Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sergarr]

Yeah, Obama definitely did not do well with expanding powers of the executive branch. It made sense on a tactical level, to bypass Congress block, but strategically, it was a mistake, as the Republicans probably allowed these laws to pass precisely so that they could benefit from them.

Dammit, why are Republicans so good at politics? Did they min-max their social stats, or something?

[TempAcc]

Trump walked into presidency with the White house more powerful than it has been for decades, to the point he can pursue even his most distruptive plans with impressive ease. Power centralization is a bitch ain't it? One day your pet overlord is calling the shots, celebrities prance flamboyantly in the fields and all is well in the world, then suddenly the wrong guy takes his place and everything magically becomes fascism from night to day.

[hamstersong]

Have we been attacked at all from people of any of the banned countries?
Not surprisingly, Trump has no business interests in any of the banned countries.
He does have interests in countries other countries, such as Saudi Arabia. 15 out of 19 of 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Not that we would ever ban from there, but still...
He has interests in other countries, such as Turkey, Egypt, and Indonesia, which have been having a ton of terrorist issues recently.

[LoSboccacc]

Not surprisingly, Trump has no business interests in any of the banned countries.

Trump should really thanks Obama for the list of countries on terror watch then.

[Vilanat]

It's also amusing that Jordan and Tunisia isn't on that list, even though they are the biggest exporters per capita of terrorists to ISIS. then again, Jordan's King is relient on the US for his existence and Tunisia is supposed to be the role model for the success of the Arab Spring, so Obama didn't include both of these terrorist greenhouses.

[Sheb]

Well it's in two parts : First, he allowed the law that removed the exeption for considering the American soil as a special case in the war against terror.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/15/americans-face-guantanamo-detention-obama

That is debatable. That law has never been used to detain a US citizen on US soil, and challenges to it have been thrown out because the plaintiffs had not standing to sue, it's not clear at all it'd stand if actually used. Also, this one is just about detention by the armed force, it says nothing more general about killing people.

[MorleyDev]

And the UN Rights Chief has denounced the ban as illegal under Human Rights Laws.

Taking all bets, taking all bets, next executive order: Withdrawal of America from UN that dared criticise Glorious Leader Trump? Not that breaking Human Rights laws is exactly new to America...

[LoSboccacc]

And the UN Rights Chief has denounced the ban as illegal under Human Rights Laws.

Taking all bets, taking all bets, next executive order: Withdrawal of America from UN that dared criticise Glorious Leader Trump? Not that breaking Human Rights laws is exactly new to America...

that's curious. which law would that be?

[smjjames]

And the UN Rights Chief has denounced the ban as illegal under Human Rights Laws.

Taking all bets, taking all bets, next executive order: Withdrawal of America from UN that dared criticise Glorious Leader Trump? Not that breaking Human Rights laws is exactly new to America...

that's curious. which law would that be?

Geneva Convention maybe? Though the spirit of it rather than directly possibly, but I don't think Trump even knows what it is.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi parliament approved a reprocity to the US ban, nothing about the thousands of US soldiers and contractors there yet.

Most likely they wouldn't boot out the soldiers because they really need them, but still.

[LoSboccacc]

And the UN Rights Chief has denounced the ban as illegal under Human Rights Laws.

Taking all bets, taking all bets, next executive order: Withdrawal of America from UN that dared criticise Glorious Leader Trump? Not that breaking Human Rights laws is exactly new to America...

that's curious. which law would that be?

Geneva Convention maybe? Though the spirit of it rather than directly possibly, but I don't think Trump even knows what it is.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi parliament approved a reprocity to the US ban, nothing about the thousands of US soldiers and contractors there yet.

Most likely they wouldn't boot out the soldiers because they really need them, but still.

after reading the text seems the Geneva Convention is out of scope

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

I guess there's some treaty out there that cover this, will keep looking. But this really smells like one situation where feelings are conflated into pretend laws.

edit: this one seems to apply but cannot find the full text https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees, I'm reading trough the sources.

[...] provision F makes it clear the receiving country has a right to vet refuges

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

F. The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that:

(a) He has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes;

(b) He has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee;

(c) He has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

[Sheb]

I guess it would be under the Protocol Relating to the Status of REfugees?

[smjjames]

Not sure what Merkel was talking about when she talked about the Geneva Convention (as it applies to the refugee ban) with Trump then.

[Sheb]

You can (and the US did and does) vet refugees. It's just the blanket ban on nationalities which are bad.

It's funny to see Trump goes on about the need to stop ME Christian being slaugthered, when his ban effectively prevent them from emigrating to the US as well.

[smjjames]

Yeah, like those two Christian families who got booted back to Syria.

I'm guessing that part of the whole thing where Christian refugees are prioritized (if it's enforceable) hasn't been implemented yet.

[Sheb]

You guys remember Trump's super secret plan to defeat ISIS? Well, apparently his super secret plan was to ask the SECDEF to come up with a plan. Surely he couldn't say that during the campaign or ISIS would thwart his plan!