Too many Americans don't understand, at a basic level, *why* the Constitution requires due process when the government deprives anyone of their life, liberty, or property.
I don't think that the average American believes that due process exists. I believe they think that once you're arrested you are as good as convicted. To a large degree any individual will get the amount of justice they can pay for.
Thank you, Professor Vladeck for all your outstanding efforts to support and secure the liberty of Americans (and lawful immigrants) acting lawfully! This piece is very insightful and interesting! Your eloquence and the SCOTUS opinions you presented were powerful, inspiring and useful!
Speaking of lies to support wide-spread abuses of power and abuses of people, it is worth noting that on March 18, the DOJ filed with the court a DOJ notice and declaration by an employee of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). According to the ICE declaration, Trump's Proclamation (that America was at that moment being subjected to an “invasion” or “predatory incursion”) was posted at about 4:00 p.m. Saturday.
So ICE (not any part of our Armed Forces) is defending the U.S. against the proclaimed invasion or predatory incursion. How is ICE doing so? Within about 3 1/2 hours after Trump’s proclamation was published, ICE immediately hustled an unspecified number of people onto three airplanes to be flown out of U.S. jurisdiction. The ICE declaration did not reveal the number, but it reportedly was about 140 people.
The ICE declaration also implied that the first two planes were loaded with people who were deported “solely on the basis of” Trump’s “Proclamation.” ICE declared that “all individuals on [the] third plane had Title 8 final removal orders and thus were not removed solely on the basis of [Trump's mere] Proclamation.”
ICE declared that approximately 250 additional people were potential deportees. In the DOJ notice accompanying the ICE declaration, the Trump administration refused to publicly disclose any other “estimates as to the number of individuals” comprising the “invasion” or “predatory incursion” force that was the subject to the Proclamation. The Trump administration argued that providing such information would “disclose sensitive information bearing on national security and foreign relations.”
Nothing in ICE's declaration supports Trump’s proclamation that the U.S. is being attacked in an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” that could justify the lack of process and lack of transparency on Saturday. Trump invoked broad war powers for use regarding mere routine immigration and criminal matters.
Speaking of abuses of power and abuses of people, it is important to consider the financial incentives Trump's Proclamation provided to wrongly detain and remove people (without due process).
Already, America has experience with abuses of the innocuous-sounding concept of “civil asset forfeiture.” That practice converts (mentally and physically) law enforcement personnel into something a lot like privateers (or even pirates). Trump’s proclamation expressly had the same purpose, and it necessarily will have the same effect: “All property in the possession of, or traceable to, an Alien Enemy, which is used, intended to be used, or is commonly used to perpetrate the hostile activity and irregular warfare of TdA, along with evidence of such hostile activity and irregular warfare, shall be subject to seizure and forfeiture.” Under the circumstances at issue in Trump's Proclamation (narco trafficking), it's clear Trump means money. A lot of it.
We need to view this issue in the context of what Trump and Musk already were doing to actual federal employees--Americans. In their mad dash to find ways to quickly cut costs--or expressly or implicitly to retaliate against people for exercising their freedom of association and freedom of expression (regarding political issues)--Trump and Musk are firing or laying off massive numbers of employees and eliminating offices and programs. They are wrecking--and trying to wreck--the lives of many Americans. Speaking of predatory incursions, that is what the so-called Trump administration already looks too much like.
I was thinking about what recourse the Courts have if/when the Administration defies its orders. Would the threat of disbarment in the Federal courts be a sufficient deterrent to career attorneys, whether they are politically appointed or agency staff, to discourage them from enabling blatantly illegal or unconstitutional behavior? As you note in this piece, the attorney would need to receive due process, but the threat of not having access to the Federal Judiciary may be a consequence that many would not want to face.
Excellent essay. Two quick points: (i) The principle of Due Process was first memorialized in the Magna Carta which, of course, was created to place limits on the royal prerogative. Trump's disregard of the principle is thus fully consistent with his articulated wish to be considered the "King"; and, more importantly, (ii) it is deeply unfortunate but plainly essential that the ideas you articulate be expressed in persuasive sound bites on the social media you mention and TikTok. I suspect that his supporters who get their news from those sources and Fox News are simply unaware of the principles and consequences you describe. (Indeed, an admittedly quick look at the Fox News website could only locate a report Justice Roberts' retort to the judicial impeachment rhetoric after much searching; it certainly was not on the site's home page.)
Do you check to be sure your postings are not be trolled by those who do not use their real names or disclose who they work for or on behalf of? Transparency is essential so that your efforts are not diminished. It is healthy to have disagreements, but not if directly or indirectly orchestrated to flood the zone. Those who may work for or on behalf of another, can so state and then add they are writing in their personal and not representative capacity. As for your surprise about the response, the President's spokesperson put the issue correctly- although in a political context. The issue is are you in favor of drug cartel by opposing deportation? As you note, "due process" does not resonate with the public, although it is at the core of a constitutional democracy. Public opinion trumps legal niceties. It is a slippery slope. Your wife is correct. Oddly X is the chromosome for the failing Twitter, but Musk has Ys running his successful endeavors. He correctly says, hire people who are better than you.
I may have missed it in my readings, but I've yet to see anyone use the term rendition in describing the government's actions. I realize that perhaps they are being sent to El Salvador simply to be treated horrendously and not interrogated, but it seems very similar.
An interesting (to me) comparison in this whole discussion is the fact that had "the Biden Administration" actually "weaponized" the Justice Department in the way that the Trump Administration is doing, Donald J. Trump and his accused co-conspirators would not have been walking free and he would have had to run his 2024 Campaign from prison. Instead, he (and his accused co-conspirators) were afforded not only due process, but, exceptional due process.
Reading through X posts on this case I see everything from calls for military action to demands that the Supreme Court discipline jurists. Only a handful of posters even think of impeachment! (Expecting even one poster to mention the unconstitutional revestiture in the Judicial Conference of the House's power to review grievance petitions against US jurists was far beyond reason.) Since the Department of Education seems to be under review we should consider states' lack of attention to civics. Nationalizing at least civics education is a public interest.
Thank you for calling attention to the statute establishing a court devoted to terrorism by foreign nationals. I've read a rumor (by a member of Congress) that the president has been demanding vows of fealty from members.
By expressing to what an oath is to be taken (the Constitution), Article VI bars fealty to anything else.
It bars fealty to any person or office or administration.
It bars fealty to any candidate. Pledging electors violates this among other clauses.
It bars at least political fealty to any private enterprise or entity.
It bars fealty to any political party or issue position, by candidates or anyone else.
It bars fealty to any ideology or manner of governance beyond a republican form of government within the text.
By expressing who is to take this oath (public servants), the Article prohibits imposing any oath on private citizens.
It bars "the Pledge of Allegiance" and the courts should have enforced this.
Most critically, Article VI checks "national security." With Article III §3's Treason clause, read with the Declaration's definition of an "enemy" as a nation against whom Congress has declared war, it defines national security by its violations:
1. Violating your oath to the Constitution violates national security.
2. Joining a declared war against the United States or giving aid and comfort to our opponent in war violates national security.
Nothing else can.
Since courts can already address offenses by foreign nationals, devoting a court to terrorism by foreign nationals seems another example of the bloating of this textual violation.
Courts like that one and FISC are strange to the Constitution, and arise from a 20th and so far 21st century practice of privileging information to some persons by classification. This privilege violates both Equal Privileges clauses in unequalizing the power to gather information. It, and they, pointedly violates the due process expressed in Article I §5's Secrecy clause. We vest the United States secrecy power solely in Congress and then only on a vote of 4/5+1, the highest majority the text requires - higher than ratifying its own amendment - our most narrowly exercised governance power. While corruption has damaged law and rulings since at least 1791 the hegemony we've practiced since World War I, ratified for the United Nations at Bretton Woods, has compounded it. Due process bars it. If secrecy is required for greatness in historians' usual sense, the United States is not designed for it and should abandon any aspiration to it.
I am a retired lawyer with a great interest in constitutional law in general, and especially as applied to US immigration issues. I am very sympathetic with Prof Vladek's post of today 3/19/25 concerning the procedural due process issues involved in the Trump Administration's efforts to invoke the Alien Enemies Act to justify the deportation of a number of supposed members of a Venezuelan gang. However, color me stupid, but I don't understand why it was necessary - or determinative - to apply the Alien Enemies Act to this deportation.
If, in fact, the deportees were foreigners ("aliens") who were in the US illegally (whether having entered without authorization or having overstated an otherwise legal authorization to be here), why is that not enough to legally justify their deportation? Isn't the application of the Alien Enemies Act (i.e., can it be invoked when the US is not at war; can it be invoked when a foreign "invasion" is not directed by a foreign nation-state; can the President alone invoke the act; etc. ) surplusage?
I have not seen anything that contests the claim of the Government (i.e., the Executive Branch of the Government in this case) that the deportees in question were in fact "illegal aliens". If that is true, why were they not deportable on that basis alone?
Admittedly, if any deportee contended that he/she was either not a foreign citizen or was not present in the US illegally, it would be appropriate to apply some type of due process determination of those facts. But if I am right that no one has made such a contention in this case, what is the legal problem with their deportation?
Deportation and removal are legal processes in which most individuals go before an immigration judge in compliance with federal law and are able to litigate whether they can be deported or have a defense to deportation. I.E., whether they are legally here, whether they have asylum applications etc. The administration avoided all legal or administrative process by putting them on plane. They had to invoke the AEA because they at least pretended to believe that they needed legal authorization to do so.
Kathy -- Your points are well-taken. But the problem with the Trump Administration is that, as usual, it takes the meat-axe to every issue and then creates a self-inflicted contest with the Judiciary (and others). So, I repeat: there was no need to invoke the Alien Enemies Act to get rid of those illegal immigrants who are allegedly members of the Venezuelan gang in question.
I don't pretend to be intimately knowledgeable about the details of immigration procedural law. However, is there an existing process akin to an arraignment in our typical criminal system whereby the alleged illegal immigrant is brought in immediately after he/she is taken into custody and brought before a judge or a hearings officer to answer whether he/she claims NOT to be an illegal immigrant? If so - and if our immigrant judge system is adequately staffed and funded for such proceedings to be conducted in most cases - wouldn't due process be satisfied if this were done and, unless the prospective deportee claims that he/she is here legally (and can offer some credible evidence thereof), why would due process require a full-blown judicial proceeding to determine a non-issue?
If there is not such an existing procedure, it should be and presumably could be created administratively. And, to take this a few steps further, whether there is such an existing procedure or one needs to be legislatively or administratively created, I doubt that due process requires that the prospective deportee -unless he/she claims to be a US citizen - has the full panoply of rights prescribed by the Constitution to domestic criminal defendants, such as the right to legal counsel (free or otherwise), the right to trial by jury, the privilege against self-incrimination, etc. And, finally, to make such a system work, the burden of pleading and proof for the prospective deportee who claims not to be an illegal immigrant should be upon the prospective deportee.
Steve, great column. But I have a "process" not substantive question. I want to give my COn Law students a hyperlink to this column. But it is a paid "behind the wall" column. Is there a way to give students the link for a "behind the wall" column?
Thanks Steve for hanging in there and giving a calm and analytical "voice" to so many of us out here in the cheap seats! 😀
hi Steve - Rory beat me to the question... in my case, I'd like to re-post today's column on my Facebook page, which we've restricted to our circle of friends. "NO" is a perfectly acceptable response. Your posts are informative and so on the money. thank you!
Here is a simple premise: when you look at 1. we are not at war, but the President declares that we are, such as a "war on drugs, 2. he then directs the arrest of a group of suspected "drug traffickers, and anyone found to be in the presence of these suspects when they are arrested, 3. these arrestees are transported to waiting planes and flown to another country to be put in prison, 4. once they are there the government (primarily the President) says "it is now out of my hands, and 5. there are never any legal proceedings involved for whoever these people are.
Now, does that sound fair to anyone? Or does it sound un-American? That's due process, children - that "that's not fair" reflex.
I was wondering as to the status of the individuals the US sent to El Salvador. It appears that we sent them there to be incarcerated and are paying for them to be held there. Guantanamo did not work out for whatever reason. Since those individuals are being held by El Salvador because we are paying El Salvador to hold them, do those individuals have any standing to continue to litigate their cases in the United States? I recall that the enemy combatants had the right to habeas corpus because Guantanomo was under US jurisdiction, but I also recall that there was litigation to determine whether individuals held in black sites in foreign countries could litigate their detention in US courts? I just did not continue to follow those cases. It seems to me that if the administration had removed these individuals to their home countries, or even if a foreign country had agreed to take them, they would not be imprisoned upon arrival unless they were wanted for crimes in that country. These individuals seemed to be imprisoned at the behest of our government indicating that we still have control over them? Just some thoughts to which I do not know the answer. Any ideas? Anyone?
Thank you for reminding me of my worst experience as an editor on GWLR: being one of the editors on that infamous Alberto Gonzales article.
I don't think that the average American believes that due process exists. I believe they think that once you're arrested you are as good as convicted. To a large degree any individual will get the amount of justice they can pay for.
Or even if they were to believe some of it, it would be the pithy riposte to someone being caught up in a “process crime”.
Thanks, Professor. Question: Are there any Justice Jacksons -- other than namesake -- on SCOTUS today?
I wish the orange turd and Leon mush could get some due process!
Thank you, Professor Vladeck for all your outstanding efforts to support and secure the liberty of Americans (and lawful immigrants) acting lawfully! This piece is very insightful and interesting! Your eloquence and the SCOTUS opinions you presented were powerful, inspiring and useful!
Speaking of lies to support wide-spread abuses of power and abuses of people, it is worth noting that on March 18, the DOJ filed with the court a DOJ notice and declaration by an employee of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). According to the ICE declaration, Trump's Proclamation (that America was at that moment being subjected to an “invasion” or “predatory incursion”) was posted at about 4:00 p.m. Saturday.
So ICE (not any part of our Armed Forces) is defending the U.S. against the proclaimed invasion or predatory incursion. How is ICE doing so? Within about 3 1/2 hours after Trump’s proclamation was published, ICE immediately hustled an unspecified number of people onto three airplanes to be flown out of U.S. jurisdiction. The ICE declaration did not reveal the number, but it reportedly was about 140 people.
The ICE declaration also implied that the first two planes were loaded with people who were deported “solely on the basis of” Trump’s “Proclamation.” ICE declared that “all individuals on [the] third plane had Title 8 final removal orders and thus were not removed solely on the basis of [Trump's mere] Proclamation.”
ICE declared that approximately 250 additional people were potential deportees. In the DOJ notice accompanying the ICE declaration, the Trump administration refused to publicly disclose any other “estimates as to the number of individuals” comprising the “invasion” or “predatory incursion” force that was the subject to the Proclamation. The Trump administration argued that providing such information would “disclose sensitive information bearing on national security and foreign relations.”
Nothing in ICE's declaration supports Trump’s proclamation that the U.S. is being attacked in an “invasion” or “predatory incursion” that could justify the lack of process and lack of transparency on Saturday. Trump invoked broad war powers for use regarding mere routine immigration and criminal matters.
Speaking of abuses of power and abuses of people, it is important to consider the financial incentives Trump's Proclamation provided to wrongly detain and remove people (without due process).
Already, America has experience with abuses of the innocuous-sounding concept of “civil asset forfeiture.” That practice converts (mentally and physically) law enforcement personnel into something a lot like privateers (or even pirates). Trump’s proclamation expressly had the same purpose, and it necessarily will have the same effect: “All property in the possession of, or traceable to, an Alien Enemy, which is used, intended to be used, or is commonly used to perpetrate the hostile activity and irregular warfare of TdA, along with evidence of such hostile activity and irregular warfare, shall be subject to seizure and forfeiture.” Under the circumstances at issue in Trump's Proclamation (narco trafficking), it's clear Trump means money. A lot of it.
We need to view this issue in the context of what Trump and Musk already were doing to actual federal employees--Americans. In their mad dash to find ways to quickly cut costs--or expressly or implicitly to retaliate against people for exercising their freedom of association and freedom of expression (regarding political issues)--Trump and Musk are firing or laying off massive numbers of employees and eliminating offices and programs. They are wrecking--and trying to wreck--the lives of many Americans. Speaking of predatory incursions, that is what the so-called Trump administration already looks too much like.
I was thinking about what recourse the Courts have if/when the Administration defies its orders. Would the threat of disbarment in the Federal courts be a sufficient deterrent to career attorneys, whether they are politically appointed or agency staff, to discourage them from enabling blatantly illegal or unconstitutional behavior? As you note in this piece, the attorney would need to receive due process, but the threat of not having access to the Federal Judiciary may be a consequence that many would not want to face.
Excellent essay. Two quick points: (i) The principle of Due Process was first memorialized in the Magna Carta which, of course, was created to place limits on the royal prerogative. Trump's disregard of the principle is thus fully consistent with his articulated wish to be considered the "King"; and, more importantly, (ii) it is deeply unfortunate but plainly essential that the ideas you articulate be expressed in persuasive sound bites on the social media you mention and TikTok. I suspect that his supporters who get their news from those sources and Fox News are simply unaware of the principles and consequences you describe. (Indeed, an admittedly quick look at the Fox News website could only locate a report Justice Roberts' retort to the judicial impeachment rhetoric after much searching; it certainly was not on the site's home page.)
Do you check to be sure your postings are not be trolled by those who do not use their real names or disclose who they work for or on behalf of? Transparency is essential so that your efforts are not diminished. It is healthy to have disagreements, but not if directly or indirectly orchestrated to flood the zone. Those who may work for or on behalf of another, can so state and then add they are writing in their personal and not representative capacity. As for your surprise about the response, the President's spokesperson put the issue correctly- although in a political context. The issue is are you in favor of drug cartel by opposing deportation? As you note, "due process" does not resonate with the public, although it is at the core of a constitutional democracy. Public opinion trumps legal niceties. It is a slippery slope. Your wife is correct. Oddly X is the chromosome for the failing Twitter, but Musk has Ys running his successful endeavors. He correctly says, hire people who are better than you.
I may have missed it in my readings, but I've yet to see anyone use the term rendition in describing the government's actions. I realize that perhaps they are being sent to El Salvador simply to be treated horrendously and not interrogated, but it seems very similar.
An interesting (to me) comparison in this whole discussion is the fact that had "the Biden Administration" actually "weaponized" the Justice Department in the way that the Trump Administration is doing, Donald J. Trump and his accused co-conspirators would not have been walking free and he would have had to run his 2024 Campaign from prison. Instead, he (and his accused co-conspirators) were afforded not only due process, but, exceptional due process.
Thanks, Steve.
Reading through X posts on this case I see everything from calls for military action to demands that the Supreme Court discipline jurists. Only a handful of posters even think of impeachment! (Expecting even one poster to mention the unconstitutional revestiture in the Judicial Conference of the House's power to review grievance petitions against US jurists was far beyond reason.) Since the Department of Education seems to be under review we should consider states' lack of attention to civics. Nationalizing at least civics education is a public interest.
Thank you for calling attention to the statute establishing a court devoted to terrorism by foreign nationals. I've read a rumor (by a member of Congress) that the president has been demanding vows of fealty from members.
By expressing to what an oath is to be taken (the Constitution), Article VI bars fealty to anything else.
It bars fealty to any person or office or administration.
It bars fealty to any candidate. Pledging electors violates this among other clauses.
It bars at least political fealty to any private enterprise or entity.
It bars fealty to any political party or issue position, by candidates or anyone else.
It bars fealty to any ideology or manner of governance beyond a republican form of government within the text.
By expressing who is to take this oath (public servants), the Article prohibits imposing any oath on private citizens.
It bars "the Pledge of Allegiance" and the courts should have enforced this.
Most critically, Article VI checks "national security." With Article III §3's Treason clause, read with the Declaration's definition of an "enemy" as a nation against whom Congress has declared war, it defines national security by its violations:
1. Violating your oath to the Constitution violates national security.
2. Joining a declared war against the United States or giving aid and comfort to our opponent in war violates national security.
Nothing else can.
Since courts can already address offenses by foreign nationals, devoting a court to terrorism by foreign nationals seems another example of the bloating of this textual violation.
Courts like that one and FISC are strange to the Constitution, and arise from a 20th and so far 21st century practice of privileging information to some persons by classification. This privilege violates both Equal Privileges clauses in unequalizing the power to gather information. It, and they, pointedly violates the due process expressed in Article I §5's Secrecy clause. We vest the United States secrecy power solely in Congress and then only on a vote of 4/5+1, the highest majority the text requires - higher than ratifying its own amendment - our most narrowly exercised governance power. While corruption has damaged law and rulings since at least 1791 the hegemony we've practiced since World War I, ratified for the United Nations at Bretton Woods, has compounded it. Due process bars it. If secrecy is required for greatness in historians' usual sense, the United States is not designed for it and should abandon any aspiration to it.
I am a retired lawyer with a great interest in constitutional law in general, and especially as applied to US immigration issues. I am very sympathetic with Prof Vladek's post of today 3/19/25 concerning the procedural due process issues involved in the Trump Administration's efforts to invoke the Alien Enemies Act to justify the deportation of a number of supposed members of a Venezuelan gang. However, color me stupid, but I don't understand why it was necessary - or determinative - to apply the Alien Enemies Act to this deportation.
If, in fact, the deportees were foreigners ("aliens") who were in the US illegally (whether having entered without authorization or having overstated an otherwise legal authorization to be here), why is that not enough to legally justify their deportation? Isn't the application of the Alien Enemies Act (i.e., can it be invoked when the US is not at war; can it be invoked when a foreign "invasion" is not directed by a foreign nation-state; can the President alone invoke the act; etc. ) surplusage?
I have not seen anything that contests the claim of the Government (i.e., the Executive Branch of the Government in this case) that the deportees in question were in fact "illegal aliens". If that is true, why were they not deportable on that basis alone?
Admittedly, if any deportee contended that he/she was either not a foreign citizen or was not present in the US illegally, it would be appropriate to apply some type of due process determination of those facts. But if I am right that no one has made such a contention in this case, what is the legal problem with their deportation?
What am I missing?
Deportation and removal are legal processes in which most individuals go before an immigration judge in compliance with federal law and are able to litigate whether they can be deported or have a defense to deportation. I.E., whether they are legally here, whether they have asylum applications etc. The administration avoided all legal or administrative process by putting them on plane. They had to invoke the AEA because they at least pretended to believe that they needed legal authorization to do so.
Kathy -- Your points are well-taken. But the problem with the Trump Administration is that, as usual, it takes the meat-axe to every issue and then creates a self-inflicted contest with the Judiciary (and others). So, I repeat: there was no need to invoke the Alien Enemies Act to get rid of those illegal immigrants who are allegedly members of the Venezuelan gang in question.
I don't pretend to be intimately knowledgeable about the details of immigration procedural law. However, is there an existing process akin to an arraignment in our typical criminal system whereby the alleged illegal immigrant is brought in immediately after he/she is taken into custody and brought before a judge or a hearings officer to answer whether he/she claims NOT to be an illegal immigrant? If so - and if our immigrant judge system is adequately staffed and funded for such proceedings to be conducted in most cases - wouldn't due process be satisfied if this were done and, unless the prospective deportee claims that he/she is here legally (and can offer some credible evidence thereof), why would due process require a full-blown judicial proceeding to determine a non-issue?
If there is not such an existing procedure, it should be and presumably could be created administratively. And, to take this a few steps further, whether there is such an existing procedure or one needs to be legislatively or administratively created, I doubt that due process requires that the prospective deportee -unless he/she claims to be a US citizen - has the full panoply of rights prescribed by the Constitution to domestic criminal defendants, such as the right to legal counsel (free or otherwise), the right to trial by jury, the privilege against self-incrimination, etc. And, finally, to make such a system work, the burden of pleading and proof for the prospective deportee who claims not to be an illegal immigrant should be upon the prospective deportee.
Steve, great column. But I have a "process" not substantive question. I want to give my COn Law students a hyperlink to this column. But it is a paid "behind the wall" column. Is there a way to give students the link for a "behind the wall" column?
Thanks Steve for hanging in there and giving a calm and analytical "voice" to so many of us out here in the cheap seats! 😀
This link should work:
https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/41912f9d-3317-468c-b31f-33d59d01357f
hi Steve - Rory beat me to the question... in my case, I'd like to re-post today's column on my Facebook page, which we've restricted to our circle of friends. "NO" is a perfectly acceptable response. Your posts are informative and so on the money. thank you!
Thanks!
Feel free to share it; that same link should work.
Here is a simple premise: when you look at 1. we are not at war, but the President declares that we are, such as a "war on drugs, 2. he then directs the arrest of a group of suspected "drug traffickers, and anyone found to be in the presence of these suspects when they are arrested, 3. these arrestees are transported to waiting planes and flown to another country to be put in prison, 4. once they are there the government (primarily the President) says "it is now out of my hands, and 5. there are never any legal proceedings involved for whoever these people are.
Now, does that sound fair to anyone? Or does it sound un-American? That's due process, children - that "that's not fair" reflex.
I was wondering as to the status of the individuals the US sent to El Salvador. It appears that we sent them there to be incarcerated and are paying for them to be held there. Guantanamo did not work out for whatever reason. Since those individuals are being held by El Salvador because we are paying El Salvador to hold them, do those individuals have any standing to continue to litigate their cases in the United States? I recall that the enemy combatants had the right to habeas corpus because Guantanomo was under US jurisdiction, but I also recall that there was litigation to determine whether individuals held in black sites in foreign countries could litigate their detention in US courts? I just did not continue to follow those cases. It seems to me that if the administration had removed these individuals to their home countries, or even if a foreign country had agreed to take them, they would not be imprisoned upon arrival unless they were wanted for crimes in that country. These individuals seemed to be imprisoned at the behest of our government indicating that we still have control over them? Just some thoughts to which I do not know the answer. Any ideas? Anyone?