re: DOJ Again Refuses to Give Judge Boasberg Sensitive Information on National Security

quote:

---

I want them to be able to stop violations of law by the Executive when needed.

---

Violations of law in these cases are almost always 100% a matter of opinion. Which means that lower court guy can have all the opinions he wants but they aren't so equal.

I have no doubt your mind is too small to see the difference.

"Manufacture" and "fake", huh? Show your work, counselor.

quote:

---

I have no doubt your mind is too small to see the difference.

---

If there is no legal review (and in combination with the AUMF, no facts can even be dispensed), there is no real difference.

These liberal Federal Judges have been asking for a fight for DECADES.

Trump is gonna give them one! No doubt.

You're disingenuous. If you're going to misrepresent what is said (and more importantly, disregard what the statute provides), there is no sense in engaging with your attempt to emotionally manipulate the gullible.

But what if the president kills citizens en masse using the endangered species act for support? That's exactly what's happening here. Sure it is, slow.

quote:

---

"Manufacture" and "fake", huh? Show your work, counselor.

---

Difficult with them hiding behind "national security" to let us judge the facts at hand.

Has "national security" ever been cited for localized criminal activity?

Again, I'll post this article

quote:

---

In some cases, those individuals were deported simply for being in the same car or house as other suspects. In others, a Trump administration official admits that there is little specific evidence tying some deportees to any crime—and then, incredibly, argues that the lack of evidence should be taken as proof of criminality.

"The lack of a criminal record does not indicate they pose a limited threat," wrote Robert L. Cerna, an acting field office director for ICE, in a sworn affidavit filed in federal district court in Washington, D.C., on Monday night. Cerna goes on to write that "the lack of specific information about each individual actually highlights the risk they pose. It demonstrates that they are terrorists with regard to whom we lack a complete profile."

That's a laughably weak argument. Cerna is arguing that the Trump administration has the power to deport any immigrant suspected of having ties to the Tren de Aragua gang, even if the evidence is thin and never proven in any court.

Imagine siting on a jury and being told by the prosecution that there would be no evidence presented of any crimes being committed, but that you should simply take the prosecutors' word that the suspect seems like a bad guy. Any reasonable juror would vote to acquit—if the judge didn't laugh the prosecutors out of court first.

Or simply flip the argument around. Would Cerna take evidence of criminality as proof that someone was not a criminal? Of course not.

---

Based on the allegations in the affidavit linked, they don't seem to have a slam dunk RICO case yet, let alone a "terrorist organization" creating "national security threat".

quote:

---

There is no actual national security issue involved.

---

Here’s what Grok has to say about this:

quote:

---

Yes, fentanyl importation poses a significant threat to national security. Fentanyl, a synthetic opioid 50-100 times more potent than morphine, has fueled a public health crisis in the United States, with overdose deaths skyrocketing in recent years. Its importation, primarily from countries like China and Mexico, undermines national stability in several ways.

---

quote:

---

My concerns focus on citizens. The illegal application of this law, by your argument, matters not whether you're a citizen or illegal. It's not to be questioned and unreviewable.

---

The courts exist to address grievances of individuals. If a US citizen was accidentally deported under the Alien and Sedition Act, then that citizen could challenge that.

What is not justiciable is the executive’s ability to determine that there is an invasion or predatory incursion…or even just a threat of one, by a foreign government and the removal of that threat. That decision is not subject to legal review.

quote:

---

I'm arguing the standards and arguments, among which is the absurd use of "national security" by the admin that should scare the shite out of anyone who fears government.

---

No, you are choosing your framing to suit your needs.

The Alien Enemies Act specifically names non-citizens as legal targets. Yet you keep bringing up citizens, when none have been named, or even suggested. Of the tens of thousands of illegals deported since Trump took office, how many were citizens? Probably none, but perhaps a few got caught up and I'm sure it was remedied in short order.

And regarding the claim of "national security" being false or absurd in your view - that is completely irrelevant to the argument. The president has the power to claim something is a national security issue.

quote:

---

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, arrested in Pakistan for "local" criminal activity in the United States.

---

And you called me "disingenuous"