• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Are we now in full blown fascist totalitarianism?

Axulus

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
4,684
Location
Hallandale, FL
Basic Beliefs
Right leaning skeptic
The story about the deportation flights of alleged Venezuelan gang members to an El Salvadorian prison has to top the list of things to confirm no one has any legal rights any longer. That we are officially in a fascist totalitarian state. The more I think about it, the more disturbing it becomes.

There was no due process with what happened here. Effectively, the federal government can now declare anyone a member of a foreign gang and immediately wisk them away to a foreign prison with known human rights abuses, without any recourse.

Any troublesome individual can be so declared without a shred of evidence.

If these people really were undocumented and a member of a venezuelan gang, then such individual could easily be deported using normal due process. The only reason why they would avoid due process is because the government is afraid of losing their case in front of a judge. In other words, they had insufficient evidence. What other reason could there be? Trump and his ilk wanted these people disappeared. Marco Rubio, Trump and anyone else involved in this should be hanged for high treason.
 
The story about the deportation flights of alleged Venezuelan gang members to an El Salvadorian prison has to top the list of things to confirm no one has any legal rights any longer. That we are officially in a fascist totalitarian state. The more I think about it, the more disturbing it becomes.

It's interesting because he claims a wartime power due to an invasion while we are neither at war nor being invaded. A court told him to stop but he is ignoring the court. I do think anyone can be arrested and sent somewhere now, but mostly this would be a mistaken identity. And I also think if they did it and the courts found out, they'd release the person, IFF they are a US citizen born here to US citizen parents. To me, that says we are not quite at the point of EVERYONE being arrested in all groups who could struggle, but it's more like the "First they came for the Venezuelans" stages.

If these people really were undocumented and a member of a venezuelan gang, then such individual could easily be deported using normal due process. The only reason why they would avoid due process is because the government is afraid of losing their case in front of a judge. In other words, they had insufficient evidence. What other reason could there be?

Great question. I am not going to say I have the answer or that I want to argue. I am just trying to be creative. MAYBE they know more than we do, but if that's the case, then why wouldn't they use this information in a due process trial? MAYBE (again), the information was obtained illegally. Warrantless wiretaps and/or all the tech broligarchs happily giving data to Trump without warrants and/or MAYBE they just THINK they know more because some dropout college kid named Bigballs4Jezus created an AI program to identify gang members from their private social media and Alexa feeds.

There used to be an NSA spying program called TALON. It could be that the program was resurrected and modernized with AI, social media scraping, wiretaps etc. Justification for warrantless wiretaps was related to USA PATRIOT Act and FISA tweaks from that law. It could be one reason the designation of the gang was changed to a terrorist organization so that these laws could apply.

And even another reason to invoke a terrorist declaration could be for another law: the Military Commissions Act which would also make it so that normal due process would not need to be followed, but rather secret military courts...or at least that would be Trump's goal.

Like I said, I'm just trying to be creative here...
 
Due process for illegal immigrants. What about due process for legal "ones"?
One can be denied entrance visa without any due process.
 
Due process for illegal immigrants. What about due process for legal "ones"?
One can be denied entrance visa without any due process.
You aren't getting it. The government is declaring them here illegally without providing any proof to a court and then shipping them off to a foreign prison.

If they aren't here then that is something completely different.
 
Due process for illegal immigrants. What about due process for legal "ones"?
One can be denied entrance visa without any due process.
You aren't getting it. The government is declaring them here illegally without providing any proof to a court and then shipping them off to a foreign prison.

If they aren't here then that is something completely different.
No, it's not really different.
 
Good legal analysis on the looming constitutional crisis and what may happen in the coming days as a result of the administration igoring/defying the court order

 
So I guess what's in force is An Act Respecting Alien Enemies. The other two acts have expired. Good thing as the third one is particularly chilling.
An Act Respecting Alien Enemies

SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government, and the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being males of the age of fourteen years and upwards, who shall be within the United States, and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies. And the President of the United States shall be, and he is hereby authorized, in any event, as aforesaid, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed, on the part of the United States, towards the aliens who shall become liable, as aforesaid; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject, and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those, who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, shall refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which shall be found necessary in the premises and for the public safety: Provided, that aliens resident within the United States, who shall become liable as enemies, in the manner aforesaid, and who shall not be chargeable with actual hostility, or other crime against the public safety, shall be allowed, for the recovery, disposal, and removal of their goods and effects, and for their departure, the full time which is, or shall be stipulated by any treaty, where any shall have been between the United States, and the hostile nation or government, of which they shall be natives, citizens, denizens or subjects: and where no such treaty shall have existed, the President of the United States may ascertain and declare such reasonable time as may be consistent with the public safety, and according to the dictates of humanity and national hospitality.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That after any proclamation shall be made as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the several courts of the United States, and of each state, having criminal jurisdiction, and of the several judges and justices of the courts of the United States, and they shall be, and are hereby respectively, authorized upon complaint, against any alien or alien enemies, as aforesaid, who shall be resident and at large within such jurisdiction or district, to the danger of the public peace or safety, and contrary to the tenor or intent of such proclamation, or other regulations which the President of the United States shall and may establish in the premises, to cause such alien or aliens to be duly apprehended and convened before such court, judge or justice; and after a full examination and hearing on such complaint. and sufficient cause therefor appearing, shall and may order such alien or aliens to be removed out of the territory of the United States, or to give sureties of their good behaviour, or to be otherwise restrained, conformably to the proclamation or regulations which shall and may be established as aforesaid, and may imprison, or otherwise secure such alien or aliens, until the order which shall and may be made, as aforesaid, shall be performed.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the marshal of the district in which any alien enemy shall be apprehended, who by the President of the United States, or by order of any court, judge or justice, as aforesaid, shall be required to depart, and to be removed, as aforesaid, to provide therefor, and to execute such order, by himself or his deputy, or other discreet person or persons to be employed by him, by causing a removal of such alien out of the territory of the United States; and for such removal the marshal shall have the warrant of the President of the United States, or of the court, judge or justice ordering the same, as the case may be.

APPROVED, July 6, 1798.
 
Jebus!
article said:
(my emphasis)U.S. District Judge James Boasberg on Saturday temporarily blocked Trump from using the act to swiftly remove immigrants without a hearing and instructed officials to return any airplanes carrying them to the United States. He ruled after advocates sued saying the administration was denying immigrants due process and putting them in danger.

But early Sunday, Trump administration officials shared video footage from El Salvador that showed shackled immigrants being forced off airplanes at night and into a new mega-prison.

“Oopsie, too late,” Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele posted on X, referring to the judge’s decision, followed by a laughing emoji. Secretary of State Marco Rubio reposted it, and a White House spokesman responded with a meme saying, “Boom!”
There is contempt of court and then there is contempt of court. Secretary of State just gave a Federal Judge the middle finger.

Due Process is the most important right we have in this country. It ultimately is the only one that matters. Some seem to think it isn't an issue because these people aren't citizens. But if their is no Due Process, how do we even know that?
 
Last edited:
Jebus!
article said:
(my emphasis)U.S. District Judge James Boasberg on Saturday temporarily blocked Trump from using the act to swiftly remove immigrants without a hearing and instructed officials to return any airplanes carrying them to the United States. He ruled after advocates sued saying the administration was denying immigrants due process and putting them in danger.

But early Sunday, Trump administration officials shared video footage from El Salvador that showed shackled immigrants being forced off airplanes at night and into a new mega-prison.

“Oopsie, too late,” Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele posted on X, referring to the judge’s decision, followed by a laughing emoji. Secretary of State Marco Rubio reposted it, and a White House spokesman responded with a meme saying, “Boom!”
There is contempt of court and then there is contempt of court. Secretary of State just gave a Federal Judge the middle finger.

Due Process is the most important right we have in this country. It ultimately is the only one that matters. Some seem to think it isn't an issue because these people aren't citizens. But if their is no Due Process, how do we even know that?
All I can say is that if a democrat tried half the shit that Trump has done in 6 weeks, the right would be grabbing their guns to fight tyranny.
 
Due process for illegal immigrants. What about due process for legal "ones"?
One can be denied entrance visa without any due process.
You aren't getting it. The government is declaring them here illegally without providing any proof to a court and then shipping them off to a foreign prison.

If they aren't here then that is something completely different.
Conservatives never cared about due process all that much.
 
Good legal analysis on the looming constitutional crisis and what may happen in the coming days as a result of the administration igoring/defying the court order


This is actually what I was talking about. Due process for you if you got somehow into US. But no due process if you are still or already outside.
 
Due process for illegal immigrants. What about due process for legal "ones"?
One can be denied entrance visa without any due process.
You aren't getting it. The government is declaring them here illegally without providing any proof to a court and then shipping them off to a foreign prison.

If they aren't here then that is something completely different.
Conservatives never cared about due process all that much.
Obama must have been a conservative.
 
Excellent analysis by Tim Snyder. Essentially the intent behind this was to defy the law and get popular support for doing so, and to label those who oppose it (and the judge) as on the side of "monsters" and "terrorists", as a way to further implement dictatorial control of the government. Here is some of it:

4. Immigration and emigration are matters of legislation, the responsibility for which is delegated by the Constitution to Congress. In organizing a deportation outside the bounds of any particular law, and indeed outside the bounds of law in general, the executive is not only challenging Congress but disputing its purpose. The deportation action, in other words, is a direct blow not only to the judiciary but to the legislative branch of the federal government. It is an assertion of total executive authority that has no basis in law or tradition.

5. The individuals involved are declaring their power to define reality, independently not only of judicial but of all verification. There is no basis for this deportation beyond speech acts and keyboard acts. The words ("foreign alien terrorists," "monsters") are doing the work. There are no procedures between the movement of mouths and the movement of bodies. If members of the executive branch are allowed to issue truth claims that have the consequence that human beings leave the United States, we are in a dictatorship. If we accept that the executive branch can simply deport anyone they call a "foreign alien terrorist," then none of us has any rights.

6. The language that is being used has a specific resonance, which, historically, has been used to change regime type. It is important that the rights of human beings were violated. It is important that the rule of law was ignored. It is important that the executive is trying to define reality. But beyond even the issues of right and wrong and reality and unreality is the issue of language and behavior. We must consider just how the words are selected and what they are meant to do to us. "Foreign" means that they are not us. "Alien" means that we should hate them. "Terrorist" means that we should hate them enough to allow a state of exception, a suspension of normal practices, a change of regime. There is a long history of this, all around the world, including Hitler in 1933 and Stalin in 1934.

7. In an Orwellian reversal, defenders of the law are being associated with crime. The whole point of the rule of law is that everyone has a certain human dignity, which requires that they get their day in court, consistent with certain procedures. We do not know who is a criminal and who is not without these acknowledgements and these processes. The executive is claiming that it can simply name people "criminals" or “terrorists” or "monsters"-- and then contend that the defenders of law associates of criminals or monsters. In this way, the individuals who are carrying out this dictatorial action smear those who defend the Constitution by associating them with crimes, and of course with the most corporeal and unpleasant crimes. This is a logic entirely foreign to freedom, and destructive of it.




 
Last edited:
Due process for illegal immigrants. What about due process for legal "ones"?
One can be denied entrance visa without any due process.
You aren't getting it. The government is declaring them here illegally without providing any proof to a court and then shipping them off to a foreign prison.

If they aren't here then that is something completely different.
Conservatives never cared about due process all that much.
Obama must have been a conservative.
Sorry but your derail is not getting you what you hope, as anyone with a brain knows the relevant difference between laws applied (or not applied) within the territory of sovereign nation and actions taken outside it (under a different set of law). Your stupid false equivalence may work on Russian stooges, but you are wasting your breath here.
 
Last edited:
The more I think about it, the more disturbing it becomes.
+1
It makes my mind automatically try to project some limit to lawlessness that might restrain the current junta. But there is none, unless someone with decent eyesight wants to sacrifice themself to a second amendment solution.

We are fucked.
 
The more I think about it, the more disturbing it becomes.
+1
It makes my mind automatically try to project some limit to lawlessness that might restrain the current junta. But there is none, unless someone with decent eyesight wants to sacrifice themself to a second amendment solution.

We are fucked.
Our last line of defense is the courts, but it is looking more fragile by the day. There is a way for them to enforce civil contempt outside the jurisdiction of the executive. Good article here:


The question then becomes, do individual judges stick their necks out to punish the administration, or does fear of the consequences of the inevitable attacks by the administration and their congressional lackeys deter them from taking any serious action? The people need to start rising up before all is truly lost, which may give some courage back to congress and the judiciary.
 
Due process for illegal immigrants. What about due process for legal "ones"?
One can be denied entrance visa without any due process.
You aren't getting it. The government is declaring them here illegally without providing any proof to a court and then shipping them off to a foreign prison.

If they aren't here then that is something completely different.
Conservatives never cared about due process all that much.
Obama must have been a conservative.
Sorry but your derail is not getting you what you hope, as anyone with a brain knows the relevant difference between laws applied (or not applied) within the territory of sovereign nation and actions taken outside it (under a different set of law). Your stupid false equivalence may work on Russian stooges, but you are wasting your breath here.
That's not a refutation of what I said.
 
Excellent analysis by Tim Snyder. Essentially the intent behind this was to defy the law and get popular support for doing so, and to label those who oppose it (and the judge) as on the side of "monsters" and "terrorists", as a way to further implement dictatorial control of the government. Here is some of it:

4. Immigration and emigration are matters of legislation, the responsibility for which is delegated by the Constitution to Congress. In organizing a deportation outside the bounds of any particular law, and indeed outside the bounds of law in general, the executive is not only challenging Congress but disputing its purpose. The deportation action, in other words, is a direct blow not only to the judiciary but to the legislative branch of the federal government. It is an assertion of total executive authority that has no basis in law or tradition.

5. The individuals involved are declaring their power to define reality, independently not only of judicial but of all verification. There is no basis for this deportation beyond speech acts and keyboard acts. The words ("foreign alien terrorists," "monsters") are doing the work. There are no procedures between the movement of mouths and the movement of bodies. If members of the executive branch are allowed to issue truth claims that have the consequence that human beings leave the United States, we are in a dictatorship. If we accept that the executive branch can simply deport anyone they call a "foreign alien terrorist," then none of us has any rights.

6. The language that is being used has a specific resonance, which, historically, has been used to change regime type. It is important that the rights of human beings were violated. It is important that the rule of law was ignored. It is important that the executive is trying to define reality. But beyond even the issues of right and wrong and reality and unreality is the issue of language and behavior. We must consider just how the words are selected and what they are meant to do to us. "Foreign" means that they are not us. "Alien" means that we should hate them. "Terrorist" means that we should hate them enough to allow a state of exception, a suspension of normal practices, a change of regime. There is a long history of this, all around the world, including Hitler in 1933 and Stalin in 1934.

7. In an Orwellian reversal, defenders of the law are being associated with crime. The whole point of the rule of law is that everyone has a certain human dignity, which requires that they get their day in court, consistent with certain procedures. We do not know who is a criminal and who is not without these acknowledgements and these processes. The executive is claiming that it can simply name people "criminals" or “terrorists” or "monsters"-- and then contend that the defenders of law associates of criminals or monsters. In this way, the individuals who are carrying out this dictatorial action smear those who defend the Constitution by associating them with crimes, and of course with the most corporeal and unpleasant crimes. This is a logic entirely foreign to freedom, and destructive of it.




Paragraph #9 has particular bearing for me, since it talks about dehumanization. I recently started a thread on the dangers of that but it went nowhere.

I posted a comment on a YouTube video showing these so called criminals being handled like animals during their incarceration process. My comment was simply, " Were these people tried and convicted?"; the first response was "illegal entry not good enough for you bud?"

The Maga's don't care if the deportees were gang members at all. For them illegal entry is enough for deportation and imprisonment, without trial. I used to think the term Nazi was hyperbole, but my opinion is changing.

ETA: and we don't even know they were in the country illegally. We know nothing about them but hearsay, and tattoos.
 
Last edited:
Due process for illegal immigrants. What about due process for legal "ones"?
One can be denied entrance visa without any due process.
You aren't getting it. The government is declaring them here illegally without providing any proof to a court and then shipping them off to a foreign prison.

If they aren't here then that is something completely different.
Conservatives never cared about due process all that much.
Obama must have been a conservative.
How much more Moore-Coulter does this get? We are talking about a President declaring certain things and then exporting people from the nation as a first step, verses another President who took extra-legal actions against people that verifiably were targeting the United States as a last step.

Both are extra legal maneuvers, however:
  • one was against those targeting the US to harm it while the other was to get undesirables out of the nation
  • the risk of applying due process in one case involved the risk of life of those in the military to apprehend a subject, where as the other provided zero risk to anyone
 
Back
Top Bottom