It died when ICE started snatching people and deporting them without trial. (The government has the obligation to put each person before a court to at minimum prove they are not about to deport a US citizen.)
Incidentally, the position of the current administration is that they should have been able to, last night, send him to serve an indefinite sentence in an El Salvadoran torture prison without ever seeing a judge.
Don't throw away the baby with the bathwater (I live in the EU but hold on a minute...)
_this_ part doesn't work. Not "nothing works anymore". Perhaps there is a special court/system/subsystem that has authority for these cases. Just like Military has its own courts, and they don't try civilians, perhaps for such cases there is a "migration court" (or something-something...)
Unless there isn't in which case, damn those ICE folks are cold!!
No, ICE is Immigration and Customs Enforcement. They do not have any authority at all over US citizens who are not engaged in crossing an international border.
Additionally, the current position of the US government is that they should have been able to put this person it a torture prison in El Salvador without him ever seeing a judge.
A concentration camp is a facility where individuals are detained without legal process, often based on their ethnicity or political beliefs, and typically under harsh conditions. In contrast, a prison is a legal institution where individuals are held after being convicted of a crime, following a judicial process.
My feeling based on the terseness of your reply is that you don't really want to support what you had said initially because there's no real difference or distinction to be made between a concentration camp, and a torture prison.
There is indeed a special immigration court system, but there's a catch. Those courts are "administrative courts", meaning that they are formally part of the executive, not the judiciary, and judges are also executive appointees. So they operate under rules that are themselves written by ICE, and with this admin's insistence on "unitary executive" theory, are entirely subject to the whims of the president.
To give you one example of how bad it already was before Trump, these are the same courts where 3-year old children who don't know English were required to argue their case before the judge by themselves, without a lawyer: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/children-immigration-court...
So it was already a sham as far as due process go. But now the executive says that they aren't obligated to give people a hearing at all.
And anyone working for ICE is a willing enforcer for this system. They should be treated accordingly.
> "To give you one example of how bad it already was before Trump"
That was during Trump's first term. Going in to this, we already saw how bad he was, so we should have expected worse this time. That's part of the reason this second term has a depravity multiplier. We knew, and chose him anyway.
The whole "children in courts without representation" does in fact predate even the Trump's first term. It certainly got much worse under him, but I hope that people will look at this beyond just the man and realize how well and truly fucked up the US immigration system has been for decades.
While I don't condone not following the law, most lights where I live are there due to car traffic, and make little to no sense for cyclists. So it's no wonder they're not respected much. I'd prefer the red lights many places to instead count as either a stop sign or yield for cyclists.
But with that said, all statistics I've ever seen points to cyclists being better at following the laws than drivers (have you never driven above the speed limit?), especially in cities where the infrastructure makes sense for cyclists. Additionally, a cyclist breaking the law most often only put their own life at risk, compared to someone in a car doing it.
> I'd prefer the red lights many places to instead count as either a stop sign or yield for cyclists
This is law in some places. It's known as the Idaho stop[0]. One of the most sensible laws IMO. It's almost like whoever came up with it has ridden a bike on the road like at least once.
Drivers who think others who aren't operating motorvehicles should have to follow the same rules need to grow up. They want all the privilege with none of the responsibility. I firmly believe the roads would be better for everyone if cycling proficiency was a requirement for even applying for a driving licence.
From TFA:
“Since cremations were common in the European parts of the Roman Empire around 100 AD [CE], inhumations are an absolute exception. Finds of Roman skeletons from this period are therefore extremely rare,” said Kristina Adler-Wölfl, head of the Vienna City Archaeology Department.
Which might tell a story in itself. This might have been a small detachment that was ambushed and utterly wiped out, leaving nobody alive on the Roman side to perform the traditional funeral rites. Instead the attackers were left to bury the bodies in their own tradition.
>This might have been a small detachment that was ambushed and utterly wiped out
or even three legions, 16,000–20,000 killed. "Teutoburg Forest is considered one of the most important defeats in Roman history, bringing the triumphant period of expansion under Augustus to an abrupt end. It dissuaded the Romans from pursuing the conquest of Germania, and so can be considered one of the most important events in European history."
it seems a little bit dubious to me. You can't beat the Arrhenius Law, not in Electrochemistry, anyhow. The ion mobility would be very very low, you'd have to rely that the temperature in the battery itself is above 0°C
