Travel Ban 2.0 Released

[time4fun]

A new travel ban (http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/06/politics/trump-new-travel-ban-executive-order-full-text/index.html) has been drafted up by the administration with some changes from the old one:

-Iraq has been removed from the list of majority Muslim countries covered under the ban
-The Syrian refugee program is now on a 120 day suspension instead of indefinite
-The number of refugees allowed is capped at 50,000 a year, vs the 110,000 a year last year
-Legal Permanent Residents are now exempt
-The EO still requires a 90 day period of time, despite the fact that there have already been several weeks since the prior EO that requested 90 days.
-Non-Muslims no longer get preferential treatment in the new EO
-The EO gives 10 days before it takes effect

This time, the EO does more to justify itself in the text by citing relevant laws and statutes. The EO seems to rely very heavily on section 212(f) in the INA:


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...

The question is- who now has standing in Court (far fewer people than before), and is the new ban going to stand up in the Courts better than the old one?

Legal Issues to overcome:

-The Administration will still need to defend the decision that immigration from these countries represents enough of a threat as to be "detrimental to the interests of the United States".
-A DHS report from last week (http://www.salon.com/2017/03/03/dhs-report-undermines-president-trumps-travel-ban-most-foreign-born-terrorists-become-radicalized-in-the-u-s/) that the administration attempted to have spiked directly contradicts the argument that people are already radicalized before entering the country.
-The Administration will still need to deal with its repeated promises to enact a Muslim ban and will have to convince the Courts that this is not, in fact, an extension of that promise- despite it targeting only Muslim-majority nations with little history of exporting domestic terrorists to the US.
-The Administration's repeated delays in enacting the new ban will undoubtedly come up in the Courts- potentially calling into question the Administration's claim that the need is both pressing and immediate.
-The other side will have to find a party that has sufficient standing- which will be much harder in this instance.
-The other side will have to convince the Courts that they have the authority to intervene. Had this been the original EO, they might not have been able to. This being an obvious revamp of the original, however, may make this a relatively easy argument.

[ClydeR]

The revisions were aimed directly at convincing the courts to stop messing with national security. I'm just sorry it has a 10 day delay, which is inconsistent with an urgent national security threat.

[Parkbandit]

The revisions were aimed directly at convincing the courts to stop messing with national security. I'm just sorry it has a 10 day delay, which is inconsistent with an urgent national security threat.

LOL..

You're still posting here? I figured your other accounts maybe...

Damn son...

[time4fun]

The revisions were aimed directly at convincing the courts to stop messing with national security. I'm just sorry it has a 10 day delay, which is inconsistent with an urgent national security threat.

That's basically the administration's stance- they are running under the assumption that a Muslim ban helps protect national security. The argument was severely undercut when the Court's asked the administration's lawyers to produce evidence that the ban would do so, and they were unable to. And the DHS's own findings suggest that this would have little or no positive effect.

The counter-argument is of course, that these sort of bans are nothing but recruiting fodder for groups like ISIL, and that they only serve to further radicalize domestic citizens who are already feeling like their country is at war with their religion.

[time4fun]

Federal Judge in Hawaii (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/lawyers-face-off-on-trump-travel-ban-in-md-court-wednesday-morning/2017/03/14/b2d24636-090c-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html?utm_term=.8eea1596706f) has put a freeze on the new travel ban:


A federal judge in Hawaii on Wednesday issued a sweeping freeze of President Trump’s new executive order, hours before it would have temporarily barred the issuance of new visas to citizens of six Muslim-majority countries and suspended the admission of new refugees.

In a blistering, 43-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Derrick K. Watson pointed to Trump’s own comments and those of his close advisers as evidence that his order was meant to discriminate against Muslims and declared there was a “strong likelihood of success” those suing would prove the directive violated the Constitution.

[drauz]

So now Trump can't do anything that involves a Muslim majority nation... Fan fucking tastic.

[time4fun]

So now Trump can't do anything that involves a Muslim majority nation... Fan fucking tastic.

erm no. It means he can't do things that only target Muslim nations- after campaigning on banning Muslims from entering the country- if he has no evidence-supported reason to do so.

There's kind of a difference.

[Gelston]

So if he randomly tossed in Bulgaria or something, it'd be okay right?

[Fortybox]

So if he randomly tossed in Bulgaria or something, it'd be okay right?

Should add her to the list too.

[drauz]

erm no. It means he can't do things that only target Muslim nations- after campaigning on banning Muslims from entering the country- if he has no evidence-supported reason to do so.

There's kind of a difference.

Um, no. Watson disregarded the gov't arguments regarding safety and these countries harboring terrorists (which they do). His entire basis for shooting it down was Trump's past comments regarding Islam.

So yes, it looks like the 9th circuit would shoot down any EO regarding any Muslim majority nation.

[time4fun]

Um, no. Watson disregarded the gov't arguments regarding safety and these countries harboring terrorists (which they do). His entire basis for shooting it down was Trump's past comments regarding Islam.

So yes, it looks like the 9th circuit would shoot down any EO regarding any Muslim majority nation.

Harboring terrorists and exporting them to the US aren't the same thing. That's the problem with the logic, and it's why it keeps getting shut down by the Courts. There's no problem that's actually being solved here.

And his entire reasoning wasn't his past comments- it was actually several issues with the ban that all came together to demonstrate animus as the motivation, a lack of any actual evidence that there was a problem with exporting terrorists from those countries, and the fact that it specifically targeted only Muslim nations.

Here's what it boils down to- you can't say for months that you're going to ban Muslims from entering the country, and then go create a ban that targets only Muslim nations- none of which are major sources of domestic terrorism- and expect everyone to pretend like this is something other than a duck.

[Trump]

It would be fine and make sense if he added Germany, France, Saudi Arabia, and Switzerland. What people don't realize is you don't just get on Travelocity and use the price chopper when you're in Syria and waltz on over using Uber to your international airport to get to the United States. Not when your fucking country looks like this...
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/46/d3/15/46d315985f121127ddae19226e893f98.jpg

or this...
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/Reports/syria.jpg

or this, dudes smart decided to walk to his obliterated airport instead of calling a exploded cab, saving money!
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/08/29/1409313175403_wps_60_ATTENTION_EDITORS_VISUAL_.jpg

No, what happens is people (and nearly all terrorists) come from stable regions of the world, although yes their originating country could be from places like Syria. So, it doesn't do a lick of good to deny travel from these fucked up places when the real danger is from unfortunately stable, liberal immigration countries like a France or Germany.

[drauz]

Harboring terrorists and exporting them to the US aren't the same thing. That's the problem with the logic, and it's why it keeps getting shut down by the Courts. There's no problem that's actually being solved here.

They are exporting them, they go to the camps to train and go back to where they came from and then go out from there to try a terrorist attack.


And his entire reasoning wasn't his past comments- it was actually several issues with the ban that all came together to demonstrate animus as the motivation, a lack of any actual evidence that there was a problem with exporting terrorists from those countries, and the fact that it specifically targeted only Muslim nations.

Here's what it boils down to- you can't say for months that you're going to ban Muslims from entering the country, and then go create a ban that targets only Muslim nations- none of which are major sources of domestic terrorism- and expect everyone to pretend like this is something other than a duck.

Your first reason is basically the only one Watson backed up. Again the articles might have left out some of it.

They showed evidence for it.

Are there people from non-Muslim counties committing terrorism now?

All this because of guy from Hawaii feared he might not get to see his mother in-law.

[beldannon5]

so if thats true we should really vet all people coming to the country, ban everyone without extensive vetting? I am not talking about people that are already here on visa's or people legally but those who aren't at this time.

Not trying to be a dik just curious

[drauz]

so if thats true we should really vet all people coming to the country, ban everyone without extensive vetting? I am not talking about people that are already here on visa's or people legally but those who aren't at this time.

Not trying to be a dik just curious

I would say vetting for anyone who has recently visited those countries in the past 3-5 years.

[time4fun]

They are exporting them, they go to the camps to train and go back to where they came from and then go out from there to try a terrorist attack.



Your first reason is basically the only one Watson backed up. Again the articles might have left out some of it.

They showed evidence for it.

Are there people from non-Muslim counties committing terrorism now?

All this because of guy from Hawaii feared he might not get to see his mother in-law.

So 1) there's been no issue with people coming from those countries recently and carrying out domestic terrorism. The ban specifically left out the countries that HAVE been a problem.

DHS's own report on this last month specifically said that people who become radicalized do it years after arriving, and that there was no way to screen for it beforehand. i.e. the ban doesn't do anything but help ISIS recruit.

And the articles have focused on the animus argument because that was a big part of the decision, but the lack of evidence that these nations pose national security threats that would be, in any significant way, mitigated by the ban was also a key part of the decision.

As for your "are non-Muslims acting as terrorists" line- white Christian men are responsible for the vast majority of domestic terrorism in the US. Wanna go ban them?

This whole idea that a group of people represent all of Islam is insane. I can't believe I keep having to say this in 2017, but any time you attribute a negative characteristic to a group of people based solely on their religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation- you're wrong.

[drauz]

As for your "are non-Muslims acting as terrorists" line- white Christian men are responsible for the vast majority of domestic terrorism in the US. Wanna go ban them?

This whole idea that a group of people represent all of Islam is insane. I can't believe I keep having to say this in 2017, but any time you attribute a negative characteristic to a group of people based solely on their religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation- you're wrong.

Right, can you show me examples of these white christian terrorists? I've heard about the San Bernadino shooting, the Miami shooting, 9-11. What you got for the last 15 years?

With that last line you are basically saying that you can't attribute a negative characteristic no matter what they believe. I disagree. DO you really need examples of when its ok?

[BigWorm]

Right, can you show me examples of these white christian terrorists? I've heard about the San Bernadino shooting, the Miami shooting, 9-11. What you got for the last 15 years?

Here are a few:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylann_Roof
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Parenthood_shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shooting

[tyrant-201]

Here are a few:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylann_Roof
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Parenthood_shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shooting

Thank you. There's plenty more out there. Do some research, Drauz.

That's not to say Muslim terrorism isn't a problem. But we have plenty of home grown shit ourselves.

[drauz]

Here are a few:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylann_Roof
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Parenthood_shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shooting

So, 1 Christian inspired shooting? I honestly hadn't heard about the Colorado Springs one.

[drauz]

Thank you. There's plenty more out there. Do some research, Drauz.

That's not to say Muslim terrorism isn't a problem. But we have plenty of home grown shit ourselves.

I think some of those listed are iffy to be considered terrorism, but I'll err on the side of caution and accept them. Well except for Jared, he is literally insane.

[tyrant-201]

I think some of those listed are iffy to be considered terrorism, but I'll err on the side of caution and accept them. Well except for Jared, he is literally insane.

It's interesting though. Terrorism seems to be widely accepted as a motivator for people from the Mid-East, but most people home-grown who have an agenda who perform attacks in the US aren't labeled terrorists. Was the VA tech shooter a terrorist? Columbine kids? Christopher Dorner?

Most of the deadliest attacks on American soil have been perpetrated by American citizens. I could see an alarmist sort of reaction if we were being violently attacked by a lot of these countries, but by and large we're not - and Syrian refugees desperately rely on us as a place who will respond and offer refuge.

[drauz]

It's interesting though. Terrorism seems to be widely accepted as a motivator for people from the Mid-East, but most people home-grown who have an agenda who perform attacks in the US aren't labeled terrorists. Was the VA tech shooter a terrorist? Columbine kids? Christopher Dorner?

Most of the deadliest attacks on American soil have been perpetrated by American citizens. I could see an alarmist sort of reaction if we were being violently attacked by a lot of these countries, but by and large we're not - and Syrian refugees desperately rely on us as a place who will respond and offer refuge.

I don't consider people acting out a mental illness as terrorists but they could easily be considered that from their actions. I generally consider terrorism , as the main purpose, to create mass panic on a nationwide scale, though there is generally later revealed to be an ulterior motive for the action, such as religion. This is why I suggested that some of those listed were iffy. They walk the line on how I determine what a terrorist attack is.

I think the people of Syria were placed in a poor situation by Germany. When they said they would take everyone, people from other countries that were looking for a better economic life decided to come in with the Syrian refuges. This increased the number of migrants to numbers that couldn't be taken in. No country in Europe can successfully integrate 1-5 million people at once. It just simply can't happen, it has to be a gradual influx of people to successfully integrate them into that society.

[Enuch]

It's interesting though. Terrorism seems to be widely accepted as a motivator for people from the Mid-East, but most people home-grown who have an agenda who perform attacks in the US aren't labeled terrorists. Was the VA tech shooter a terrorist? Columbine kids? Christopher Dorner?

Most of the deadliest attacks on American soil have been perpetrated by American citizens. I could see an alarmist sort of reaction if we were being violently attacked by a lot of these countries, but by and large we're not - and Syrian refugees desperately rely on us as a place who will respond and offer refuge.

Agree with drauz, none of these actions had the intent of creating mass panic within the United States as well as cause fear and disruption to our government. Now the Oklahoma City bombing would qualify as well as the pipe bombs at the olympics, dudes in Boston etc. all acts of terrorism.

[BigWorm]

Agree with drauz, none of these actions had the intent of creating mass panic within the United States as well as cause fear and disruption to our government. Now the Oklahoma City bombing would qualify as well as the pipe bombs at the olympics, dudes in Boston etc. all acts of terrorism.

It's almost like people call it terrorism when muslims do it but find any other thing to call it if the perpetrator is a white christian.

[Gelston]

I think the word "terrorism" has been thrown around way too much since September 11th. Sometimes murder is just murder, sometimes a bombing is just a bombing. We got some sick people in the world that are doing things simply to do them.

The text book definition the military uses for terrorism is "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; its intended purpose is to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological." So yes, many things spread fear, but you have to have that intent behind the fear, which is to coerce Governments and societies into doing something.

If a guy began a campaign of shooting up gay clubs in Miami to try and get them all closed down, that would be terrorism. One man walking into a gay club and shooting it up and then dying in it? Not so much.

[Tgo01]

Here are a few:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylann_Roof
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Parenthood_shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shooting

Are you saying someone who is white who commits a crime is automatically a white Christian terrorist? You're sounding a bit like a racist and a Christianphobe to be honest.

[Tgo01]

One man walking into a gay club and shooting it up and then dying in it? Not so much.

I think the reason the night club shooting was considered terrorism is because the guy pledged his allegiance to ISIS. Otherwise I would agree, if he just went there and shot up the place and was killed by police and he wasn't trying to send any sort of message and he just happened to be Muslim then it probably wouldn't be considered terrorism.

If they proved he specifically targeted a gay night club and it wasn't just a coincidence then it would have been a hate crime.

[Gelston]

I think the reason the night club shooting was considered terrorism is because the guy pledged his allegiance to ISIS. Otherwise I would agree, if he just went there and shot up the place and was killed by police and he wasn't trying to send any sort of message and he just happened to be Muslim then it probably wouldn't be considered terrorism.

If they proved he specifically targeted a gay night club and it wasn't just a coincidence then it would have been a hate crime.

There are a lot of theories on why, the biggest one is that he was realizing he was gay himself and was sickened by it. I can go run a swerve through a red light and claim it was ISIS, but it still isn't really terrorism. Well, unless it is part of a new ISIS campaign to make people afraid when they approach traffic signals.

[Tgo01]

There are a lot of theories on why, the biggest one is that he was realizing he was gay himself and was sickened by it.

The FBI investigated this and found no evidence this was true at all. It was a theory put out almost immediately by the left in order to downplay the ISIS connection and place the blame on the gay community, ironically enough a marginalized group that the left also claims to care about. Muslims are currently at the top of the victim pecking order for Democrats and everyone else is subject to be thrown under the bus in order to defend them.

[Gelston]

The FBI investigated this and found no evidence this was true at all. It was a theory put out almost immediately by the left in order to downplay the ISIS connection and place the blame on the gay community, ironically enough a marginalized group that the left also claims to care about. Muslims are currently at the top of the victim pecking order for Democrats and everyone else is subject to be thrown under the bus in order to defend them.

There was no ISIS connection other than him pledging to ISIS. He didn't have ISIS support.

[Tgo01]

There was no ISIS connection other than him pledging to ISIS. He didn't have ISIS support.

True. But anyone can be a terrorist, they don't have to belong to a terrorist group. He pledged allegiance to a well known terrorist group, he demanded to be referred to as a Soldier of God, and made several demands for the US to stop bombing Iraq and Syria. All of the evidence points to him being a terrorist.

[Gelston]

True. But anyone can be a terrorist, they don't have to belong to a terrorist group. He pledged allegiance to a well known terrorist group, he demanded to be referred to as a Soldier of God, and made several demands for the US to stop bombing Iraq and Syria. All of the evidence points to him being a terrorist.

It is still not terrorism. It is a mass shooting. Is anyone in fear of that in Miami gay clubs now? No, because he didn't really spread any terror or fear (beyond what is expected) beyond what he did, nor did he further an ideological or religious agenda. For terrorism to be... Terrorism, people need to reasonably expect there to be a chance of further follow on attacks.

[Allereli]

For terrorism to be... Terrorism, people need to reasonably expect there to be a chance of further follow on attacks.

that's not the definition of terrorism.


The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

[Gelston]

that's not the definition of terrorism.

Read more than the last page okay? I'm going off the Military definition I was taught. "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; its intended purpose is to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."

There is nothing calculated about waltzing into a club and shooting people. Terrorism isn't a one hitter quitter, it is meant to instill a certain mood in an area.

[Tgo01]

It is still not terrorism. It is a mass shooting. Is anyone in fear of that in Miami gay clubs now? No, because he didn't really spread any terror or fear (beyond what is expected) beyond what he did, nor did he further an ideological or religious agenda. For terrorism to be... Terrorism, people need to reasonably expect there to be a chance of further follow on attacks.


The text book definition the military uses for terrorism is "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; its intended purpose is to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."

Okay let's break down this definition of terrorism:

Did he use violence or did he threaten violence to instill fear? I would say yes.

Did he try to intimidate governments or societies? I would say yes to both.

Was he pursuing political, religious, or ideological goals? I would say yes. The religious one is pretty obvious. Demanding we stop bombing Iraq and Syria could be seen as either a political or ideological goal.

It's why Timothy McVeigh was considered a terrorist because he didn't just blow up a building because he's a psychopath, he claimed it was for various reasons, all of which pertained to actions carried out by the government.

[Allereli]

Read more than the last page okay? I'm going off the Military definition I was taught. "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; its intended purpose is to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."

There is nothing calculated about waltzing into a club and shooting people. Terrorism isn't a one hitter quitter, it is meant to instill a certain mood in an area.

no thanks, I'm reading what I want to, and that is not what is taught in a political science course.

[Gelston]

Okay let's break down this definition of terrorism:

Did he use violence or did he threaten violence to instill fear? I would say yes.

Did he try to intimidate governments or societies? I would say yes to both.

Was he pursuing political, religious, or ideological goals? I would say yes. The religious one is pretty obvious. Demanding we stop bombing Iraq and Syria could be seen as either a political or ideological goal.

It's why Timothy McVeigh was considered a terrorist because he didn't just blow up a building because he's a psychopath, he claimed it was for various reasons, all of which pertained to actions carried out by the government.

Was that his intent? Or was he just a sick suicidal man who decided he was going to shoot up a night club and kill folks and figured "eh, fuck it, lets throw ISIS into this too"? We don't know. Again, I don't see it passing the "calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear;" because I don't see it as a calculated act.


no thanks, I'm reading what I want to, and that is not what is taught in a political science course.

I suppose your simplified mind likes the simplified google definition.

[Gelston]

I wonder when time4fun will pop in here and give us her expert opinion on terrorism. She is the most knowledgeable person about in on these boards. I'll hold off on further discussion until then.

[Tgo01]

I wonder when time4fun will pop in here and give us her expert opinion on terrorism. She is the most knowledgeable person about in on these boards. I'll hold off on further discussion until then.

Well she did evacuate a building on 9/11.

[Gelston]

Well she did evacuate a building on 9/11.

She gave speeches too! Or was that for something else? I remember something something DC and something something UN.

[Allereli]

I suppose your simplified mind likes the simplified google definition.

it agreed with my four years of political science courses, so I felt no need to go get those books out.

[Gelston]

it agreed with my four years of political science courses, so I felt no need to go get those books out.

If you don't have multiple degrees in Women's Studies your degrees are shit.

[Trump]

I agree with Gelston. But, a common theme runs between several of these attacks all of whom carry the same or similar ideology; which makes it terrorism even in Gelston's high-bar definition.

[Parkbandit]

that's not the definition of terrorism.

I looked it up on a source you could understand: Wikipedia. Very first line:

There is no universal agreement on the definition of terrorism.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism#cite_note-Williamson-38-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism#cite_note-2) Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions. Moreover, governments have been reluctant to formulate an agreed upon and legally binding definition. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term is politically and emotionally charged.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism#cite_note-Hoffman-1998-p23-3) To avoid this kind of confusion, the most common definition of terrorism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism) is used, which includes the following:[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism#cite_note-4)

[Allereli]

Okay let's break down this definition of terrorism:

Did he use violence or did he threaten violence to instill fear? I would say yes.

Did he try to intimidate governments or societies? I would say yes to both.

Was he pursuing political, religious, or ideological goals? I would say yes. The religious one is pretty obvious. Demanding we stop bombing Iraq and Syria could be seen as either a political or ideological goal.

It's why Timothy McVeigh was considered a terrorist because he didn't just blow up a building because he's a psychopath, he claimed it was for various reasons, all of which pertained to actions carried out by the government.

yeah but that's not what the military or PB says!

[Gelston]

yeah but that's not what the military or PB says!

Seeing as the military generally deals with terrorism a tad bit more than your Political Science class, I'll go with the one I was taught.

[Allereli]

Seeing as the military generally deals with terrorism a tad bit more than your Political Science class, I'll go with the one I was taught.

I'll go with the academics and legal definitions.

The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives" (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).

[Gelston]

I'll go with this sweet 32 page document. It not only defines it, but tells you why it is defined as such.

http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/NAVMC%202927.pdf?ver=2012-10-11-163942-140

[Allereli]

I'll go with this sweet 32 page document. It not only defines it, but tells you why it is defined as such.

http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/NAVMC%202927.pdf?ver=2012-10-11-163942-140

yeah, forget the U.S. Code. of Federal Regulations!

eta: these people are not being tried in military courts.

[Gelston]

yeah, forget the U.S. Code. of Federal Regulations!

eta: these people are not being tried in military courts.

..... What part of this conversation is over your head? I said from the very start, which you failed to read or understand, that I am going off the definition of terrorism that I was taught. Stop being a time4fun.

[Androidpk]

..... What part of this conversation is over your head? I said from the very start, which you failed to read or understand, that I am going off the definition of terrorism that I was taught. Stop being a time4fun.

Enough with the mansplaining you cis-gendered shitlord.

[Allereli]

..... What part of this conversation is over your head? I said from the very start, which you failed to read or understand, that I am going off the definition of terrorism that I was taught.

and here evidence of another definition based in U.S. law is being put before you, and in fact what these people are being judged based on, and you refuse to accept that definition and call a terrorist a terrorist. BTW Dylan Roof is also a white Christian terrorist.

[Parkbandit]

yeah but that's not what the military or PB says!

I couldn't possibly dumb it down for you anymore than I did. Someone offered a definition, you said "Nuh uh! I learned what it was in my poli sci class!"

I didn't say anything.. I posted a link from a website that specifically said there are MULTIPLE DEFINITIONS of what "Terrorism" is.

[Gelston]

and here evidence of another definition based in U.S. law is being put before you, and in fact what these people are being judged based on, and you refuse to accept that definition and call a terrorist a terrorist. BTW Dylan Roof is also a white Christian terrorist.

Mmm... No. Dylan Roof is a mass murdering psychopathic prick. He was using violence to try and cause anger, not fear, either way. I will, however, say that the KKK is a terrorist organization.

[Parkbandit]

Enough with the mansplaining you cis-gendered shitlord.

The term "shitlord" is inherently masculine.

Stop putting him in a specific gender box.

[drauz]

Read more than the last page okay? I'm going off the Military definition I was taught. "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; its intended purpose is to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."

There is nothing calculated about waltzing into a club and shooting people. Terrorism isn't a one hitter quitter, it is meant to instill a certain mood in an area.

Terrorism definitely doesn't have to be repeated in the exact same manner, just by the same organization.

[Thondalar]

Have we seriously reduced ourselves to arguing about the definition of "terrorism"?

[Gelston]

No, I'm waiting on time4fun to give the definitive definition.

[Parkbandit]

The Supreme Court is letting the Trump administration enforce its 90-day ban on travelers from six mostly Muslim countries, overturning lower court orders that blocked it.
The action Monday is a victory for President Donald Trump in the biggest legal controversy of his young presidency.
Trump said last week that the ban would take effect 72 hours being cleared by courts.
The justices will hear arguments in the case in the fall.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_TRAVEL_BAN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-06-26-10-33-37''

I am absolutely S-H-O-C-K-E-D that the SCOTUS overturned the 9th Circus. SHOCKED!

Oh wait.. I'm not.

Sorry time4fun.

[Ardwen]

Partially overturned you mean the case has yet to be heard, hell 90 days have passed look at all those attacks that have happened!

[Gelston]

Partially overturned you mean the case has yet to be heard, hell 90 days have passed look at all those attacks that have happened!

They dropped one provision, people with bona fide relationships with people already here.

[Ardwen]

My point was that they effectively passed the buck, the 90 days will be over before they actually rule on anything fully. Unless there is some other ban for some other reason of course. Perhaps we can get a white supremacist ban since they kill far more people then muslims. Hell Police have killed more people then muslim terrorists in the US.

[Gelston]

My point was that they effectively passed the buck, the 90 days will be over before they actually rule on anything fully. Unless there is some other ban for some other reason of course. Perhaps we can get a white supremacist ban since they kill far more people then muslims. Hell Police have killed more people then muslim terrorists in the US.

Hey, while we're playing this game, black people have killed more than any of the other races! Lets ban them first! See how idiotic that is?

[Parkbandit]

My point was that they effectively passed the buck, the 90 days will be over before they actually rule on anything fully. Unless there is some other ban for some other reason of course. Perhaps we can get a white supremacist ban since they kill far more people then muslims. Hell Police have killed more people then muslim terrorists in the US.

The lower court rulings have been overturned. Just like I said they would be.

It's a clear victory for the Trump Administration and the rule of law.

Are you playing the role of time4fun?

Stop being stupid. Also, the word "Muslim" should be capitalized. Show some respect.

[Ardwen]

If you consider that every person that was included in one of the various suits is now eligible to travel into the US then yep they overturned it. The majority of these people are better vetted hen the people working in the white house.

[Methais]

My point was that they effectively passed the buck, the 90 days will be over before they actually rule on anything fully. Unless there is some other ban for some other reason of course. Perhaps we can get a white supremacist ban since they kill far more people then muslims. Hell Police have killed more people then muslim terrorists in the US.

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/006/075/Bad_Post.jpg.jpg

[Parkbandit]

If you consider that every person that was included in one of the various suits is now eligible to travel into the US then yep they overturned it. The majority of these people are better vetted hen the people working in the white house.

SCOTUS stated that a President is well within his power to institute this travel restriction... whether you like that President or not isn't part of the law.

The majority of the people coming from those 6 countries are now not allowed to come into this country unvetted.

Overturned in favor of the President.

[Parkbandit]

The only bit of news that would have made this day a perfect day for President Trump was the announcement of Justice Kennedy retiring.

Next year maybe. Maybe he will take Justice Ginsberg with him. Can you imagine... 3 Justices from President Trump!!??

[Latrinsorm]

The Supreme Court is letting the Trump administration enforce its 90-day ban on travelers from six mostly Muslim countries, overturning lower court orders that blocked it.
The action Monday is a victory for President Donald Trump in the biggest legal controversy of his young presidency.
Trump said last week that the ban would take effect 72 hours being cleared by courts.
The justices will hear arguments in the case in the fall.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_TRAVEL_BAN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-06-26-10-33-37''

I am absolutely S-H-O-C-K-E-D that the SCOTUS overturned the 9th Circus. SHOCKED!

Oh wait.. I'm not.

Sorry time4fun.The Ninth Circuit ruled on the first executive order. That ruling wasn't even appealed.
The lower court rulings have been overturned. Just like I said they would be.

It's a clear victory for the Trump Administration and the rule of law.

Are you playing the role of time4fun?

Stop being stupid. Also, the word "Muslim" should be capitalized. Show some respect.The ruling is a compromise. The injunctions have been partially lifted, and the Supreme Court has added the "bona fide relationship" exception pending the full hearing (that will probably not even happen).

That anything short of an outright loss is viewed as a victory should tell you a lot about how this administration is doing.

[Fortybox]

OVERTURNEDZ!
https://media2.giphy.com/media/mXuPwUFXBWc4vWn3wI/giphy.gif

[Parkbandit]

The majority of these people are better vetted hen the people working in the white house.

Perhaps.. most definitely better than some members of Congress vet their employees...

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/26/house-dems-hired-a-fired-mcdonalds-worker-as-their-it-guy/

[Parkbandit]

https://www.apnews.com/b8244def36484dfb93fd958962b7d649/Supreme-Court-allows-full-enforcement-of-Trump-travel-ban

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/48/af/4b/48af4b0a23c5b4d8551287a9a77822c5.gif

[Gelston]

The damn thing would have been over with a while ago, but noooooo.

[Gelston]

I'm glad law and order once again rule the land.

[Fortybox]

I'm glad law and order once again rule the land.

Incoming time4dumb explanation telling you why you’re wrong and the left actually won.

[Gelston]

Incoming time4dumb explanation telling you why you’re wrong and the left actually won.

She'll probably be all like 4 voted against and it only passed because of the Judge Trump put in.

[Wrathbringer]

I'm glad scotus sided with Trump. Keep out the muslims. They're retarded and prone to violent outbursts in the name of their fake god, not to mention they are brown mostly.

[Neveragain]

The Ninth Circuit ruled on the first executive order. That ruling wasn't even appealed.The ruling is a compromise. The injunctions have been partially lifted, and the Supreme Court has added the "bona fide relationship" exception pending the full hearing (that will probably not even happen).

That anything short of an outright loss is viewed as a victory should tell you a lot about how this administration is doing.

LOL

[Neveragain]

That's basically the administration's stance- they are running under the assumption that a Muslim ban helps protect national security. The argument was severely undercut when the Court's asked the administration's lawyers to produce evidence that the ban would do so, and they were unable to. And the DHS's own findings suggest that this would have little or no positive effect.

The counter-argument is of course, that these sort of bans are nothing but recruiting fodder for groups like ISIL, and that they only serve to further radicalize domestic citizens who are already feeling like their country is at war with their religion.

LOL

[Neveragain]

Harboring terrorists and exporting them to the US aren't the same thing. That's the problem with the logic, and it's why it keeps getting shut down by the Courts. There's no problem that's actually being solved here.

And his entire reasoning wasn't his past comments- it was actually several issues with the ban that all came together to demonstrate animus as the motivation, a lack of any actual evidence that there was a problem with exporting terrorists from those countries, and the fact that it specifically targeted only Muslim nations.

Here's what it boils down to- you can't say for months that you're going to ban Muslims from entering the country, and then go create a ban that targets only Muslim nations- none of which are major sources of domestic terrorism- and expect everyone to pretend like this is something other than a duck.

LOL

[Parkbandit]

It was very obvious that this was well within the President to impose... it's VERY telling that the 4 liberal Justices didn't vote with the Constitution...

Hopefully, President Trump will get a couple of them replaced... :)

[Wrathbringer]

It was very obvious that this was well within the President to impose... it's VERY telling that the 4 liberal Justices didn't vote with the Constitution...

Hopefully, President Trump will get a couple of them replaced... :)

Sooner rather than later, hopefully.

[Neveragain]

All I can think is that Time4funs lawyer boyfriend either really sucks at being a lawyer or doesn't exist at all.

Breathing is harder than it was to call this one.

[Wrathbringer]

I guess cloaff has been too triggered over the ruling to post today. Can't wait for that waterfall of butthurt to come crashing down.

[Methais]

I guess cloaff has been too triggered over the ruling to post today. Can't wait for that waterfall of butthurt to come crashing down.

cshartt right now:

https://media.giphy.com/media/1BXa2alBjrCXC/giphy.gif

But with soy wine of course.

[Wrathbringer]

cshartt right now:

https://media.giphy.com/media/1BXa2alBjrCXC/giphy.gif

But with soy wine of course.

:lol: