Most active commenters
  • ranger_danger(7)
  • omnimus(5)
  • AlecSchueler(3)

←back to thread

Trump's Police Are Now Disappearing Students for Their Op-Eds

(www.techdirt.com)
160 points areoform | 23 comments | 30 Mar 25 00:00 UTC | HN request time: 1.506s | source | bottom
1. ranger_danger ◴[30 Mar 25 00:08 UTC] No.43519896[source]▶
> She was disappeared without due process or explanation

Then how do you know it was only because of an op-ed?

replies(6): >>43519920 #>>43519991 #>>43520084 #>>43520120 #>>43520142 #>>43520464 #
2. necovek ◴[30 Mar 25 00:13 UTC] No.43519920[source]▶
You are right that they can't know that, but the right conclusion according to US laws is that she is innocent until proven otherwise.

So whatever it is, and it seems not to have been uncovered, the "response" seems unmeasured.

3. zasz ◴[30 Mar 25 00:27 UTC] No.43519991[source]▶
That's a fair question. She has no interesting online activity besides that op-ed, so hard to see what else it could be.
replies(1): >>43520087 #
4. crtasm ◴[30 Mar 25 00:43 UTC] No.43520084[source]▶
Her laywers have said that's what it appears to be over, also that she has not been charged with or accused of any crime. Noone else including the DHS have been able to show any other reason.
5. ranger_danger ◴[30 Mar 25 00:44 UTC] No.43520087[source]▶
Rubio made a very vague statement:

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/29/us/rumeysa-ozturk-tufts-u...

Alleging that she was part of a larger group that committed crimes... but if that's the case, why didn't they arrest anyone else who was there?

replies(1): >>43522893 #
6. jghn ◴[30 Mar 25 00:50 UTC] No.43520120[source]▶
That's the funny thing about due process. It allows us to understand what happened and why.
7. deckar01 ◴[30 Mar 25 00:52 UTC] No.43520142[source]▶
> Friends and colleagues of Ms Öztürk said she was not closely involved in pro-Palestinian protests that broke out on campuses last spring. They said her only activism was co-authoring the Tufts op-ed.

https://amp.abc.net.au/article/105107664

replies(1): >>43520169 #
8. threeseed ◴[30 Mar 25 00:55 UTC] No.43520169[source]▶
Even if she was involved in protests the Constitution applies to non-citizens as well.

She has the right to protest provided she has committed no crime.

replies(2): >>43522908 #>>43524273 #
9. Terr_ ◴[30 Mar 25 01:40 UTC] No.43520464[source]▶
Just as we should assume innocence until proven-guilty, we should assume the arresting authorities have terrible bad reasons until they show us good ones.
replies(1): >>43524247 #
10. omnimus ◴[30 Mar 25 09:59 UTC] No.43522893{3}[source]▶
The crime is writing the op-ed. The group are the editors and other writers. They cannot be arrested - they dont have VISAs because they are US citizens.
replies(1): >>43524535 #
11. omnimus ◴[30 Mar 25 10:03 UTC] No.43522908{3}[source]▶
You can only protest the things that will not make it a crime. Protesting criminally is a crime.
replies(1): >>43522979 #
12. brandensilva ◴[30 Mar 25 10:23 UTC] No.43522979{4}[source]▶
Writing differing views is not a crime. Still, even if what she did was somehow illegal or they had a legimate legal reason to revoke her visa she deserves to be able to face her accuser and not be abducted and denied her life, liberty and property without due process.
replies(1): >>43526316 #
13. ranger_danger ◴[30 Mar 25 14:00 UTC] No.43524273{3}[source]▶
I believe the terms of student visas could technically prohibit protesting for things unrelated to your field of study, if a judge decided to interpret it that way.
replies(1): >>43537818 #
14. ranger_danger ◴[30 Mar 25 14:35 UTC] No.43524535{4}[source]▶
I was referring to her being at the site of a protest. Why weren't any other protesters arrested? You don't need a visa to be arrested.
replies(1): >>43526288 #
15. omnimus ◴[30 Mar 25 18:19 UTC] No.43526288{5}[source]▶
Because you cannot arrest US citizen just because they are at some gathering. You cant do that to someone on VISA.

What you can do is take someones VISA on basis of small gathering that you call protest.

replies(1): >>43526455 #
16. omnimus ◴[30 Mar 25 18:22 UTC] No.43526316{5}[source]▶
Sorry it wasnt clear but that was my attempt at pure sarcasm.

I thought the situation is absolutely nonsensical. Being able to disagree with anyone is part of our social fabric. Once you ban that then wild stuff starts to happen.

17. ranger_danger ◴[30 Mar 25 18:43 UTC] No.43526455{6}[source]▶
> Rubio suggested without evidence she was involved in disruptive student protests

I wasn't trying to imply she was merely there, as Rubio is saying they participated. They never said the op-ed was related... so my question is, if the only reasoning is taking part in the protest, then why arrest nobody else who was there?

replies(1): >>43527102 #
18. omnimus ◴[30 Mar 25 20:00 UTC] No.43527102{7}[source]▶
Maybe Rubio is not the most trustful source... i mean i said it before. They probably can't really get to US citizens. But they can take away peoples VISA on a whim. The reason is to send a message.
19. AlecSchueler ◴[31 Mar 25 17:59 UTC] No.43537818{4}[source]▶
Surely constitutional rights take priority?
replies(1): >>43538010 #
20. ranger_danger ◴[31 Mar 25 18:19 UTC] No.43538010{5}[source]▶
Except violating the conditions of your visa would be a crime, no matter how free your speech is. And the First Amendment is about criticizing the US Government, not Israel.
replies(1): >>43538984 #
21. AlecSchueler ◴[31 Mar 25 19:41 UTC] No.43538984{6}[source]▶
The first amendment is about freedom of speech, not about criticising either the US or Israeli government. I don't believe that one can agree to waiver their constitutional rights so I'm not sure those visa conditions would be legal.
replies(1): >>43539143 #
22. ranger_danger ◴[31 Mar 25 19:55 UTC] No.43539143{7}[source]▶
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition *the Government* for a redress of grievances.

replies(1): >>43539223 #
23. AlecSchueler ◴[31 Mar 25 20:01 UTC] No.43539223{8}[source]▶
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging *the freedom of speech, or of the press;* or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.