Americans must keep an eye on this practice:
United States District Judge James Boasberg of the District of Columbia ordered the Trump administration to turn around two planes the White House says were carrying members of the Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang to El Salvador.
Homan strongly defended Trump’s decision to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport members of the Venezuelan gang, calling it a “game changer.”
“I don’t know why. I don’t know why any judge would want terrorists returned to the United States. First of all, that video, what a beautiful thing to see,” Homan told the Fox host.
“Look, President Trump, by proclamation, invoked the authorities of [the] Alien Enemies Act. Which he has a right to do and it’s a game changer and we removed over 200 violent criminals from the United States. Just not TdA, but also MS-13,” Homan continued. “The actions of President Trump made this country safer. Every criminal alien, every criminal public safety threat, and national security threat removed from the country makes this country safer. That’s what American voters voted for. That’s the mandate of the president, and the president is keeping his promise.”
I added the emphasis.
I’ve ranted about “national security” before, of course. It’s a dangerous pseudo-concept, more often than not used in defense of some federal action that could not be justified on statutory or Constitutional grounds. But there’s no need to invoke it when the subject is the deportation of criminal illegal aliens, so why do so?
I don’t know why Tom Homan did so, considering the lack of necessity. Perhaps it’s a reflex of sorts. Longtime federal employees develop habits from such service; this could be one of them. (A fellow I worked with, some years ago, replied to virtually every inquiry with “You have no need-to-know.”) Nevertheless, it’s an impulse that should be resisted.
Politicians and bureaucrats who defend actions and policies on the grounds of “national security” are seldom challenged to be explicit about the matter. I don’t have an example to hand, but I’d give odds that on at least one occasion, a politician who was challenged on it would reply “I can’t answer you because it would impinge on national security.” Such persons find an undefined concept with a handy shibboleth exceedingly useful for deflecting unwelcome probes of their actions.
Sharp questions that demand clear, specific answers are the things politicians and bureaucrats most hate to face. One of the sharpest is “What do you mean by that?” If pressed home relentlessly, it can pin its target as immovably as a specimen butterfly is pinned to an entomologist’s display case. Quoth Arthur Herzog:
[T]he best tool the radical skeptic has is the sharp question—“Why?” “What for?” “When?” “What do you mean?” “Who?” These are terrifying questions, in a way, considering how seldom they are answered. And when answers are given, they don’t appear to be the right answers.
Considering how widely it’s proliferated in political rhetoric, a few sharp questions about this “national security” business could prove vital to the future of the Republic.
