tanqtonic
Legend

Posts: 25,687
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 1149
I Root For: rice
Location:
|
RE: DOJ is bringing Abrego Garcia back to the US to face criminal charges
(06-23-2025 07:03 PM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote: (06-23-2025 01:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (06-21-2025 08:18 AM)ThreeifbyLightning Wrote: Tanq that most certainly is not the point most on the left are making. In fact they are trying to make it appear as if people are being randomly picked up off the street and then immediately sent to a concentration camp.
TIBL, hate to tell you but your rhetoric bolded above kind of detracts heavily from the accurate italicized above it.
It doesnt help the image with the videos of people videoing the encounters being assaulted by masked dudes, NYC controllers being arrested for the temerity of demanding to see a warrant, or the arrest and forcible detainer of a US senator.
Your organization is coming across as masked thugs in that manner.
Further, the issue that was emphasized during the election was 'get rid of the baddies.' Now we have rapidly come to the focus being mass round ups at Home Depots. Last I saw the gang bangers, rapists, and murders dont do day labor out of Home Depot.
Quote:There’s literally dozens of talking heads and even politicians repeating these lies. And then the blue haired white women stand in streets trying to block LE operations as others loot and riot. That’s literally whats happening right now.
Please corroborate. I dont buy in to the broad statements above.
Quote:As for the AEA, the primary reason for the very limited use of AEA for TdA is primarily so they can’t make a bull**** asylum claim and string out the process for another two or three years.
And opens ICE, the DOJ, and Trump to the truthful charge of being proponents of rendition. A pretty lousy thing overall.
Quote:Which otherwise keeps designated terrorists with the support of a foreign enemy and dictator on US soil longer to undermine our sovereignty and national security.
There is a great gulf between the legal aspect of removing someone under a terrorist designation and just deciding to short circuit and rendition them. Rendition with no due process.
Just as there is a massive gulf between 'declared war', 'invasion', and 'predatory incursion' and naming a few select gangbangers as such.
And no, the supposed 'support' of that foreign nation simply hasnt been shown as such in any filings -- that is where it is important. ICE, DOJ, and the Trump administration can yelp all they want about 'facts' such as above in public. In this instance, they have to limit their public statement 'facts' above to items that can be proven up in front of judge. An issue that I see the Trump administration failing time after time after time -- the difference between the statements that they make when they can be sanctioned by a judge, and those they simply make.
It used to be that the DOJ, and ICE through it, enjoyed such a 'presumption of regularity' -- now, they dont. So no, I dont take your unfounded rhetoric at the face value you put it out as.
its clear in the Boasberg court, and the Xinis court, that ICE, through the DOJ, has lied to their judicial opposition, lied to the judges there, and literally ignored court orders.
Quote:What’s happening in LA, Portland, Chicago, etc is a perfect example of how these unlawful actions are manipulated to destroy national unity and by extension our sovereignty. These same people are now protesting on behalf of Iran which tells you all you need to know.
Maybe -- Do. It. The. Right. Way.
Instead of the posting chock full of loaded, perhaps untrue rhetoric.
At the very best, all of what you say about 'the support of a foreign enemy and dictator' 'to undermine our sovereignty and national security' simply comes across as a wild thrashing, given the absolute refusal to deal in an honest manner in the judicial system at the present. At worst it comes across as a bad and extralegal excuse to grab massive enforcement powers -- so vast they only come into being when there is an actual war on.
In closing, please dont take my comments on the policy as comments on you personally. Your organization is performing some bad things, which could be excused. But the wall of them tends to paint your organization as the poster boy for overextension of legal authority.
As such, maybe not threaten to arrest mere bystanders for videoing the take downs. In the one today, maybe tell the masked duded to NOT beat a guy pinned to the ground with of forearms to the head. Maybe tell the arresting officers to not elevate a 'mere touch' to an assault (once on the Congresswoman, once on the NYC controller.) Maybe dont go ape **** when someone is demanding to see a warrant. Maybe dont take a US Senator to the floor in front of cameras. None of those help with the look that is coming to focus.
Quick google search would help you out there to demonstrate how many different liberal politicians have used that exact phrase and then repeated by morons on the streets. Moreover, a politicians doesn’t have the grounds or the law on his or her side to interfere with a law enforcement operation and demand a warrant. They literally have no grounds. It’s actually a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503 (influencing or injuring an officer or juror) and/or 18 U.S.C. § 1510 (obstruction of criminal investigations). There are actually more but for the sake of brevity that’s probably enough. Getting in between federal agents and a detainee is dangerous and unlawful. Those politicians, Tanq, need to “do it the right way.”
Asking for a warrant is obstruction? Videoing a takedown is ‘influencin’ under 1503 or obstruction under 1510? Lolz.
I suggest you look at the pattern jury charges on those and compare them to the facts on our screens. Just saying. Double lolz.
What law did you do your takedown of Senator Padilla under?
Quote:I’m not doing the TdA argument again. I’ve already thoroughly thumped you on that one
Not the way SCOTUS saw it. Nor most District Courts. Triple lolz.
Quote:(just like I did the national guard in California cases that Newsom lost to the most liberal district in America) and even told you exactly how that was going to be resolved. That horse is beaten enough.
I liked the language in the 9th circuit that noted ‘unable to enforce the law’ did not mean ‘inconvenience’ and had to mean a situation comparable to ‘invasion’ or ‘rebellion’.
I guess you think torching Waymos and blocking *a* center is the equivalent of those two events. Lolz.
The issue is this administration trying to stretch existential and wartime powers to this. They did it with AEA, and now when DHS lied through their teeth to the judges, they backed down.
The same stupid attempt to bootstrap *some* impedance with enforcing the law into the predicate of 12406 c is right down that alley.
And right down the alley of assaulting people taking videos, and arresting and threatening people asking for warrants.
You all are not presenting a good picture with that. If you want to come off as short triggered jackasses who arrest people for being in a crowd and asking for warrants, who forcibly take down a US senator for asking a question, who punch and jostle with people for exercising 1st amendment right for videoing activities on th streets, then clam up and down that the most extreme war powers are available for domestic use because some ragmuffin gang has tenuous ties to a foreign dictator, and that is directly equivalent or has the same import as being in declared war with a foreign govt —- it looks like a bunch of power hungry jackases getting into legal overreach.
By the way, impressed with the 22 year old landscaper and intern that is the head of one of the DHS domestic terrorism oversight functions. DHS must have searched for th fresh college graduate long and hard….. lolz.
|
|