Federal Court Stays Executive Order On Refugees

donald_trump_president-elect_portrait_cropped gavel2Yesterday, I discussed the constitutionality of the executive order halting all refugee entries to the United States.  Late on Saturday, U.S. District Court Judge Ann Donnelly ruled in favor of a habeas corpus petition filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).  The petition was brought on behalf of two Iraqi men detained at John F. Kennedy International Airport on Friday.  As I discussed on CNN after the ruling, this is decision to stay not to enjoin. The latter will require a showing by the ACLU that it is substantially likely to prevail on the merits, a tough standard to satisfy.  Judge Donnelly effective froze developments in the case pending a hearing on the case.

Donnelly’s order below is based on the finding that irreparable harm would befall the two men for any ruling on the merits could be issued. Donnelly, an Obama appointee, will now have chance to hear the merits in a likely expedited schedule.

Trump barred Syrian refugees indefinitely. It also stops the resettlement of all refugees for four months as the administration reviews the vetting process.  He also denied entry for 90 days for anyone coming from seven countries: Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Libya and Yemen.

 

As I discussed earlier, Trump has the advantage on the existing precedent though his statements about favoring Christians will complicate the defense of the order.  Before his interview, Trump was maintaining that the law was not religious based.  Indeed, a federal court should not presume that this is a “Muslim rule” given the fact that many Muslim countries are not subject to the order barring entry.  Whatever the suspicions of the Court regarding the motivations behind the law, it is not a blanket bar on Muslims.  Trump’s comments however then inserted an express religious preference into the debate.  That will not be helpful but there remains considerable authority reaffirming executive power over the borders of the nation.
Here is the opinion: ACLU order

273 thoughts on “Federal Court Stays Executive Order On Refugees”

  1. OK, sooo here is a thought. If Sally Yates had valid legal reasons not to support Trump’s Executive Order, then why didn’t she do a Legal Memorandum on it, and present it to him? That way, she could specifically explain exactly what was legally wrong with the order instead of just pulling an emotional drama queen routine.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Exactly Squeeky. If she opposed the case in good conscience (which she didn’t) she should have recused herself and let someone else take it. You don’t go public with your misgivings. That is unethical.

      1. Several federal courts issue a stay for fear the EO is unlawful, but in your opinion it’s unethical for Yates to claim publicly she can’t enforce the EO because she doesn’t know it’s a lawful order. I don’t know that your reasoning holds water.

        1. You need an ethics refresher course. You cannot undermine your client publicly regardless of your legal opinion on the merits. It’s called revealing confidential communications and violating the client’s privilege.

          1. mespo, if you want any further dialog with me, then please refrain from the personal attacks. Otherwise, we’ll just have to go our separate ways.

            Here’s what Yates, a 27-year veteran of Justice, wrote in her memo published after the issuance of the Executive Order:

            On January 27, 2017, the President signed an Executive Order regarding immigrants and refugees from certain Muslim-majority countries. The order has now been challenged in a number of jurisdictions. As the Acting Attorney General, it is my ultimate responsibility to determine the position of the Department of Justice in these actions.

            My role is different from that of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which, through administrations of both parties, has reviewed Executive Orders for form and legality before they are issued. OLC’s review is limited to the narrow question of whether, in OLC’s view, a proposed Executive Order is lawful on its face and properly drafted. Its review does not take account of statements made by an administration or it surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order’s purpose. And importantly, it does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just.

            Similarly, in litigation, DOJ Civil Division lawyers are charged with advancing reasonable legal arguments that can be made supporting an Executive Order. But my role as leader of this institution is different and broader. My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts. In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to
            always seek justice and stand for what is right. At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful.

            Consequently, for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.

            http://dig.abclocal.go.com/wls/documents/013017-wls-acting-ag-letter-doc.pdf

            Sessions: “Do you think the Attorney General has the responsibility to say no to the President?” She certainly thinks so.

            Dershowitz thinks she should have broken it down into what’s lawful and what isn’t, and therefore it’s a political statement. There’s no mention of unethical conduct from him.

      1. Straight out of Obama’s and Holder’s Community Organizer’s purely political insurrection playbook. Trump needs to drain the swamp at every single government agency. They all stink to high heaven’s with this kind of crap.

    1. I disagree. The Attorney General is not the President’s personal lawyer. Secondly, the duty of advocacy does not encompass advancing an argument which a lawyer believes is not supported by the law or the facts. It is quite a stretch to accuse Ms. Yates of “refusing to defend the country.”

      1. No she’s the country’s lawyer and the country’s’ policy is what elected officials say it is. She neither elected nor a policy maker. She PUBLICLY undermined her client rather than quietly resigning as the rules of ethics require. Disbar her.

        1. That won’t happen, nor should it. She issued a memo to DOJ lawyers with her directions. The decision was based upon her analysis of the order. The President had the right to fire and replace her, which he did. Your “undermining” argument is overwrought. The order will stand or fall on its own.

          1. When a lawyer publishes his/her reasons for refusing to represent a client, she undermines the client regardless of the merits of the case. She owes a duty to keep those opinions and her counsel secret. That’s the essence of the fiduciary relationship. Yates aided her client’s opposition with her statement and she did it intentionally. Here she tanked a good case for purely political reasons but even if she had misgivings about the merits AND IS RIGHT ABOUT THOSE MISGIVINGS she had no right to make those public to punish her client over her own sense of propriety. A novice lawyer knows that is unethical and so I suspect, Mike A, do you.

            1. It is incidences such as this that support my believe that attorneys general should not be a political arm of an executive such as a governor or a president. There are times where the actions of a president or government agency be contrary to law or that political intrigue can steer prosecutions or opinions outside of what is just or reasonable.

              When Washington’s constitutional convention was held in the late 1880s, the framers were concerned about concentrations of power. They believed having a governor with powers such as the U.S. President was against the interest of the people. So rather than having cabinet officers under the direction of a governor the constitution was written to have direct election of Attorney General, Secretary of State, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Insurance Commissioner, etc. Each does not have authority over the other. For the executive governor, he / she will consult the attorney general for legal advice and matters concerning interpretation of laws and various ordinary communications. However, the attorney general can take an action in the name of the state or on behalf of its citizens without either approval or despite disapproval by the governor or other administrators.

              Recognizing this is a cabinet position with the federal government while the now former acting attorney general could have instructed her department to refuse to enforce an EO, she should have at least consulted with the President before she undermined his EO. She was wrong to go public on such a high profile matter without consultation. But I will make no opinion on the legitimacy of the EO itself.

              1. Darren:
                Government policy is what government officials say it is so,long as they are acting under a grant of public authority. The Attorney General is not elected and he/she represents the people’s polices as expressed through their elected leaders. He/she does not make policy, he/she defends policy. In what universe would you want duly elected leaders being opposed by appointed ones? And who invariably wins that fight? We saw what happened tonight. What interest was served by this embarrassment for the Dems?

                1. I am aware of the appointed nature of the federal AG. I am merely pointing out the suggestion that having a politically appointed AG (as an arm of the chief executive) is not always in the best interest of the people, especially when one having prosecutorial authority is controlled by an executive branch that could generate significant conflicts of interest when the executive or cabinet agency is afoul of the law. It also dilutes objectivity in the equal application of the law and makes such prosecutions often based upon political considerations rather than ones based on objectivity and justice. For this reason I favor an elected and independent attorney general.

                  It is also for this reason that I am against the notion of appointed chiefs of police who serve at the pleasure of mayors. The practice of this often involves a mayor using the police department as a personal police force rather than an elected official such as a sheriff who acts independently under their own office. In our state at least, sheriffs do not answer to county commissioners nor any other elected official in the state. Of course there is oversight but the day to day functions remain under his purview.

      2. What Mike Appleton wrote. And asserting the country’s top lawyer is unethical for failing to enforce an EO she thinks is unlawful doesn’t make much sense.

          1. mespo – considering the unethical things the DoJ has been charged with during the Obama administration, supporting an unConstitutional EO is a nothing. They did it for Obama, why not for Trump?

              1. Steve – when a district judge wants to send a whole team of DoJ attorneys back for ethics training, I have no confidence in the DoJ.

          2. mespo, the Machiavellian bs doesn’t resonate here. Grow up.

            Yates violated no ethics rule for refusing to enforce an Executive Order she believed in good faith may be unlawful. In fact, had she been licensed in this State and advised her staff to enforce the EO, she may have been in violation of at least one California Rule of Professional Conduct:

            3-210 Advising the Violation of Law

            A member shall not advise the violation of any law, rule, or ruling of a tribunal unless the member believes in good faith that such law, rule, or ruling is invalid. A member may take appropriate steps in good faith to test the validity of any law, rule, or ruling of a tribunal.

            http://rules.calbar.ca.gov/Rules/RulesofProfessionalConduct/CurrentRules/Rule3210.aspx

  2. More Trump Cover-Up of 9/11;
    Isn’t Silence Complicity?

    3 NYC SKYSCRAPERS WERE DESTROYED BY CONTROLLED DEMOLITION ON 9/11

    The 9/11 Commission Report fails to mention the total collapse of 47-story steel-framed skyscraper Building 7 at 5:20 on the day of the attack.
    The National Institute of Standards and Technology lied. WTC 7 did not come down due to office fires.

    video of Larry Silverstein (WTC owner) admitting demolition of WTC 7;

  3. More Trump Cover-up;

    Exposing 9/11 Truth can reach to the core of corruption in this country of decades;
    The perpetrators –> Israel, Zionist Jews & American Traitors. Congress is a Zionist Jew puppet agency.

    Saudi King Salman blamed 9/11 attacks on Israel: US official
    http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/diplomacy-defense/81029-150805-saudi-king-salman-blamed-9-11-attacks-on-israel-us-official

    9/11 Firefighter Exposes Building 7 Cover-Up (Video)
    http://talknetwork.com/2017-01-16-911-firefighter-exposes-building-7-cover-up-video.html

    1. Highly unlikely. Find a CBC article first before posting what is most likely Faux Neuz.

      1. Not from this mobile device which I am still attempting to master…

        But it remains that I doubt the veracity of your claim.

          1. And now Trump will have to build a wall on our northern border too. What a pretty boy fool Trudeau is.

  4. Congress is involved as well. This from Don Beyer: “We have a constitutional crisis today. Four Members of Congress asked CBP officials to enforce a federal court order and were turned away.”

      1. I wish they would. Greenwald writes: Regardless of ideology or one’s views on Trump or this ban: does anyone want Custom officers & DHS empowered to ignore federal court orders?

  5. Anthony,

    I saw that also. He needs to testify under oath.

    Further there is a Constitutional crisis at this time. CBP is ignoring the court’s order. According to Glenn Greenwald the court (now multiple courts) is/are supposed to enforce its/their order by calling on Federal Marshalls. This is a rule of law crisis. I would hope that people who voted for Trump to enforce the rule of law would be contacting him right now to do just as he promised–enforce the rule of law, not of men.

    1. Jill, I’d love to see the Federal Marshalls go in there and enforce the multiple judges stays on Trump’s Muslims ban.

  6. Yes, there should definitely be a Global War on Bathtubs. All bathtubs are to be detained at the borders! Protect Americans Now!!!!!

  7. Your chance of dying in a terrorist attack is 1 in 20 million (million</b<). Zounds! Open the casket. Where is my will?

    Your chance of dying by a meteorite is 1 in 500,000. You are 40 times more likely to die by a meteorite than by a terrorist attack!

    No wonder Trump is so concerned. What point is dignity, courage, fair mindedness, compassion, historical precedent, anything for that matter in the face of such overwhelming odds?????

    Your odds of dying by simply counting to 20 million are greater than your odds of being killed by a terrorist attack.

    In fact, (statistical that is),

    -You are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist attack

    – You are 12,571 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist attack

    — You are 11,000 times more likely to die in an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an airplane

    — You are 1048 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist attack

    –You are 404 times more likely to die in a fall than from a terrorist attack

    — You are 87 times more likely to drown than die in a terrorist attack

    – You are 13 times more likely to die in a railway accident than from a terrorist attack

    –You are 12 times more likely to die from accidental suffocation in bed than from a terrorist attack

    –You are 9 times more likely to choke to death on your own vomit than die in a terrorist attack

    –You are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist

    –You are 8 times more likely to die from accidental electrocution than from a terrorist attack

    – You are 6 times more likely to die from hot weather than from a terrorist attack

    Shoot on sight!

    1. Damn! Odds are this should never have happened! Curse the luck! Curse the odds-makers!

      http://www.bpnews.net/images/5f4b724d-b289-43dc-a883-a1b0a6f009de-Orlando-2.JPG

      And the meteors! OMG!, I never knew meteors killed sooo many people! How many did those nefarious space rocks kill in the last 20 years? Millions maybe? Can’t find the numbers. Maybe the Area 51 people are hiding it??? Anyway, I found this chart, FWIW:

      http://www.datagraver.com/thumbs/1300x1300r/2016-12/terror20161220-i2.png

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      PS: Yes, I think the terrorist fears are overblown, because we are a lot more likely to be killed by black and hispanic minority thugs in this country. But still, why not try to screen out those from certain countries?

      1. Squeeky,

        Omar was an American born citizen. Mateen was born Omar Mir Seddique on November 16, 1986, in New Hyde Park, New York. You can’t screen him out as a foreign born national because he wasn’t.

        Don’t you even wonder why Trump isn’t screening nationals from those nations who did kill American citizens? That’s such an odd thing to do given that the EO’s stated purpose. Don’t go all leader worship and just blindly accept things which don’t make sense from the new “dear leader”.

        1. The point BB made was about terrorists in general, not refugees. Although the guy in Germany at Christmas snuck in as a refugee IIRC. Here is a link to one story I posted earlier:

          http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/al-qaeda-kentucky-us-dozens-terrorists-country-refugees/story?id=20931131

          Plus, ISIS is flatly telling us that they are going to sneak their people in as refugees. The CIA is telling us the same thing. Sooo, what are we supposed to do? Ignore the info, and then act surprised when something bad happens? As far as Trump, if it was legally doable to subject every Muslim to extreme vetting, I bet he would. But the Democrats and the Left would make that impossible, even if it was legal. Obama singled out these 7 countries, so Trump can at least do something there.

          9-11 wasn’t enough to teach us a lesson. Our country will have to wait until the terrorists sneak in some bombs and nuke a city or two. Which if it does happen, I hope it occurs in the Blue States. Maybe that will wake the idiots up.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

      2. More than a decade after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. government has committed trillions of dollars to fighting the war on terror. Certainly, some – perhaps even most – of this funding is warranted.

        Consider, however, that federal spending on improving vehicular safety and research for Alzheimer’s and diabetes pales in comparison. Yet traffic deaths, Alzheimer’s and diabetes account for hundreds of thousands of deaths each year in the United States.

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/23/youre-more-likely-to-be-fatally-crushed-by-furniture-than-killed-by-a-terrorist/?utm_term=.4a0ca515af8c

        This is BEFORE Trump! We could save thousands more lives by taking the cost of Trump’s EO and using it to fund greater research on cancer, diabetes or Alzheimer’s.

        1. I don’t think we should have gone into Iraq, either. It was bullsh*t. It would not hurt my feelings if Bush, Cheney, and every Congressman who voted in favor of the invasion was sent up on war crimes. And ditto for the Libya attack. Stick Obama and his crew in a jail cell right beside them. And anybody who has been supplying weapons to the Syrian opposition. And while we’re at it, stick Bill Clinton in there for attacking Serbia.

          But it also would not hurt my feelings to ban all burkas, clit removal, multiple marriages, and other aspect of Muslims who come to this country. Screw them! If they want to live in a Muslim country, with a Muslim lifestyle, send them back to where they came from.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

            1. If you want to live around Muslims, then stop exercising White Privilege by bringing them to you. Why don’t you go to them? Why don’t you move to a Muslim country, or a Hispanic country. If you want diversity, then quit being so selfish about it. Go get you some.

              And while you’re at it, in Yemen, or Syria, or Saudi Arabia, you stand up for human rights, OK! Tell them they have no business telling you that yo can’t drink alcohol. Or not letting your wife and daughters they can’t drive. Or have to cover their face or head or whatever. Tell them how mean they are being by executing drug dealers, or cutting hands off thieves. Tell them that if you want to “swing” with another woman not your wife, or even with a man, that is none of their business! Plus, insist that you have a “right” to be there, and that they have to give you some welfare to support you! Put up a statute of Satan in your yard, and insist that you can worship whoever you want.

              Go on! That ought to be a hoot! Then, come back (if you haven’t been stoned to death or worse) and talk to me about hate.

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

              1. Squeeky

                One thing about you that I admire is that unlike Trump, his staff, and most of his supporters you don’t hide your racism. You wear it proudly. I wish other Trump supporters were as honest as you. Bravo!

    2. In 1941, you were at least 15 times more likely to have been killed in an auto accident than killed in the attack on Pearl Harbor.
      “By the numbers”, the U.S. shouldn’t have made such a big deal out of it.

        1. The request was made earlier in this thread to “reason with us” instead of “shame us” and that is exactly what I was doing, or trying to do. The numbers are factual. They are not partisan. And, you don’t challenge them. Instead you make apples to oranges comparisons (Pearl Harbor was an act of WAR by one sovereign nation’s military against the military of another) and then fall back on the tired old rhetorical trick of calling it a game.

          1. There are reasoned responses to criminal actions. If you spend outrageous sums of money and life to address a non military threat with a military response utterly disproportionate to the threat by any rational proportion, you are subject to reasoned criticism of it by factual numbers.

            All you seem intent on proving is that when we have a Democrat run administration, you can exercise your faculties of reason quite well, where as when that changes to a Republican administration, you forfeit all claim to reason and go into the same deep tribal mode you so recently (and justifiably) accused Democrats of using to close their eyes to even the most outrageous behavior of their so called leadership.

          2. BB…..
            – Comparing death rates from heart disease or cancer to deaths from terrorist attacks is comparing apples and oranges.
            But you note that comparing Pearl Harbor to 9-11 is an “apple/ orange” comparison.
            Both were attacks on America.
            Both did substantial damage.
            Both were intentional.
            But if you think comparing cancer death rates to deaths from terrorist attacks have more in common, then maybe you’re convinced that your comparisons are “apples to apples”,

            1. Tnash80,

              The comparison of death rates between different things is a perfectly reasonable means of giving context to statistical risk. It’s used all the time to make risk meaningful. One could simply give the statistical chance of death by terrorist attack: 1 in 20 million. And I did. That alone should point out how utterly absurd this EO is if the intention is actually to protect American lives. But comparing it to the risk of other life experiences is a reasonable way to give context to pure numbers and give them a more understandable form.

              And we have other proof of the absurdity of the claim that this Executive Order is really to protect anyone. NOT ONE of the countries involved in 9/11 is on that list. NOT ONE. You are the one that brought up 9/11. Please explain how leaving out all those countries protect American lives. You can’t because no one can. And blame Obama all you want because I will agree with you every step of the way, if anything I think of Obama as worse than you do, and following Obama’s list STILL doesn’t in any way excuse Trump for making such an absurd claim that this Order is for protecting Americans.

              9/11 was an act of war No it was not. It was not orchestrated by a sovereign state. It was a criminal act and as such should have been handled as all other international crimes are handled. This would not have gone easy on perpetrators and would have avoided the death of thousands of our troops as well as hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians not to mention the incalculable damage we are doing to our standing in the world of laws.

              1. Brooklin Bridge – what is the chance of being injured in NYC by a terrorist? Let’s get a little more finite.

                There is nothing to bomb where I live so I feel pretty safe, but my brothers and sisters are the ones I worry about.

                1. Oh, sorry Paul, I thought the ban was nation wide, Didn’t realize it had only to do with everyone entering NYC.

                  1. Brooklin Bridge – car insurance rates are set by zip code, not state or nation. So, it stands to reason your chance of being injured in a terror attack would be higher in the Wall Street district than the middle of Montana. Whereas you would be more likely to be run over by a cow in the middle of Montana than the Wall Street district. Both could happen, however unlikely.

                    So, if you are in the Wall Street district, what is your chance of being injured by a terrorist attack?

                    1. Paul, the risk for our Wall Street Robbers specifically and for New Yorkers generally remains very small but obviously higher than in other places such as you describe. A rational approach, would be to assess the risk for NYC specifically and to take appropriate steps in a measured way to address that risk at the local level

                      Don’t think for a minute that we don’t already have extensive security apparatus in place specifically designed for in NYC. We do.

                      If the risk is still too high, and it apparently is not, then those giant corporations would almost certainly seek out other locations as well they should. Why have the tail wag the dog?

              2. Oh lets just do nothing about crime terrorism rape—because the numbers PALE in comparison to the overall human mortality rate. Now there’s some logic!

                1. No, measured response according to the risk. That’s reason.
                  We already have an extreamly through system of vetting in place that is a perfectly measured response to the risk.

                  This Order adds nothing and in fact creates far more problems than it resolves.

              3. Brooklyn Bridge..
                – Prior to the 9-11 attacks, terrorist acts against the U.S. were primarily treated as criminal offenses.
                The invasion of Afghanistan was the turning point in previous policy of treating those terrorist acts as criminal acts.
                There are still those who advocate that approach.
                The problem with limiting the response to a massive attack as a court/ law enforcement matter would not have resulted in Bin Laden and his Al Queda group subjecting themselves to arrest and/ or showing up in court to face charges.
                The Taliban controlled most of Afghanistan in 2001, and had rolled out the welcome mat for al Queda.
                The taliban may not have directly participated in 9-11, they may not have known Bin Laden’s exact plans, but it was clear that Bin Laden wanted to kill Americans.
                He’d already done that on a smaller scale befire 9-11.
                This was a case of state sponsored terrorism, because of the Taliban’s direct culpabilty.
                I did mention 9-11 because it was a major terrorist event.
                I mention the Taliban because I don’t think it’s accurate to label certain acts as criminal acts by organizations, when a country itself is a key accomplice in the terrorism.
                I don’t know why the 7 countries affected by the Executive Order were selected, and why others were excluded.
                It looks like these countries had already been singled out as “countries of concern”, but I don’t know the specific criteria that had those countries identified as high risk.
                I didn’t mention Democrats or Republicans, contrary to what you read into my xomments.
                Since those countries had been labeled as countries of concern prior to the Trump administration, it looks like Trump’s executive orders focused on the same countries.
                As I said, I don’t know the criteria used by either administration to label these particular countries as being especially problematic.
                Your lengthy listvof “your are
                x times more likely to be kill by y than by a terrorist attack is what orompted my nention of the relatively small causualties in the Pearl Harbor attack in relation to auto deaths in 1941.
                You emphasized the statistical accuracy of your examples, but object to my use of your same “statistical accuracy”.
                The same kinds of statistics and the same kind of logic you are using can be just as easily used to trivialize and understate the importance of the Pearl Harbor attack.

              4. Brooklyn Bridge…
                – Do you think we should currently deal with ISIS as “a criminal organization” via the legal system, or do you think it should be targeted for military action?

                1. Tnash80,

                  First, your long response above I find to be a very well thought out comment though I think we could argue some of your points.

                  Sorry if my summary of Pearl Harbor seemed to disregard your point about similar risk. My point was that those killed in Pearl Harbor, tragic as it was, were not civilians. The overwhelming majority were military. Indeed, they should have been better protected, our blunder, but by military measures based on a military risk assessment that has little to do with that of civilians. At the end of the day, the military is there to protect us and each soldier or “unit” knows he or she is at far greater risk and have accepted that as part of what it takes to keep the rest of us safe. So I feel your comparison is still not comparing similar risk and I no doubt expressed myself poorly.

                  Second, as to ISIS, It’s difficult given what has already taken place to tease out one thread of this phenomenon, such as ISIS, and give a reasonable answer to your question.

                  If we could go back to the start, shortly after 9/11, I think it would have been fairly easy to determine that Saudi Arabia was deeply involved. That would have required a legal response as a declaration of war would have been disastrous (particularly to President Bush’s financial interests) Possibly a limited military action in Afghanistan (which I suggest in response to your good points above) would have sufficed to gather up some or all of those who participated in the attack so as to be tried by international tribunal. Pressure could have been put on Pakistan to render those that escaped in that direction from Afghanistan.

                  And so on. It took years to get Osama bin Laden, and a legal pursuit would probably not have taken any longer. It would have shown the world that we are a nation of laws rather than a nation of lynch mobs going after countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 in the first place.

                  I am not against vetting procedures on our boarders. Quite the contrary. But we already have very through procedures in place and while nothing is perfect, they are quite reasonable for the task and the risk involved. What Trump is doing will have far more negative effects than any increase in the American public’s security.

                  1. Brooklyn Bridge…

                    I think the fact that civilains were targeted on 9-11 makes that attack, in some respects, more reprehensible than the Pearl Harbor attack.
                    As you pointed out, it took years to find and kill Bin Laden. We had over 100,000 troops in Afghanistan for deveral years, and were unable to located him.
                    Nor have we ( and the Afghan military) been able to eradicate the Taliban, Al Quaeda, and ISIS from Afghanistan.
                    That’s why I’m skepital that a smaller, law enforcement approach would work.
                    Applying those same methods to deal with ISIS-i.e.,a law enfoorcement action- does not seem practical.
                    The force of “the law” itself can not cope with fanatical, homocidal jihadists who are not incline to face acknowlwdge criminal charges or have issues settled in court.
                    A new administration “is where it is”, and as you say, can not go back,in time to alter past actions.

                    Anyway, I don’t see a viable alternative to attacking and destroying ISIS through military action.
                    You mentioned the Saudis and the Pakistanis….it would be easier to conduct the war on terror with the full cooperation of “allies”, or “semi-allies”.
                    In the case of Pakistan, the U.S. has pressured them to cooperate.
                    Given the untrustworhiness of the ISI, I think “being on the same page” with Pakistan is not on the horizon.
                    I would draw a dinstinction between the level of guilt of the Saudis and the Taliban.
                    Bin Laden and Al Qaeuda were not welcomed in Saudi Arabia, as opposed to the Taliban providing a safe haven for them.
                    I didn’t see a “smoking gun” about the Saudi government itself assisting Bin Laden and Al Quaeda.

                    I think there was a period where the Saudi royal family turned a blind eye to some of their citizens assisting Al Qaeuda, but Al Qaeuda was not based there.
                    IMO, the Saudi government was not nearly as complicite as the Taliban in supporting Al Qaeuda.

                  2. Tnash80,

                    1) 9/11 more reprehensible than Perl Harbor
                    Agreed. But doesn’t change risk assesment or the difference in response to military act of war.
                    Doesn’t pardon lack of organization in putting EO in place without any preliminary coordination with the various departments concerned. Doesn’t address gross injustice to thousands of individuals that were slated to come here and now face possible back lash due to their loyalty to Americans, Doesn’t address issue of creating more risk than we eliminate by draconian, poorly managed directive. Doesn’t address that just because Obama did a bunch of horrible things, Trump should too.

                    2) Legal response wouldn’t work, you suggest:
                    -Need military to handle issue in nation states
                    a)But the longest military response of war in the history of our country has clearly not worked. We have been at war with Afghanistan through two administrations and over 15 years and done little more than inspire far more terrorists now than we started out with.
                    – terrorists would not comply with legal proceedings
                    b)No, of course not. Neither do criminals such as rapists or serial killers. That’s why I suggested a military effort to secure said terrorists and present them to international tribunals assuming we could not get the same result through diplomatic channels first.

                    3) Saudi’s are less guilty than Taliban
                    Not at all clear. There is considerable evidence from leaked documents that Saudi Arabia is the prime source of funding for ISIS now and funneled resources to Obama bin Laden 15 years ago even though they had banned him. What seems more accurate, is that Trump, like Bush and then Obama, do not want to rock the boat in terms of the financial interests US corporations (and many politicians) have with that country – suggesting that behind the motherhood and apple pie that’s being claimed, payola is more important that American lives. Those who had developed a razor sharp skepticism with Obama, and quite correctly, seem to have lost that edge altogether in but a few short days. Check it out. Favorite search engine, etc.

                    4) How to get rid of ISIS now.
                    As I said above, it’s hard to tease out a single thread from our current circumstances. Had we originally responded with international tribunals of law, and used our military sparingly and only when necessary to round up terrorist criminals – and NOT to destroy regimes, we might very well have eliminated the creation and growth of ISIS in the first place. If not, we would almost certainly have greater assistance by Middle Eastern Countries in hunting them down than we do now where our response is to maim and kill innocents along with the guilty by remote drones. But none of that speculation and none of the provisions of this EO will substantially increase the American public’s safety beyond what our current vetting process is already achieving.

                    In short, I’m saying there is no statistical evidence that Trump is significantly reducing a threat to American security. There is a strong probability, however, that he will increase radicalized extremists.

                    1. Brooklin Bridge – I don’t think the entire House of Saud was involved in financially supporting 9/11. A few members may or probably were complicit.

                    2. Paul Schulte and Brooklyn Bridge
                      – I don’t think anyone in the public can come up with a good estimate of the financial support for ISIS by Saudis.
                      I can’t post the link, but The Washington Institute has a good article on Saudi funding of ISIS.
                      – Author is Lori Boghardt, dated June 23, 2014.As far as the claim that Saudi Arabia provides most of the funding for ISIS, I’ve never seen evidence to back that up.
                      The govenment of Saudi Arabia may not be totally committed to blocking Saudi citizens from financilly supporting ISIS….that is a debatable point.
                      But again, I haven’t seen evidence that the Saudi governmeny funds ISIS, or that Saudi citizens provide the bulk of financial support for ISIS.
                      Also, Saudi Arabia was not the nation that provided safe haven for Bin Laden and Al Qaeda’s operations.
                      When some people ask why Saudi Arabia was not invaded by America ( instead of, or in addition to, Afghanistan), the short answer is that Bin Laden and co. were in Afghanistan, not Saudi Arabia.

                    3. The Israeli-Saudi narrative, which is repeated endlessly inside Official Washington, is that Iran is the principal sponsor of terrorism when that dubious honor clearly falls to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Sunni-led Muslim states, including Pakistan, nations that did not make Trump’s list.

                      The evidence of who is funding and supporting most of the world’s terrorism is overwhelming. All major terrorist groups that have bedeviled the United States and the West over the past couple of decades – from Al Qaeda to the Taliban to Islamic State – can trace their roots back to Sunni-led countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Qatar.

                      http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/01/65289.html#more-65289

                    4. Brooklyn Bridge, There were about 900 waivers granted for people caught in transit by the travel restrictions.
                      The restriction are far 60 or 90 days.
                      That time is supposedly being used to make changes in the vetting system…”extreme vetting”.

                      I ‘m more interested in. seeing t he revised vetting system than I am in the tempory restrictions.
                      And without knowing what that revised system will look like, it’s impossible at this point to say if it’s an improvement or a failure.

                      On the law enforcement with military backup to stop terrorists, I think the problem of inadequate resources makes that idea impractical.
                      Initially, we had a small number of special forces in Afghanistan.There was a desire to leave “small footprints” with a smaller force, and rely heavily on the Northern Alliance and others opposed to the Taliban.
                      Bin Laden probly escape from Tora Bora due to the LACK of U.S. forces on the ground….John Kerry brought this up repeatedly in the 2004 debates.
                      The U.S. special forces requested that a division be sent to Tora Bora to seal the border.
                      Small scale operations in an area like that were not effective in blocking Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda forces from slipping in to Pakistan.From what I’ve read, the Taliban now control ( or heavily contest) about 25% of Afghanistan.
                      And there is no quik end in sight as far as the total eradication of the Taliban ( or ISIS) in Afghanistan.
                      That is not a complete success, but it is not a complete failure, either.
                      A coplete failure would be a retirn tovthe 2001 consitions where the Taliban controlled almost all of Afghanistan.
                      We have a small residual firce there, and almost all of the ground combat and casualties are now born by the Afghan military.
                      In my view, partial success is preferable to complete failure.
                      And I think the Tora Bora incident dempnstrates that there are situations were a large presence of troops is necessary, at keast for a certain period of time.
                      I think the small residual force the U.S. still has in Afghanistan is also essential.

                    5. Continuation of link above.

                      After all, the origins of the modern jihadist movement trace back to the $1 billion-a-year collaboration between the Reagan administration and the Saudi monarchy to support the Afghan mujahedeen in their war against a secular government in Kabul backed by the Soviet Union.

                      The extravagant arming of these Afghan fundamentalists, who were bolstered by international jihadists led by Osama bin Laden, dealt a harsh blow to the Soviet forces and ultimately led to the collapse of the secular regime in Kabul, but the victory also paved the way for the rise of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, blowback that hit the United States on 9/11.

                      The U.S. reaction to that shock never directly addressed how the problem had originated and who the underlying culprits were. Though George W. Bush’s administration did begin by invading Afghanistan, the neoconservatives around him quickly turned the U.S. retaliation against longstanding Israeli targets, such as Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Syria’s Assad dynasty though they had nothing to do with 9/11.

                      The fiction that these largely secular governments were responsible for Islamic terrorism — and the mislabeling of Shia-ruled Iran as the chief sponsor of such terrorism — have remained the myths confusing the American people and thus justifying continued U.S. support for the Israeli-Saudi war against the “Shiite crescent.”

                      Trump, who is heavily criticized for his inability to distinguish fact from fantasy, could have displayed a brave commitment to truth-telling if he had fashioned his counter-terrorism policy to actually address the real sponsors of terrorism. Instead, he chose to continue the lies that the Israelis and Saudis insist that Official Washington tell.

                      In doing so, Trump is not only offending much of the world and alienating countries that are at the forefront of the fight against the worst terrorist threats, but he is continuing to shield the key regimes that have perpetuated the scourge of terrorism.

  8. This is an interesting fact as well: “There were 19 hijackers on 9/11: 15 Saudi, 2 UAE, 1 Egypt, and 1 Lebanon. Trump’s order ignored all four nations. His order focused more against the Shiite-led countries, Iran and Syria, whose leaderships the Saud family are (with U.S. government assistance) trying to overthrow and replace.” washington’s blog

    The EO doesn’t make sense if he’s not going to ban people from nations which actually did attack us on 9/11. Instead, he’s banning people whom USGinc. in conjunction with Saudi Arabia and Israel, brought to ruin. That ruin benefits the Saudi royal family and parts of this govt. who are the biggest terrorist financiers in the world. This order is a travesty based on a lie based on murder and destruction. It should not stand.

  9. This is an interesting article about how Obama first picked out the 7 countries in Trump’s Executive Order:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3518925/posts

    Here is a blurb about the above mentioned 6 month Visa suspension by Obama:

    The 2013 ABC News investigation also revealed that several dozen other suspected terrorist bombmakers, including some who were believed to have targeted U.S. troops, may have mistakenly been allowed to move to the U.S. as Iraq and Afghanistan War refugees, among the tens of thousands of innocent immigrants.

    The Obama administration insists now that Syrian refugees are subjected to intense vetting before they’re allowed to settle in the U.S. and that a vast majority of the millions of refugees the U.S. has resettled since the 1970s are normal, peaceful people, but the program has had serious security problems before. In 2009, a flaw in background screening of Iraqi refugees allowed the two al Qaeda-linked terrorists to settle in Bowling Green and led to a temporary suspension of the refugee program, officials told ABC News in a 2013 investigation.

    http://abcnews.go.com/International/terrorists-refugee-program-settle-us/story?id=35252500

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. And you’ve been piping up all along about how Obama was a liberal. Not a word out of you when he banned them, and that’s because you agreed with the right wing policy decisions of a center-right politician.

  10. https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/well-see-you-court-why-trumps-executive-order-refugees-violates-establishment

    “According to the Supreme Court, “the clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.” But that command is apparently not clear enough for President Donald Trump. On Friday he signed an executive order on refugees that imposes a selective ban on immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries as well as establishes preferential treatment for refugees seeking asylum who are identified with “minority religions” in their country of origin. In case there was any doubt about the latter provision’s intent, Trump told Christian Broadcast News that it was intended to give priority to “Christians” seeking asylum over “Muslims.”

    In both respects, the executive order violates the “clearest command of the Establishment Clause.” First, as I developed in an earlier post, the Constitution bars the government from targeting Islam. One of the lowest of many low moments in Donald Trump’s presidential campaign was his December 2015 call for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslim immigration. The proposal treated as presumptively suspect a religion practiced by about 1.6 billion people worldwide, nearly a quarter of the globe’s population. Trump soon retreated to talk of “extreme vetting,” but he never gave up his focus on the religion of Islam. Friday’s executive orders are of a piece with his many anti-Muslim campaign promises.”

  11. The Trump is administration saying this is not a Muslim ban, yet Trump keeps tweeting about how Christians from these countries have been persecuted. Doesn’t he realize he is stepping on his own defense? By continuing to emphasize Christians he has made it about religious discrimination. By favoring Christians over Muslim refugees, hasn’t he violated Muslim’s Equal Protection?

    1. You’ve been duped by the mainstream media presstitutes. The presstutes FAIL to disclose the facts and the truth behind President Trump’s Executive Order. So you’ve swallowed the lie that Trump singled out the nations subject to his immigration vetting.

      However, the facts and the truth are completely different. If you simply apply my IronClad Rule, or Adamo’s Rule, you cannot go wrong: If the Mainstream Media Pressitutes are telling you something, it is going to be involve an omission which renders their statements false and misleading, a distortion of the truth, a fabrication, or an outright lie. This Rule works 100% of the time because LYING to the public is the intent of the mainstream media presstitutes and they are highly skilled at it.

      Thus, as it turns out, President Trump is merely carrying out an executive action in support of the US Customs and Border Protection Act of 2015, which relates to “the Visa Waiver Program and Terrorist Travel Protection Act of 2015“. President Trump did NOT select seven countries – the US Congress and Obama’s Department of Homeland Security had singled out these countries!

      Nowhere in President Trump’s executive order does he single out any country for VISA suspension. Instead, what his Executive Order does is say he’s suspending visa approvals from countries ALREADY outlined by the Obama administration as representing a specific threat such that they were categorized for extreme visa vetting by: 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12).

      Of course, you won’t learn these facts from the mainstream media presstitutes. And JT certainly isn’t going to tell you the truth either. Lefttists have a vested interest in their lies, and they hate the truth and the facts in any event. The truth and the facts make presstitutes violently ill. So, you will have to do your research on your own if you want to know the truth. But please, whatever you do, remember Adamo’s IronClad Rule about what the presstitutes tell you. They’re not called presstitutes for nothing. They are all dedicated liars and nothing more.

      1. Ralph: “what his Executive Order does is say he’s suspending visa approvals from countries ALREADY outlined by the Obama administration as representing a specific threat such that they were categorized for extreme visa vetting by: 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12).”

        Got it. Thanks. Now I see why the constitutional arguments are being made.

        Obama was the perfect imperial shill.

        1. Ralph: I still don’t see anything in 8 USC 1187(a)(12) which would allow a blanket ban superseding 8 USC 1152(a)(1)(A)’s “no person shall . . . be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence.”

          Doesn’t DHS and the Secretary of State have to prove something more of a “specific threat” from the individual than that the immigrant is from one of those seven countries?

          1152(a)(1)(A) is pretty clear that even extreme vetting based on a person’s country of origin violates 1152(a)(1)(A), and there’s no “notwithstanding any law to the contrary” type of language in 1187(a).

          There’s no exception to 1152(a)(1)(A) that I see other than sections 1101(a)(27), 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), 1153 and, 1152(a)(2), namely:

          (2) Per country levels for family-sponsored and employment-based immigrants
          Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), the total number of immigrant visas made available to natives of any single foreign state or dependent area under subsections (a) and (b) of section 1153 of this title in any fiscal year may not exceed 7 percent (in the case of a single foreign state) or 2 percent (in the case of a dependent area) of the total number of such visas made available under such subsections in that fiscal year.

          And none of those seem to apply.

          1. I copied this from another blog. It may not be authentic, but it sounds legalistic enough to be real:

            8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens

            (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President:

            Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate…

      2. The seven countries are on the don’t travel TO list. They’ve sent no terrorists here. They also do no business with Trump. Yet.

Comments are closed.