- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
DOJ Again Refuses to Give Judge Boasberg Sensitive Information on National Security
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:17 am
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:17 am
LINK
quote:
The Justice Department once again refused to give Judge James Boasberg sensitive information in a case against Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act.
As White House advisor Stephen Miller pointed out on CNN, the Supreme Court previously ruled that any Alien Enemy Act removals by a US President are not subject to judicial review.
quote:
The Justice Department responded to Boasberg’s order on Tuesday and once again said they will not be disclosing sensitive information about national security in a public hearing.
quote:
“The Court also ordered the Government to address the form in which it can provide further details about flights that left the United States before 7:25 PM. The Government maintains that there is no justification to order the provision of additional information, and that doing so would be inappropriate, because even accepting Plaintiffs’ account of the facts, there was no violation of the Court’s written order (since the relevant flights left U.S. airspace, and so their occupants were “removed,” before the order issued), and the Court’s earlier oral statements were not independently enforceable as injunctions. The Government stands on those arguments,” the DOJ wrote in a response to the court order on Tuesday.
23
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:20 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
Good ignore all of them then Pardon the entire cabinet
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:21 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
Genuine question: Why would this lower level judge feel entitled to sensitive national security information? I guess I should say, what are any legitimate reasons she should feel entitled to that information? I have a feeling I know what illegitimate reasons she has.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:23 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
Seems like DOJ is being reasonable and stating they will provide the information under seal and in a closed hearing.
This should not be foreign to this judge since he's the Chief Judge of the FISA court.
This should not be foreign to this judge since he's the Chief Judge of the FISA court.
This post was edited on 3/19/25 at 9:32 am
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:24 am to ProjectP2294
quote:
Genuine question: Why would this lower level judge feel entitled to sensitive national security information? I guess I should say, what are any legitimate reasons she should feel entitled to that information? I have a feeling I know what illegitimate reasons she has.
The answer is simple… Orange Man bad.
That’s all it is with these warped, delusional leftist pieces of shite.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:26 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
The answer is simple… Orange Man bad.
That’s all it is with these warped, delusional leftist pieces of shite.
I get that. I'm interested in what legitimate claims there may be.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:31 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
Why would you give the person who is connected to defending these terrorists the information on how you caught them?
His daughter advises them on how to avoid capture.
His daughter advises them on how to avoid capture.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:34 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
Cant wait for SFP to show up and school us all.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:37 am to loogaroo
Mandatory recusal based on evidence of past violations by this judge. He cannot be trusted
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:40 am to ProjectP2294
quote:
I get that. I'm interested in what legitimate claims there may be.
He wants the information to attempt to strengthen any type of contempt order he plans to issue. His greatest desire would be the information shows that a flight left after he ruled they couldn't be deported. There are defenses to this, though. DOJ already raised in court that his minute entry did not support his oral order.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:41 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
quote:
The Trump admin invoked the Aliens Enemies Act and AUMF in order to unilaterally declare a loosely-defined organization as "terrorists", in order to remove their Due Process rights and to frame this as a military operation. They then used this combination of statutory interpretations to unilaterally select individuals located in the US, remove those individuals, and deliver them to a foreign jail (all without oversight). The admin further argues that every decision made cannot be reviewed by the courts, as they're non-justiciable and purely executive functions (military operation during a war/conflict), and the admin can thwart requests for facts upon which they made these decisions (as the admin argues they fall under "national security").
Who has issues with that description of the admin's stances?
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:41 am to ProjectP2294
quote:
Genuine question: Why would this lower level judge feel entitled to sensitive national security information? I
The question is if it's actually national security information or a ruse by the admin acting outside of their statutory authority.
*ETA: or as therick says, in violation of the court's order
This post was edited on 3/19/25 at 9:43 am
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:42 am to SlowFlowPro
do you believe he is entitled to this sensitive material? just a yes or no please
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:43 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The question is if it's actually national security information or a ruse by the admin acting outside of their statutory authority.
That's not my question. I asked my question.
That's your question. Which doesn't mean it's the question.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:44 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The question is if it's actually national security information or a ruse by the admin acting outside of their statutory authority.
Explain why information gathered on an organized group of armed foreign nationals wouldn’t be considered national security information.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:44 am to DawgCountry
quote:
do you believe he is entitled to this sensitive material? just a yes or no please
Yes. I don't believe there are any national security issues present and I think the admin is just using a ruse to avoid scrutiny for their aggressive legal interpretations and aggressive actions in furtherance of those interpretations.
I don't think TDA should be ablet o be labeled a terrorist organization
I don't think that the AEA should be able to be involved given the facts
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:45 am to The Baker
quote:
Explain why information gathered on an organized group of armed foreign nationals wouldn’t be considered national security information.
They aren't terrorists and the facts don't support invocation of the AEA.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:45 am to DawgCountry
quote:
just a yes or no please
Impossible.
ETA: Told you.
This post was edited on 3/19/25 at 9:47 am
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:45 am to SlowFlowPro
Take his security clearance away.BOOM!
Posted on 3/19/25 at 9:46 am to SlowFlowPro
based on the track record of the last 8 years, a Mc Donalds menu could be classified as Nat Sec. Info.
its got nothing to do with statute authority
its got nothing to do with statute authority
Page 1 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News