ICE fascist scumbags at it again.

[bomberfox]

If violence worked in the past, given the amount of violence in the past, we'd have no problems now.

Violence may work in the short term, but exists as a justification for more violence in the mid to long term. It doesn't result in real solutions, but acts more like a bloody pendulum.

Humans need to evolve past that failing strategy, in my opinion. While it might feel good, it doesn't get you where you want to go - something I need to remind myself of often when I think about what it would take to fix things while I'm frustrated, angry, and scared.

Thats not how history works. It has accomplished the goals in certain situations. It acts like a bloody pendulum because oppressors never give it up unless they are forced to. We forget the panthers who had to bring guns so the police would not torment more black folks. We forget the vietnamese who successfully threw off colonialist powers and defeated the Khmer rouge (while Kissinger was writing love letters to the guy figuratively speaking) Would you have preferred the slaves in haiti just sing hymns all day? your all or nothing opinion doesnt make much sense to me. Sometimes violence is all you have left. It isnt the violence that stirs reactionaries, as we can see the violence of the civil war was started by the confederacy before abolition was an official platform. They started the war over mere inability to expand their privileged enterprise. The hyperinflation of Germany was already calmed before the nazis took over.

Right now there has been no threat of a worldwide violent takeover by communist revolutionaries yet the rich are already hiring their own brown shirts.
In many cases the violence was already there and decimating human lives before people who were hurt by that violence took up arms.
I am not a pacifist, i am a variety of tactics guy.

 

[Felis Leo]

If violence worked in the past, given the amount of violence in the past, we'd have no problems now.

Violence may work in the short term, but exists as a justification for more violence in the mid to long term. It doesn't result in real solutions, but acts more like a bloody pendulum.

Humans need to evolve past that failing strategy, in my opinion. While it might feel good, it doesn't get you where you want to go - something I need to remind myself of often when I think about what it would take to fix things while I'm frustrated, angry, and scared.

Well, yes, because humans are not immortal, OlNate. Newer generations forget the lessons and the values that older generations fought for, and the cycle repeats itself. Violence as a means does not work forever, neither does non-violence. Because humans do not last forever.

 

[bomberfox]

What i think is wholly unacceptable is a campaign of terror against civilians.

 

[Bodecea]

you are probably right

Leopards are starting to eat white faces.

 

[reinaert]

Well, yes, because humans are not immortal, OlNate. Newer generations forget the lessons and the values that older generations fought for, and the cycle repeats itself. Violence as a means does not work forever, neither does non-violence. Because humans do not last forever.

Also, violence accomplishes a very specific end, often enough, of putting to ultimate conclusion those adversaries as are unresponsive to persuasion.

 

[Taylor]

Australian woman says she was deported after visiting US army husband at Hawaii base

Nicolle Saroukos, 25, of Sydney, says she was held in federal prison overnight before she was deported

www.independent.co.uk

Unbelievable.

At least they didn't strip search her and throw her in jail for ten days without a phone call like Biden did. But that's a very low bar, and we can do better than this.

 

[OlNate]

{respectful snip, as this got wordy}

Forgive the GPT copy and paste for the research portion on this, normally I would present it in my own words, but it's a busy day of multi-tasking. Please consider the following:

Non-violent revolutions tend to result in longer periods of peace, stability, and democratization than violent ones. This conclusion is backed by research from political scientists like Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan, whose influential study, Why Civil Resistance Works (2011), found that:

Non-violent movements are twice as likely to achieve full success as violent ones, and the post-conflict societies they produce are far more likely to remain democratic and peaceful.

Why Non-Violent Revolutions Lead to More Peaceful Outcomes​

1. Inclusive Participation
   Non-violent revolutions usually include broader segments of the population—students, workers, clergy, professionals—which helps build post-revolution consensus and legitimacy.
2. Less Trauma and Infrastructure Damage
   Since non-violent revolutions don’t involve armed conflict, they cause less societal trauma and physical destruction, preserving the groundwork for stable governance.
3. Democratic Institutions More Likely
   Because violent revolutions often require a vanguard or armed elite, the post-revolution government may lean authoritarian. Non-violent ones more often lead to democratic governance.

Examples of Non-Violent Revolutions with Lasting Peace

Czechoslovakia – Velvet Revolution (1989)

• Method: Peaceful protests, student-led demonstrations
• Result: Transition to democracy, peaceful split into Czech Republic and Slovakia
• Post-revolution status: Stable democracies, EU/NATO members, no major internal conflict since

India – Independence Movement (1947)

• Method: Non-cooperation, civil disobedience
• Result: End of British rule
• Post-revolution status: Despite partition-related violence, India remained largely peaceful and became the world’s largest democracy

Philippines – People Power Revolution (1986)

• Method: Mass protests, religious solidarity
• Result: End of Marcos dictatorship
• Post-revolution status: Period of relative peace and democratic governance followed

Examples of Violent Revolutions with Instability

French Revolution (1789–1799)

• Method: Violent uprising, guillotine terror
• Result: Overthrow of monarchy
• Aftermath: Reign of Terror, Napoleon’s dictatorship, decades of war and upheaval

Russian Revolution (1917)

• Method: Armed rebellion
• Result: Tsarist regime replaced with Communist state
• Aftermath: Civil war, purges, decades of authoritarian rule under the USSR

Libyan Civil War (2011)

• Method: Armed rebellion aided by NATO
• Result: Fall of Gaddafi
• Aftermath: Ongoing civil conflict, fragmented state, humanitarian crises

Academic Insight:

Chenoweth and Stephan’s database of 323 major resistance campaigns (1900–2006) showed that:

• Non-violent campaigns succeeded 53% of the time
• Violent campaigns succeeded only 26% of the time
• Countries with non-violent transitions were 15% more likely to become stable democracies within 5 years

Conclusion:

While no revolution guarantees peace, non-violent revolutions are far more likely to result in long-term stability, democratic governance, and peaceful societal evolution than violent revolutions, which often lead to cycles of conflict and authoritarianism.




I'm not a pacifist either, I acknowledge that sometimes violence is necessary, especially in the context of defence, however, as the saying goes, violence is a failure of diplomacy, or more bluntly put by Isaac Asimov, violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. As such, I tend not to consider it a part of my toolbox, but rather something I have to run out to grab from Home Depot last minute when the pipe breaks and the kitchen is flooding.

 

[bomberfox]

Forgive the GPT copy and paste for the research portion on this, normally I would present it in my own words, but it's a busy day of multi-tasking. Please consider the following:

Non-violent revolutions tend to result in longer periods of peace, stability, and democratization than violent ones. This conclusion is backed by research from political scientists like Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan, whose influential study, Why Civil Resistance Works (2011), found that:

Non-violent movements are twice as likely to achieve full success as violent ones, and the post-conflict societies they produce are far more likely to remain democratic and peaceful.

Why Non-Violent Revolutions Lead to More Peaceful Outcomes​

1. Inclusive Participation
   Non-violent revolutions usually include broader segments of the population—students, workers, clergy, professionals—which helps build post-revolution consensus and legitimacy.
2. Less Trauma and Infrastructure Damage
   Since non-violent revolutions don’t involve armed conflict, they cause less societal trauma and physical destruction, preserving the groundwork for stable governance.
3. Democratic Institutions More Likely
   Because violent revolutions often require a vanguard or armed elite, the post-revolution government may lean authoritarian. Non-violent ones more often lead to democratic governance.

Examples of Non-Violent Revolutions with Lasting Peace

Czechoslovakia – Velvet Revolution (1989)

• Method: Peaceful protests, student-led demonstrations
• Result: Transition to democracy, peaceful split into Czech Republic and Slovakia
• Post-revolution status: Stable democracies, EU/NATO members, no major internal conflict since

India – Independence Movement (1947)

• Method: Non-cooperation, civil disobedience
• Result: End of British rule
• Post-revolution status: Despite partition-related violence, India remained largely peaceful and became the world’s largest democracy

Philippines – People Power Revolution (1986)

• Method: Mass protests, religious solidarity
• Result: End of Marcos dictatorship
• Post-revolution status: Period of relative peace and democratic governance followed

Examples of Violent Revolutions with Instability

French Revolution (1789–1799)

• Method: Violent uprising, guillotine terror
• Result: Overthrow of monarchy
• Aftermath: Reign of Terror, Napoleon’s dictatorship, decades of war and upheaval

Russian Revolution (1917)

• Method: Armed rebellion
• Result: Tsarist regime replaced with Communist state
• Aftermath: Civil war, purges, decades of authoritarian rule under the USSR

Libyan Civil War (2011)

• Method: Armed rebellion aided by NATO
• Result: Fall of Gaddafi
• Aftermath: Ongoing civil conflict, fragmented state, humanitarian crises

Academic Insight:

Chenoweth and Stephan’s database of 323 major resistance campaigns (1900–2006) showed that:

• Non-violent campaigns succeeded 53% of the time
• Violent campaigns succeeded only 26% of the time
• Countries with non-violent transitions were 15% more likely to become stable democracies within 5 years

Conclusion:

While no revolution guarantees peace, non-violent revolutions are far more likely to result in long-term stability, democratic governance, and peaceful societal evolution than violent revolutions, which often lead to cycles of conflict and authoritarianism.




I'm not a pacifist either, I acknowledge that sometimes violence is necessary, especially in the context of defence, however, as the saying goes, violence is a failure of diplomacy, or more bluntly put by Isaac Asimov, violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. As such, I tend not to consider it a part of my toolbox, but rather something I have to run out to grab from Home Depot last minute when the pipe breaks and the kitchen is flooding.

I cant consider it out of the question and dont criticize those who have had to use violence. Like i said im a variety of tactics guy. Sometimes you have to burn an apartheid official in a tire fire. If non violence was the answer in all situations we would have used that option.

Where you lose me is the complete rejection of revolutionary or violent resistance.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

These ICE guys are struggling to meet quotas, and are thus, cut loose to make all sorts of arbitrary and subjective decisions.

If you had any idea what you were talking about, you would know ICE has nothing to do with this.

 

[OlNate]

Well, yes, because humans are not immortal, OlNate. Newer generations forget the lessons and the values that older generations fought for, and the cycle repeats itself. Violence as a means does not work forever, neither does non-violence. Because humans do not last forever.

I agree, that's the way it's been. But today? I mean, we carry all the lessons of our past in our pocket. I don't think that gets to be an excuse for much longer, bud.

 

[Bodecea]

Yes, it is unbelievable isn't it. Wonder if there is more to the story? Of course I've seen TSA agents act like real asses a few times and I know customs folks are pretty no nonsense. so we will have to wait to see what else comes out.

Annnnnnnd, excuses incoming again.

 

[reinaert]

I agree, that's the way it's been. But today? I mean, we carry all the lessons of our past in our pocket. I don't think that gets to be an excuse for much longer, bud.

Some necks are going to stretch, no matter how long a view you take of the human tendency to relish violence in its excess.

 

[OlNate]

I cant consider it out of the question and dont criticize those who have had to use violence. Like i said im a variety of tactics guy. Sometimes you have to burn an apartheid official in a tire fire. If non violence was the answer in all situations we would have used that option.

Where you lose me is the complete rejection of revolutionary or violent resistance.

Welp, agree to disagree, I guess. Please forgive me if I hope you're wrong, as it's not like we're getting worse at killing each other. At some point one must consider that the only place a trajectory of violence ends is with the destruction of humanity, at which point it's all moot anyway.

Still love ya, bud, thanks for the chat.

 

[bomberfox]

Welp, agree to disagree, I guess. Please forgive me if I hope you're wrong, as it's not like we're getting worse at killing each other. At some point one must consider that the only place a trajectory of violence ends is with the destruction of humanity, at which point it's all moot anyway.

Still love ya, bud, thanks for the chat.

I think we agree more than we are letting on. Its a matter of last resort, i just dont totally reject such methods in all circumstances and consider if violence is already being perpetuated against the people. I certainly hope i am wrong too but everything has failed and even our highest court has selfishly robbed us of justice.

 

[OlNate]

Some necks are going to stretch, no matter how long a view you take of the human tendency to relish violence in its excess.

Humanity exists because it evolved a brain, not because it was the strongest in the jungle or had the biggest teeth, and the human tendency towards violence on an individual level has decreased ever since, either through our behavior or reflected in our laws.

I would suggest that any time we revert to our more primal instincts, the epitome being violence, we put our continued existence at risk.

At some point we will collectively reject violence in favor of smarter, more productive ways of resolving our conflicts, or we will become extinct by it. Might as well start advocating for continued existence now...hehe

 

[OlNate]

I think we agree more than we are letting on. Its a matter of last resort, i just dont totally reject such methods in all circumstances and consider if violence is already being perpetuated against the people. I certainly hope i am wrong too but everything has failed and even our highest court has selfishly robbed us of justice.

I know, I'm just debating you...

 

[reinaert]

Humanity exists because it evolved a brain, not because it was the strongest in the jungle or had the biggest teeth, and the human tendency towards violence on an individual level has decreased ever since, either through our behavior or reflected in our laws.

I would suggest that any time we revert to our more primal instincts, the epitome being violence, we put our continued existence at risk.

At some point we will collectively reject violence in favor of smarter, more productive ways of resolving our conflicts, or we will become extinct by it. Might as well start advocating for continued existence now...hehe

We are primates. Primates kill.

 

[OlNate]

We are primates. Primates kill.

We are evolved primates, who have moved well past many of the behaviors and traits of other primates, as a matter of survival. Who can say what we will continue to evolve into, for the same reason?

 

[reinaert]

We are evolved primates, who have moved well past many of the behaviors and traits of other primates, as a matter of survival. Who can say what we will continue to evolve into, for the same reason?

We do not agree, as all of the now will illustrate.

 

[OlNate]

We do not agree, as all of the now will illustrate.

Good, I'm glad, this conversation would be a lot less interesting if we simply agreed.

I would caution against limiting your view to "as of now", though. Nothing impedes progress more than people holding onto "how it's always been done". And besides, "as of now" you already have a lot of folks willing to put down violence, especially those most familiar with engaging in it, I would imagine.

I mean, consider the following (credit to GPT):

Modern research suggests that only about 2–3% of people may have a psychological disposition that allows them to kill without remorse—often overlapping with antisocial personality disorder or psychopathy.

• Humans evolved as social animals. Killing a member of your own species usually caused psychological trauma, not reward.
• Modern soldiers, police, and hunters often experience moral injury, PTSD, or guilt after killing—even in justified or legal circumstances.
• Studies of the amygdala and prefrontal cortex show that most people’s brains actively resist violent action.

Now, talking about it, that's a whole other story, as is what people in power positions are willing to force people to do on their behalf. But the science would appear to inidcate that human violence isn't really all that natural or inherent - at least, not in the time period these studies were done.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I agree.

But I think it's time for you guys to stop differentiating between yourselves and the folks doing and supporting this stuff. This is America now. They are doing this in your name too. Stop saying "they" and start saying "we", because otherwise none of the good folks are going to get pissed off enough to do anything about it. Calling it out and then going back to your dinner is not doing enough.

A lot of universal you's in there, I have no idea what you're doing personally. But I think it's a challenge each of you should accept and really reflect on. The time for words is past, people are suffering in real time. Action.

I guess the Jews should have said we too.

 

[OlNate]

I guess the Jews should have said we too.

Say what now? I think you might not have understood what was being said. I wasn't talking about the victims, I was talking about the American "left", who seem content to simply bitch, without really doing anything.

Not every comment lends itself well to a Nazi analogy, you guys need to stop leaning on that so heavily.

Very weird post, bud. Maybe it wasn't meant for me?

 

[Hari Seldon]

At least they didn't strip search her and throw her in jail for ten days without a phone call like Biden did. But that's a very low bar, and we can do better than this.

Obviously you can't read. But Biden..... waaaa.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I mean, I leave the door open, but I tend to agree, I don't think there are any more details coming out about this from the government, so you're probably right, @Grizzly Adams and I are most likely finished.

1) Do you agree with the way someone entering your country legally was treated?
2) Well, what about the treatment at least? Even if she was overstaying her welcome, or was approaching visa expiration, both of which are also assumptions by the way, did it warrant the way she was treated?

We can discuss some things in theory, so long as we recognize that there's no evidence supporting the claims beyond one person's say-so. SHould a CBP Officer have been "just yelling at the top of his lungs?" No. But I have my doubts that's what happened. Perhaps a raised voice in response to resistance to a command to follow the line structure. Is it possible it happened? Yes. Acceptable as described? No. Likely as described? Also, no.

Other aspects - the refusal itself or the holdover at the Honolulu FDC - are absolutely believable, and not at all outrageous. US law states (as cited earlier) that an alien bears the burden of proof when it comes to admissibility. CBP decided she had not met that burden and refused her admission. Is "too many clothes" a justification, by itself, to refuse an applicant for admission? I would say in almost all cases not. Could "too many clothes" be part of a broader collection of facts that contributed to the conclusion that she hadn't met her burden? Absolutely. Is it possible it happened? Yes. Acceptable as described? Probably not. Likely as described? Also, probably not. The story expands on the extent of the questioning, covering her employment, tattoos, and marriage. This is totally unsurprising and not even a little bit unjustified. Employment is a factor in considering ties to home country that compel her return; if she's unemployed, there's no motivation from that angle to return. If she's on a leave of absence, that's a little different. If she's on vacation time, that's even more different. I see nothing untoward in asking if her tattoos have a meaning. Having just seen an image of her sleeve in a post above, my first inclination would be to ask if she's an artist herself -- possibly seeking employment or performing work for hire. And it's entirely possible that's a standard question in that particular officer's process, as normal as asking about any criminal convictions or questions establishing alienage. And of course they're going to ask about her marriage -- that's a pretty strong motivator to not return home and instead attempt to adjust status (an intent for which at the time of application for admission makes a person inadmissible -- an intending immigrant -- and we've already established it's the alien's burden to overcome).

When it comes to the detention, I totally believe she was sent to the FDC for an overnight stay. According to CBP's Airport Wait Time page, "last Sunday" (5/18, based on the story's publication date of 5/23) saw the last passengers at HNL processed no later than noon. With no flights to work, they are extremely unlikely to have staff available to monitor her until her flight out the next day. Because the FDC is immediately adjacent to the airport it's far more cost-effective to park her there for the night than to pay two officers (at least, and probably more considering there was at least one other detainee awaiting a return flight) overtime all night until the next day's officers arrived. And it's possible she was held "with" murderers, as in "existed in the same detention facility as." The story clarifies that "she shared a cell with a woman from Fiji, who was also denied entry and waiting to be deported." I have a hard time getting worked up over the mere fact of co-existing within the same structure as "murder[ers] and drug offen[ders]." Is it possible it happened? Yes. Acceptable as described? Yes. Likely as described? Also, yes.

Was she denied phone contact with her family? Unknown. Should someone have made contact? Yes. Did it need to be her? Not necessarily. Is it possible it happened? Yes. Acceptable as described? No. Likely as described? Ehhhhhh, maybe even Steven.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

it follows the pattern of stupid bullshit we've heard about since you guys went all wild down there.

Except nothing's changed, really. People like her got refused during the Biden administration, the first Trump administration, the Obama years, just keep going back. There is, quite literally, nothing at all unusual about this refusal. Could it be a mistake and she wasn't an intending immigrant? Sure, but she stil bore the burden of proof and her inability to establish a nonimmigrant intent is not the fault of CBP, so it's not really a "mistake" on the government's part at all. Still, all she has to do now is apply for a visa by going to the embassy and satisfying a consular officer that she is not an intending immigrant. SHe's not banned from the country. She could come back as quickly as the application process takes. According to State's visa wait time page, it looks like she could go to Canberra and get in for an interview almost immediately.

The sad part would be that it's unlikely that there's all that many people criticizing this that will actually demand to know the other side of the story.

People can demand whatever they wish. It doesn't appear that CBP can release that information.

not because I think some random lady would make this shit up

I don't think I'd even go so far as to say that. a lot of this could easily stem from her confusion, her emotional investment in the situation, and her desire to be sympathetic. She need not have "made up" anything in particular, but exaggerating, misremembering, and omitting details here and there are distinct possibilities, and very likely, IMHO.