In today's America, Kafka would be a citizen journalist

[RandBlade]

The actions of ICE should be criminal.
You think interrupting a dinner is remotely comparable to tearing families apart?
People's children being kidnapped and in some cases passed on to paedophiles is precisely what has been happening.

If you had any shame whatsoever you would be appalled at what is happening here. You would as I am say that this is no conservativism that I could believe in and that this is not in my name.

You should be more worried with primaries and purging these demons who've taken over your party than the liberals. And until you are you deserve to lose every election coming. Decent swing voters will not support such an abomination.

PS it's not an insult when those in charge are evil women having racists and in bed with literal Nazis.

[Aimless]

The actions of ICE should be criminal.

Some people get really outraged by this suggestion, as if the ICE were of the pillars of society and that the idea of abolishing it or holding it or its agents criminally liable is an an affront to democracy and freedom, truly unthinkable. I find it difficult to understand why it would be difficult to accept that an institution--or the people it employs--might be held criminally liable for devising, implementing and enforcing a policy that might actually be criminal, such as psychologically abusing small children by separating them from their parents in such a way that it might in some cases be practically impossible to reunite them without using forensic methods. Then again, perhaps it's not so surprising that "I was just following orders" might be regarded as a legitimate defense in a country where govt employees get away with literal torture.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...=.c7270e414f30

[...]


During cross-examination of one agent, I asked if she was aware that my client was arrested with his 4-year-old daughter. She said no. I was shocked, but this is the game. I asked whether she was the lead investigator, and if she had talked to field agents in this case. She said yes. I asked if it had become known to her that my client had his 4-year-old child with him. Yes, she said, but added that she didn’t know the child was a 4-year-old female.

The judge just glared at her.

This is how it goes. I ask about the child; the government objects; the judge forces the agent to answer. The answer is always the same.

“Do you know the location of the child?” No or unknown.

“Did you provide my client with information as to the location of his child?” No or unknown.

“Did you provide my client with any information as to how he could go about finding his child?” No or unknown.

In a rare instance, one agent said a child was in a particular city — one far from El Paso. But of course, no details were known regarding the child’s specific location.

At another hearing before a different judge, as one of my colleagues asked the agent on the stand about the whereabouts of my client’s child, the prosecutor objected to the relevance of the questions. The judge turned on the prosecutor, demanding to know why this wasn’t relevant. At one point, he slammed his hand on the desk, sending a pen flying. This type of emotional display is unheard of in federal court. I can’t understand this, the judge said. If someone at the jail takes your wallet, they give you a receipt. They take your kids, and you get nothing? Not even a slip of paper?

[...]

The rest of this lawyer's account is heartbreaking, at least to those who, unlike Lewk, understand that even brown people from shithole countries might love their children. .