That other deportation case you link to here is even more bizarrely evil to me. At least in the other examples the administration is making the case that they should have the power to deport these people under law (not like I agree with that interpretation, but they are at least trying to make an argument).
In this other case, the administration flat out admitted they made a mistake and that he shouldn't have been deported. So they ship him to this notorious prison and then just do an "oopsies, our bad, he's gone now." Not only do I not see how the administration's stance is defensible, why would you even want to defend it, especially if you actually agreed with their overall stance of wanting to increase deportations of "bad guys". The administration said outright he is not a bad guy!
I simply can't understand it outside of a "the cruelty is the point" framework, but even in that framework the cruelty is normally directed at "bad guys". Now folks are OK with cruelty to random people that was the result of an admitted error. WTF happened to our country?
Didn't realize that the judge in the linked one was an immigration judge and not a judiciary judge thanks for the clarification