Unclear what you're calling me liar about specifically? Are you saying that I'm lying that inert and weakened versions of these sprays don't exist? Because I can assure you they do. I am also not claiming that no-one goes through training with full versions of these products either. There are certifications that actually require it. But there are also plenty of people who seem to insist that training with inert or weakened products, or even the full versions under controlled conditions (not to mention generally with young and healthy participants) is the same as it happening to the average person.
Going back to the actual subject, even if the actual people getting training in these microwave torture rays have to have it tried on themselves, it's pretty certain they would get low power/short exposure, etc. They certainly wouldn't have it suddenly affect them out of nowhere with no idea what's going on it a confusing setting, in a large crowd that might suddenly start panicking and trampling each other.

A significant portion of the people we're discussing did not enter the US improperly, so that's not really that relevant. Something like half of the so called "illegal immigrants" entered legally.

It was right before the election.
As for this happening all the time in, for example, academia, it still doesn't usually happen with fast food bags full of cash. I know US conservative types love corruption and apologism for corruption, but come on. Some people, when they find out that someone who is supposed to be on their "side" had a closet full of gold bars and cash stuffed into shoes and bags and things don't fish around for every excuse possible actually say to themselves "this guy is corrupt, we should not support him".

Yeah, you know what I always used when doing freelance software development? A contract.

Follow your own advice. I pointed out that the issue is that you never clearly state what you're claiming is wrong out what I said which was largely factual statement and only partially opinion.

Clearly not irrelevant. Even you yourself wrote: "mmigration judges are part of the due process ". Note "part of" which was accurate, but that doesn't magically translate to regular judges somehow not having any say or being actual judges as opposed to "administrative judges". Remember that the context was you claiming that because Tom Homan said that some percentage had a removal order that somehow that meant that legal immigrants weren't being targeted. Since immigration judges are not the only authority, it's relevant that there are real judicial branch judges that can override them.

The point of the sarcastic response was you implying that all of the issues with the system are due to the specific cause of dealing with "fake" asylum claims.

I wasn't talking about that case at all. Although if you're bringing it up, you might need to look into the Tokyo convention and how flag jurisdiction works at international airports (for the excuse that once the plane landed, the US would lose jurisdiction, so it couldn't just land, not disembark the detainees, refuel and return). Also, you're ignoring that the people on the plane were detainees of the federal government, not of a civilian airline.

"Fines forgiven" indeed. Massive, unconscionably large fines that would not ultimately hold up in court intended specifically for purposes of coercion. Good example.

Considering that the country just passed its 250th anniversary and it's been less than a hundred years since that even became a thing, that's an obviously false statement. Not to mention that crossing the border and legally entering the country were actually distinct concepts for most of the time since. It was generally accepted that people could cross the border on the map, then present themselves to "enter" at a "port of entry". This was back when these things were run by people who had a good grasp of physical and geographical reality. These days of course, things are run by people who believe it's physically possible and practical to build a giant concrete wall exactly on the border line along the entire border (not to mention put a crocodile-filled moat on the US side). Honestly, some of these people seem to get their understanding of the physical world from cartoons (you know, where ideas like painting a continent with a giant paint roller work): raking the forests real good, a giant concrete border wall (not just a fence) right on the border line, bombing hurricanes, magically expanding highly regional small scale concepts like iron dome to a massive nation, etc. Traditional practices there were based on real world logistics.

Of course, once again, we're mostly not actually talking about people sneaking across the border into the country. The anti-immigrant faction always try to pretend that's the issue, but the main thing actually being discussed is people who came here legally, one way or another.

My argument did not hinge on things that were formerly not crimes being made into crimes, that was just an aside on my part and you're using it as a red herring here. My point was that there are many situations even now that are not crimes, but rather civil/administrative, but you are still pretending they are crimes.

Once again, a red herring. Many the people we're discussing didn't enter illegally.

Plenty of Americans are anti-immigration. Many of those are even first or second generation immigrants. That's hardly the point.

You keep using that word in the narrow terms of a computer programmer who just finished a training course where they drilled in the technical meanings of "authorization" vs "authentication".

However, a news article for the general public is not constrained by that context. The dictionary says that "authorization" in general is permission to do something. If you prompt an AI to do one thing with your bank account, then you didn't give it permission to do something else entirely, even if it got the logon credentials to do so. It wasn't authorized by you to do the other thing.

Here's another example: It's wartime and you got drafted. Usually you're not allowed to kill people, but the government handed you a gun and you're now authorized to kill enemy soldiers. That doesn't mean that you can just shoot your comrade next to you in the trench. And you certainly can't make the claim "But I was authorized to shoot Corporal Smith. You gave me a gun, after all!"

Unless they find out that anti-matter has a different field potential. Otherwise the anti-matter universe would have more loosely coupled matter and everything is a lot more stretchy and elastic.

LoB

Consider a human analogy: In many cases, people give financial advisors access to one or more of their accounts so that the advisor can make trades or other transactions for the benefit of their clients. However, if an advisor suddenly starts making transactions that do not benefit the clients or are contrary to their agreed instructions, then that activity is unauthorized, even if they have login credentials.

Of course the purpose of the money was to steer future administration contracts to the those paying when he re-entered the employ of the federal government. In any case, the timing of it doesn't affect the fact that he was taking fast food bags stuffed with cash. That's weird no matter what job he had at the time.

Wrong (see, two can play at this idiotic game of just writing a single word vehement denial without specific reference to anything). What I said about them not being part of the judicial branch is entirely true. They are so called 'administrative judges" and really should be considered in the same league as judges at a pie eating contest.

Oh. Uh huh. Right, sure.

You are confusing required to honor with actually honoring. They use various workarounds, like rushing people to airports to make it a fait accompli, other gaming of deadlines, etc., aggressive litigation, and of course the classic of simply coercing people to "choose" to deport through various dirty tactics including ones that look a whole lot like human rights violations.

The fact that Homan is trying to pretend that it's all about stopping illegal immigration when a large part of what they are doing is throwing a monkey wrench into what would otherwise be legal immigration. For example, revoking green cards on the spot for things that don't meet the traditional crimes of moral torpitude standard.

From the deal the second it becomes a burden to them, leaving both the company and the users holding the bag.

There’s a reason why critical infrastructure is run by boring, careful companies called “utilities” that are guaranteed a modest profit by the state but have legal obligations to follow extra rules that amount to not screwing their customers over, and providing service to anyone within a set geographical area. They hardly ever make the news. They never lose much money, but they don’t make much profit either. Their finances are enforced by law. If the state squeezes them too much, they go bust and the water/electricity/sewer services stop. If the companies demand too much profit, well, too bad, the state gives them access to critical infrastructure and that gives them a veto. The stable equilibrium is a boring stable company. Utilities are one of the few areas where socialism has truly been proven to be superior to capitalism.

Trust me, we do *not* want silicon valley tech-bro venture capitalist types like google poking their fingers into utilities. Its a bad idea. It will end badly.

Technically, yes. In any practical way, no. Quite aside from the problems of aiming and getting any reasonable concentration back where you want it, your targets will be either wearing lots of armor, helmets, facemasks, goggles, and other protective clothing or actually be inside what's basically a sort of urban tank. Then there's also the fact that, if you do, like many things authorities may throw randomly at crowds of people, if anyone throws them back they're treated as if they just attempted murder.

Which is why the companies that produce these also produce "inert" and low velocity/softer versions for training purposes. You hear these people going on about how people should just man up and they went through it themselves in training, but they're really talking about having saline solution sprayed in their eyes, etc.

I think you have to work a "high-T" and "anti-woke" in there somewhere. Possibly some form of stylized grunt as well.

Years back, they also did development on a device that uses microwaves (like this device) but instead of heating the skin, the goal was to vibrate the skull so that sound could be heard in the ears. The general idea (supposedly) was a sort of wide range public address system that could be heard even in noisy environments and at long ranges. The reason I bring this up is that over the years many crazy people have claimed that the government is putting voices in their heads using micro/radio waves. Most of them are paranoid schizophrenics who are having auditory hallucinations, of course. Then there are the ones who really were hearing voices in their heads because their dental fillings were actually picking up AM radio signals (and some of those actually may have also been paranoid schizophrenics as well). The thing is, it doesn't help much that the government actually did do development on a device that could put voices in people's heads with microwaves.

Overall this is a problem with our modern world. Fifty years ago, if someone went to their psychiatrist and complained that dark forces were listening to them through their toaster, the psychiatrist would have immediately recognized paranoia. These days, though, the patient's IOT toaster really could be spying on them, just like their TV, phone, fridge, washing machine, etc. Basically human civilization seems to have a drive to make every dystopian prediction and paranoid fantasy true as quickly as possible.

Was someone handing him a fast food bag stuffed with cash in that interview?

Aside from the fact that "immigration judges" aren't part of the judicial branch and are therefore just pretend judges, the simple fact of the matter is that US immigration law is very broken, and a lot of the reason is intentional sabotage of the laws for legal immigration over the years. That has left a massive number of people in a legal limbo that judges have handled all this time often by simultaneously issuing a "final order of removal" and a stay on that order at the same time (for example because of fixed time limits that are too short for the incredibly huge backlogs to catch up to). There are huge number of people who technically have orders of removal, but who actually aren't here illegally. Now ICE/DHS is taking advantage of that, and of the average person's ignorance of what a mess the system actually is. It lets them make disingenuous statements like the one you're echoing here.

The thing that keeps getting me is how much deflection goes on here. "Instead of tickling immigrants with a sunburn to make them..." What makes you think this is to be used on immigrants? It's made for using on crowds. There is basically no practical benefit to using this on, for example, people who have crossed the US border and are now on US soil in the group sizes that they would actually cross the border. If you did, what's your fantasy here, that the "irresistable urge to flee" will then make them run back across to the other side? It makes no sense whatsoever from a tactical or strategic perspective. Most people have to get by obstacles to cross the border, people under an "irresistable urge to flee" can't cross obstacles. In any case, most are not intercepted right at the actual border line, making it impractical to run back to the border anyway. Just how does anyone think this can actually be practically used for border enforcement?
Quite obviously, it can't. The obvious intent here is for a brutal form of crowd control. One that will almost certainly actually be lethal in some cases, both from some people in the crowd getting too much exposure time, from people being trampled to death, and from some members of crowds desperately fighting with others to use each other as human shields. This won't really see much use (justified use, anyway, I can see plenty of border patrol/ICE types using it for pointless torture to amuse themselves) at the border itself. This will be turned on protestors and the vast majority will be US citizens.