It's probably more like "your first sentence doesn't address the GP's situation at all, so the rest of the post is just gonna be grandstanding without foundation". Which happens to be a correct assessment of your post.
Specifically, "disappeared for a few days" is not at all what basically every country on the planet does.
I'm very clearly responding to the oversimplifying final sentence and I cited several instances where non-citizens can indeed be held for days without violating US laws.
The GP frames this as the US doing something nobody else does, which is objectively false, and even if his specific example is an egregious violation of someone's rights I'm sure if we looked through the last 25 years of immigration detentions for other countries we could pick out something equally upsetting from each one.
Most of your comment is spent arguing about "can question and deny entry", which is missing the point by a mile.
Also, things can be legal and iffy at the same time (indeed, such wide-ranging powers basically invite that, since they give wide latitude to go overboard in cases that do not deserve it).
Specifically, "disappeared for a few days" is not at all what basically every country on the planet does.