) 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.

c) 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).

Do you disagree with a), b), or c)?

I have several disagreements.

[Fartsniffage]

Define "define".

I'm not just being sarcastic here, you won't get anywhere with the right-wing brain spiders unless you offer some facts.

I've long since given up on getting anywhere with them.

[Twilight Imperium]

I have several disagreements.

Is it with a), which is a definition of what "breaking the law means", b) a plain text interpretation of the fourth amendment, c) a synthesis of the two, or some combination of the above?

I've long since given up on getting anywhere with them.

Fair enough, it's frightfully trying at times.

[Farnhamia]

No part of my post suggests I'm not calm. You are once again trying to discredit me personally by suggesting I'm not calm. This is a bad discussion tactic that is unfortunately used a fair amount around here. Or maybe I'm just noticing it more.

OK now you're really being irrational. Someone pointing out that you're flying off the handle does not mean they are trying to discredit you.

If you wanted to ask why that question, you would have asked it. But now since you have, I'm not uncritical of the police.

Can you show me where you've said anything critical of the police?

I'm just fully aware that the police are a necessary part of society and can disagree with the parts of the process without disrespecting the people who enact the process.

Shooting black teenagers is part of the 'process'?

I have been detained and/or questioned when I did nothing wrong. Still treated the responding officer(s) with basic human decency and responded to his/her instructions and questions. They are doing a job that needs to be done. The exceptions do not override the rule.

Just because you want to be a boot licker doesn't mean anyone else who is detained unfairly isn't allowed to complain.

People respond better to courtesy and level-headed respect than confrontation and disrespect. That's true on both sides of the equation. It ain't rocket surgery.

Tell that to Philando Castile.

*** 10 day ban for harassment and thread-jacking. ***

This ban applies to you as a player, not just this nation. Use of a puppet to go around this ban will lose you this nation and the puppet. You may appeal in a GHR

[Imbrinium]

LMAO gotta love these threads such BS.

[Nova Cyberia]

I have several disagreements.

Is it with a), which is a definition of what "breaking the law means", b) a plain text interpretation of the fourth amendment, c) a synthesis of the two, or some combination of the above?

I've long since given up on getting anywhere with them.

Fair enough, it's frightfully trying at times.

I disagree with your interpretation of the Fourth Amendment and your notion that police can't conduct things like sobriety checkpoints in public places.

[Twilight Imperium]

I disagree with your interpretation of the Fourth Amendment and your notion that police can't conduct things like sobriety checkpoints in public places.

Fair enough. What rights do you think the fourth amendment outlines?

Also, clearly the police can conduct sobriety checkpoints , but I maintain that they probably shouldn't.

[Nova Cyberia]

I disagree with your interpretation of the Fourth Amendment and your notion that police can't conduct things like sobriety checkpoints in public places.

Fair enough. What rights do you think the fourth amendment outlines?

Also, clearly the police can conduct sobriety checkpoints , but I maintain that they probably shouldn't.

I think that there are limitations on the Fourth Amendment just like we have with the First Amendment and the Second Amendment. Just because something is a constitutional right does not mean that limitations cannot be placed on it.

Also, you think that sobriety checkpoints are illegal. You effectively think that police can't legally have them.

[Fartsniffage]

Fair enough. What rights do you think the fourth amendment outlines?

Also, clearly the police can conduct sobriety checkpoints , but I maintain that they probably shouldn't.

I think that there are limitations on the Fourth Amendment just like we have with the First Amendment and the Second Amendment. Just because something is a constitutional right does not mean that limitations cannot be placed on it.

Also, you think that sobriety checkpoints are illegal. You effectively think that police can't legally have them.

Do you think that the police can just randomly ask people for their papers on the street with no suspicion of criminal activity?

[Twilight Imperium]

I think that there are limitations on the Fourth Amendment just like we have with the First Amendment and the Second Amendment. Just because something is a constitutional right does not mean that limitations cannot be placed on it.

I agree. The Fourth Amendment is the baseline from which we occasionally diverge. I think that we should be extremely careful about where and when we diverge from it, and that the IDs-on-buses thing is very not worth it.

Also, you think that sobriety checkpoints are illegal. You effectively think that police can't legally have them.

I think they violate the spirit of the Constitution, yes. However, they are currently legal per that SCOTUS ruling I posted about three hours ago.

[Nova Cyberia]

I think that there are limitations on the Fourth Amendment just like we have with the First Amendment and the Second Amendment. Just because something is a constitutional right does not mean that limitations cannot be placed on it.

Also, you think that sobriety checkpoints are illegal. You effectively think that police can't legally have them.

Do you think that the police can just randomly ask people for their papers on the street with no suspicion of criminal activity?

We're talking about ICE, not regular police.

As for if they can do that, ICE doesn't deal purely with criminal matters. Immigration and deportation are civil matters.

[Nova Cyberia]

I think that there are limitations on the Fourth Amendment just like we have with the First Amendment and the Second Amendment. Just because something is a constitutional right does not mean that limitations cannot be placed on it.

I agree. The Fourth Amendment is the baseline from which we occasionally diverge. I think that we should be extremely careful about where and when we diverge from it, and that the IDs-on-buses thing is very not worth it.

I don't really view citizenship checks in public places as diverging too far from it.

Also, you think that sobriety checkpoints are illegal. You effectively think that police can't legally have them.

I think they violate the spirit of the Constitution, yes. However, they are currently legal per that SCOTUS ruling I posted about three hours ago.

It seemed as though you thought it wasn't legal, but fine.

[Twilight Imperium]

I don't really view citizenship checks in public places as diverging too far from it.

And I legitimately can't understand that.

As for if they can do that, ICE doesn't deal purely with criminal matters. Immigration and deportation are civil matters.

Ah I see, since they're not police, they don't have to follow laws in place to keep police in check. That's a heck of a loophole.

[Nova Cyberia]

I don't really view citizenship checks in public places as diverging too far from it.

And I legitimately can't understand that.

As for if they can do that, ICE doesn't deal purely with criminal matters. Immigration and deportation are civil matters.

Ah I see, since they're not police, they don't have to follow laws in place to keep police in check. That's a heck of a loophole.

They're not regular police, no. I thought that was kind of obvious.

[Twilight Imperium]

They're not regular police, no. I thought that was kind of obvious.

Well, they go out and investigate people who are suspected of breaking the law, detain people they think did, interrogate people they've detained, and deliver said ne'er-do-wells to the criminal justice system. You can see where people might get them mixed up with cops.

[Fartsniffage]

Do you think that the police can just randomly ask people for their papers on the street with no suspicion of criminal activity?

We're talking about ICE, not regular police.

As for if they can do that, ICE doesn't deal purely with criminal matters. Immigration and deportation are civil matters.

So ICE have powers that the police don't?

[Twilight Imperium]

We're talking about ICE, not regular police.

As for if they can do that, ICE doesn't deal purely with criminal matters. Immigration and deportation are civil matters.

So ICE have powers that the police don't?

Also, do you think that the police ICE can just randomly ask people for their papers on the street with no suspicion of criminal activity?

[Nova Cyberia]

They're not regular police, no. I thought that was kind of obvious.

Well, they go out and investigate people who are suspected of breaking the law, detain people they think did, interrogate people they've detained, and deliver said ne'er-do-wells to the criminal justice system. You can see where people might get them mixed up with cops.

And they deport people, something which regular police have 0 authority to do.

[Nova Cyberia]

We're talking about ICE, not regular police.

As for if they can do that, ICE doesn't deal purely with criminal matters. Immigration and deportation are civil matters.

So ICE have powers that the police don't?

Yes. Considering that I'm fairly certain you already know that I get the feeling that you have some point.

Perhaps instead of playing this tiresome game you could just state it upfront.

[Nova Cyberia]

So ICE have powers that the police don't?

Also, do you think that the police ICE can just randomly ask people for their papers on the street with no suspicion of criminal activity?

I don't believe it should be taken that far.

[Twilight Imperium]

Also, do you think that the police ICE can just randomly ask people for their papers on the street with no suspicion of criminal activity?

I don't believe it should be taken that far.

But if they board a bus off that street, then they'd better look out!

[Fartsniffage]

Well, they go out and investigate people who are suspected of breaking the law, detain people they think did, interrogate people they've detained, and deliver said ne'er-do-wells to the criminal justice system. You can see where people might get them mixed up with cops.

And they deport people, something which regular police have 0 authority to do.

No they don't. Immigration judges deport people, ICE doesn't any more than the police put people in prison. Do you have any idea how things work?