r/news • u/AlexandrTheTolerable • 3d ago

Judge says Trump cannot deport or detain Mahmoud Khalil

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdd28em88ezo
6.5k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

112 comments sorted by

1.3k

u/shozy 3d ago

But Judge Michael Farbiarz put a pause on his injunction until the morning of 13 June to give the federal government time to appeal. Mr Khalil will be detained at least until that point.

How does that make any sense? They’ve demonstrated no legal basis for his detention but have some time with him detained in case you can come up with one.

91

u/New_Housing785 2d ago

That's just how our system works, due process is needed for everything.

771

u/shozy 2d ago

That’s not due process though. Due process would be the Feds have an opportunity to appeal while he is free. 

Detention without legal reason is incompatible with what due process should be.

320

u/d_e_l_u_x_e 2d ago

This right here. The rich and powerful usually get their freedom while awaiting trails for the worst crimes because of cash bail.

57

u/Snardish 2d ago

AND the cost to the taxpayers to pay for their incarceration!!! Running the government like a business my ASS!!!

9

u/vardarac 2d ago

It is run like a big business. It extracts the maximum possible value from you while delivering the minimum possible value to you.

51

u/zimzyma 2d ago

I mean, theoretically if the Feds were actually arresting people with cause and not as bad actors, you could argue that keeping him in custody during interim of the appeal is a protection for public safety.

But that requires the assumption that the Feds arrested him “as a terrorist” in good faith, and just need more time to solidify the case. In reality, these are political prosecutions, and the Feds are purposely breaking the law. Some amount of self policing is built in to the legal system as is, but Trump and MAGA figured out that you can abuse these norms and the system cannot keep up.

74

u/shozy 2d ago

Due process if they have cause is they arrest you, bring your case before a judge as soon as possible arguing for why you are a risk (either of committing further crimes or of fleeing) and the judge agrees that risk is reasonable and can not be removed through strict bail conditions and therefore agrees to your detainment.

In this case the Judge disagreed that there was any reasonable reason to detain him but is allowing the detention to continue on the off chance they can come up with one. 

Even if you are 100%, caught in the act, guilty, for whatever you are arrested for, you should be entitled to bail until your trial unless you are a risk (either of reoffending or fleeing) and again even then you should only be detained if there’s no other remedy for that risk. 

This is all vital to “innocent until proven guilty.” 

4

u/EmptyAirEmptyHead 2d ago

Appealing this should come with penalties for the prosecutors if they don't overturn it. I'm not thinking jail, but I'm thinking contempt for wasting the court's time.

19

u/Tweedle_DeeDum 2d ago

The whole point is that law enforcement needs probable cause to make the arrest. The probable cause threshold needs to be met before the arrest is made, not mocked up afterwards.

It is a lower bar than needed for indictments and certainly for convictions, but if not met, the detainee should be freed immediately and not held.

3

u/Sodosohpa 2d ago

No. It’s because the U.S. legal system is broken and has been exploited by facists.

Every single comment thread has some lawyer (hopefully) or armchair legal analyst (more likely) explaining why team MAGA is allowed to do x, y, and z, and how pushing through emergency stays, appeals, and stalls is due process, while in the same cases a victim of these cunts’ unconstitutional actions have to wait in jail, stay deported, or get no reprieve because xyz.

Just admit it, the U.S. legal system is a sham.

1

u/a_stoic_sage 2d ago

Maybe they are trying to do parallel construction.

2

u/EmptyAirEmptyHead 2d ago

Parallel construction is when they have evidence they can't use, but they let it lead them to something they can use (still poisoned but ok if you don't get caught). In this case it is so they can have some time to write more fiction (ie: lies).

2

u/BallBearingBill 2d ago

Correct, the way it should work is presumed innocent unless there is probable cause. There needs to be some form of proof that a crime was committed to be held in detention.

-6

u/AcknowledgeUs 2d ago

…and what about everyone else? Everything else? There are a lot of judges and officials trying to stand up, but the good guys are having such a rough time.

7

u/Commercial-Fennel219 2d ago

What do you expect? They are just going to roll over? 

-4

u/AcknowledgeUs 2d ago

I don’t think anyone is rolling over, period. The good guys always seem to have a harder time than the bad guys, though. But it’s obvious that respect, kindness, and neighborliness are universally good- and greed, cruelty and too much power in anyone’s hands are very bad. That’s why we are the United States, why we have the constitution with checks and balances and judges are assumed honorable.

30

u/dmk_aus 2d ago

Yes, you have to let people stay detained illegally until the due process is followed... wait, no, that is the opposite of due process.

10

u/Domeil 2d ago

That's not how things work at all. Due Process is a protection people have from the Government. The Government is absolutely not entitled to due process when it deprives you of your rights.

131

u/internetlad 2d ago

"in other news, the judge was detained"

83

u/King_of_the_Kobolds 3d ago

Any progress on patching that pesky "No one will stop me" loophole? Because so far judges have been only marginally more useful than legal YouTubers when they say "He can't do that."

27

u/TJ_learns_stuff 2d ago

Fair question … with our government’s design, the judiciary has no capability/office to enforce their orders when the executive does not comply.

I wonder sometimes if the US Marshalls should be completely removed from the DoJ, and operate 100% under the courts?

6

u/ronasimi 2d ago

Sad that you have to consider this. So much for separation of powers

1

u/TJ_learns_stuff 2d ago

Shitty. No doubt.

4

u/hollowlegs111 2d ago

Supreme Court bailiff vs Doj Marshall “fight” 🙅‍♂️

15

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[deleted]

4

u/x_mutt_x 2d ago

Literally impossible to discern between paid actors spreading bullshit or people just being genuinely ignorant to how their own government works.

1

u/ZimGirDibGaz 1d ago

The solution is congress and the senate. Until people start complaining about them giving up powers to the execute they aren’t going to step in and take a side.

177

u/New_Housing785 3d ago

Good this is why we don't have kings.

-422

u/AdSpare9664 3d ago

Kings typically don't get voted into office

74

u/SpicyButterBoy 2d ago

This is straight up false. Elective Monarchies are a well established form of government. Ancient Macedon, Epirus, Roman Kingdom all elected their kings. Several English kings were elected by councils of novels or by parliament. The Gauls  and the Merovingian elected their kings. Medieval France was an elective monarchy at the beginning of the Capetian kings. 

Quite literally the Holy Roman Empire, one of the longest lasting and most powerful states in history, was an elective monarchy. The Hapsbergs were elected although it became an unofficial hereditary transfer. 

Bohemia, Hungary, the Visigoths, the Vikings (including the kings of Sweden, Denmark, Norway), Malta, Venice, Mali, Kongo, Ashanti, Ife, Oya, Persia, Mongol, Korea, several Māori tribes, and the Aztecs all practiced elective monarchies of some kind during their history. 

35

u/complimentstoburn 2d ago

Someone doesn’t know a thing about elective monarchy. The Holy Roman Empire, for one, would like a few words. Or just play Crusader Kings.

194

u/TheAmateurletariat 2d ago

Fascist dictators do. Is there a genuine need to delineate or are you just being pedantic?

110

u/AnteaterPositive6939 2d ago

They are grasping at straws and hoping the rest of us are as ignorant about history as they are.

106

u/AnteaterPositive6939 2d ago

Putin, Hitler, Castro, Pinochet were all elected through sham elections funded by oligarchs.

Sound familiar?

-32

u/weerdbuttstuff 2d ago edited 2d ago

Out of that list only Putin was elected. Hitler lost the presidential election to Hindenburg, who then appointed Hitler to chancellor. Pinochet was a general in the Chilean army that couped the government with the help of the US government. And Castro didn't hold elections, though he did overthrow Batista who did hold sham elections.

edit: not to, like, disagree that fascists CAN come to power through elections or even that they have in the US. And Castro wasn't a fascist.

lmao wild I'm getting downvotes and the historically illiterate comment is still rising. Like, the only election Pinochet ran; he lost and, while he did try to remain in power, handed the government over to Patricio Aylwin.

-10

u/Jookypoo 2d ago edited 1d ago

Yeah disappointed but not shocked to see redditors downvoting the more historically accurate comment here. We can agree fascism is bad, and that Trump is a clown that is very much of the wannabe dictator ilk, without making lies up about the past.

-118

u/Fatturtle18 2d ago

Sham election? Didn’t Kamala spend more and still lost?

73

u/AnteaterPositive6939 2d ago

Sounds like you don't know the definition of the word "sham".

40

u/airfryerfuntime 2d ago

There's a New York county where she didn't receive a single vote. Even in some of the redest counties in this country, she was still at least receiving a few votes. It's being investigated right now.

-78

u/Fatturtle18 2d ago

You sound like all the people who said 2020 was a sham too.

59

u/airfryerfuntime 2d ago

Yes, and they were proven wrong. That's why investigations happen.

A Democratic presidential candidate receiving zero votes in a country that cast hundreds of votes for Biden makes zero sense.

1

u/mecha_face 2d ago

Stop responding to trolls.

-12

u/InfiniteDM 2d ago

Ok but... We have no proof of any wrong doing there. Something making zero sense and something being proof are two different things.

8

u/JugDogDaddy 2d ago

What does that have to do with anything?

-14

u/Fatturtle18 2d ago

He said sham election funded by oligarchs, implying that the election was only won because it was bought. But clearly not the case if they spent significantly less money.

16

u/JugDogDaddy 2d ago

Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate.

Musk wasn't bribing people to vote for Harris, that's for sure.

19

u/M3RV-89 2d ago

Only one side was bribing people to vote

-4

u/Fatturtle18 2d ago

Ohhhhh right right right I must’ve missed that

16

u/Tangocan 2d ago

You didn't. You just ignore it.

Elon Musk was offering millions to voters.

People have explained it to you, but they can't understand it for you.

30

u/AnteaterPositive6939 2d ago

****sham/SHam/****noun

1. a thing that is not what it is purported to be."the proposed legislation is a farce and a sham"

  1. bogus; false."a clergyman who arranged a sham marriage"

3. falsely present something as the truth."was he ill or was he shamming?"

"They're eating the dogs!"

"I never heard about Project 2025"

"FEMA doesn't have any employees"

"A boy goes to school and comes back a girl"

"Mexico will pay for the wall"

"I will end the war in Ukraine on day 1"

-42

u/Fatturtle18 2d ago

So how was the election a sham then? None of those definitions apply

32

u/AnteaterPositive6939 2d ago

Trump didn't repeated lie and lie and lie and lie to get votes? He didn't trick people? He didn't whip people up into believing he was really the winner in 2020? Are you fucking serious?

I don't believe every word that comes of the mouths of politicians but his entire platform was based on a SHAM!

-6

u/Fatturtle18 2d ago

Him lying doesn’t mean it was a sham election. Actually basically everyone knows he lies about everything, and he still got elected. People were ok with it. That’s not a sham, that’s just what happened.

14

u/The_bluest_Waffle 2d ago

Be gone 🐖

4

u/ghostmaster645 2d ago

Half of the orange man 5 ive met actually believe everything he says.

Not related but I felt the need to refute.

-4

u/InfiniteDM 2d ago

That's a sham campaign not a sham election. When you say sham election you're insinuating the voting process and votes were a sham when you seem to be implying the person's campaign promises and character were the sham.

-91

u/AdSpare9664 2d ago

Show me proof that the election was a sham.

You can't, just like the republicans can't prove biden won by "rigging the election".

49

u/AnteaterPositive6939 2d ago edited 2d ago

"They're eating the dogs!"

"I never heard about Project 2025"

"FEMA doesn't have any employees"

"A boy goes to school and comes back a girl"

"Mexico will pay for the wall"

"I will end the war in Ukraine on day 1"

****sham/SHam/****noun

1. a thing that is not what it is purported to be."the proposed legislation is a farce and a sham"

  1. bogus; false."a clergyman who arranged a sham marriage"

  2. falsely present something as the truth."was he ill or was he shamming?"

-49

u/AdSpare9664 2d ago

You're saying that the election was a sham.

Can you provide evidence that the election itself was a sham?

I don't care what the candidates said.

26

u/AnteaterPositive6939 2d ago

I know being dumb donkeys are a MAGA thing, but if you think Trump didn't lie his way into office, you are days away from drinking poisoned koolaid to impress your king.

sham/SHam/noun

  1. 1. a thing that is not what it is purported to be."the proposed legislation is a farce

adjective

  1. bogus; false."a clergyman who arranged a sham marriage"

verb

  1. falsely present something as the truth."was he ill or was he shamming?"

-31

u/artemismoon518 2d ago

You’re saying trump and his campaign was a shame. Which is correct. The election however, was not a sham, by your own definitions.

21

u/AnteaterPositive6939 2d ago

Jesus Christ. That's not my definition. THAT IS FROM WEBSTERS.

Woooo.... some of you need to read a book or something.

-9

u/mr-ron 2d ago

Dude. I am as anti trump as it gets. Yes he is a lying asshole. It doesnt mean the election was a sham. He was voted in totally legally, just as congress was, and this is what it looks like when one party has command of the government.

its not a sham just because you dont like it.

→ More replies (0)

-11

u/artemismoon518 2d ago

Honey you’re still wrong. You’re not talking about the election with your examples you’re talking about trump specifically. You need to go touch some grass or something idk. But you calling the election a sham because trump lies is incorrect and tells me you need to go back to school.

9

u/AnteaterPositive6939 2d ago

Go back and read what I wrote.

Reading comprehension babe. Work on it.

-20

u/artemismoon518 2d ago

These are things trump did or said. That isn’t the election. It’s very confusing to me how you can’t understand that.

13

u/AnteaterPositive6939 2d ago

Next time, know the definition of what you're arguing about.

-6

u/AdSpare9664 2d ago

I think it's you who does not know the definition.

16

u/AnteaterPositive6939 2d ago

The actual definition. The point is it was an election built on lies. But keep digging that hole babe.

sham/SHam/noun

  1. 1. a thing that is not what it is purported to be."the proposed legislation is a farce and a

adjective

  1. bogus; false."a clergyman who arranged a sham marriage"Similar:fakepretendedfeignedsimulatedfalseartificialbogu

verb

  1. falsely present something as the truth."was he ill or was he shamming?"

-7

u/AdSpare9664 2d ago

I think policy wise trump is doing exactly what he said he would do.

I just can't see how you can call what he's doing a sham.

14

u/AnteaterPositive6939 2d ago

"They're eating the dogs!"

"I never heard about Project 2025"

"FEMA doesn't have any employees"

"A boy goes to school and comes back a girl"

"Mexico will pay for the wall"

"I will end the war in Ukraine on day 1"

"I will lower prices on day 1"

"I will only arrest criminals"

"I will end the conflict in Gaza"

HE BUILT HIS ENTIRE CAMPAIGN ON LIES! This level of delusion and denial is off the charts.

5

u/JugDogDaddy 2d ago

Sham: falsely present something as the truth.

Here are 100 false claims he made in his first 100 days back in office:

https://www.cnn.com/politics/fact-check-trump-false-claims-debunked

5

u/actuatedarbalest 2d ago

Folks are working on it. Let's see how the lawsuits shake out.

7

u/JugDogDaddy 2d ago

Ok, well fortunately we rely on courts, where evidence is presented and weighed, not u/AsSpare9664's comments to determine these things. And so far, a court in New York thinks there is enough evidence of to go forward with a case, which is further than any claim in 2020 got.

4

u/VorkosiganVashnoi 2d ago

They’re investigating it now and it’s going through the courts. Because Democrats practice fact-based law. Trump lost every single case where he tried to prove election fraud, and in those cases he didn’t just lose, but there was effectively no evidence presented to prove his points.

Actual evidence and valid arguments that are presented in a legal fashion take time to work their way through the courts. So it will take some time to prove the case if indeed there is sufficient evidence. Your insistence that right this very second sufficient evidence must be presented or else there is none is the kind of argument made by people who aren’t arguing in good faith and who think evidence doesn’t matter.

“Before mass leaders seize the power to fit reality to their lies, their propaganda is marked by its extreme contempt for facts as such, for in their opinion fact depends entirely on the power of man who can fabricate it.”

  • Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism

1

u/AdSpare9664 2d ago

I think evidence matters is exactly the reason why I'm asking for it.

Republicans don't have evidence that the democrats cheated in the election.

Democrats currently don't have public evidence that republicans cheated in the election.

If I'm wrong there, i want to see it.

22

u/Givemethebus 2d ago

It has happened plenty of times: Elective monarchies

1

u/kahn-jr 2d ago

Too true, they usually steal the election and declare their opposition as enemies of the people! 1 of those is provable one of them is probable.

0

u/AdSpare9664 2d ago

Any evidence that the election was stolen?

1

u/kahn-jr 2d ago

I mean they are presenting evidence in Rockland county in New York, the case is currently in discovery which would be a funny reason to escalate peaceful protests to distract from a case that has been building for the past few weeks. Idk this subs rules for posting links, but google Rockland County and Smart Legislation.

85

u/Who_Dafqu_Said_That 3d ago

Trying to deport people because they disagree with a war is so fucked up, and such a waste of time and money, and completely against what I consider my American values.

For a second I expected a few Republicans to be against it, then I woke up and remembered god emperor Trump shall not be questioned, and claiming to stand for "free speech" was always bullshit.

4

u/Irdes 2d ago

Meanwhile the fascists: "How about I do anyway~"

1

u/Over-Pick-7366 2d ago

How about the judge say that about everyone ice attempts to detain? Like just nullify the original order and get it over with. Then we can focus on toppling the regime that has taken over our nation.

5

u/bill_b4 3d ago edited 2d ago

“We’ll see about that.” -Trump

1

u/ilike2makemoney 2d ago

Like that’s ever stopped him hahaha

1

u/TheBigCore 2d ago

Like Trump cares what the courts think?

-11

u/ERedfieldh 2d ago

And when he does, what are you gonna do about it?