Trump's Policies Part 3

I don't recall you complaining about this while the far right was funneling cases to Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk.
Number one, I don't know who that is, and number two, it should be banned for all parties. File in the applicable district. I also think higher level issues like this one involving direct executive or legislative power should probably go straight to a panel of judges or straight to SCOTUS.
 
Or the French in Algeria. Take captured FLN guys out over the Med and kick them out of a plane.

In the 1980s, I had a friend in the Argentine army and he told me about the "war against the subversivos." He was too young to have taken part, but he was pretty candid about it.

Yeah, I have many friends in Buenos Aires who lost friends, family members in the Dirty War. The infamous Ford Falcons that would patrol the streets(paramilitaries with hardly any due process). I toured ESMA (the naval facility where much of the torture occurred, and where they kept prisoners before the death flights).

There is a strain of support for those awful deeds. Especially among conservative Catholics. Opus Dei was cited as being behind some of it.

My friend who accompanied me down there grew up in the Cabacillto neighborhood. She was Jewish, and if you were Jewish and captured by the paramilitaries, it was a death sentence. She told me of the number of times she'd see a Ford Falcon on her street when she came/went from school. And how a classmate just stopped coming to school......disappeared.

The US government has blood on its hands with The Dirty War. Kissinger pretty much gave them all the green light. At the time, it was all about stamping out a communist takeover in S. America. However, by the time the junta deposed Isabel Perón, the ERP & the Montoneros(both guerrilla movements) had essentially been neutered.

What the regime would do - in order to keep the pretense of public danger - they would set up a bombing or shootout at a crossing. Then lay out already executed prisoners as the culprits.

There is a really good book on the subject. Pretty complex situation. You had left-wing and right-wing Peronists at each others' throats. Long-time double agents working with the junta while ostensbily fighting them.


The cabbie who picked us up to take us to ESMA had been in the Argentine Navy and stationed there at the time. He said that they did what they did to save their country. I guess he was unaware that there were people in the cab who lost friends and loved ones. Needless to say, it was a quiet ride after that.
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: AWRTR
Yeah, I have many friends in Buenos Aires who lost friends, family members in the Dirty War. The infamous Ford Falcons that would patrol the streets(paramilitaries with hardly any due process). I toured ESMA (the naval facility where much of the torture occurred, and where they kept prisoners before the death flights).

There is a strain of support for those awful deeds. Especially among conservative Catholics. Opus Dei was cited as being behind some of it.

My friend who accompanied me down there grew up in the Cabacillto neighborhood. She was Jewish, and if you were Jewish and captured by the paramilitaries, it was a death sentence. She told me of the number of times she'd see a Ford Falcon on her street when she came/went from school. And how a classmate just stopped coming to school......disappeared.

The US government has blood on its hands with The Dirty War. Kissinger pretty much gave them all the green light. At the time, it was all about stamping out a communist takeover in S. America. However, by the time the junta deposed Isabel Perón, the ERP & the Montoneros(both guerrilla movements) had essentially been neutered.

What the regime would do - in order to keep the pretense of public danger - they would set up a bombing or shootout at a crossing. Then lay out already executed prisoners as the culprits.

There is a really good book on the subject. Pretty complex situation. You had left-wing and right-wing Peronists at each others' throats. Long-time double agents working with the junta while ostensbily fighting them.


The cabbie who picked us up to take us to ESMA had been in the Argentine Navy and stationed there at the time. He said that they did what they did to save their country. I guess he was unaware that there were people in the cab who lost friends and loved ones. Needless to say, it was a quiet ride after that.
The sad truth is that when the Communists won in Latin Ameria (e.g. Cuba, Nicaragua), respect for human rights was even worse.
I actually called into Alan Combs radio show in the early 1990s and tried to explain that to him, but he did not get it.
 
The sad truth is that when the Communists won in Latin Ameria (e.g. Cuba, Nicaragua), respect for human rights was even worse.
I actually called into Alan Combs radio show in the early 1990s and tried to explain that to him, but he did not get it.

The generals understood that they could act with impunity under cover of Operation Condor(and tacit support from the US). The juntas in Chile, Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil expanded the reach of repression to include, academia, trade unions, journalists. It was more about consolidating control and stifling dissent.

The reasons Castro and the Sandinistas succeeded was because there were unpopular dictators in charge, and widespread poverty. The ERP in Argentina was Maoist/Guevarist and thought they could generate a groundswell of support, whilst the population was nowhere near as impoverished as in Cuba and Nicaragua. The ERP became unpopular after well-publicized kidnappings, bombings. They were never going to succeed. I believe it was the same in the other countries.
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: Con
I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this, but I saw this on Twitter (caveat lector).
I am not a lawyer. This refers to a the INA, not the Enemy Aliens Act.
View attachment 49896
But the excerpted portions says that the "there shall be no means of judicial review." I have never heard of such a thing under the English common law tradition. And because of editing, I have no idea what the no judicial review portion refers to.

Since this refers to section 1227(a)(1)(B), here is that chapter:
"§1227. Immediate deportation of aliens excluded from admission or entering in violation of law
(a) Maintenance expenses
(1) Any alien (other than an alien crewman) arriving in the United States who is excluded under this chapter, shall be immediately deported, in accommodations of the same class in which he arrived, unless the Attorney General, in an individual case, in his discretion, concludes that immediate deportation is not practicable or proper. Deportation shall be to the country in which the alien boarded the vessel or aircraft on which he arrived in the United States, unless the alien boarded such vessel or aircraft in foreign territory contiguous to the United States or in any island adjacent thereto or adjacent to the United States and the alien is not a native, citizen, subject or national of, or does not have a residence in, such foreign contiguous territory or adjacent island, in which case the deportation shall instead be to the country in which is located the port at which the alien embarked for such foreign contiguous territory or adjacent island. The cost of the maintenance including detention expenses and expenses incident to detention of any such alien while he is being detained shall be borne by the owner or owners of the vessel or aircraft on which he arrived, except that the cost of maintenance (including detention expenses and expenses incident to detention while the alien is being detained prior to the time he is offered for deportation to the transportation line which brought him to the United States) shall not be assessed against the owner or owners of such vessel or aircraft if ... (B) the alien (other than an alien crewman) was in possession of a valid, unexpired nonimmigrant visa or other document authorizing such alien to apply for temporary admission to the United States or an unexpired reentry permit issued to him, and (i) such application was made within one hundred and twenty days of the date of issuance of the visa or other document, or in the case of an alien in possession of a reentry permit, within one hundred and twenty days of the date on which the alien was last examined and admitted by the Service, or (ii) in the event the application was made later than one hundred and twenty days of the date of issuance of the visa or other document or such examination and admission, if the owner or owners of such vessel or aircraft established to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the ground of exclusion could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence prior to the alien's embarkation,"

So, I do not know. The "no judicial review" portions looks fishy, but it could be valid and applicable here.
Well, out of curiosity, I looked up the Immigration and Naturalization Act.
§1201. Issuance of visas, subsection (i) states:
After the issuance of a visa or other documentation to any alien, the consular officer or the Secretary of State may at any time, in his discretion, revoke such visa or other documentation. Notice of such revocation shall be communicated to the Attorney General, and such revocation shall invalidate the visa or other documentation from the date of issuance: Provided, That carriers or transportation companies, and masters, commanding officers, agents, owners, charterers, or consignees, shall not be penalized under section 1323(b) of this title for action taken in reliance on such visas or other documentation, unless they received due notice of such revocation prior to the alien's embarkation. There shall be no means of judicial review (including review pursuant to section 2241 of title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of such title) of a revocation under this subsection, except in the context of a removal proceeding if such revocation provides the sole ground for removal under section 1227(a)(1)(B) of this title.
 
The generals understood that they could act with impunity under cover of Operation Condor(and tacit support from the US). The juntas in Chile, Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil expanded the reach of repression to include, academia, trade unions, journalists. It was more about consolidating control and stifling dissent.

The reasons Castro and the Sandinistas succeeded was because there were unpopular dictators in charge, and widespread poverty. The ERP in Argentina was Maoist/Guevarist and thought they could generate a groundswell of support, whilst the population was nowhere near as impoverished as in Cuba and Nicaragua. The ERP became unpopular after well-publicized kidnappings, bombings. They were never going to succeed. I believe it was the same in the other countries.
I was debating with a colleague. He believes urban insurgents are the way of the future.
I argued that an urban guerilla is a dead guerilla. Especially nowadays. Too many surveillance cameras.
 


Dems Demand Pete Hegseth Halt 'Orwellian Book Purges' In Military Schools
It is "plainly" unconstitutional for Defense Department-run K-12 schools to ban books for political reasons, said 26 lawmakers.

More than two dozen House Democrats on Monday demanded that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth immediately reverse course on what they say is an unconstitutional purge of books and learning materials in dozens of K-12 schools run by the military ― an effort aimed at erasing diversity and LGBTQ+ people.

“We write to express our grave concern about the escalating censorship taking place in schools run by the Department of Defense,” reads a letter signed by 26 members of Congress and led by Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who is a constitutional scholar and the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.

“We are alarmed by reports that children at DoD schools were prevented from accessing any library books and many learning materials for a week while officials conducted a ‘review’ to identify any books that are related to the mysterious bodies of thought you call ‘discriminatory equity ideology’ or ‘gender ideology,’” they said. “After this week-long review, the nation’s military schools began purging library books and restricting access to books and learning materials that are reportedly undergoing ‘further review.’”
 
We agreed that drones are probably equally valuable in both environments (urban and rural) for the counterinsurgent, but I think that drones might be even more useful in a rural environment.
I've seen a few vids where forces used drones to clear buildings - a POV drone loaded with explosives can do a great job clearing a building, which from my understanding is one of the more dangerous jobs.
 
From the perspective of the insurgent, the key thing in an insurgency campaign is to not be seen by the counter insurgent. The counterinsurgent has got way more fire power so if he can find the insurgent, he can whack him.
 

Leavitt: This judge is a Democrat activist. He was appointed by Barack Obama

Reporter: He was originally appointed by George W. Bush and elevated by Obama. Feel I should clear that up.



Leavitt is the perfect Press Secretary for Trump. You can't believe a word she says.
Good catch by the reporter. Doesn't mean he's not a liberal hack activist. Plenty of judges are appointed by a D or an R and then rule wildly in the other direction.

If they want to help Trump keep this stuff up. Liberal activist judges defending violent gang members in the eyes of the public is a real winner. The Dems just keep taking those L's. If Trump would get off this stupid tariff kick he's on I think his approval would go up over 5% overnight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CrimsonJazz

Leavitt: This judge is a Democrat activist. He was appointed by Barack Obama

Reporter: He was originally appointed by George W. Bush and elevated by Obama. Feel I should clear that up.



Leavitt is the perfect Press Secretary for Trump. You can't believe a word she says.
I have to say, the more I read about it, the more I think Trump was right to blow the judge off. The judge was way out of line.

Crimsonaudio posted excerpts from (Ludecke v Watkins) earlier. I did some research on my own: "The very nature of the President's power to order the removal of all enemy aliens rejects the notion that courts may pass judgment upon the exercise of his discretion. This view was expressed by Mr. Justice Iredell shortly after the Act was passed." The Judge Boasberg was way out of line.

I see articles of impeachment have been filed.

It turns out Chief Justice Roberts was also out of line to chastise the President about the impropriety of impeachment. Trump is not a legislator. Trump has nothing to do with impeachment. For that matter, the Chief Justice (despite his obvious desire) is not a member of the legislature either, so he should shut his pie hole. If Roberts feels strongly, he should resign from the bench, run for Congress, get elected, and argue against the propriety of impeaching judges for bad rulings (about which he is generally correct). I doubt he will follow that course, so he should shut his gob.

I generally hold the federal judiciary in the exactly the same esteem that they hold the Constitution of the United States.
 
Last edited:

The Trump Administration Nears Open Defiance of the Courts
In its conflict with a federal judge, the Justice Department claims to be complying with his orders while provoking a constitutional crisis.

...

J.G.G. v. Donald J. Trump, the case before Boasberg, places the questions of judicial authority front and center. It also goes to the question of fundamental fairness. At issue is whether the government, invoking wartime powers at a moment when the country is not at war, can, on authorities’ bare assertion, with no judicial review, take individuals who have been convicted of no crime and deport them to serve hard time in the prisons of another country. The case, even before the possibility of defying court orders arose, encapsulated some of the most dangerous legal tendencies of the Trump Administration: a hyper-aggressive conception of Presidential power combined with an eagerness to stretch statutory language beyond any reasonable bounds.

Trump has been threatening for months to use the Alien Enemies Act, of 1798, to expel Venezuelans who the Administration says belong to the Tren de Aragua gang, without the bother of going through legal proceedings. The law has been invoked just three times—during the War of 1812 and the First and Second World Wars—and you don’t have to be a diehard textualist to understand that it doesn’t apply in the current circumstances: it applies only when “there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation” or “any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated,” again, “by any foreign nation.”

...



But the Administration is clearly spoiling for a fight. (It picked an unlikely target. Boasberg, a Yale Law School housemate of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s, is a former homicide prosecutor and so well respected as a judge that he was tapped by the Chief Justice to serve on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.) “We’re not stopping,” Thomas Homan, Trump’s border czar, proclaimed ahead of Monday’s hearing. “I don’t care what the judges think.” Stephen Miller, a deputy White House chief of staff, tweeted at day’s end, “The President’s cabinet must be able to spend all their energies focused solely on delivering . . . for Americans—not spending untold hours trying to answer the insane edicts of radical rogue judges usurping core Article II powers. These judges are bulldozing our democracy.”

The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, appeared on Fox News on Monday evening to underscore the supposed dangers of Boasberg’s intervention: “If we live in a country where the will of the American people is subverted by a single judge in a single court, we no longer live in a democracy.” Let me fix that for her. If we live in a country where judges’ orders can be ignored by an Administration bent on amassing unchecked power, we no longer live in a democracy.
 

Leavitt: 67% of the injunctions in this century have come against which president? Donald J. Trump. Let me say that again. 60% of the injunctions by partisan activists in the judicial branch have come against Donald Trump.



Activist judges = Judges that rule against Trump. That seems to be the WH definition.

No need to post this here. They already have it all figured out.
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: 92tide
Anti-Christian rhetoric, even by non-Christian's, is viewed as a huge negative by most. File this as another stance the Dems have loaded their sunken ship on and are screaming bloody murder while it sinks. When strength or aggression is used, the argument is made that someone or something isn't being "very Christian". This is a fallacy. Extremism must be met by an equal or opposite force. Try to deport a gang of MS-13 members with kiddy gloves on and see where that gets you.

I guess if that is what makes you feel better, we all tell ourselves whatever makes us sleep better at night.
 

New Posts

Advertisement

Advertisement

Latest threads