Due Process . Due Diligence

The 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not vague when it says:

No person shall be [] deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Nor was Judge Wilkinson, joined by Judges King and Thacker of the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vague in denying the Trump Administration appeal to slow down the Supreme Court order to facilitate the return of Mr. Abrego Garcia from El Salvador:  

"The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done. 

"This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear. 

"The government asserts that Abrego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS-13. Perhaps, but perhaps not. Regardless, he is still entitled to due process. If the government is confident of its position, it should be assured that position will prevail in proceeding [] (requiring that the government prove “by a preponderance of evidence” that the alien is no longer entitled to a withholding of removal). Moreover, the government has conceded that Abrego Garcia was wrongly or “mistakenly” deported. Why then should it not make what was wrong, right? [] “Facilitate” is an active verb. It requires that steps be taken as the Supreme Court has made perfectly clear."

 Nor was the Supreme Court vague when it ruled against the Trump Administration, upholding the ruling of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland :

[T]he United States District Court for the District of Maryland entered an order directing the Government to “facilitate and effectuate the return of [Abrego Garcia] to the United States[.]"

"The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador."

Nor was Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland vague when he spoke to ABC News about the illegal rendition of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador:

“I am not defending the man. I'm defending the rights of this man to due process. And the Trump administration has admitted in court that he was wrongfully detained and wrongfully deported. My mission and my purpose is to make sure that we uphold the rule of law, because if we take it away from him, we do jeopardize it for everybody else.” 

Nor may we — the citizens of the United States of America — now be vague on this violation of constitution and code: No one in government may demand that anyone shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. Any elected or appointed official who says or does otherwise must be subject to impeachment and, upon conviction, removal and disqualification from office under due process of law.

Sources

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca4.178400/gov.uscourts.ca4.178400.8.0.pdf

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/25894464/24a949-order.pdf

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/van-hollen-defending-man-defending-rights-man-due/story?id=120978764