Trump’s loose talk about Muslims gets weaponized in court against travel ban
Video     Photos     Pakistan     World     Islam     Health     Crime     Islamic News     Business     Society     India     Travel     Middle East     Sport     sci/tech      Contact      RSS
Search

Encounter specialist: Can Zardari save his arm child Rao Anwar in Naqeebullah’s murder case?

Waging war against Pakistan army prohibited in Islam: Ex-Terrorist organization Chief Sufi Muhammad

Free Karachi: Another smear campaign against Pakistan in US newspaper

US military edge over Russia, China eroding: Mattis

5,000 Yemen Children Killed or Wounded in War Since 2015

Iran reiterates Missile program non-negotiable

Trump no longer following Saudi-UAE script on Qatar, says former envoy

Allama Raja Nasir lashes out at Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif

Did TTP really assassinate Benazir Bhutto?

A Jewish plot: Pushing India against China, Pakistan and Iran

An old headache: How did Haqqani network bring US on the knees

India successfully test-fires nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missile: New Delhi

Saudis wasting billions by buying outdated weapons from US: Analyst

HRW urges UN sanctions on Saudi crown prince over Yemen war

Another minor raped: Why is Pakistan hesitant to hang rapists?

Modi and Netanyahu may get along great, but there are serious limitations to India-Israel relations

Season of protests: Is another national debacle in the offing?

Pakistan attaches importance to significant role of Iran in regional developments: Speaker

Hidden Israeli-Iranian war in Syria

Is Jordan breaking alliance with Saudi Arabia, West?

Russia weights behind Pakistan:  The end of US hegemony in South Asia?

Damage control: Has Trump conceded his defeat against Pakistan?

North, South Korea to march under 'unified flag' at Winter Olympics

US 'arrant erring' on al-Quds futile: Ayatollah Khamenei

Netanyahu: $500mn Israel-India arms deal 'back on track'

Saudi politicization of holy places is unislamic, we will continue to oppose

Israel prepares for air bridge to India over Saudi Arabia

Don’t forget old friends to make new one

Ulema decree against terrorism: Would religious card prove a true success against terrorism?

New network should be created to confront US-Israel alliance: Raza Rabbani

America seeks to use Taiwan against China: Today Online

Pakistan’s ruthless response to US: Why is India worried?

Shafaqna Exclusive: Is Govt hiding arrest of Zainab’s murderer for political purpose?

US new strategy seeks to create complex situation for Iran: Defense minister

Hamas blames Israeli regime for assassination attempt on its commander

US attacking North Korea would be like trying to get rid of Allah: Retired South Korean General

Egypt is not an honest broker for Palestinian reconciliation

Pakistan and Iran consult each other on many issues, says former diplomat

Surrendering of TTP terrorist: Is Pakistan gradually winning war against terrorism?

Inciting Pakistan: Is India inviting conventional war with Pakistan?

The secret behind Sharif's electoral success and popularity

Tel Aviv ‘disappointed’ by India’s rejection of Al-Quds as Israeli capital: Netanyahu

Syria militants in US seeking CIA dollars to ‘confront Iran’s influence’

US ‘policy of Armageddon’ means nuclear attack even against non-nuclear states

Rape, murder of 7-year-old Pakistani girl seem work of serial killer: Officials

Yemeni snipers kill three Saudi troopers in retaliatory attacks

Tunisia’s Jasmine Revolution

US to sell 17 Black Hawk aircrafts to Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia seeks arrest of citizens on wanted list who are abroad

US deploying 1,000 troops to Afghanistan

Israel Keeps Bombing Syria and Nobody Is Doing Anything About It

Fire-breathing rhetoric: Pakistani guns on China’s shoulder

Meeting with Trump: Did Imran Khan give US a hidden signal for future role?

Netanyahu in India: A dangerous alliance against Pakistan

Pakistan can’t be forced to compromise on national interests: US historian

Netanyahu Visits India: Muslims Burn Israeli Effigies in Protest

US-led coalition intends to create large new border force in Syria: Report

Interference of Saudi Intelligence services in Tehran’s deep operations

Hariri lauds Hezbollah, wants ‘best of relations’ with Iran

16 US troops and officers killed in Afghanistan

A hidden cost: Pakistan’s Psychological cost of war

Security agencies issue threat alert due plots of Daesh and Taliban factions

Can Pakistan’s judicial system punish killers of Innocent Zainab?

Is Balochistan a next ground of proxy war between Saudia and Iran?

ABN| Mass 'Free Zakzaky' protest in Istanbul, Turkey

Trump Gives World Four Months to Change Iran Nuclear Deal

Anti-Trump demonstrators march in Swiss capital

All parties must continue to implement JCPOA: Warns China's FM

Yemen's Displaced Families Escape Death from Saudi War to Makeshift Camps

Amnesty International urges probe after Myanmar’s Army admits its troops killed Muslims

Kasur Tragedy: Is Pakistani nation completely dead?

Trump Says He ‘Probably’ Has Good Relationship With Kim Jong Un

Pentagon Investigates Video of US Soldier Shooting Afghan Civilian

Abandoning the secular dream

Agony of Hazaras: A story of denied Justice

A soft tone: Did US repent on her policy to alienate Pakistan?

Even Saudi allies are questioning its Mideast power plays

Pakistan handed humiliated defeat by New Zealand

Trump paid porn star $130,000 to stay silent over alleged affair: Report

After Yemen’s defensive threat, Saudi buys Israel’s Iron dome

CIA Chief secretly visits India and Afghanistan to make new plots

LHC orders police to arrest culprit behind Zainab's rape and murder within 36 hours

Yemen announces production of new air defense missiles

Secret military cooperation between Saudi Arabia and Israel – Middle East Monitor

Will Pakistan be in trouble if US demands early repayment of debts?

War of words: Pakistan accuses US for spreading terrorism in Pakistan

Myanmar admits massacre of Rohingya Muslims

‘Congress must take Trump’s finger off nuke button’

Diphtheria claims 48 lives in Yemen within 60 days: WHO

Leaked tapes reveal Egypt’s support for Trump’s Jerusalem decision

Unending bloodshed in Kashmir: Why is not India on watch list?

New Saudi tax makes life of Pakistani expatriates miserable

HRW: Saudi Arabia bans prominent cleric’s family from travel

Qadri’s challenge: Is PML-N inviting the chaos?

Inside Bahraini regime death chambers

Is US helpless in Afghanistan without Pakistan’s help?

Protests hit Tunisia for 3rd night as PM warns of clampdown

New Yemeni missile system used to target Saudi-led warplanes: Report

Pakistan reportedly mulls toll tax hike on NATO containers amid Trump rift

Trump Team Debates Limited Strikes on North Korea

2017-02-07 23:21:00

Trump’s loose talk about Muslims gets weaponized in court against travel ban

imrsSHAFAQNA – Throughout Donald Trump’s campaign and now into the first weeks of his presidency, critics suggested that he cool his incendiary rhetoric, that his words matter. His defenders responded that, as Corey Lewandowski said, he was being taken too “literally.” Some, like Vice President Pence, wrote it off to his “colorful style.” Trump himself recently explained that his rhetoric about Muslims is popular, winning him “standing ovations.”

No one apparently gave him anything like a Miranda warning: Anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law.

And that’s exactly what’s happening now in the epic court battle over his travel ban, currently blocked by a temporary order set for argument Tuesday before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

The states of Washington and Minnesota, which sued to block Trump’s order, are citing the president’s inflammatory rhetoric as evidence that the government’s claims — it’s not a ban and not aimed at Muslims — are shams.

In court papers, Washington and Minnesota’s attorneys general have pulled out quotes from speeches, news conferences and interviews as evidence that an executive order the administration argues is neutral was really motivated by animus toward Muslims and a “desire to harm a particular group.”

His words, the two states say in their brief, show “that the President acted in bad faith in an effort to target Muslims.” The courts, they say, “have both the right and duty to examine” Trump’s “true motives.”

The states offer a multitude of exhibits, starting with a December 2015 release from the Trump campaign calling for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

They cite his August speech advocating screening out people “who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law.”

Another exhibit: His Jan. 27 interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network in which he said he wanted to give priority to Christians in Syria.

They even hauled out Rudolph W. Giuliani’s comment on Fox News that Trump wanted a “Muslim ban” and requested he assemble a commission to show him “the right way to do it legally.”

In response, government lawyers are trying to have Trump’s rhetoric treated, so-to-speak, as inadmissible and irrelevant. It is inappropriate and contrary to precedent, they say in their brief, for the court to “’look behind’ the stated basis for the Order to probe its subjective motivations.” The states, they complain, are asking “the courts to take the extraordinary step of second-guessing a formal national security judgment made by the President himself pursuant to broad grants of statutory authority.”

How the appeals court and ultimately, no doubt, the Supreme Court, responds remains to be seen. Both sides have their precedents to cite on probing presidential motive.

And there are numerous other issues in the case, including the government’s argument that the states do not have standing to sue. If the appeals court and the Supreme Court agree, this particular case could come to an abrupt halt without a decision on whether Trump’s order violates anyone’s rights under the Constitution.

However it comes out, it may or may not sink in with Trump that his words can be used to wreak havoc with his policy agenda.

His remarks could hurt the government’s key argument as it seeks to reinstate the order — that there was a “rational basis” for issuing it — said Jayashri Srikantiah, an immigration law professor at Stanford Law School.

“When there is a record of evidence, as there is here, of the president making discriminatory comments about Muslims, the question is, does that animate the executive order?” Srikantiah told The Washington Post. “If it does, it raises some serious concerns and it reflects an intentional discrimination.”

“It’s pretty unusual for a president to make those kinds of statements so candidly or publicly,” she continued. “In some ways, this is new territory.”

Trump’s call for a Muslim ban came just days after the deadly terrorist attack in San Bernardino in 2015, in which a Muslim couple shot and killed 14 people and injured 22 others at a holiday party. In December, during an appearance on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Trump suggested that the proposed ban was “no different” than President Franklin Roosevelt’s internment of hundreds of thousands of Japanese Americans during World War II.

Trump again called for a “ban” after the Pulse nightclub shooting in June, the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history. He framed the attack as an immigration issue, even though the shooter was a U.S. citizen born in New York to Afghan parents. The ban, Trump said in a speech in New Hampshire, would be lifted “when we as a nation are in a position to properly and perfectly screen” people entering the country.

“We are importing radical Islamic terrorism into the West through a failed immigration system,” he said. “If we want to remain a free and open society, then we have to control our borders.”

The plan seemed to shift later in the summer, when Trump said he intended to suspend immigration from “any nation that has been compromised by terrorism.” When asked in an appearance on “Meet the Press” in July if the change marked a “pull-back on his Muslim ban,” Trump responded that it didn’t, saying it could be viewed instead as an “expansion.”

In a foreign policy speech the following month, Trump proposed an ideological test for new immigrants, saying government should screen out any travelers “who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law.” He seemed to temper his remarks as the election drew closer, calling for “extreme vetting” of people entering the country as opposed to an outright ban. But late last month, in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, Trump said he wanted to give priority to Christian refugees over Muslims fleeing conflict in the Middle East.

All this and more have been submitted as exhibits in the case to illustrate that the travel restrictions aren’t what the administration claims in court: A lawful “exercise of the President’s authority over the entry of aliens into the United States and the admission of refugees” that is neutral on nationality or religion, based not on any hostility toward Muslims but on a congressional determination of countries that are hotbeds of terrorism.

It is unknown what advice President Barack Obama gave to President Trump in the traditional letter left in the Oval Office on Inauguration Day. But he could have given Trump a lesson in how words come back to haunt presidents, as that’s exactly what happened to Obama in his own immigration case when it reached the courts.

 

When Texas and 25 other states successfully sued to temporarily block Obama’s attempt to shield millions of illegal immigrants from deportation in 2015, among their chief arguments was that the president’s executive actions were an overreach, an end-run around the Republican-controlled Congress that had refused to go along with his proposals.

Among their best pieces of evidence were some of Obama’s own words, uttered at a moment of frustration when he was getting heckled for his deportation policy: “… I just took an action to change the law,” he responded.

Both the U.S. district court and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals used those and other words against him when they ruled against Obama.

When the Supreme Court deadlocked in the case, the lower court decisions stood.

It was, as The Post’s Robert Barnes reported in June 2016, “the biggest legal defeat of his administration.”

 
Categories:   Other News ،
From other agencies (RSS Reader)

Press agenda on January 20

- worldbulletin.net

Zainab?s Elegy

- The News

Zainab?s Elegy

- The News