After being ordered by a district judge to retrieve Kilmar Armando
Abrego Garcia from the prison in El Salvador to which the Trump
administration deported him, despite a no-deportation order the man had received during the first Trump administration, the Trump administration appealed directly to John Roberts.

Roberts granted the administration an administrative stay on the basis
of lack of extraterritorial jurisdiction.

I don't believe for even a moment that, if requested, the man couldn't
be returned, but Trump wouldn't even ask.

He's sure to be killed.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/trump-asks-supreme-court-to-block-order-to-return-wrongly-deported-man-to-u-s/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 02:33:25 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

After being ordered by a district judge to retrieve Kilmar Armando
Abrego Garcia from the prison in El Salvador to which the Trump >administration deported him, despite a no-deportation order the man had >received during the first Trump administration, the Trump administration >appealed directly to John Roberts.

Roberts granted the administration an administrative stay on the basis
of lack of extraterritorial jurisdiction.

I don't believe for even a moment that, if requested, the man couldn't
be returned, but Trump wouldn't even ask.

He's sure to be killed.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/trump-asks-supreme-court-to-block-order-to-return-wrongly-deported-man-to-u-s/

At a minimum the administration shouldn't be allowed to send another
person out of the country without due process. There needs to be a
hearing where someone independent can make a determination 1) is this
the person they say it is and 2) is there sufficient cause to deport
them. That process would have (or should have) prevented Garcia from
being deported to that El Salvador prison.

I know they are pretending there's no way to get the man back but if
that's what they want to pretend then they shouldn't be allowed to
send another person to that prison. They want to pretend they are
still in US custody (hence why we are paying them to retain the
prisoners) but then pretending they have no control over what happens
to them.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Apr 7, 2025 at 8:35:03 PM PDT, shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>:

Tue, 8 Apr 2025 02:33:25 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

After being ordered by a district judge to retrieve Kilmar Armando
Abrego Garcia from the prison in El Salvador to which the Trump >>>administration deported him, despite a no-deportation order the man had >>>received during the first Trump administration, the Trump administration >>>appealed directly to John Roberts.

Roberts granted the administration an administrative stay on the basis
of lack of extraterritorial jurisdiction.

I don't believe for even a moment that, if requested, the man couldn't
be returned, but Trump wouldn't even ask.

He's sure to be killed.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/trump-asks-supreme-court-to-block-order-to-return-wrongly-deported-man-to-u-s/

At a minimum the administration shouldn't be allowed to send another
person out of the country without due process. There needs to be a
hearing where someone independent can make a determination 1) is this
the person they say it is and 2) is there sufficient cause to deport
them. That process would have (or should have) prevented Garcia from
being deported to that El Salvador prison.

You do realize the guys they're going after have already had their hearings >and just ignored their deportation orders, right? Do we need to give them >another hearing about the hearing? And then maybe a third hearing to examine >the first and second hearings?

Yeah, 'cuz the Trump administration hasn't made any administrative
orders with regard to who is subject to removal.

Oh, wait, they have.

In the case of those deported under the 18th century law, the Roberts
court just ruled they get notice and a hearing, even though I doubt
there's any such provision in the law.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Apr 7, 2025 at 8:35:03 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 02:33:25 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

After being ordered by a district judge to retrieve Kilmar Armando
Abrego Garcia from the prison in El Salvador to which the Trump
administration deported him, despite a no-deportation order the man had
received during the first Trump administration, the Trump administration
appealed directly to John Roberts.

Roberts granted the administration an administrative stay on the basis
of lack of extraterritorial jurisdiction.

I don't believe for even a moment that, if requested, the man couldn't
be returned, but Trump wouldn't even ask.

He's sure to be killed.


https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/trump-asks-supreme-court-to-block-order-to-return-wrongly-deported-man-to-u-s/

At a minimum the administration shouldn't be allowed to send another
person out of the country without due process. There needs to be a
hearing where someone independent can make a determination 1) is this
the person they say it is and 2) is there sufficient cause to deport
them. That process would have (or should have) prevented Garcia from
being deported to that El Salvador prison.

You do realize the guys they're going after have already had their hearings
and just ignored their deportation orders, right? Do we need to give them another hearing about the hearing? And then maybe a third hearing to examine the first and second hearings?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <vt28ld$1ev7i$1@dont-email.me>, ahk@chinet.com wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Apr 7, 2025 at 8:35:03 PM PDT, shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>: >>>Tue, 8 Apr 2025 02:33:25 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

After being ordered by a district judge to retrieve Kilmar Armando >>>>Abrego Garcia from the prison in El Salvador to which the Trump >>>>administration deported him, despite a no-deportation order the man had >>>>received during the first Trump administration, the Trump administration >>>>appealed directly to John Roberts.

Roberts granted the administration an administrative stay on the basis >>>>of lack of extraterritorial jurisdiction.

I don't believe for even a moment that, if requested, the man couldn't >>>>be returned, but Trump wouldn't even ask.

He's sure to be killed.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/trump-asks-supreme-court-to-block-order-to-return-wrongly-deported-man-to-u-s/

At a minimum the administration shouldn't be allowed to send another >>>person out of the country without due process. There needs to be a >>>hearing where someone independent can make a determination 1) is this
the person they say it is and 2) is there sufficient cause to deport >>>them. That process would have (or should have) prevented Garcia from >>>being deported to that El Salvador prison.

You do realize the guys they're going after have already had their hearings >>and just ignored their deportation orders, right? Do we need to give them >>another hearing about the hearing? And then maybe a third hearing to examine >>the first and second hearings?

Yeah, 'cuz the Trump administration hasn't made any administrative
orders with regard to who is subject to removal.

Oh, wait, they have.

In the case of those deported under the 18th century law, the Roberts
court just ruled they get notice and a hearing, even though I doubt
there's any such provision in the law.

You really need to stick to bird law.

[Kerman's incorrect formatting fixed.]

--
Trump Deportations
Day 71
100000

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

After being ordered by a district judge to retrieve Kilmar Armando
Abrego Garcia from the prison in El Salvador to which the Trump >administration deported him, despite a no-deportation order the man had >received during the first Trump administration, the Trump administration >appealed directly to John Roberts.

Roberts granted the administration an administrative stay on the basis
of lack of extraterritorial jurisdiction.

I don't believe for even a moment that, if requested, the man couldn't
be returned, but Trump wouldn't even ask.

He's sure to be killed.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/trump-asks-supreme-court-to-block-order-to-return-wrongly-deported-man-to-u-s/

In an unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court denied the Trump
administration's request to block the judge's ruling ordering Abrego
Garcia's return to the United States, who had been deported to a maximum security prison in El Salvador in an administrative order.

However, the judge must modify the order to show deference to the
president's power to conduct foreign affairs.

The Justice Department lawyer who made the admission in court has been
put on administrative leave and a different lawyer was assigned.

This includes background on various immigration court rulings that made
a finding that he was a gang member based on having been named by a confidential informant (who had gotten details wrong that he lived in
New York while committing unnamed crimes for the gang) during the first
Trump administration, but later, he was able to prove threats against
himself and his family back home, and was granted "withholding of
removal". It doesn't appear he sought asylum. He was subject to
deportation in the first place as an illegal alien, coming to the United
States as a teenager to escape the gang. When he asked for bond, that's
when the administration claimed he was a gang member.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/justices-direct-government-to-facilitate-return-of-maryland-man-mistakenly-deported-to-el-salvador/

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-maryland-deportation-trump-9f46dd62890befdc321ed1ab56107470

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, 07 Apr 2025 23:35:03 -0400, shawn
<nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

I know they are pretending there's no way to get the man back but if
that's what they want to pretend then they shouldn't be allowed to
send another person to that prison. They want to pretend they are
still in US custody (hence why we are paying them to retain the
prisoners) but then pretending they have no control over what happens
to them.

Isn't that functionally equivalent to banning deportations?

Fact is we KNOW miscarriages of justice sometimes happen - it's one of
the reasons for the existence of appeal courts.

I would bet that ANY prison of any size in America has had SOMEBODY
wrongfully sent there throughout its history. Even if the wrongful
conviction rate is as high as 1/4 of 1%.
(And we heard all sorts of things about major cases over dinner when I
was growing up as my grandfather was jury foreman on what was one of
the most notorious Canadian murder cases in the 1960s - he said little
about the evidence itself but lots about procedure for sequestered
jury cases - for instance my grandfather owned a fish cannery which is
a very seasonal industry where my father who was plant manager needed
to talk to him regularly during what was both the time of the trial
and the peak canning period of the year - a 12 hour workday was short
at that time of year! They had to meet in a prisoner room with a court
sheriff in attendance. They were not allowed to speak by phone to each
other during the trial)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 04:17:01 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

You do realize the guys they're going after have already had their hearings >and just ignored their deportation orders, right? Do we need to give them >another hearing about the hearing? And then maybe a third hearing to examine >the first and second hearings?

If the guy already has had the hearing they're entitled to, what's
left other than execution of the deportation order?

Perhaps he might be hauled into court to verify that the deportation
order is valid but at that point he gets cuffs and a one way trip to
either the airport or to the border right?

You simply don't have the right to unlimited stays of warrants. I'm
all for due process but you don't have the right to come up with a new
excuse ad infinitum.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 24 May 2025 23:37:51 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 04:17:01 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

You do realize the guys they're going after have already had their hearings >>and just ignored their deportation orders, right? Do we need to give them >>another hearing about the hearing? And then maybe a third hearing to examine >>the first and second hearings?

If the guy already has had the hearing they're entitled to, what's
left other than execution of the deportation order?

Perhaps he might be hauled into court to verify that the deportation
order is valid but at that point he gets cuffs and a one way trip to
either the airport or to the border right?

You simply don't have the right to unlimited stays of warrants. I'm
all for due process but you don't have the right to come up with a new
excuse ad infinitum.

Putting him into a maximum prison for life isn't exactly the same as
deporting someone.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

Tue, 8 Apr 2025 04:17:01 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

You do realize the guys they're going after have already had their hearings >>and just ignored their deportation orders, right? Do we need to give them >>another hearing about the hearing? And then maybe a third hearing to examine >>the first and second hearings?

If the guy already has had the hearing they're entitled to, what's
left other than execution of the deportation order?

Perhaps he might be hauled into court to verify that the deportation
order is valid but at that point he gets cuffs and a one way trip to
either the airport or to the border right?

You simply don't have the right to unlimited stays of warrants. I'm
all for due process but you don't have the right to come up with a new
excuse ad infinitum.

You've both completely lost the thread. It's deportation into the
custody of the government of a country that they are not nationals of,
that immediately put them into prison per agreement with the Trump administration. They committed no crimes in that country and they did
not violate its immigration laws.

Why are they in prison in El Salvador? That's kidnapping, international
human trafficking, and unlawful detention. Regardless of being in the
physical custody of another nation, the laws of the United States apply
to any action taken by the Trump administration.

BTR1701 is wrong here. Since the United States government was sending
them into prison in a third country, they were entitled to due process
upon being picked up by ICE and before being sent out of the country.

Only if they were deported to their countries of nationality as free men
upon landing would due process under the United States constitution not
apply.

I'm appalled that BTR1701 wouldn't criticize the Trump administration
for this without regard to his opinion that illegal aliens under a final
order of deportation should be deported with all deliberate speed.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On May 25, 2025 at 12:26:09 AM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

On Sat, 24 May 2025 23:37:51 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 04:17:01 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

You do realize the guys they're going after have already had their hearings >>> and just ignored their deportation orders, right? Do we need to give them >>> another hearing about the hearing? And then maybe a third hearing to examine
the first and second hearings?

If the guy already has had the hearing they're entitled to, what's
left other than execution of the deportation order?

Perhaps he might be hauled into court to verify that the deportation
order is valid but at that point he gets cuffs and a one way trip to
either the airport or to the border right?

You simply don't have the right to unlimited stays of warrants. I'm
all for due process but you don't have the right to come up with a new
excuse ad infinitum.

Putting him into a maximum prison for life isn't exactly the same as deporting someone.

He was deported to his home country. His home country had issues with his gang affiliation and imposed punishment for it under their laws.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On May 25, 2025 at 8:17:44 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

Tue, 8 Apr 2025 04:17:01 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

You do realize the guys they're going after have already had their hearings >>> and just ignored their deportation orders, right? Do we need to give them >>> another hearing about the hearing? And then maybe a third hearing to examine
the first and second hearings?

If the guy already has had the hearing they're entitled to, what's
left other than execution of the deportation order?

Perhaps he might be hauled into court to verify that the deportation
order is valid but at that point he gets cuffs and a one way trip to
either the airport or to the border right?

You simply don't have the right to unlimited stays of warrants. I'm
all for due process but you don't have the right to come up with a new
excuse ad infinitum.

You've both completely lost the thread. It's deportation into the
custody of the government of a country that they are not nationals of,
that immediately put them into prison per agreement with the Trump administration.

Abrego Garcia is an El Salvador national. El Salvador is his home country. Where else should he be deported to?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 25 May 2025 18:14:16 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

On May 25, 2025 at 12:26:09 AM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> >wrote:

On Sat, 24 May 2025 23:37:51 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 04:17:01 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

You do realize the guys they're going after have already had their hearings
and just ignored their deportation orders, right? Do we need to give them >>>> another hearing about the hearing? And then maybe a third hearing to examine
the first and second hearings?

If the guy already has had the hearing they're entitled to, what's
left other than execution of the deportation order?

Perhaps he might be hauled into court to verify that the deportation
order is valid but at that point he gets cuffs and a one way trip to
either the airport or to the border right?

You simply don't have the right to unlimited stays of warrants. I'm
all for due process but you don't have the right to come up with a new
excuse ad infinitum.

Putting him into a maximum prison for life isn't exactly the same as
deporting someone.

He was deported to his home country. His home country had issues with his gang >affiliation and imposed punishment for it under their laws.

Ah, yes, the infamous MS 13 tattoo. Proof positive that some people,
even Presidents, can be fooled but the simplest things.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

May 25, 2025 at 8:17:44 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

Tue, 8 Apr 2025 04:17:01 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

You do realize the guys they're going after have already had their >>>>hearings and just ignored their deportation orders, right? Do we
need to give them another hearing about the hearing? And then maybe
a third hearing to examine the first and second hearings?

If the guy already has had the hearing they're entitled to, what's
left other than execution of the deportation order?

Perhaps he might be hauled into court to verify that the deportation >>>order is valid but at that point he gets cuffs and a one way trip to >>>either the airport or to the border right?

You simply don't have the right to unlimited stays of warrants. I'm
all for due process but you don't have the right to come up with a new >>>excuse ad infinitum.

You've both completely lost the thread. It's deportation into the
custody of the government of a country that they are not nationals of,
that immediately put them into prison per agreement with the Trump >>administration.

Abrego Garcia is an El Salvador national. El Salvador is his home country. >Where else should he be deported to?

Why are you acting like this? The last order from an administrative law
judge was that he was NOT to be deported; Trump violated that order,
which the Trump lawyer acknowledged in court.

Then Trump defied courts by refusing to ask El Salvador to send him back.

Not everyone sent to El Salvador were nationals. Then it turned out
others weren't supposed to have been deported.

But even if a Salvadoran national had a final order of deportation, it's
still a due process violation to send him to El Salvador having made
an arrangement for him to be held in prison.

Elsewhere you said you still favored due process. Well, sending
deportees, whatever their nationality, to another country to be held in
prison who were not found guilty of a felony in that country isn't due
process of any kind. It's kidnapping, international human trafficking,
unlawful restraint, etc. Those crines were committed by the Trump administration which made the deal with El Salvador to hold these
deportees in prison.

What the hell?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On May 25, 2025 at 11:46:20 AM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

On Sun, 25 May 2025 18:14:16 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

On May 25, 2025 at 12:26:09 AM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> >> wrote:

On Sat, 24 May 2025 23:37:51 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 04:17:01 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

You do realize the guys they're going after have already had their hearings
and just ignored their deportation orders, right? Do we need to give them
another hearing about the hearing? And then maybe a third hearing to examine
the first and second hearings?

If the guy already has had the hearing they're entitled to, what's
left other than execution of the deportation order?

Perhaps he might be hauled into court to verify that the deportation
order is valid but at that point he gets cuffs and a one way trip to
either the airport or to the border right?

You simply don't have the right to unlimited stays of warrants. I'm
all for due process but you don't have the right to come up with a new >>>> excuse ad infinitum.

Putting him into a maximum prison for life isn't exactly the same as
deporting someone.

He was deported to his home country. His home country had issues with his
gang
affiliation and imposed punishment for it under their laws.

Ah, yes, the infamous MS 13 tattoo. Proof positive that some people,
even Presidents, can be fooled but the simplest things.

No, the tattoos are ancillary, even though they do indeed have gang meaning, it's all the other evidence of his gang affiliation, both in the U.S. and in
El Salvador, that got him thrown in prison back home.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On May 25, 2025 at 12:26:09 AM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> >wrote:

On Sat, 24 May 2025 23:37:51 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 04:17:01 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

You do realize the guys they're going after have already had their hearings
and just ignored their deportation orders, right? Do we need to give them >>>> another hearing about the hearing? And then maybe a third hearing to examine
the first and second hearings?

If the guy already has had the hearing they're entitled to, what's
left other than execution of the deportation order?

Perhaps he might be hauled into court to verify that the deportation
order is valid but at that point he gets cuffs and a one way trip to
either the airport or to the border right?

You simply don't have the right to unlimited stays of warrants. I'm
all for due process but you don't have the right to come up with a new
excuse ad infinitum.

Putting him into a maximum prison for life isn't exactly the same as
deporting someone.

He was deported to his home country. His home country had issues with his gang >affiliation and imposed punishment for it under their laws.

Let's not pretend the government prosecuted him with evidence they could present in court. He was received in El Salvador then transported to
prison. There was no trial.

The gang participation in New York, not El Salvador, he was alleged to
have committed came from a government informant who made shit up. He
wasn't in New York. Trump administration officials repeated what the
informant said but he was never indicted nor prosecuted because the
Trump administration had no case to make.

Trump didn't even pretend to have evidence of crimes he may have
committed in El Salvador.

They've swept up massive numbers of their own citizens as criminals with
no police investigations and having gathered no evidence. Using the
crisis of out-of-control gang crimes, the government itself violated due process and made arrests without probable cause.

Sure they've got laws but they aren't laws we'd recognize here.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On May 25, 2025 at 11:46:20 AM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> >wrote:

On Sun, 25 May 2025 18:14:16 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

On May 25, 2025 at 12:26:09 AM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
wrote:

On Sat, 24 May 2025 23:37:51 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 04:17:01 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

You do realize the guys they're going after have already had

their hearings

and just ignored their deportation orders, right? Do we need to give them
another hearing about the hearing? And then maybe a third hearing

to examine

the first and second hearings?

If the guy already has had the hearing they're entitled to, what's
left other than execution of the deportation order?

Perhaps he might be hauled into court to verify that the deportation >>>>> order is valid but at that point he gets cuffs and a one way trip to >>>>> either the airport or to the border right?

You simply don't have the right to unlimited stays of warrants. I'm >>>>> all for due process but you don't have the right to come up with a new >>>>> excuse ad infinitum.

Putting him into a maximum prison for life isn't exactly the same as
deporting someone.

He was deported to his home country. His home country had issues with his >>> gang
affiliation and imposed punishment for it under their laws.

Ah, yes, the infamous MS 13 tattoo. Proof positive that some people,
even Presidents, can be fooled but the simplest things.

No, the tattoos are ancillary, even though they do indeed have gang meaning, >it's all the other evidence of his gang affiliation, both in the U.S. and in >El Salvador, that got him thrown in prison back home.

It's so strange that none of this evidence can be presented in a court
of law respecting rights.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On May 25, 2025 at 12:16:32 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On May 25, 2025 at 11:46:20 AM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> >> wrote:

On Sun, 25 May 2025 18:14:16 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

On May 25, 2025 at 12:26:09 AM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
wrote:

On Sat, 24 May 2025 23:37:51 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> >>>>> wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 04:17:01 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> >>>>>> wrote:

You do realize the guys they're going after have already had

their hearings

and just ignored their deportation orders, right? Do we need to give them
another hearing about the hearing? And then maybe a third hearing

to examine

the first and second hearings?

If the guy already has had the hearing they're entitled to, what's >>>>>> left other than execution of the deportation order?

Perhaps he might be hauled into court to verify that the deportation >>>>>> order is valid but at that point he gets cuffs and a one way trip to >>>>>> either the airport or to the border right?

You simply don't have the right to unlimited stays of warrants. I'm >>>>>> all for due process but you don't have the right to come up with a new >>>>>> excuse ad infinitum.

Putting him into a maximum prison for life isn't exactly the same as >>>>> deporting someone.

He was deported to his home country. His home country had issues with his >>>> gang
affiliation and imposed punishment for it under their laws.

Ah, yes, the infamous MS 13 tattoo. Proof positive that some people,
even Presidents, can be fooled but the simplest things.

No, the tattoos are ancillary, even though they do indeed have gang meaning, >> it's all the other evidence of his gang affiliation, both in the U.S. and in >> El Salvador, that got him thrown in prison back home.

It's so strange that none of this evidence can be presented in a court
of law respecting rights.

It was presented in some court because the court records is where I read it documented.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On May 25, 2025 at 12:15:05 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On May 25, 2025 at 12:26:09 AM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> >> wrote:

On Sat, 24 May 2025 23:37:51 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 04:17:01 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

You do realize the guys they're going after have already had their hearings
and just ignored their deportation orders, right? Do we need to give them
another hearing about the hearing? And then maybe a third hearing to examine
the first and second hearings?

If the guy already has had the hearing they're entitled to, what's
left other than execution of the deportation order?

Perhaps he might be hauled into court to verify that the deportation
order is valid but at that point he gets cuffs and a one way trip to
either the airport or to the border right?

You simply don't have the right to unlimited stays of warrants. I'm
all for due process but you don't have the right to come up with a new >>>> excuse ad infinitum.

Putting him into a maximum prison for life isn't exactly the same as
deporting someone.

He was deported to his home country. His home country had issues with his
gang
affiliation and imposed punishment for it under their laws.

Let's not pretend the government prosecuted him with evidence they could present in court. He was received in El Salvador then transported to
prison. There was no trial.

He's an El Salvadoran citizen. He came to the U.S. illegally. It's absurd to say we can't deport him back to his own country because they don't have the equivalent of the Bill of Rights there. Most countries in the world don't have the same robust protection of freedoms that we have, so using that standard,
we couldn't deport anyone anywhere ever.

The gang participation in New York, not El Salvador, he was alleged to
have committed came from a government informant who made shit up. He
wasn't in New York. Trump administration officials repeated what the informant said but he was never indicted nor prosecuted because the
Trump administration had no case to make.

Trump didn't even pretend to have evidence of crimes he may have
committed in El Salvador.

They've swept up massive numbers of their own citizens as criminals with
no police investigations and having gathered no evidence. Using the
crisis of out-of-control gang crimes, the government itself violated due process and made arrests without probable cause.

Sure they've got laws but they aren't laws we'd recognize here.

Which could be said of every country in the world. Britain has laws regarding free speech but they aren't laws we'd recognize here. They have laws regarding self-incrimination but they don't provide the same protections we recognize here. Etc., etc....

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On May 25, 2025 at 12:05:37 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

May 25, 2025 at 8:17:44 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

Tue, 8 Apr 2025 04:17:01 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

You do realize the guys they're going after have already had their
hearings and just ignored their deportation orders, right? Do we
need to give them another hearing about the hearing? And then maybe
a third hearing to examine the first and second hearings?

If the guy already has had the hearing they're entitled to, what's
left other than execution of the deportation order?

Perhaps he might be hauled into court to verify that the deportation
order is valid but at that point he gets cuffs and a one way trip to
either the airport or to the border right?

You simply don't have the right to unlimited stays of warrants. I'm
all for due process but you don't have the right to come up with a new >>>> excuse ad infinitum.

You've both completely lost the thread. It's deportation into the
custody of the government of a country that they are not nationals of,
that immediately put them into prison per agreement with the Trump
administration.

Abrego Garcia is an El Salvador national. El Salvador is his home country. >> Where else should he be deported to?

Why are you acting like this? The last order from an administrative law
judge was that he was NOT to be deported

Because he would allegedly face persecution from a rival gang. Let that sink in. If you're not a gang member, you have no rival gang, by definition. But apparently we're supposed to keep violent gang members in America to shelter them from the consequences of the gang activity in which they chose to engage before they illegally broke into our country and then joined up with other members of their gang here in the U.S.

Then Trump defied courts by refusing to ask El Salvador to send him back.

Doesn't really matter. El Salvador said they won't send him back even if
asked.

Not everyone sent to El Salvador were nationals. Then it turned out
others weren't supposed to have been deported.

But even if a Salvadoran national had a final order of deportation, it's still a due process violation to send him to El Salvador having made
an arrangement for him to be held in prison.

Elsewhere you said you still favored due process. Well, sending
deportees, whatever their nationality, to another country to be held in prison who were not found guilty of a felony in that country isn't due process of any kind. It's kidnapping, international human trafficking, unlawful restraint, etc. Those crines were committed by the Trump administration which made the deal with El Salvador to hold these
deportees in prison.

What the hell?

Just not really concerned that all that much about a bunch of MS-13 and Tren
de Aragua gang members who should never have been here in the first place. Sorry.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 5/25/2025 4:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On May 25, 2025 at 12:05:37 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

May 25, 2025 at 8:17:44 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

Tue, 8 Apr 2025 04:17:01 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

You do realize the guys they're going after have already had their >>>>>> hearings and just ignored their deportation orders, right? Do we
need to give them another hearing about the hearing? And then maybe >>>>>> a third hearing to examine the first and second hearings?

If the guy already has had the hearing they're entitled to, what's
left other than execution of the deportation order?

Perhaps he might be hauled into court to verify that the deportation >>>>> order is valid but at that point he gets cuffs and a one way trip to >>>>> either the airport or to the border right?

You simply don't have the right to unlimited stays of warrants. I'm
all for due process but you don't have the right to come up with a new >>>>> excuse ad infinitum.

You've both completely lost the thread. It's deportation into the
custody of the government of a country that they are not nationals of, >>>> that immediately put them into prison per agreement with the Trump
administration.

Abrego Garcia is an El Salvador national. El Salvador is his home country. >>> Where else should he be deported to?

Why are you acting like this? The last order from an administrative law
judge was that he was NOT to be deported

Because he would allegedly face persecution from a rival gang. Let that sink in. If you're not a gang member, you have no rival gang, by definition. But apparently we're supposed to keep violent gang members in America to shelter them from the consequences of the gang activity in which they chose to engage before they illegally broke into our country and then joined up with other members of their gang here in the U.S.

Then Trump defied courts by refusing to ask El Salvador to send him back.

Doesn't really matter. El Salvador said they won't send him back even if asked.

Not everyone sent to El Salvador were nationals. Then it turned out
others weren't supposed to have been deported.

But even if a Salvadoran national had a final order of deportation, it's
still a due process violation to send him to El Salvador having made
an arrangement for him to be held in prison.

Elsewhere you said you still favored due process. Well, sending
deportees, whatever their nationality, to another country to be held in
prison who were not found guilty of a felony in that country isn't due
process of any kind. It's kidnapping, international human trafficking,
unlawful restraint, etc. Those crines were committed by the Trump
administration which made the deal with El Salvador to hold these
deportees in prison.

What the hell?

Just not really concerned that all that much about a bunch of MS-13 and Tren de Aragua gang members who should never have been here in the first place. Sorry.

If due process goes only to those who "deserve" it, we should rename it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On May 25, 2025 at 12:16:32 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> >wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

On May 25, 2025 at 11:46:20 AM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
wrote:

On Sun, 25 May 2025 18:14:16 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

On May 25, 2025 at 12:26:09 AM PDT, "shawn" ><nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
wrote:

On Sat, 24 May 2025 23:37:51 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> >>>>>> wrote:

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 04:17:01 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> >>>>>>> wrote:

You do realize the guys they're going after have already had

their hearings

and just ignored their deportation orders, right? Do we need

to give them

another hearing about the hearing? And then maybe a third hearing >>> to examine
the first and second hearings?

If the guy already has had the hearing they're entitled to, what's >>>>>>> left other than execution of the deportation order?

Perhaps he might be hauled into court to verify that the deportation >>>>>>> order is valid but at that point he gets cuffs and a one way trip to >>>>>>> either the airport or to the border right?

You simply don't have the right to unlimited stays of warrants. I'm >>>>>>> all for due process but you don't have the right to come up with a new
excuse ad infinitum.

Putting him into a maximum prison for life isn't exactly the same as >>>>>> deporting someone.

He was deported to his home country. His home country had issues with his
gang
affiliation and imposed punishment for it under their laws.

Ah, yes, the infamous MS 13 tattoo. Proof positive that some people,
even Presidents, can be fooled but the simplest things.

No, the tattoos are ancillary, even though they do indeed have gang meaning,
it's all the other evidence of his gang affiliation, both in the U.S. and in
El Salvador, that got him thrown in prison back home.

It's so strange that none of this evidence can be presented in a court
of law respecting rights.

It was presented in some court because the court records is where I read it >documented.

There has been no indictment for the crimes the informant claimed he
committed in New York. There aren't other crimes as a gang member to
indict him for.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

May 25, 2025 at 12:15:05 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

May 25, 2025 at 12:26:09 AM PDT, shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>: >>>>Sat, 24 May 2025 23:37:51 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>: >>>>>Tue, 8 Apr 2025 04:17:01 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>:

You do realize the guys they're going after have already had their >>>>>>hearings and just ignored their deportation orders, right? Do we >>>>>>need to give them another hearing about the hearing? And then maybe >>>>>>a third hearing to examine the first and second hearings?

If the guy already has had the hearing they're entitled to, what's >>>>>left other than execution of the deportation order?

Perhaps he might be hauled into court to verify that the deportation >>>>>order is valid but at that point he gets cuffs and a one way trip to >>>>>either the airport or to the border right?

You simply don't have the right to unlimited stays of warrants. I'm >>>>>all for due process but you don't have the right to come up with a new >>>>>excuse ad infinitum.

Putting him into a maximum prison for life isn't exactly the same as >>>>deporting someone.

He was deported to his home country. His home country had issues with
his gang affiliation and imposed punishment for it under their laws.

Let's not pretend the government prosecuted him with evidence they could >>present in court. He was received in El Salvador then transported to >>prison. There was no trial.

He's an El Salvadoran citizen. He came to the U.S. illegally. It's absurd
to say we can't deport him back to his own country because they don't
have the equivalent of the Bill of Rights there. Most countries in the
world don't have the same robust protection of freedoms that we have,
so using that standard, we couldn't deport anyone anywhere ever.

We can't deport him because an administrative law judge said so. There
cannot be a final order of deportation. This is a fact not in dispute;
even the Trump lawyer acknowledged this in court.

Typically, we don't honor extradition to countries who indict their
citizens for crimes that would not be crimes in the United States.

The gang participation in New York, not El Salvador, he was alleged to
have committed came from a government informant who made shit up. He
wasn't in New York. Trump administration officials repeated what the >>informant said but he was never indicted nor prosecuted because the
Trump administration had no case to make.

Trump didn't even pretend to have evidence of crimes he may have
committed in El Salvador.

They've swept up massive numbers of their own citizens as criminals with
no police investigations and having gathered no evidence. Using the
crisis of out-of-control gang crimes, the government itself violated due >>process and made arrests without probable cause.

Sure they've got laws but they aren't laws we'd recognize here.

Which could be said of every country in the world. Britain has laws regarding >free speech but they aren't laws we'd recognize here. They have laws regarding >self-incrimination but they don't provide the same protections we recognize >here. Etc., etc....

If the UK requested extradition under such circumstances, it's illegal
for us to honor it. Yes, I understand that deportation and extradition
are not the same thing, but we actually care about such things.

Your claim that he's in prison because El Salvador can prove he
committed a felony is not true.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

May 25, 2025 at 12:05:37 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

May 25, 2025 at 8:17:44 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

Tue, 8 Apr 2025 04:17:01 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

You do realize the guys they're going after have already had their >>>>>>hearings and just ignored their deportation orders, right? Do we >>>>>>need to give them another hearing about the hearing? And then maybe >>>>>>a third hearing to examine the first and second hearings?

If the guy already has had the hearing they're entitled to, what's >>>>>left other than execution of the deportation order?

Perhaps he might be hauled into court to verify that the deportation >>>>>order is valid but at that point he gets cuffs and a one way trip to >>>>>either the airport or to the border right?

You simply don't have the right to unlimited stays of warrants. I'm >>>>>all for due process but you don't have the right to come up with a new >>>>>excuse ad infinitum.

You've both completely lost the thread. It's deportation into the >>>>custody of the government of a country that they are not nationals of, >>>>that immediately put them into prison per agreement with the Trump >>>>administration.

Abrego Garcia is an El Salvador national. El Salvador is his home country. >>>Where else should he be deported to?

Why are you acting like this? The last order from an administrative law >>judge was that he was NOT to be deported

Because he would allegedly face persecution from a rival gang. Let that sink >in. If you're not a gang member, you have no rival gang, by definition. But >apparently we're supposed to keep violent gang members in America to shelter >them from the consequences of the gang activity in which they chose to engage >before they illegally broke into our country and then joined up with other >members of their gang here in the U.S.

Have I disputed that there are allegations against him? I didn't say
he's actually innocent. I'm an American. I don't have to believe he's
innocent to believe he's entitled to due process.

You've been arguing that final orders of deportation from these
administrative law judges are final orders. That hearing was due
process. They aren't subject to another hearing if they failed to leave
the country following the order.

Here you argue that the administrative law judge's order can be ignored
by the Trump administration.

Which is it? Are the orders of these administrative law judges legally
binding or not? You are trying to have it both ways.

Then Trump defied courts by refusing to ask El Salvador to send him back.

Doesn't really matter. El Salvador said they won't send him back even if >asked.

He's a Trump ally. If Trump asked, they'd ship him back. Either way, it
does matter that Trump defied the Supreme Court by not asking.

Not everyone sent to El Salvador were nationals. Then it turned out
others weren't supposed to have been deported.

But even if a Salvadoran national had a final order of deportation, it's >>still a due process violation to send him to El Salvador having made
an arrangement for him to be held in prison.

Elsewhere you said you still favored due process. Well, sending
deportees, whatever their nationality, to another country to be held in >>prison who were not found guilty of a felony in that country isn't due >>process of any kind. It's kidnapping, international human trafficking, >>unlawful restraint, etc. Those crines were committed by the Trump >>administration which made the deal with El Salvador to hold these
deportees in prison.

What the hell?

Just not really concerned that all that much about a bunch of MS-13 and Tren >de Aragua gang members who should never have been here in the first place. >Sorry.

I'm concerned about the United States and the rule of law.

You quote Brandenburg often enough. You believe the Constitution applies
to everybody, even someone trying to re-start the KKK, even gang members.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On May 25, 2025 at 3:29:19 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

May 25, 2025 at 12:15:05 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

May 25, 2025 at 12:26:09 AM PDT, shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>: >>>>> Sat, 24 May 2025 23:37:51 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>:

Tue, 8 Apr 2025 04:17:01 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>:

You do realize the guys they're going after have already had their >>>>>>> hearings and just ignored their deportation orders, right? Do we >>>>>>> need to give them another hearing about the hearing? And then maybe >>>>>>> a third hearing to examine the first and second hearings?

If the guy already has had the hearing they're entitled to, what's >>>>>> left other than execution of the deportation order?

Perhaps he might be hauled into court to verify that the deportation >>>>>> order is valid but at that point he gets cuffs and a one way trip to >>>>>> either the airport or to the border right?

You simply don't have the right to unlimited stays of warrants. I'm >>>>>> all for due process but you don't have the right to come up with a new >>>>>> excuse ad infinitum.

Putting him into a maximum prison for life isn't exactly the same as >>>>> deporting someone.

He was deported to his home country. His home country had issues with
his gang affiliation and imposed punishment for it under their laws.

Let's not pretend the government prosecuted him with evidence they could >>> present in court. He was received in El Salvador then transported to
prison. There was no trial.

He's an El Salvadoran citizen. He came to the U.S. illegally. It's absurd
to say we can't deport him back to his own country because they don't
have the equivalent of the Bill of Rights there. Most countries in the
world don't have the same robust protection of freedoms that we have,
so using that standard, we couldn't deport anyone anywhere ever.

We can't deport him because an administrative law judge said so. There
cannot be a final order of deportation. This is a fact not in dispute;
even the Trump lawyer acknowledged this in court.

Typically, we don't honor extradition to countries who indict their
citizens for crimes that would not be crimes in the United States.

Which would be relevant if we were discussing extradition. Deportation is an entirely different thing.

The gang participation in New York, not El Salvador, he was alleged to
have committed came from a government informant who made shit up. He
wasn't in New York. Trump administration officials repeated what the
informant said but he was never indicted nor prosecuted because the
Trump administration had no case to make.

Trump didn't even pretend to have evidence of crimes he may have
committed in El Salvador.

They've swept up massive numbers of their own citizens as criminals with >>> no police investigations and having gathered no evidence. Using the
crisis of out-of-control gang crimes, the government itself violated due >>> process and made arrests without probable cause.

Sure they've got laws but they aren't laws we'd recognize here.

Which could be said of every country in the world. Britain has laws regarding
free speech but they aren't laws we'd recognize here. They have laws
regarding
self-incrimination but they don't provide the same protections we recognize >> here. Etc., etc....

If the UK requested extradition under such circumstances, it's illegal
for us to honor it. Yes, I understand that deportation and extradition
are not the same thing, but we actually care about such things.

Your claim that he's in prison because El Salvador can prove he
committed a felony is not true.

In El Salvador, apparently gang affiliation is enough to land you in stir. That's their law and he's their citizen. Maybe he shouldn't have joined a murderous gang if things aren't working out for him there.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On May 25, 2025 at 2:01:40 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

On 5/25/2025 4:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On May 25, 2025 at 12:05:37 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

May 25, 2025 at 8:17:44 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

Tue, 8 Apr 2025 04:17:01 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote: >>>

You do realize the guys they're going after have already had their >>>>>>> hearings and just ignored their deportation orders, right? Do we >>>>>>> need to give them another hearing about the hearing? And then maybe >>>>>>> a third hearing to examine the first and second hearings?

If the guy already has had the hearing they're entitled to, what's >>>>>> left other than execution of the deportation order?

Perhaps he might be hauled into court to verify that the deportation >>>>>> order is valid but at that point he gets cuffs and a one way trip to >>>>>> either the airport or to the border right?

You simply don't have the right to unlimited stays of warrants. I'm >>>>>> all for due process but you don't have the right to come up with a new >>>>>> excuse ad infinitum.

You've both completely lost the thread. It's deportation into the
custody of the government of a country that they are not nationals of, >>>>> that immediately put them into prison per agreement with the Trump
administration.

Abrego Garcia is an El Salvador national. El Salvador is his home country.
Where else should he be deported to?

Why are you acting like this? The last order from an administrative law >>> judge was that he was NOT to be deported

Because he would allegedly face persecution from a rival gang. Let that sink
in. If you're not a gang member, you have no rival gang, by definition. But >> apparently we're supposed to keep violent gang members in America to shelter
them from the consequences of the gang activity in which they chose to
engage
before they illegally broke into our country and then joined up with other >> members of their gang here in the U.S.

Then Trump defied courts by refusing to ask El Salvador to send him back. >>

Doesn't really matter. El Salvador said they won't send him back even if
asked.

Not everyone sent to El Salvador were nationals. Then it turned out
others weren't supposed to have been deported.

But even if a Salvadoran national had a final order of deportation, it's >>> still a due process violation to send him to El Salvador having made
an arrangement for him to be held in prison.

Elsewhere you said you still favored due process. Well, sending
deportees, whatever their nationality, to another country to be held in >>> prison who were not found guilty of a felony in that country isn't due
process of any kind. It's kidnapping, international human trafficking,
unlawful restraint, etc. Those crines were committed by the Trump
administration which made the deal with El Salvador to hold these
deportees in prison.

What the hell?

Just not really concerned that all that much about a bunch of MS-13 and Tren
de Aragua gang members who should never have been here in the first place. >> Sorry.

If due process goes only to those who "deserve" it, we should rename it.

He got the process that was due him.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

May 25, 2025 at 3:29:19 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

May 25, 2025 at 12:15:05 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>: >>>>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

May 25, 2025 at 12:26:09 AM PDT, shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>: >>>>>>Sat, 24 May 2025 23:37:51 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>: >>>>>>>Tue, 8 Apr 2025 04:17:01 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>:

You do realize the guys they're going after have already had their >>>>>>>>hearings and just ignored their deportation orders, right? Do we >>>>>>>>need to give them another hearing about the hearing? And then maybe >>>>>>>>a third hearing to examine the first and second hearings?

If the guy already has had the hearing they're entitled to, what's >>>>>>>left other than execution of the deportation order?

Perhaps he might be hauled into court to verify that the deportation >>>>>>>order is valid but at that point he gets cuffs and a one way trip to >>>>>>>either the airport or to the border right?

You simply don't have the right to unlimited stays of warrants. I'm >>>>>>>all for due process but you don't have the right to come up with a new >>>>>>>excuse ad infinitum.

Putting him into a maximum prison for life isn't exactly the same as >>>>>>deporting someone.

He was deported to his home country. His home country had issues with >>>>>his gang affiliation and imposed punishment for it under their laws.

Let's not pretend the government prosecuted him with evidence they could >>>>present in court. He was received in El Salvador then transported to >>>>prison. There was no trial.

He's an El Salvadoran citizen. He came to the U.S. illegally. It's absurd >>>to say we can't deport him back to his own country because they don't >>>have the equivalent of the Bill of Rights there. Most countries in the >>>world don't have the same robust protection of freedoms that we have,
so using that standard, we couldn't deport anyone anywhere ever.

We can't deport him because an administrative law judge said so. There >>cannot be a final order of deportation. This is a fact not in dispute;
even the Trump lawyer acknowledged this in court.

Typically, we don't honor extradition to countries who indict their >>citizens for crimes that would not be crimes in the United States.

Which would be relevant if we were discussing extradition. Deportation is an >entirely different thing.

The gang participation in New York, not El Salvador, he was alleged to >>>>have committed came from a government informant who made shit up. He >>>>wasn't in New York. Trump administration officials repeated what the >>>>informant said but he was never indicted nor prosecuted because the >>>>Trump administration had no case to make.

Trump didn't even pretend to have evidence of crimes he may have
committed in El Salvador.

They've swept up massive numbers of their own citizens as criminals with >>>>no police investigations and having gathered no evidence. Using the >>>>crisis of out-of-control gang crimes, the government itself violated due >>>>process and made arrests without probable cause.

Sure they've got laws but they aren't laws we'd recognize here.

Which could be said of every country in the world. Britain has laws >>>regarding free speech but they aren't laws we'd recognize here. They
have laws regarding self-incrimination but they don't provide the same >>>protections we recognize here. Etc., etc....

If the UK requested extradition under such circumstances, it's illegal
for us to honor it. Yes, I understand that deportation and extradition
are not the same thing, but we actually care about such things.

Your claim that he's in prison because El Salvador can prove he
committed a felony is not true.

In El Salvador, apparently gang affiliation is enough to land you in stir. >That's their law and he's their citizen. Maybe he shouldn't have joined a >murderous gang if things aren't working out for him there.

It's a shithole country whose government, so desperate to end the
decades-long crime wave, arrested half its citizens and imprisoned them
without evidence. Sure, plenty of them must have been criminals but the
rest weren't.

We're not a shithole country. We have laws that judges, regardless of
whether they are liberal or conservative, will enforce.

What's our excuse for violating them?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 25 May 2025 17:01:40 -0400, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
wrote:

Just not really concerned that all that much about a bunch of MS-13 and Tren >> de Aragua gang members who should never have been here in the first place. >> Sorry.

If due process goes only to those who "deserve" it, we should rename it.

To me the most important reason for due process is to ensure bad guys
don't get more time in court than they deserve because someone screwed
up.

After all, the law is supposed to be both a sword and a shield.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 25 May 2025 23:15:37 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

I'm concerned about the United States and the rule of law.

You quote Brandenburg often enough. You believe the Constitution applies
to everybody, even someone trying to re-start the KKK, even gang members.

I think most of us (including non-Americans) understand the
significance of Skokie to this discussion.

(Though to be sure I do know the difference between the Klan and US
Nazis)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

Sun, 25 May 2025 23:15:37 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

I'm concerned about the United States and the rule of law.

You quote Brandenburg often enough. You believe the Constitution applies
to everybody, even someone trying to re-start the KKK, even gang members.

I think most of us (including non-Americans) understand the
significance of Skokie to this discussion.

I never quite considered the Supreme Court opinions in the two Skokie
cases to be all new law like Brandenburg.

(Though to be sure I do know the difference between the Klan and US
Nazis)

It's the difference between them and everyone else, that they are
entitled to be represented by a Jewish lawyer, because who the hell else
would represent them?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)