blackbird

They were sent to a place in Africa which is not their own country. They originally came from latin America or the Caribean. They were sent to Africa by the U.S. government where they were locked up in solitary confinement without due process, without legal representation and without trial. They committed no crime to deserve that. The U.S. knew what they were doing. The U.S. is entirely responsible for violating their human rights.

OK, I am no expert on the Quran. So I will look into it more closely and get back to you, but I doubt very much it is based on the Bible. It is its own religion.

What rights? " What the Fourth Amendment Says The Fourth Amendment states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” For most people, the Fourth Amendment’s text brings to mind the illegal search and seizure of a person’s property. However, the Fourth Amendment also applies to the person themselves. In this context, an "unreasonable seizure" is any government action that illegally restrains freedom of movement. The Fourth Amendment demands that any seizure be reasonable. It typically requires a warrant supported by probable cause. Probable cause limits law enforcement’s power to arrest or detain individuals. Officers must have a reasonable basis to believe that a person has committed a crime before they can lawfully detain them. The Supreme Court has provided clarification on the application of probable cause through various rulings. Evidence of a crime is crucial in establishing probable cause, which is necessary for a seizure to be lawful under the Fourth Amendment. Law enforcement officers must have a reasonable belief, supported by evidence, to believe that a person has committed a crime to justify an arrest or detention. Without sufficient evidence, any seizure could be deemed unreasonable and unconstitutional. However, the Fourth Amendment only applies to unlawful searches and seizures by the government. Indeed, if a private investigator, curious neighbor, or doubtful partner searches for your property, the Fourth Amendment does not govern their actions." Fourth Amendment Seizure of Persons - FindLaw Is a Warrantless Arrest an Unreasonable Seizure? It can be. The Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizures applies to persons and property. The courts have viewed unlawful arrests as unreasonable seizures. However, the key thing to remember is that law enforcement can arrest without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe a crime is being committed. The Supreme Court has long interpreted the Fourth Amendment’s phrase “the right of the people to be secure in their persons” as a protection against arbitrary arrests. So, an arrest without a warrant or probable cause is seen as an “unreasonable seizure” of one’s person under the Fourth Amendment.

There might be a case to deport someone, but in this case not to send them to be locked up in a foreign prison. That is a clear violation of their rights.

Meanwhile Trump pardoned how many criminals who had not even finished their sentences? He himself is a convicted felon. What punishment did he receive? None as far as I know. Now he is considering pardoning an old friend who was recently sentenced to 20 years, an acquaintance who is famous. He might win a few brownie points from the guys' fans no doubt. The admin couldn't care less about human rights and "justice". Talk about justice or lack of it. Where is the justice in sending men to prison without any trial or due process? And the gang doing this is working for a guy that just pardons criminals because they are his friends or are famous. What a farce. Your argument is meaningless and stupid. You don't believe in justice at all. You don't know what it is. Be honest.

No, they already completed their sentences for whatever previous offences they committed in their life. They cannot be sent to some other country and imprisoned again for past offences that they already paid for. What you are saying is completely false.

Complete nonsense. Again, you don't know what you're talking about. Anybody who believes the Bible and knows a little about where it came from knows it has nothing to do with the Quran. The Bible was written over a period of 1,500 years and completed about 1,900 years ago. Any Bible believer should be able to tell you, if he learned anything about the Quran, that it is a false book invented by Mohammed around 600 A.D. or about five or six hundred years after the Bible was completed. The fact Islam believe Jesus was a prophet means nothing. They don't believe he is God. He is the central subject of the Bible. The Quran supports a completely different religion than the Bible and so is in opposition to the Bible.

Total nonsense. You are ignoring the real facts. I clearly told you already. Pay attention. Arresting someone and sending them to be incarcerated in a solitary confinement/prison without being charged and tried for an offence that warrants that is a basic violation of human rights. If you can't see that, you are totally blind to reality. No use trying to reason this with someone who won't acknowledge basic facts.

Don't be such an ass. The U.S. admin had complete control and is totally responsible for sending them their where they are imprisoned in solitary confinement. Of course the U.S. is responsible.

There are lots of human rights that you never mentioned. In this case, this is what happened. They were obeying the law. They were deported secretly so there was no such thing as due process. Their rights were violated in several ways. They were arrested and sent to a country which is not a country that recognizes human rights. There was no due process behind doing this. There is no democratic rights where they were sent. It is an absolute dictatorship. They were imprisoned without having committed any crime and told they could be there for a year with no due process. They were put in solitary confinement and denied any contact with family or lawyers. So yes, their human rights were totally violated. It doesn't take a genius to see that. That's what you get for electing someone who could care less about human rights. It is a human right not to be arrested and sent off to prison and solitary confinement without being convicted of crimes that warrant it. If the police arrested you and threw you in solitary confinement in some African dictatorship with no family contact or lawyer, you might begin to understand what human rights you are being deprived of.

They were obeying the law. They were deported secretly so their was no such thing as due process. Their rights were violated in several ways. They were arrested and sent to a country which is not a country that recognizes human rights. There was no due process behind doing this. There is no democratic rights where they were sent. It is an absolute dictatorship. They were imprisoned without having committed any crime and told they could be there for a year with no due process. They were put in solitary confinement and denied any contact with family or lawyers. So yes, their human rights were totally violated. It doesn't take a genius to see that. That's what you get for electing someone who could care less about human rights.

Not true. You have no idea what you are talking about. The Quran did not come from the Bible and has no connection at all with it.

Tragic that some people think it's ok to send migrants to a dictatorship like Eswatini in Africa where they are arbitrarily imprisoned in solitary confinement and it could be up to year before they are shipped to their original countries. They were not convicted of any crime to warrant this. Plus they were denied legal representation. There are a number of violations of human rights here. The Trump administration likely paid the Eswatini government to take them as they did with El Salvador. The deal was done in secret.

" MANZINI, Eswatini (AP) — Five immigrants deported by the United States to Eswatini in a secret deal last month had served their criminal sentences before they were sent to be held in a prison in the African country, a lawyer working on their cases said Friday. The Eswatini lawyer also said the men from Cuba, Jamaica, Laos, Yemen and Vietnam sent to southern Africa under President Donald Trump's third-country deportation program have been denied access to legal representation while being held in Eswatini's main maximum-security prison. The lawyer, Sibusiso Nhlabatsi, said he hasn't been allowed to see the men and that he filed court papers Thursday against the head of Eswatini's correctional services department and the country's attorney general, demanding access to them. He said he is representing them on behalf of lawyers in the U.S. and was prevented from seeing them by Eswatini prison officials on July 25. It's unlawful for the men, who have been in Eswatini for around two weeks, to be denied access to a lawyer, he added. The Eswatini government has said the men will be held in solitary confinement until they can be deported to their home countries, which could take up to a year. “They have served their sentences,” Nhlabatsi told The Associated Press. “If a person has committed a crime and they have served a sentence, why are you then keeping them in a prison?” Nhlabatsi said the men have not been able to communicate with their families or receive visitors since arriving in Eswatini, although prison officials said they were in the process of setting up devices to allow them to speak with their families. He alleged their ongoing detention could have legal implications for Eswatini, a small country bordering South Africa and one of the world’s last absolute monarchies, ruled by a king accused of cracking down on dissent. The Trump administration has come under scrutiny for its choice of African countries to strike deportation deals with. It deported eight immigrants described as violent criminals to South Sudan in early July in an operation that was halted by a legal challenge in the U.S. The eight were held for weeks in a converted shipping container at an American military base in nearby Djibouti while the case was decided. A Supreme Court ruling eventually cleared the way for them to be sent to South Sudan." Lawyer says he's not been allowed to see 5 immigrants deported by the US to a prison in Eswatini

PEI is a very small geographic area. It is very wasteful of taxpayer's money to have a provincial government for such a small area. Over four thousand civil servants must be paid with all the benefits and pensions to provide a provincial government for such a small area makes no sense at all. In addition to that you are paying for a set of provincial politicians with their high salaries, pensions and benefits provincial government buildings, etc. It was set up that way at the time of Confederation. That's just how it evolved but it is way out of date now and very wasteful. That means less money and a lower standard of living for taxpayers there. Why would anyone want that? If the provincial government was combined with N.B. and N.S. it would make far more sense. It would save a fortune in all three provinces. Maybe even include Nfld and Labrador and save money for them too. Instead of three or four provincial governments with all the infrastructures, instead of having provincial governments for places with populations of small cities, combine areas and be efficient. The people would still receive the same services. Look at the larger provinces. They have one provincial government and still provide all the services that people require. If people don't want to make it democratic for everyone in the country as a whole, then maybe divide it up and have separate little countries and start all over with something that everyone democratically agrees with or remain on your own and waste your money on bureaucracy and politicians. Canadians are getting fed up with the wasteful governments and wasteful system in Canada. It is just another major factor why the cost of living is so high and millions can't afford a home and now we have more tent cities. We are tired of this clown show.

"The consequences of rejecting God’s Word are severe and far-reaching. Proverbs 1:24-28 warns that those who reject God’s counsel and refuse His reproof will face calamity, distress, and anguish. When we turn away from God’s Word, we sever our connection with Him and lose the guidance and protection He provides. Deuteronomy 11:26-28 presents a clear choice before us: blessing or curse. Obedience to God’s commandments brings blessing, while disobeying and rejecting God’s Word leads to curses. It is essential for us to heed God’s Word, obey His commandments, and turn away from the pursuit of worldly desires that lead us away from Him. The journey back to obedience is always possible with God’s grace. Here are some encouraging tips from the Bible to help you reconnect with your faith: Acknowledge your shortcomings: Like David in Psalm 51, start by honestly admitting your sins to God. (Psalm 51:3). Seek God’s forgiveness: Trust in His unfailing love and mercy. (Psalm 51:7). Commit to change: Ask God to renew your spirit and strengthen your resolve. (Psalm 51:10). Embrace God’s Word: Immerse yourself in Scripture to guide your path back to obedience. Related Topic: Consequences Of Disobeying God The Path to Restoration Although the consequences of despising God’s Word are dire, there is hope for restoration. God is a God of mercy and grace, and He offers forgiveness and reconciliation to those who repent and turn back to Him. It may come at a cost, but the redemption and restoration God offers are worth it. As believers, we must recognize the importance of cherishing and obeying God’s Word. It is through His Word that we find guidance, wisdom, and strength to navigate the challenges of life. Let us not reject His Word but embrace it, allowing it to transform us and lead us into a deeper relationship with Him. Conclusion In conclusion, the consequences of rejecting God’s Word are severe and far-reaching. We must heed the warnings from history and recognize the importance of cherishing and obeying God’s Word. Let us not be like those who mock and despise His messengers but rather humble ourselves before Him and embrace His teachings. Through obedience to God’s Word, we can find victory, restoration, and a blessed life in His presence." Rejecting God's Word and its Terrible Consequences You need to read the gospel of John and be born again by faith in Jesus Christ. That is the bottom line.

The land of Israel includes the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights. The whole land historically and Biblically belongs to Israel. Nothing Carney or other countries say will change that fact. History of Israel timeline | Abraham to modern Israel | Facts about Israel

History shows Israel occupied the land of Israel nearly 4,000 years ago. Their connection to the land is historic and biblical. There is no doubt. quote The history of Israel and the Arab nations starts with Abram (later called Abraham). Some 4,000 years ago Abram was called by God to go from his home in Ur of the Chaldeans and travel to a land that God would give to him and his descendants, Fig.1. Scholars date this migration from Ur somewhere between 1900 and 1750 BC, and the land in question was Canaan. God said to Abram: Get out of your country, from your family and from your father’s house, to a land that I will show you. I will make you a great nation … (Gen 12.1) That nation was Israel. At this time God set about making a people for Himself to be a witness of Himself to the nations, and they were given the land of Canaan for perpetuity (Gen: 17,8). Through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob came the Twelve Tribes of Israel (Judah, Joseph, Benjamin, Dan …) and they inhabited the land God gave them – the area currently known as Israel, including the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights. Sadly, after the Davidic Kingdom around 1,000 BC the tribes of Israel gradually fell away from their God and through their disobedience were uprooted from their land and scattered throughout the nations. Israel’s scattering (the diaspora) was complete around 586 BC. Subsequently, in 70 AD the Romans committed genocide against the Jews, smashed the Temple in Jerusalem and declared the land of Israel would be no more. To this end they renamed the land of Israel, principally Judea, as ‘Palaestina‘ (modern Palestine) which some believe as an attempt to minimize Jewish identification with the land of Israel. Further down..... The Promised Land – Canaan As stated, the covenant between God and Abraham was unconditional and everlasting, although God later warned Abraham’s descendants that they may suffer (temporary) exile if they were disobedient to Him (Deut 28.15-37). But, irrespective of how they behaved, it was certain that from Abraham would eventually come a great nation and a great blessing to the nations, and Abraham’s descendants would be given the so-called ‘Promised Land’ of Canaan as an everlasting possession (Gen 17.8). unquote For the whole article: History of Israel timeline | Abraham to modern Israel | Facts about Israel

So you must have all the political party policies in your head? Must be a genius.

Well, what a silly thing to say. You and I are not walking encyclopedias with all the details of party policies at our fingertips. You raised the issue so off course one must search and find those kind of details.

That's not what we're talking about. It is impossible to know here how much Federal tax dollars are spent on various projects and services in different places. But it is clear the ferry systems are something that we can examine. We're talking specifically about the two ferry systems, one in the maritimes and the other in B.C. Aristides said it well. " This is about one coast that thinks it is entitled to have all of Canada pay for its ferry system and enjoy fares half as much as the other coast that has to provide its own. Eby isn't asking for you to give up anything, he is just asking for fair treatment from the federal government. The federal government has a responsibility to treat all provinces and regions of Canada equally.

I never said anything about a bridge.

4,343 civil servants As of March 31, 2022, the Prince Edward Island (PEI) government has approximately 4,343 civil servants working in its public service establishment. www.canada.ca unquote This is a huge waste of money. Millions of dollars for PEI to have its own civil service and well paid politicians. PEI is just a small population of 135k people and yet they have 4,343 civil servants. That is crazy. There are many cities with populations far more than 135K and have nowhere near thousands of employees. It is a huge waste of money.

Abolish all these little provinces which are no bigger than a city. Waste of taxpayer money. Amalgamate into one province for the maritimes and one province for western Canada. Think of all the money this would save. Ferries in the maritimes should not be paid for by federal taxpayers while BC taxpayers pay for the ferry service in BC themselves. That means BC taxpayers are paying for service on BC Ferries and are contributing toward the ferry service in the maritimes. How is that fair. Canada is a mess.

" ChatGPT Agree Yes Historically, the Conservative Party of Canada has shown support for Israel, emphasizing the importance of its security and right to exist. While the party has not explicitly rejected the idea of a two-state solution, its strong support for Israel suggests a nuanced position that might prioritize Israel's security concerns. The party's policies and statements generally align with a balanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, recognizing the complexity of the issue but not explicitly centering their foreign policy around the advocacy for a two-state solution as the only resolution. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it. Disagree No The Conservative Party of Canada does not explicitly oppose a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, given their strong support for Israel, there may be concerns about how a two-state solution would affect Israel's security and borders. The party's stance is more likely to be influenced by the specifics of any proposed solution, including how it addresses security issues for Israel. Therefore, while not outright opposing a two-state solution, the party's support might be conditional on the details of such a proposal. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it." Conservatives platform and policy on Two State Solution for Israel and Palestine The Conservative policy is more nuanced that you are suggesting. They would not be in agreement with the Liberals and NDP. Personally I don't believe a two-state solution is a realistic solution. You can't give Palestinians part of Israel when it would mean terrorists would use it as a base of attack. What is the sense of giving part of Israel to people who don't believe Israel even has the right to exist?