←back to thread

I'm the Canadian who was detained by ICE for two weeks

(www.theguardian.com)
1009 points n1b0m | 2 comments | 19 Mar 25 11:21 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
richev ◴[19 Mar 25 12:39 UTC] No.43411066[source]▶
Related: "The case for boycotting the United States" https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/18/us-tru...
replies(1): >>43411483 #
dkd903 ◴[19 Mar 25 13:14 UTC] No.43411483[source]▶
This is what main stream media propaganda looks like.

> Dr Alawieh had traveled last month to Lebanon, her home country, to visit relatives.

No, she did not; she attended the funeral of a leader of a US-designated terror organization.

https://x.com/DHSgov/status/1901668299793899705

replies(2): >>43412761 #>>43413267 #
rgreeko42 ◴[19 Mar 25 14:50 UTC] No.43412761[source]▶
Oh, well if DHS says so on X The Everything Site it must be true
replies(2): >>43413037 #>>43415601 #
yks ◴[19 Mar 25 15:10 UTC] No.43413037[source]▶
In a blink of an eye Americans went from "the government is out there to oppress you" to "if the government says the undisclosed people it snatches from the streets and deports are criminals, it must be true".
replies(3): >>43413700 #>>43421434 #>>43421763 #
tac19[dead post] ◴[19 Mar 25 15:57 UTC] No.43413700[source]▶
[flagged]
avgDev ◴[19 Mar 25 16:30 UTC] No.43414169[source]▶
The new administration has no regards for law. They are breaking multiple laws. This isn't how you get things done.
replies(1): >>43414240 #
tac19 ◴[19 Mar 25 16:35 UTC] No.43414240{3}[source]▶
That's really irrelevant to the point being discussed. I was just trying to give some context to the apparent hypocrisy the OP had identified, without adding my own opinion about it.
replies(2): >>43414386 #>>43414705 #
motorest ◴[19 Mar 25 16:47 UTC] No.43414386{4}[source]▶
> That's really irrelevant to the point being discussed.

The point is following the law. What point do you think it's being discussed?

replies(1): >>43414430 #
tac19 ◴[19 Mar 25 16:52 UTC] No.43414430{5}[source]▶
The point that started my original response. Explaining a new, apparently hypocritical, propensity to trust such government actions. Whether any of us agree with it or not, is irrelevant to the explanation of why it has happened.
replies(1): >>43414625 #
1. motorest ◴[19 Mar 25 17:07 UTC] No.43414625{6}[source]▶
> The point that started my original response.

The original response stated the following:

> The new administration has no regards for law. They are breaking multiple laws. This isn't how you get things done.

Your personal perception of hypocrisy is immaterial. OP's point is that this sort of policy is being supported bY rampant abuse and violations of the law and constitution.

If your original argument is how you think something violates the law, how come your high regard for lawlessness disappears as soon as you discuss abusing minorities?

replies(1): >>43414738 #
2. tac19 ◴[19 Mar 25 17:16 UTC] No.43414738[source]▶
You joined the conversation too late. Go up one parent level and see that the ONLY thing I was talking about, was explaining the apparent hypocrisy the OP had identified. The rest of this thread has been unnecessary and irrelevant objections to that point.