North America Editor Kate Burrows-Jones explains in detail the Administration (Department of Justice case ) and the counter argument put by the Washington State Attorney.
In an emergency motion, arguments were heard last night by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals whether to uphold or turn a lower court decision by Seattle Federal District Court Judge (Justice) James Robart which had previously placed a restraining order against President Donald J. Trump’s Executive order banning travel from seven countries. The court ruling is not expected today. Judges ( justices) Clifton, Canby and Friedland presided by telephone and were Live-streamed to the public in a conference call with the Government’s Special Counsel for the Department of Justice, August Flentje, and the plaintiff, Noah Purcell, Solicitor General for the State of Washington in the case of State of Washington and State of Minnesota v. Trump.
The system works, but it doesn’t. We have seen how an executive order can be successfully challenged by the courts, which is a victory for democracy, except……Unfortunately, the San Francisco 9th Circuit, also know as the 9th Circus, is stacked with activist judges and has an extraordinary 67% rate of reversal. The president put in play an ill-conceived order, which he did not sell well to the public. The press didn’t read the order and jumped on the ‘Muslim ban’ bandwagon. The courts appear to have overturned it less on merit, than on politics. We the American people lose. What happens if we are faced with a real emergency? Has a precedent now been set that the Executive can’t impose a ban on certain immigrant and refugee groups. The most recent one is similar to a more isolated one President Barack Obama put in place to reaction to gaps in security screening brought to his attention by the FBI?
A petition signed by over one million, among whom 800,000 are British, will require MPs to discuss whether US President Donald Trump should be banned from a state visit. Any petition presented to parliament with over 100,000 signatures is automatically debated by MPs. The anti-Trump petition will be debated on Thursday, February 20th at Westminster Hall not in the main Commons Chamber. The MPs will also debate another petition, signed by half a million people and put up on Monday night, welcoming Mr Trump to the UK. The outcome of the debate only carries moral weight but has no effect on Government policy. A Sky News poll said 49% of Britons believe Trump should stay home.
By Kate Burrows-Jones, World Media North America Editor
President Trump Executive order is but sharpening existing laws set by his predecessor President Obama restricting entry to nationals of seven nations. ( below also include links to the full text of the order and related subjects)
Fake news indeed. There is no Executive order banning Muslims. President Donald Trump’s, perhaps ill-founded, ill-fated 90 day ban is based on President Barack Obama’s restrictions on Seven nations. Nobody cared when he did it, so was it a Muslim ban then? The law was written to address security concerns after the Paris Attacks, passing with overwhelming agreement. Voting was bipartisan, it passed the House 407-19. What Trump did was apply a sharp force, a halt on movement, and cruelly with no notice to let people prepare. Let the people decide if it is wrong, but to call it “Muslim” in nature, is also wrong without reading the full executive order.
Talks due to start 23 January in the Kazan capital Astana between Syrian government and many opposition, armed and civilian groups, and their backers in a settlement process sponsored by Russia and participation of Turkey, Iran and possible Gulf Arab states raising hopes to end to a five year blood civil war; but there are several dangerous mines on the road The talks were part of a comprehensive plan started with a Russian Turkish imposed ceasefire on December 30.
Our media led by BBC try to simplify the latest diplomatic crisis in the Middle East – which led to severing of diplomatic relations between Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Iran ( with two other countries following the Saudis action)- into Shia-Sunni sectarian rivalry resulting from the execution of Iran backed Shia cleric. This is a load of nonsense which leads to misunderstanding and misleading public opinion. It is far more complicated as many forces who adhere to the Shia faith (Morocco shia sects and those in North Africa nd Sudan) back KSA, while trends and forces who are devote Sunnis are backing Iran against the Saudis (Turkey for example is Sunni, so are Hamas and many Palestinian factions as well as the Muslim Brotherhood are all Sunni hardliners but are against Saudi Arabia especially in Yemen but are also against Assad in Syria. Continue reading →
Who to fight First, ISIL terror entity or the Syrian dictator… is there really a choice for Britain? we should get our priorities right and list the dangers in descending order if we were to answer. The House of commons vote last week ( Dec 2,2015) by a majority of 174 to back Prime Minister David Cameron’s motion to extend the RAF mission into areas controlled by the terrorist entity the Islamic state ( or ISIl – the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) has accelerated a legitimate debate about priorities and who is the real enemy and the tactical realignment within the a larger strategy as with whom should the United kingdom and her allies. Some who understand history and reality of the region and Islamism correctly argue that the Islamic State terror entity is a real danger that we must fight. Others with motives hard to understand, or being anti the idea of extending air-campaign to or just have little experience, argue that we should get rid of Assad regime in Syria first before fighting isil, which is utter nonsense
There has been some nonsense argument from the left wing anti-war or stop the war and others against extending the RAF mission into Syria to destroy the Islamic State Terror bases.
here is an example from BBC radio4 Today programme this morning at 08;55 . John Humphrys interviewed BBC security hack Frank Gardner on specific question: will attacks on ISIL in Syria have backlash here in UK and expose us to more attacks like 7/7 type?
Gradenr adamant if we bomb reqqa ISIL would attack london because of the propaganda value – which is at best guess work no fact based analysis. A security military expert interviewed also on the same item refuted Gardner’s guess. He told him it doesn’t mean that attacking ISIL in Syria would some how give the terrorist another means to increase their capabilities and enhance their tools to carry out new attacks more than what they are capable of doing now. He also quoted congress report how USA drone attacks reduced. Alqaeda capabilities to do us harm and carry out more attacks.
Gardener changed the argument to an issue (not mentioned in question) to say a British A british pilot might fall into their hands ( even though pilots are already flying ISIL areas in Iraq) and bombs might hit civilians (although the question was: will attacking reqqa put us in more risk in london )
Pat McFaden Labour, Wolverhampton South East, totally belittled this view as ” children fantasy dividing world into victims (Muslims) and perpetrators (the west) and it absolves the terrorists from responsibility. He argues it is also not a new military intervention, it is an extension of action already taking place .
The Turkmen Tribes who captured the two Russian pilots killed them on the spot instead of handing them over to their Turkish backers. They have been aiding ISIL in smuggling supplies. Russian are fighting Islamic State terror group and attacking supply lines managed by the Turkmen in the area of the borders where the SU24 was shot down . Many questions on the Turkish version of events.
The circle which Our western leaders dont seem to be able to square is: They claim that a US led coalition of 9 nation fighting Islamic State terrorists in Iraq and Syria (without much success) by an air campaign, now Russia is in hitting targets and destroying heavy ISIL weapons, the western leaders are complaining and condemning Russia. In fact Russia has a strategy of preserving Syria geographical integrity as one nation; while western policy ( deliberate or misguided) is tearing Syria apart which Russia sees asagainst its long term interest . America, EU and our UK Government, who have no coherent strategy on Syria ( I am being kind here to the west) ; now Russia, which do have a long term strategy and clear tactical objectives in the short term, decided to take action against the most menacing threat facing civilisation today, namely Islamists terrorism. The Islamic State terrorism which is not confined to the Levant ( Islamic State in Iraq and Levant ISIL) but is a world threat as this entity is modeled on ( and seriously emulating) the seventh and eighth centuries Islamic conquests with the aim of establising a neo-Islamic empire they call a worldwide caliphate, which recognises no national borders ( only idiots won’t realise those objectives especially when they changed the name from ISIL into just “Islamic Stare” ), a danger of Which President Putin has been aware for over a decade. He banned Muslim Bortherhood and other similar organisations who are a front to terrorist groups long time ago, while here in the west we still deal with such vile Islamo-fascist groups.Now Russia is taking genuine action, USA and UK governments are displaying first class hypocrisy as well as making foolish statements. A coalition led by the United States declaring they are fighting the Islamic state by an air campaign for most of this year; yet they are condemning Russia for taking action targeting those very terrorists… so are USA led coalition fighting the terrorists or not?