- 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
re: DOJ Again Refuses to Give Judge Boasberg Sensitive Information on National Security
Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:16 pm to hogcard1964
Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:16 pm to hogcard1964
quote:
Are you insinuating that Repubs and Dems weren't unified in going into Iraq in 2003?
Emotionality has no partisanship.
I was against it. I was not swept up in the emotionality.
1
Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:17 pm to LSUFAITHFUL2
quote:
Supreme Court says he doesn’t have to. Not justiciable.
when?
I think you need to reread what happened in 1948. LINK
quote:
As Congress explicitly recognized in the recent Administrative Procedure Act, some statutes "preclude judicial review." Act of June 11, 1946,§ 10, 60 Stat. 237, 243. Barring questions of interpretation and constitutionality,
"Barring Questions of interpretation and constitutionality" which this case would bring in, especially since this cited case specifically mentions declared war. They do mention foreign nation or government incursion or invasion...but thats the part that would be argued. The question of if the rule was misapplied could be asked and the DOJ would have to prove why it was used
This post was edited on 3/19/25 at 3:22 pm
Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:17 pm to GamecockUltimate
quote:
cartel is not a nation or government. It doesnt fall under the aliens enemies act unless the Venezuelan government specifically told them to invade. Again this act has not be used in any times that were not declared war times. Lets be honest 200 people is not really an invasion or an incursion .
So it's your position that the President cannot remove a terrorist from the United States under the Alien ENEMIES Sedition Act? That's a pretty ridiculous notion. I'd be willing to bet not even SFP would go that far.
You're saying that because the United States was not at war with Saudi Arabia, the president could not have removed Osama bin Laden from the United States in 2001?
This post was edited on 3/19/25 at 3:19 pm
Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:17 pm to GamecockUltimate
quote:
200 people is not really an invasion or an incursion
It took what 5 people to kill thousands on 9/11. There’s no statutory limit on the “size of the incursion” but nice try.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:22 pm to LSUFAITHFUL2
quote:
It took what 5 people to kill thousands on 9/11
That was an act of terrorism, not an "invasion or an incursion". GWB did not rely on the AEA in response to 911.
Based on what I've found, I can only find it being invoked under 3 wars. The War of 1812, WW1, and WW2.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:22 pm to therick711
the mistake you keep making is that this act is what allowed the president to deal with invading forces or criminals.
This act allows the president t to round up every frenchmen he wants if we declare war on france or if a french army invades.
His ability to deal with the invading force doesn’t come from this statue.
This allows him to decide random dudes living in US are a threat because we declared war against their home country or their home country invaded us.
So the President would have had discretion to round up every Iraqi living in the US that wasn’t a citizen and deport them based on his discretion.
If a group of Iraqis invaded the us he could send the army to kill them. That power existed before this statute.
Trumps using it so he can deport any venezuelan he wants without review. But the statue still has to be in effect. He doesn’t just get to say Venezuela invaded.
This act allows the president t to round up every frenchmen he wants if we declare war on france or if a french army invades.
His ability to deal with the invading force doesn’t come from this statue.
This allows him to decide random dudes living in US are a threat because we declared war against their home country or their home country invaded us.
So the President would have had discretion to round up every Iraqi living in the US that wasn’t a citizen and deport them based on his discretion.
If a group of Iraqis invaded the us he could send the army to kill them. That power existed before this statute.
Trumps using it so he can deport any venezuelan he wants without review. But the statue still has to be in effect. He doesn’t just get to say Venezuela invaded.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:23 pm to therick711
quote:
So it's your position that the President cannot remove a terrorist from the United States under the Alien ENEMIES Sedition Act? That's a pretty ridiculous notion. I'd be willing to bet not even SFP would go that far.
You're saying that because the United States was not at war with Saudi Arabia, the president could not have removed Osama bin Laden from the United States in 2001?
absolutely thats my position and the position of the act itself. This act isn't about just removing one or two people. It's about allowing you to round up anyone of the same background and deport them without due process. For instance nobody in this administration has been able to answer if all 200 people were involved with said terrorist organization. Thats a huge issue
This post was edited on 3/19/25 at 3:25 pm
Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:23 pm to therick711
quote:
So it's your position that the President cannot remove a terrorist from the United States under the Alien ENEMIES Sedition Act?
It's never been tried before. Not without an actual war and a declaration of war by Congress.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
It’s clear from the language of the statute that this is about full fledged warfare between nations.
Not criminal organizations that’s aren’t foreign governments.
Not criminal organizations that’s aren’t foreign governments.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:27 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
It’s clear from the language of the statute that this is about full fledged warfare between nations.
The major folly in their reliance on that USSC ruling after WW2 was that the Court presumed the existence of the war, so there was no discussion or dispute about that issue. The question was whether the war was over.
As I've said, this situation is COMPLETELY distinguishable, at least to open a discussion.
This post was edited on 3/19/25 at 3:29 pm
Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:28 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
It’s clear from the language of the statute that this is about full fledged warfare between nations.
No its not. In fact, the language used very clearly indicates it contemplates actions other than declared wars.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:29 pm to SlowFlowPro
the same argument can be made that this judge is using the legal system to keep these immigrants here in spite of the WH. But even with more standard deportation procedures, liberals have used the justice system to attempt to block those too.
you can ree all you want.
you can ree all you want.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:29 pm to SammyTiger
It's not "clear".
Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:32 pm to therick711
quote:
No its not. In fact, the language used very clearly indicates it contemplates actions other than declared wars.
The language it is using is talking about action against the united states that would end up in war. Venezuela isn't trying to invade the US and go to war. They might be trying to poke the bear, but that isnt worth deporting all Venezuelans .
Which funny enough the ones that are here on greencards or visas are usually very republicans because it is hard to get out of communist Venezuela and they know how much better the US is than their country. You're shipping those folks back, not just the terrorists
Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:32 pm to SammyTiger
At the end of the day, people entered our country illegally or over stayed their visa. On top of that, they were involved in organized crime and connected to violent, criminal organization. Anyone crying about them being deported does not have the best interest of this country, and it's citizens, at heart.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:33 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
the same argument can be made that this judge is using the legal system to keep these immigrants here in spite of the WH
no the judge is following the constitution. thats the argument that the judge is making. Every person has a right to due process.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
we finally get to the overall point. It is nothing but politics.
a poll they finally found they can use. when they did this poll did they do it based off of a Judge turning military planes around? or just in general?
I am betting this was asked-in general. but we see how desperate the democrats are.
a poll they finally found they can use. when they did this poll did they do it based off of a Judge turning military planes around? or just in general?
I am betting this was asked-in general. but we see how desperate the democrats are.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:34 pm to GamecockUltimate
quote:
Which funny enough the ones that are here on greencards or visas are usually very republicans because it is hard to get out of communist Venezuela and they know how much better the US is than their country. You're shipping those folks back, not just the terrorists
They shouldn't be any political party in terms of American politics because they shouldn't be voting. Also, I'm sure Tren de Aragua is full of a bunch of burgeoning Ronald Reagans and Thomas Sowells.
Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:34 pm to greygoose
quote:
At the end of the day, people entered our country illegally or over stayed their visa. On top of that, they were involved in organized crime and connected to violent, criminal organization. Anyone crying about them being deported does not have the best interest of this country, and it's citizens, at heart.
these few sure (still they get due process) , but again this act allows the president to round up anyone of Venezuelan origin and deport them too. No ties needed to a terrorist org. So anyone blindly agreeing the president is doing right without wanting to see arguments from both sides on the legality of it does not have the best interest of the constitution at heart...
Posted on 3/19/25 at 3:35 pm to GamecockUltimate
quote:Naive. Incredibly naive.
A cartel is not a nation or government.
quote:citation needed on the act. you are just pulling that context out of your sandy arse, but the Venezuelan government literally let them out of prison and sent them here.
It doesnt fall under the aliens enemies act unless the Venezuelan government specifically told them to invade.
quote:use cases dont make it inapplicable, but you could argue WOT.
Again this act has not be used in any times that were not declared war times.
quote:subjective, but if that's true, why wont daddy government let me have a fully automatic 50 cal?
Lets be honest 200 people is not really an invasion or an incursion
Page 13 of 22
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News