The case of the person Lander was escorting (his bid for asylum) was dismissed. The guy had been "stripped of all status" by the judge.

Here is an interview with Lander after he was released, which is where I got the above from.

Lander talks about due process not being followed. Is a judicial warrant required or is the due process that the guy gets kicked out of the country when his asylum claim fails?

Or is due process that he gets to appeal, in which case his status is not totally stripped and the judge is the one not following due process?

I am not asking what we wish was the case. Does anyone here know what the actual law is?

How does this compare to when judge Dugan helped an ICE target evade arrest by getting him to evacuate via the jury door.

Dugan and another judge entered the hallway and confronted the arrest team, telling one deportation officer that he needed a judicial warrant to make an arrest instead of an “administrative warrant,” the affidavit said.

She was arrested herself and indicted by a grand jury but is now claiming the same immunity which Trump is afforded. Would be hilarious if she succeeds. See her Wikipedia entry. Lander doesn't get to play the same "Trump card".

Your comment contradicts the Wikipedia entry...

The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. ch. 33) is a federal law intended to check the U.S. president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States congressional joint resolution. It provides that the president can send the U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization", or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces".

Isn't that the core ideology of Conservatism? The current lot are radicals though.

Maximized efficiency at the expense of security. Can happen to anyone.

Seems you missed my point:

Again: how does China stop every single Uyghur adult from taking pics with their smartphone?

Not “every single Uygur”, just the ones locked up. That is how detention works, even in the West.

So there was the BBC and the PBS report another person provided in the comments.

By the way, I agree there was no genocide. See my other comments where I acknowledge the Uighur separatist movement threatening access to the Silk Road so obviously the CCP has to try something.

Whether or not Israel has a right to exist, it is a childish fantasy to imagine it will vanish.

Black South African leadership did not express a desire to kill all whites. Hamas have expressed a desire to kill all Jews in the Levant so the analogy does not hold.

Most surviving German Jews went to the Levant (bear in mind that ⅔ were killed by Nazis).

White South Africans didn't experience genocide.

Putin kills Ukrainian civilians, not because of their religion or genetics or culture but to terrorise them into submission so that they encourage their military to give up so that he gets to plunder their land and resources.

This is very different to the universally accepted definition of genocide as applies to The Holocaust, Rwanda, Cambodia.

Ireland is trying to get the ICJ to broaden the UN definition of genocide to include both the Ukraine and Gaza tragedies.

Thanks, I hadn't seen that. What strikes me as odd is that neither side mentions a huge factor in the conflict: China's investment in the "belt & road" initiative which relies on the old "Silk Road" route which passes through Xinjiang.

The Uighurs did have an independence separatist movement (China isn't paranoid) and it would disrupt these plans. China aint letting go of its tight grip any time soon.

Any source from anywhere could be propaganda. Here is your chance to debunk the BBC report if you want.

You are confusing banning news production by foreigners with banning transmission of foreign news.

BBC probably did make it difficult for Russian state news to access UK social media users after Russia invaded Ukraine for their "three day special operation" (obviously a lie from the start). They probably did not forbid access to the Russian journalists wanting to film in the UK.

China probably forbids BBC news with their great internet firewall. I know they ban the Tiananmen Square massacre imagery.

I don't think UK forbids Chinese from filming in UK. China did not forbid BBC from filming in China either but they did try to forbid filming the detention centre.

Again: how does China stop every single Uyghur adult from taking pics with their smartphone?

Not "every single Uygur", just the ones locked up. That is how detention works, even in the West.

Not a shred of photographic evidence

That is misleading. Why did authorities try to stop BBC from filming?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=t28nnviKar4