Hello, allow me to weigh into your allegedly subjective discussion with an objective agreement to what the other poster said:
> If "oopsy-doopsy, it was a mistake" has no remedy then there is no remedy when it is a citizen who gets sent to a gulag.
What's more, now that the executive branch is disobeying direct orders from the judicial branch, what recourse do you think you'd have if you got on the wrong executive branch official's bad side?
In this particular case, I believe the judicial branch is ignoring an agreement with a foreign country to never send anyone back. I truly believe the executive branch to be powerless at this point to undo their mistake. Neither branch holds power over a foreign country. Just admitting the mistake was a positive step, which means they do care at least a little bit to not repeat it.
Imagine for a moment that the judicial branch orders the executive branch to get Iran to release some American prisoners. The ruling to return the El Salvadorian is well-intentioned but even more absurd, considering the person is a citizen of El Salvador.
Thank you for responding. I realize you have some beliefs and opinions about things, legal and otherwise. I do, too! Indeed, most people have beliefs and opinions about things.
The role of the judicial branch, and of each judge, is to listen to all those beliefs and opinions as appropriate, and decide which one is correct, and to make orders as necessary in furtherance of that aim.
That has happened, and the administration then disobeyed the orders and asserted that the judges' judgements were invalid (an irrelevant personal judgement, because they are not the judge).
So, that's where we're at now. With that in mind, please address the posts to which you replied, specifically, the below 2 points:
> If "oopsy-doopsy, it was a mistake" has no remedy then there is no remedy when it is a citizen who gets sent to a gulag.
> What's more, now that the executive branch is disobeying direct orders from the judicial branch, what recourse do you think you'd have if you got on the wrong executive branch official's bad side?
You're being specifically asked to talk through your options and choices in such scenarios. What would they be? We'll take turns: You play the part of the victim; I'll play the part of the administration; we'll game it out. POV: You're walking down the street and a group of 7 or 8 plainclothes individuals wearing masks surround you, restrain you, and force you into an unmarked vehicle. Maybe one of them says they're a cop, but otherwise they refuse to say anything while they transport you to a foreign gulag. You are not permitted a lawyer, you are not permitted a phone call, and nobody, no family, no lawyers, no judges, not even your local police department, is notified what is happening to you. PERHAPS (it wouldn't change the outcome, but whatever) unbeknownst to you or them, this is a case of mistaken identity.
Let me put it this way. If lots of random citizens start getting picked up on the street and get disappeared by sending them permanently and without a trial to the gulag, I will dissolve all my assets and leave the country. It could take me a whole year, but I will do it. During this period, I will minimize attention and travel. The writing will be in the wall, but it's not there yet. US citizens remain unaffected for now.
Your question is completely unfair because the probability of it happening to a random person of a certain group before happening to say a thousand others from the same group is close to zero. As such, you are not playing fair in any sense. I could have completely dismissed your question, but at least I answered the more realistic version.
That means your response is completely unfairer! ;)
Seriously though, multiple people asked you that question, so it's not my question. That may be a clue that it isn't actually "unfair". But I don't doubt that you nonetheless hold your opinion that we're unfair and you're fair. Now that you've said your opinion, it'd be awesome if you answer the question we asked you.
> the probability of it happening to a random person of a certain group before happening to say a thousand others from the same group is close to zero
Ignoring for a moment that it's impossible for something to happen to 1000 people without first happening to the first of them: your position assumes that it isn't bad if this happens to a single person (maybe you), even though it is.
Beyond that, I'm not sure we're qualified (data-wise) to judge the probabilities you mentioned and whether they're close to zero, given the data we have available. If you think we are, then I submit the probability is close to 100%. We can then average our two estimates to get to a probability 50%, still well worth considering when you answer.
Anyways, it'd be much appreciated if you could go ahead and answer the question multiple people are asking you. I believe you are a talented human capable of answering questions which you personally think are unfair and which others don't think are unfair.
Your question is pretty much the same as asking someone what they would do when confronted by any kidnappers or thieves. Who the specific kidnappers or thieves are hardly matters. You don't need me to tell you that the goal of any kidnapped individual is to creatively try to escape if the alternative is a short life in the gulag. Capture a guard, change clothes with them, and escape. As such, your question adds no new insight.
I respectfully don't agree with your opinion here -- the question multiple people asked you, is what it is. There's no point relating it to a totally different question when we could simply discuss it directly.
It reminds me of the current situation we're discussing -- the administration, when pressed by a judge to answer what they've tried so far towards returning their victim, refused to do so, giving some pretext about fairness or whatever. The judge essentially responded, okay, thanks for the opinion, but just because you have an opinion about the question doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't answer it.
Same goes here: a personally-held opinion that a question is unfair, or biased, or mean, or like this or like that, doesn't mean one can't or shouldn't answer it. What kind of meaningful discussion can be had when everyone avoids answering questions that they don't like, or whose answers make them uncomfortable, and they justify it by claiming that they personally hold the opinion that the question is "unfair"? Bor-ing!
> Capture a guard, change clothes with them, and escape
See? That said, is this really your proposed recourse for someone (US citizen or otherwise) deported to the gulag in question by the current administration (mistakenly or otherwise)? Seriously?
> Just admitting the mistake was a positive step, which means they do care at least a little bit to not repeat it.
Why is this an appropriate conclusion?
Stephen Miller went on TV to say that this man is a terrorist and is in the right place, despite sworn statements from the solicitor general that this was a mistake. I see absolutely no reason to believe that the Trump administration sees any reason to prevent further errors.
> Imagine for a moment that the judicial branch orders the executive branch to get Iran to release some American prisoners.
Hey look, a completely different situation. Here the US sent this person to El Salvador and is paying the Salvadoran government to house people we send there. Not even remotely comparable to the Iranian government capturing somebody.
> If "oopsy-doopsy, it was a mistake" has no remedy then there is no remedy when it is a citizen who gets sent to a gulag.
What's more, now that the executive branch is disobeying direct orders from the judicial branch, what recourse do you think you'd have if you got on the wrong executive branch official's bad side?