The 9th Circuit Shackles America's Ability to Defend Itself

The 9th circuit court of appeals practically wants a seat at the National Security Council. In Thursday’s decision, they justified their refusal to lift Judge Robart’s halt to the executive order on immigration by stating:

Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive Order, the Government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all.


And this:

The government has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal, nor has it shown that failure to enter a stay, would cause irreparable injury, and we therefore deny its emergency motion for a stay.

In other words, give us data on national security and then we'll decide if the order is correct. But this is a case of judicial overreach, and legislation by the courts. The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act gave the Executive the power to deny entry to aliens who were deemed a danger to the nation's security. The 1952 Act was attacked as being discriminatory - especially if you were a left-leaning Latin American writer - but it served and serves a more important purpose than offending a marxist from France. And that purpose is keeping the nation safe.

And while the Act was brought into being at the heights of the Cold War, that world of espionage and propaganda looks quaint compared to today's reality of islamist jihad terror. The executive order is preventive, and reasonably so. Yes, jihadists in London, Sydney, Paris, and Berlin would love to fly to Dulles or JFK or LAX and enter America in order to kill and maim. But those countries tend to have very good policing and customs procedures in place. Their politics might be a disaster - take a bow Merkel - but the police collaborate continually with America's security and intelligence agencies. Vetting is functional.

Not so in the listed 7 (Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Iran). Either due to failed states, internal strife, or extreme hostility towards America (especially Iran) their vetting procedures are often close to non-existent. If you actually read the executive order, it is in parts almost a plea (ok make that a stern request) for better information on any potential aliens residing in those 7 countries - whether refugee or not - that want to travel to America. And if these countries are able to comply and provide better information, the promise of lifting of any restrictions is offered. Do your part of the vetting procedure and we'll reconsider.

That's a most reasonable trade off, one that Middle Eastern nations use amongst themselves all the time. But no. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals wants one of three things:

  • Intelligence showing a terrorist attack is imminent from an alien arriving from one of the 7 countries. OR
  • An actual attack by an alien from one of those 7 countries. OR
  • President Trump to declare he's a bigot and weepingly invite the Council on American Islamic Relations to come berate him at the White House.

Not only is the 9th circuit legislating, it's legislating on national security. In the name of equal protection for aliens. The administration now has to decide which option to follow. Appeal straight to the Supreme Court and risk a split decision that leaves the appeals court's ruling in place; or Go back to the district court and grind it out for several months, in the hope that Gorsuch will be nominated by then and a split decision would thus be unlikely.

One can only wonder what the 9th circuit thinks of Judge Gorton of Massachusetts who issued a very different ruling:

Thus, because an alien does not enjoy a property right in a visa, he has no due process right that protects the manner in which a visa is revoked.

The 9th begs to differ, and their liberal ambitions risk shackling America's ability to reasonably defend itself and control its borders.

Posted by Keeley at February 10, 2017 3:10 PM
Comments
Comment #413120
Yes, jihadists in London, Sydney, Paris, and Berlin would love to fly to Dulles or JFK or LAX and enter America in order to kill and maim. But those countries tend to have very good policing and customs procedures in place. Their politics might be a disaster - take a bow Merkel - but the police collaborate continually with America’s security and intelligence agencies. Vetting is functional.

Not so in the listed 7 (Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Iran). Either due to failed states, internal strife, or extreme hostility towards America (especially Iran) their vetting procedures are often close to non-existent.

Keely,

I’ve got some news for you. It’s impossible for anyone to travel nonstop from those seven nations to the US and that has been the case for a very long time. Everyone affected by the EO transits a nation unaffected by the EO. The problem is that EO targets people by their citizenship rather than where they have actually set foot. An Iranian expat living in the UK is impacted; while a Saudi who spent the last three years fighting in Raqqa is not.

In other words, give us data on national security and then we’ll decide if the order is correct. But this is a case of judicial overreach, and legislation by the courts.
Requiring a standard of “strict scrutiny” to review instances when civil liberties are abridged is not an “overreach”. The longstanding tradition in this country is that individual’s have rights and those rights cannot be taken away without a compelling interest. Posted by: Warren Porter at February 10, 2017 3:46 PM
Comment #413124

This article matches the few minutes I caught from Limbaugh this morning, as well as Paul Krugman’s comments yesterday and my own comments in the previous thread.

The goal is unrestrained power for Trump and his administration.

The target is the judiciary.

Other targets include the MSM and the intelligence community, to the extent the latter resists. The attacks on the media have been constant. The attacks on the judiciary are just ramping up.

The scapegoat will be Muslims, blacks, Mexicans and other foreigners, “paid protestors” who dare to exercise their rights, and anyone else resisting.

The means for attaining unrestrained power will be an emergency, real or fabricated, which gives Trump the excuse to blame the judiciary and claim vast executive power in the name of national security.

The end of the American experiment will be carried out in the name of ‘law and order.’

A war would be preferable, but almost any terrorist attack will do the trick. It will be easier if Trump could cash in on a rally-round-the-flag moment, but not required.

The GOP legislature will do nothing as long as their constituents- the rich, the banksters, and the fossil fuel industy- receive tax breaks, deregulation, and the destruction of the social safety net.

Posted by: phx8 at February 10, 2017 4:49 PM
Comment #413127

How funny. The decision by the 9th is so outrageous, so political, so dangerous to national security that… that…

Never mind. Trump will not bother to take the EO to the Supreme Court. The EO would lose bigly.

So hatred, bigotry, and xenophobia lost today. But they will be back.

Posted by: phx8 at February 10, 2017 6:10 PM
Comment #413128

phx8 characterizes President Trump’s EO being overruled as a loss for hatred, bigotry, and xenophobia. One wonders what my hypocritical Pal calls Obama judicial sneering.

In April 2012, just after the nine justices heard arguments that ObamaCare was unconstitutional. Obama turned around and — in a press conference with foreign leaders, no less — lit into the court.

When he gave his first State of the Union Address and laced into the Supreme Court for its Citizens United campaign-finance decision, the entire Democratic caucus stood up and, on live TV, jeered the justices.

But wait, Obama would never, ever, stoop to such tactics if it only involved preemptive actions related to national security.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 10, 2017 6:28 PM
Comment #413131

The 9th circuit court, after due diligence, has declared that those coming into our country without proper vetting pose no danger to me and my loved one. The court knows this because….?

I will sleep safely in my bed tonight.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 10, 2017 7:17 PM
Comment #413133

Our good friend Warren writes; “Requiring a standard of “strict scrutiny” to review instances when civil liberties are abridged is not an “overreach”.”

Are you seriously making a case for American “due process” for every person in the world?

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 10, 2017 7:48 PM
Comment #413136

“The longstanding tradition in this country is that individual’s have rights and those rights cannot be taken away without a compelling interest.”

We’re talking about foreign nationals, not US citizens. Big difference.

Posted by: dbs at February 10, 2017 9:34 PM
Comment #413137

“The EO would lose bigly”

Only because the court is split 4 to 4. With Gorsuch it won’t be. Trump realizes this or he would have filed the appeal.

Posted by: d at February 10, 2017 9:37 PM
Comment #413138

“Rather than present evidence to explain the need for the Executive Order, the Government has taken the position that we must not review its decision at all.”

The Appeals Court didn’t decide the case on its merits. It didn’t decide whether the EO met constitutional or statutory standards. It only decided that there was a sufficient legal basis to subject the EO to legal scrutiny and analysis.

It struck me during the oral hearing that the Solicitor General’s negative answer to a question by a justice as to whether the EO was subject to review was halting, inartful and challenging.

I am not surprised that the Court decided to let case proceed to hearing on the merits. No government edict or law is not subject to judicial review in the US.

Posted by: Rich at February 10, 2017 9:44 PM
Comment #413139

Last time I checked, Jefferson wrote “ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL”, not just US citizens.

without proper vetting

The people barred from entering the US under Trump’s EO have been vetted extensively. DOJ attorneys have failed to provide an iota of evidence to support the contention that Obama administration vetting procedures are inadequate or improper.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 10, 2017 9:48 PM
Comment #413140

On the extreme side, but essentially true just the same.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9spx7xPRBFw

Posted by: dbs at February 10, 2017 10:00 PM
Comment #413141

warren

US law applies to US citizens and foreign nationals legally residing in the US, not those residing in their native countries. Foreign nationals have no right under the US constitution to enter this country.

Posted by: dbs at February 10, 2017 10:05 PM
Comment #413142

dbs,

Everything you say in #413141 is true, but it does not justify banning entrance to people who have been properly vetted and granted visas to enter the United States without just cause. Current US immigration law outlines the procedure to enter this country and a Presidential EO cannot abrogate it. Our immigration laws grant the President wide discretion to respond to national security threats by denying admittance to specific individuals or classes of people who constitute an undue risk or threat. Trump’s EO takes that latitude way too far, denying entrance to people on the basis of prejudice and fear rather than any tangible threat.

Until the Trump administration produces hard evidence to justify their executive order or Congress amends US immigration laws, the 9th Circuit Court’s decision to deny reinstatement of the ban is completely justified.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 10, 2017 11:10 PM
Comment #413143

Correction: Comment # 413141 incorrectly asserts US law doesn’t apply to foreigners. This is patently false as immigration law specifically deals with these people and how they can and cannot enter the US.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 10, 2017 11:48 PM
Comment #413144

They used to, Warren Porter. People have been pouring across the southern border for years.

As far as Trump’s increased scrutiny of travelers to our country, I don’t see people’s relatives on TV saying their relatives are being held against their will. I always hear about the people who were inconvenienced for a period of time and are now in their own environment enjoying their 15 seconds of fame.

It would be a different story if relatives had to plea with the public for their relative’s freedom, but that’s not what’s happening. The media is focusing on the molehill and making a mountain out of it. Kinda like holding that fish up to the lens to make it look bigger in the photo. Do you know what I mean?

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 11, 2017 1:26 AM
Comment #413152

“Last time I checked, Jefferson wrote “ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL”, not just US citizens.”

Warren wrote this in response to my question; Are you seriously making a case for American “due process” for every person in the world?

We could ask Warren to clarify his answer but why bother.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 11, 2017 3:05 PM
Comment #413153

Merkel Will Pay Migrants Millions To Leave Germany

“U.S. president Donald Trump told The Times that Merkel made a “catastrophic mistake” when she opened the doors to an unlimited number of migrants in 2015. Her vice-chancellor, Sigmar Gabriel, later admitted that his superior had underestimated how difficult it would be to integrate migrants on such a grand scale, and that Germany had been plunged into a kulturkampf, or “cultural war”, as a result.

Chancellor Merkel, announced the package after falling behind the Social Democrats in polls for Germany’s upcoming elections.”

We hope that Merkel is defeated in the next election. Germany can not tolerate such stupidity. She forced taxpayers to fund immigrant entry and now pays them to leave. It sounds to me like she received horrible advice from our past president.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 11, 2017 3:55 PM
Comment #413154

Link: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/02/11/merkel-will-pay-migrants-leave-germany/

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 11, 2017 3:56 PM
Comment #413155

Anyone know how to become a “paid protestor”? I know lots of people who have protested recently, but no one got paid. There are no advertisements anywhere or secret message boards or anything, and no one seems to know who will pay them, or how much. Seems like a sweet gig.

Posted by: phx8 at February 11, 2017 3:58 PM
Comment #413156

Funny you should ask about protestors phx8. I had just finished reading this article when your post popped up. Of course, no one admits to being paid.

“Since Donald Trump’s election, this little-known but well-funded protesting arm has beefed up staff and ramped up recruitment of young liberal activists, declaring on its website, “We’re not backing down.” Determined to salvage Obama’s legacy,”it’s drawing battle lines on immigration, ObamaCare, race relations and climate change.

Obama is intimately involved in OFA operations and even tweets from the group’s account. In fact, he gave marching orders to OFA foot soldiers following Trump’s upset victory.”

http://nypost.com/2017/02/11/how-obama-is-scheming-to-sabotage-trumps-presidency/

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 11, 2017 4:10 PM
Comment #413157

phx8’s patriotism ends at his wallet.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 11, 2017 4:11 PM
Comment #413158

Good point Weary. As a teen I had a friend who’s father was a union goon. He was paid well to bust heads and break arms and legs. Politics is “soooo above” such low-life tactics and expect their goons to protest for free.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 11, 2017 4:26 PM
Comment #413159

I hate to break this to you Warped, but our Constitution and laws only apply to people on U. S. soil and Green card holders. Visitors here in this country are subject to our laws. People here Illegally here are subject to our deportation laws and until refugees are here on U. S. Soil they have NO RIGHTS. I suggest you brush up on our laws and who they pertain to.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at February 11, 2017 4:37 PM
Comment #413160

WW & RF,
People are protesting without getting paid. It is a constitutional right. It just seems like it would be nice to get paid for something I would already be doing for free. My point is that the resistance we are seeing is not just a bunch of people being paid to do something they are unwilling to do. Many GOP supporters are trying to convince each other the protests are not genuine.

The March for Science is coming up. That is going to be huge!

Maybe conservatives will hold a counter-march against science.

Posted by: phx8 at February 11, 2017 4:51 PM
Comment #413161

The March for Science phx8? Sounds interesting. Is this the first time?

Which scientific fields will be promoted…medicine, agriculture, engineering, physics…etc?

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 11, 2017 5:01 PM
Comment #413162

This will be the first March for Science. Traditionally, scientists are apolitical, but given the hostile attitude of the Trump administration towards science, scientists are going to have to become politically active.

All fields will be promoted.

There is great concern in the field of medicine over Trump’s stance against vaccine safety.

Physicists are concerned about the Department of Energy, which is involved with nuclear energy, weapons, disposal of radioactive material, and the Human Genome Project, as well as physical sciences. The head of DoE under Obama was a had a PhD in theoretical physics. He played a major role in the negotiations with Iran to make sure they would not have the means to produce a nuclear weapon. The Secretary of Energy before Moniz won a nobel prize in physics.

Trump nominated Governor Rick Perry.

Agriculture, engineering- all are affected by actions like the immigration EO. It could prevent scientists from countries like Egypt from travelling to the US.

Many are concerned about Pence’s belief’s concerning the theory of evolution. His opinions about smoking are a matter of record. “Time for a quick reality check. Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn’t kill.”

Virtually every science is involved in the study of Global Warming, so this will be an obvious concern too.

Posted by: phx8 at February 11, 2017 6:07 PM
Comment #413163

Watter’s World interviewed a bunch of high school students who skipped classes to protest Trump’s attempts to keep America safe. Watters asked them what they knew about what they were protesting and none of them had an answer. They were clueless. The only reason they were out there is to skip school, but the media paints them as concerned citizens voicing their protest. Their time would be better spent learning something instead of skipping school and being ignorant.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 11, 2017 6:19 PM
Comment #413164

There is also a lot of concern about the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and its chair, Lamar Smith.
He has been extremely hostile to scientists involved in Global Warming research. And fyi, Smith has no background in science. None.

Posted by: phx8 at February 11, 2017 6:25 PM
Comment #413165

Thanks for the info phx8. Will demonstrators be required to spell “science” correctly and hold a PhD?

Or will the usual hired thugs and riff-raff be looting, burning and beating?

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 11, 2017 6:25 PM
Comment #413166

WW,
You actually watch Watter’s World? He interviews a bunch of people and then only shows the stupidest ones to make whatever point he wants to make. That is a complete waste of time. Anybody can ‘prove’ anything they want that way.

Posted by: phx8 at February 11, 2017 6:27 PM
Comment #413167

phx8, will NOAA scientist Dr. John Bates be in the march? He produced irrefutable evidence that the NOAA study denying the pause in global warming in the period since 1998 was based on false and misleading data.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 11, 2017 6:39 PM
Comment #413168

RF,
Writing a blog and then giving an interview to a tabloid does NOT constitute “irrefutable evidence.” He attacked one particular set of data. He may or may not be right about that set. The person responsible for it never responded. Scientists disagree all the time, and that is why their experiments need to be verifiable. It has to be possible to duplicate the conclusion. Evidence from other disciplines needs to support it.

There is a vast body of data on the warming trend, both inside and outside the NOAA. Global Warming isn’t just one guy somewhere in Florida crunching numbers.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/indicators.php

Did you know each of the past three years have set consecutive records for the hottest on record?

Posted by: phx8 at February 11, 2017 7:22 PM
Comment #413170

phx8 sounds like he’s in denial. “hottest on record”. A record that’s only a couple of hundred years old. So what? That’s a blink of an eye when it comes to the history of climate. I say we keep recording for a few thousand more years and then decide if we have a “global warming” problem.

I’ll bet the human race will still be around to decide.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 12, 2017 9:04 AM
Comment #413176

WW,
The steady rise in temperatures coincides with the steady rise in carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It traps heat in the atmosphere. Right now, CO2 levels in the atmosphere are the highest in 600,000 years.

This does not involve magic. It is not some sort of strange inexplicable mystery. We can understand our world. We can measure. We can explain why changes happen. That is where science comes into the picture.

“Hottest on record” means the record created by an enormous number of precise measurements of land, sea, and air temperatures. However, that is only one kind of record. We can also assess climate going back hundreds, thousands, and even hundreds of thousands of years by using other kinds of measurements. They may not give the kind of day-to-day detail we have been able to record since the late 1800’s, but they still give an accurate picture of climate and atmospheric composition.

Posted by: phx8 at February 12, 2017 2:07 PM
Comment #413181
Are you seriously making a case for American “due process” for every person in the world?

Due Process is an unalienable right, granted not by our government, but by our Creator. Our Founders make this very clear.

Does the Creator endow only Americans with rights, leaving the Frenchman, the Syrian or the Gabonese without a right to due process?

will NOAA scientist Dr. John Bates be in the march?

I certainly hope so. The Associated Press reports:

However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.”

“It’s really a story of not disclosing what you did,” Bates said in the interview. “It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form.”

I’m not sure how “not trumped up data” becomes “irrefutable evidence” that Karl et al 2015 was based upon “false and misleading data”. The conservative mind works in very strange ways.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 12, 2017 6:35 PM
Comment #413184

Don’t you get tired of saying the same thing over and over again? I know it works on 6th graders, but c’mon.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 12, 2017 7:56 PM
Comment #413185

Given the 6th attitude expressed by some Watchblog conservatives, I think persistence and reiteration are perfectly warranted. Unlike conservatives, I don’t rely on proof by assertion. I document my sources and I don’t merely regurgitate someone else’s flawed interpretation of events.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 12, 2017 8:02 PM
Comment #413186

Warren Porter, isn’t it a conundrum for you to know those people don’t have those rights until the get onto U.S. soil?

I’ll venture the French man already has those rights in his home country. He doesn’t need ours.

If they don’t have those rights in their own country it’s their own fault. It’s up to them to do the same thing our founders did. They earned those rights. They didn’t walk into a foreign country and demand them.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 12, 2017 8:05 PM
Comment #413189

WW,

If they don’t have those rights in their own country it’s their own fault. It’s up to them to do the same thing our founders did. They earned those rights.

It’s curious that you say this because it echoes comment Stephen made recently:

http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/009674.html#413169

Personally, I am apt to agree with Royal Flush:

The Declaration of Independence is quite clear and needs no interpretation.

…all men created equal…with certain unalienable Rights…

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted…

If the Liberal/Progressive faction can convince us that government grants rights rather than God, we are lost as a Democratic Republic. The governments role is to secure our rights, not create new ones or thrash existing ones.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 12, 2017 8:46 PM
Comment #413190

WW,

You didn’t answer my question. Does our Creator endow a Syrian with the same unalienable rights that are endowed upon Americans? Or was Jefferson full of it when he wrote “all men are created equal”?

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 12, 2017 10:33 PM
Comment #413193

They all have the same rights. They just have to assert themselves and earn them. They’re not handed out in exchange for a vote or welfare benefits.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 13, 2017 12:20 AM
Comment #413202

warren

“Does the Creator endow only Americans with rights, leaving the Frenchman, the Syrian or the Gabonese without a right to due process?”

Of course not, but America is the only country that has put in place a means of protecting those rights. IE the US constitution.

Posted by: dbs at February 13, 2017 7:17 AM
Comment #413220

It truly is sad to read Warren’s comments about the unalienable rights endowed by our Creator in the DOI. If he would bother to read just a bit more he would find…

“That to secure those rights, Governments are instituted among Men…”

Do I need to explain Warren?

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 13, 2017 6:13 PM
Comment #413224

When tyranny raises its ugly head the innocent, ignorant, unarmed and unprepared always pay a heavy price. We have seen, and recoil from, the brutality of Hitler, Stalin and others. Yet, many of their victims, for whatever reason, failed to resist.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 13, 2017 7:50 PM
Comment #413228

I find it sad that so many Watchbloggers wish to follow in the footsteps of Hitler, Stalin and others by refusing to protect the unalienable rights of their fellow man.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 14, 2017 1:22 AM
Comment #413234

That’s all in your head, Warren Porter.

Posted by: Weary Willie at February 14, 2017 8:22 AM
Comment #413238

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 14, 2017 9:06 AM
Comment #413256

Thanks for the link Stephen.

What you and especially Warren claim, as I understand what was written, is that American due process applies to every person in the world where ever they reside.

I never argued about due process for those in the country.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 14, 2017 2:30 PM
Comment #413257

Foreigners have a right to due process. When foreigners are interacting with foreign governments, the American government has no role to play guaranteeing that right to due process. However, when foreigners interact with the US government, then the right to due process needs to be protected.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 14, 2017 2:33 PM
Comment #413258

Warren, prisoners at Gitmo will be pleased to read that you have settled a thorny issue.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 14, 2017 2:43 PM
Comment #413260

warren

“Foreigners have a right to due process.”


Only if they are already residing in this country.

Posted by: dbs at February 14, 2017 3:02 PM
Comment #413279
prisoners at Gitmo will be pleased to read that you have settled a thorny issue.

This was already adjudicated in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and other cases which granted habeas corpus rights to the prisoners of GTMO.

Only if they are already residing in this country.
This is your opinion, but it is not a fact. Posted by: Warren Porter at February 14, 2017 5:40 PM
Comment #413319

warren


“The always talkative conservative bunch seem to be rather muted today. I guess there must be some interference in the dispatch of today’s GOP talking points.”

Nope, it’s a fact. So someone living in say Venezuela has right to due process in the united states ? President Maduro will not be pleased.

Posted by: dbs at February 15, 2017 6:47 AM
Comment #413320


Oops forgot to hit copy before pasting. Inore the previous post.

“This is your opinion, but it is not a fact.”


Nope, it’s a fact. So someone living in say Venezuela has right to due process in the united states ? President Maduro will not be pleased.

Posted by: dbs at February 15, 2017 6:50 AM
Comment #413323

What part of:

When foreigners are interacting with foreign governments, the American government has no role to play guaranteeing that right to due process.

Do you not understand?

So someone living in say Venezuela has right to due process

I thought we already agreed that a Venezuelan has a right to due process, even though the Venezuelan government may not protect that right very well?

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 15, 2017 10:48 AM
Comment #413328

The Constitution limits the government in what it can do. The Constitution applies to everything the government does and everyone that interacts with the government. As it should be.

An example would be the Mexican “El Chapo” Guzman who was extradited to the US. He isn’t an American citizen yet he has the same rights when dealing with the government that any citizen has. The Constitution doesn’t limit the rights of any individual dealing with the government.

Why is this so hard for our “conservative” friends?

Posted by: j2t2 at February 15, 2017 11:30 AM
Comment #413334

What about a Country that doesn’t have an extradition treaty with us J2?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at February 15, 2017 2:23 PM
Comment #413339

Why is this so hard for our “conservative” friends?
Posted by: j2t2 at February 15, 2017 11:30 AM

Sorry you missed the discussion. When will the prisoners in Gitmo be brought to the US for due process?

“According to Clinton administration official Richard Clarke:

‘extraordinary renditions’, were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgment of the host government…. The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: ‘Lloyd says this. Dick says that.’ Gore laughed and said, ‘That’s a no-brainer. Of course it’s a violation of international law, that’s why it’s a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 15, 2017 3:05 PM
Comment #413363

Foreigners outside of the jurisdiction of the US do not have any due process rights under our Constitution. Aliens within the jurisdictional boundaries of the US are afforded limited Constitutional rights such as legal due process. The Constitution distinguishes rights for “persons” and rights for “citizens.”

One of the reasons for Quantanamo Bay was to exclude prisoners from jurisdictional boundaries of the US and hence eliminate any Constitutional due process rights. The Supreme Court rejected the argument reasoning that the US had full control over the section of Cuba under treaty and jurisdiction was proper.

There are however, rights granted to foreigners outside the direct jurisdiction of the US through treaties which have the force of US law. The Geneva Conventions is an example. But, generally speaking foreigners have no rights if they are outside of US jurisdiction.

Posted by: Rich at February 16, 2017 12:36 AM
Comment #413385

Number of people killed in this country since 9.11 by Muslim immigrants from ANY of the countries listed in Trump’s EO:

Zero

Posted by: Elliott at February 16, 2017 2:41 PM
Comment #413390

Elliott,

Thank you for the reminder. Sometimes, I get too caught up in minutia and miss the forest for the trees. The EO issued by Trump is near useless at protecting American lives.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 16, 2017 3:28 PM
Comment #413393

How many terrorist incidents have been committed in this country by Muslim immigrants from any of the countries listed in Trump’s EO?

Posted by: kctim at February 16, 2017 3:55 PM
Comment #413394

The stated purpose of the EO was to save American lives, not prevent people here from assisting terrorism overseas.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 16, 2017 4:03 PM
Comment #413424

‘have been committed in this country,’ Warren.
Or even prevented.

Posted by: kctim at February 17, 2017 8:42 AM
Comment #413425

I didn’t ask about “overseas,” Warren

‘have been committed in this country.’
Or even prevented?

Posted by: kctim at February 17, 2017 8:44 AM
Comment #413426

I didn’t ask about “overseas,” Warren

‘have been committed in this country.’
Or even prevented?

Posted by: kctim at February 17, 2017 8:45 AM
Comment #413487

Royal Flush-
That’s another thing entirely. It’s considered a violation of international law because you’re essentially kidnapping somebody out of someone else’s sovereign territory without their knowledge.

That’s not the same thing as siting your prison for Terrorists off American soil in an attempt to make it something of a legal black hole. We’d often try those terrorists we did rendition on in American courts, send them to American jails.

The folks you apologize for deliberately made Gitmo a black hole, deliberately made it and Abu Ghraib places where due process and the international treaties we signed onto were disregarded. That’s why they’re such an embarrassment to us.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 20, 2017 8:33 AM
Comment #413560
I didn’t ask about “overseas,” Warren

I was trying to quash an ambiguity in your original comment which seemed to include incidents where a terrorist attack occurred overseas after receiving material support or being planned in this country.

No, there are zero known instances of anyone from those seven specified nations successfully carrying out a terrorist attack.

Posted by: Warren Porter at February 21, 2017 11:36 PM
Post a comment