Mediaboss Marketing

Archives: By Topic Select a Topic 113th Congress 114th Congress 1267 terrorist sanctions 1997 Mine Ban Treaty 2001 AUMF 2002 AUMF 2016 Presidential Electio 9/11 Commission Review Aamer v. Obama Abdirahman Sheik Mohamud Abdullah al-Shami Abu Ghaith Abu Ghraib Abu Khattala Abu Omar Abu Wa'el Dhiab Abu Zubaydah v. Poland Accountability ACLU ACLU v. CIA ACLU v. Clapper ACLU v. DOJ act of state Adam Schiff Additional protocol I Adnan Syed Adobe Afghanistan Africa African Commission on Hum African Court of Human an African Court of Justice African Union African Union Mission in African Union Regional Ta Aggression Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi Ahmed Ghailani Ahmed Godane Ahmed Warsame Airstrikes Ajam v. Butler Akbar Akhtar Muhammad Mansur Al Bahlul IV Symposium Al Qaeda Al Shabaab Al Shumrani Al-Bahlul al-Iraqi Al-Janko v. Gates Al-Libi Al-Maqaleh v. Hagel Al-Nashiri Al-Nashiri v. Poland Al-Shimari v Caci et al. Al-Skeini v. United Kingd Al-Zahrani v. Rodriguez Alexander Litvinenko Algeria Ali v. Obama Alien Tort Statute All Writs Act Ambassador Robert Ford Ambassador Stephen Rapp Amends Amerada Hess American Law Institute American Samoa American Society of Inter Americans Amicus Brief amnesty Amnesty International Amos Guiora and Ibrahim al-Qosi Andrew Kleinfeld Andy Wright Angela Merkel Anonymity Ansar Dine Anthony Kennedy Anti-Muslim discriminatio Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) Anti-Torture Amendment Antonin Scalia Anwar al-Awlaki AP I AP II APA Appellate Jurisdiction Apple AQAP AQIM Arab Spring armed attack armed conflict Armed Opposition Groups Arms Control army field manual Artesia Article 51 Article II Article III Ash Carter Ashraf Ghani Aspen Publishers Assad Assassination Ban Associated Forces asylum Atomic Energy Act atrocities prevention Attacks on Cultural Herit Attorney General attribution Auden AUMF AUMFs Australia authorization for the use Automated Searches Automated Weapons Autonomous Weapons Autonomous Weapons System Avril Haines Ba Odah v. Obama back doors Bagram Air Force Base Bankovic v. Belgium Baraawe Barack Obama Barbara Tuchman Barrel Bombs Barton Gellman Bashar al-Assad Bashir Belfast Peace Agreement Belgium Belhaj v. Straw Bemba Ben Emmerson Ben Wittes Benghazi Bernand Kleinman Bill Banks Bimenyimana Biodefense Bioterror Bivens Suit Black Sites Blackwater Blue Ribbon Study Panel o BND Boasberg body cameras Boim v. Holy Land Foundat Boko Haram Bond v. US Book Reviews Books We've Read Bosnia-Herzegovina Botnets Boumediene v. Bush Brad Heath Brazil Brett Kavanaugh Brexit Brian Egan British Library Bruce Ackerman Brussels Attacks BSA bulk collection Burkina Faso Burundi Bush Administration CAAF CALEA California Call for Papers Cambodia Cameron Munter Canada Canadian Security Intelli Canadian Supreme Court Cardozo Law Review Carly Fiorina Carnegie Mellon Universit Castro v. DHS CAT Ceasefire Cell Site Location Inform cell tracking Censorship Center for Civilians in C Center for Constitutional Center for Democracy and Center for National Secur Center for Naval Analysis Central African Republic Central District of Calif cert petitions Cessation of Hostilities Chad Chapter VII Charles Taylor Charleston Church Shootin Charlie Hebdo Charlie Savage Chatham House mini forum Chelsea Manning Chemical Weapons Chilcot Report Chile China Chivalry Chris Jenks Church Commission CIA CIDT CISA Civil Liberties Civil service Civilian Casualties Civilian-Military divide Civilian-Military relatio Claire McCaskill Clapper Clapper v. Amnesty Intern Clarence Thomas Classified Information Clipper Chip Cluster Munitions CMCR collective self-defense Colombia Colvin v. Syria combat troops Comey Commission on the Wartime Committee Against Torture Committee on the Eliminat Common Article 1 Common Article 3 Community Outreach Compliance with Court Ord Complicity Computer Security Inciden Congress congressional authorizati Congressional Hearing Congressional Hearings Congressional Investigati Congressional Oversight Consolidated Appropriatio Conspiracy Constitution constitutional law Contempt Content Continuous Combat Functio Convention Against Tortur Convention on Cluster Mun Convention on Conventiona Corporate Liability corporations Council of Europe Council on Foreign Relati Countering Violent Extrem Counterinsurgency Counterterrorism Court of Appeals for the Court of Military Commiss Courts Martial Couture-Rouleau Covert Action CQ Roll Call crime crime of aggression Crimea Crimes Against Humanity criminal trial Critical Infrastructure Cross-Border Data Request cross-ruffing Cruel cryptography CSIS Cuba Cully Stimson Customary International L CVE CWC Cy Vance Cyber Cyber Bonds Cyber Warfare Cyberattacks Cybersecurity Cybersecurity Act of 2015 Daily News Daily News Roundup Dan Markel Data Data Localization Data Protection Data Sharing David Barron David Ellis David Golove David Hicks David Kaye David Kris David Medine David Miranda David Sentelle David Tatel DC Circuit DC District Court DDoS DEA Deborah Pearlstein Deep Web Defense Directive 2310.01 Defense Select Committee Democracy Democratic Republic of Co Denmark Department of Defense Department of Homeland Se Department of Justice Department of State deradicalization detainee treatment Detention Detention Review Boards development Device Encryption DHS DIA Dianne Feinstein Diarmuid O'Scannlain Diplomacy diplomatic assurances Direct Participation in H Disinformation Dissent Dissent Channel Cable Distinction Division 30 Djibouti DNC DNC Hack DOD DoD Directive 2310.01E DOD Directive 5230.09 DOD Instruction 5230.29 DOJ Domestic Surveillance Dominic Ongwen Donald Trump Dreyer drone court Drone Papers Drones Drones Report due process Duncan Hunter Dustin Heard Dylann Roof Early Edition Ebola ECHR Economic Espionage ECPA ECPA Reform Editors' Picks EDNY Edward Snowden EFF v. DoJ Effective Control Egypt el salvador Electronic Frontier Found Elena Kagan Email Privacy Act Emergency Powers Empirical Research Encryption End-to-End Encryption Enemy Belligerents Engines of Liberty EO 12333 EPIC Eric Garner Eric Holder Espionage Act Ethics EU Data Retention Directi Europe European Commission European Convention on Hu European Convention on Na European Court of Human R European Court of Justice European Parliament European Union Evan Liberty event Events evidence Executive Order 12333 Executive Order 13470 Executive Order 13567 Executive Orders Executive Power Executive Privilege extradition Extrajudicial Release Extraordinary African Cha Extraordinary Renditions Extraterritoriality F Facebook FARC Fast & Furious Fatou Bensouda FBI FBI Director FBI v. Apple Featured Federal Communications Co Federal Courts federal program Federal Trade Commission federalism Feminism Ferguson Fifth Amendment Filartiga financing First Amendment FISA FISA Amendments Act of 20 FISA Improvements Act FISA Reform FISC Five Eyes Florence Hartmann FOIA force-feeding Foreign Affairs Foreign Claims Act Foreign Fighters Foreign Law Foreign Policy Foreign Sovereign Immunit foreign sovereign immunit Foreign Surveillance foreign terrorist fighter Foreign Terrorist Organiz Forever War Fourth Amendment Fourth Circuit France Frank Wolf Fred Korematsu Freedom of Association freedom of expression Freedom of the Press FSIA FTC fugitive Gabor Rona Gabriel Schoenfeld Gag Order Garcetti v. Ceballos Gaza GCHQ Gender General Warrants Geneva Conventions genocide Geoff Corn George W. Bush Georgia Gerald Seib Germany Gideon v. Wainwright GJIL Summit Glenn Greenwald Going Dark golden key golden number Google Goran Hadi Government Shutdown Greece Group of Governmental Exp Guantanamo Guardian Guatemala Guest Post Guide to Torture Report Gulf War Guns of August Guns of September Habeas Habre hacking Hae Min Lee Hagel Haiti Hamdan Hamdi v. Rumsfeld Hamid Karzai Handschu Agreement Harold Koh Harvard Law Review Harvard Law School Hassan v. City of New Yor Hate Crimes Hate Speech Hatim v. Obama Heikkila v. Barber Helms Amendment Hernandez v. United State Hezbollah Hicks High commissioner for hum High-Value Detainee Inter Hillary Clinton Hoffman report Holder v. Humanitarian La Holidays Holocaust Holy See Hossam Bahgat Hostage Act Hostile Intent House Armed Forces Commit House Committee on Foreig House Demolitions House Judiciary House lawsuit House Permanent Select Co House Un-American Activit HPSCI HTTPS Huawei Human Right Law human rights Human Rights Committee Human Rights Council Human Rights First Human Rights Law Human Rights Watch Human Shields human trafficking Humanitarian Intervention Humanitarian Law Humanitarian relief opera Hussain v. Obama Hybrid Justice IACHR Ibrahim v. DHS Ibrahim v. US ICC ICCPR ICRAC ICRC ictr ICTY IDF IHL IHR immigration Imminent Threat Immunity immunity for official act Imran Khan Incendiary Weapons India individual self-defense Information Sharing inhuman and degrading tre injury in fact INS v. St. Cyr Inspector General Insular Cases Insurance Intelligence activities Intelligence and Security intelligence community Intelligence Community Di Intelligence Reform International Arm International Armed Confl International Convention international court International Court of Ju International Courts International Criminal Co International Criminal La International Law International Law Commiss International Right to En International Right to Pr internet Internet freedom Internet of Things Interrogation Investigatory Powers Bill Investigatory Powers Trib Iqbal Iran Iran Negotiations Act Iran Nuclear Agreement Re Iran nuclear deal Iran nuclear negotiations Iran Nuclear Negotiations Iraq Iraqi Kurdistan Irek Hamidullan Ireland ISAF ISIL ISIL AUMF Islam Islamic Islamic State Israel Italy Jack Goldsmith James Clapper James Comey James Foley James Risen Jamie Orenstein Jamshid Muhtorov Janice Rogers Brown Jason Smith Jean Pierre Bemba Jeffrey Brand Jeh Johnson Jennifer Granick Jeremy Ridgeway Jerry Brown Jim Sensenbrenner Joe Biden John Bellinger John Brennan John Gleeson John Kerry John McCain John Reed John Walker Lindh John Yoo Joint Committee on Human joint criminal enterprise Jon Cornyn Jonathan Horowitz Jones v. UK Jordan Joseph McCarthy Joshua Arap Sang Journalist journalists JSOC Judge Bates Judge Raymond Randolph Judicial Appointments Judicial Review Judith Rogers Junaid Hussain Jus ad Bellum jus cogens violations jus in bello Just Security Just Security anniversary Just Security Candidates Just Security interns Just Security internship Just security jobs Just War Justice Against Sponsors Justin Raimondo Karen Greenberg Karen LeCraft Henderson Katz v. United States Kazemi v. Iran Keith Alexander Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martin Kenneth Dahl Kenya Kevin Heller Khadr Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Khouzam Killer Robots Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Pet Kiyemba v. Obama Klayman v. Obama Korean landmines Korematsu Korematsu v. United State Kristen Gillibrand KSM Kunduz Kyrgyzstan Laird vs Tatum Lakhdar Brahimi landmines Latif v. Holder Laurence Silberman Lavabit Law enforcement Law Enforcement Hacking Law of Armed Conflict Law of War Manual Law of War Manual Forum Law of War Manual. ICRC Lawfare Lawful Hacking Laws of War Leak Investigations Lebanon Legal Adviser Legal Adviser, DoS legal offices Legal Services Corp. v. V Letters to the Editor Lewis Kaplan Lex Specialis LGBT Libertarianism Libya Limburg Lindsey Graham Lithuania Livestream Logan Act Lord Peter Goldsmith Lords Resistance Army LTTE Luban Lujan v. Defenders of Wil Luther v. Borden Mac Thornberry Magistrate Judges Maher Arar Mahmoud Abbas Majid Khan Mali Manmohan Singh Marco Rubio Marcy Wheeler Margo Brodie Marine Corps Mark Martins Mark VIsger Marketplace of Ideas Marne Marsha Berzon Martin Luther King Jr. Marty Lederman Material Support Matt Blaze Matthew Waxman Mauritania Mavi Marmara MCA McCain-Feinstein Amendmen McCarthyism McClatchy Mdecins Sans Frontire Media Media Shield Law Medical Personnel membership Memorial Day Mercenaries Merrick Garland Meshal v. Higgenbotham Metadata Mexico Michael Brown Michael Flynn Michael Ratner Michael Weiss Michel Foucault Microsoft Microsoft v. DOJ Microsoft Warrants Case Middle East midterm elections midterms Migrant migration Mike Rogers Military Military aid Military Commissions Military Extraterritorial Military Justice Review G military justice system Military Objective Minimization Procedures Ministry of Defense v. Ra Mitch McConnell MLAT Mohamed v. Jeppesen Datap Mohammed v. MOD Monday Reflection Money Monsanto Montreaux Document Mootness Mosaic Theory Mosul Munitions murder Muslim Brotherhood Mustafa al-Shamiri Mutual Legal Assistance namibia narco-trafficking Nasr v. Italy Nathalie Weizmann National Archives National Institute of Sta national security National Security Council National Security Lawyeri National Security Letters NATO Nawaz Sharif NCIS NCTC NDAA NDU Speech negotiations Network Investigative Tec New York Times New York Times v. DOJ Nicholas Lewin Nicholas Merrill Nicholas Slatten Niger Nigeria No-Fly List Non-international Armed C non-refoulement non-self-executing treati Nonproliferation Treaty Noor Uthman Muhammed Norms Watch North Korea Northern Ireland Notice NSA NSA Reform NSLs Nuclear Nuclear Weapons Nuremberg NYPD Obama administration occupation October Office of Legal Counsel Office of the Director of official act immunity OLC Drone Memo Oman Omar al-Bashir Omar Khadr Oona Hathaway Operation Operation Barkhane Operation Inherent Resolv Operation Protective Edge Operation Storm of Resolv Opinion Poll OPM Organization for Security Organization for the Proh Orin Kerr Osama bin Laden OTP Strategic Plan Ottawa Convention Ottawa shootings Oversight Oversight v. Holder Pakistan Palestine Palmer Raids Panetta Panetta Review Paris Attacks Paris Climate Accord parli Particularity Partition Parwan Patrick Leahy Patrio Patriot Act Paul Slough Paul Wolfson PCLOB Peace Talks Peacekeeping Pen Registers Pentagon Pentagon Papers perfidy Periodic Review Boards Periodic Review Boards (P persecution Peter Burke Peter Margulies Peter Raven-Hansen Philippines Pinochet Plea Agreement PMC PNSDA Poland Police militarization political question doctri Posse Comitatus Power Wars Symposium PPD-28 PPD-30 PPG PRB Pre-publication Review Pr President Obama President's NDU Spee President's Review G Presidential Campaign 201 Presidential Policy Guida Presidential Powers Presidential Review Board Presidents Day PRISM Privacy Private Military and Secu private military contract proportionality protected persons Public Surveys Q+A Qualified Immunity Queen's Speech R2P Rachel Kleinfeld racial discrimination Radovan Karadi Ramzi Bin al-Shibh Rand Paul Raner Collins Ranger School Ransomware rape Rasul v. Bush Ray Mabus Raza v. City of New York Readers' Guide Reagan Recusal Red Scare reddit Reengagement Assessment refugee Refugee Crisis Religion remedies Rendition Rep. Adam Schiff Republic of Korea Resolution 2170 Responsibility to Protect Restis Restis v. United Against Rewards for Justice Reyaad Khan Rhetoric Richard Burr Richard Leon Right to Be Forgotten Right to Life Right to Privacy Right to Truth Riley v. California Robert Gates Robert H. Jackson Robert Litt Robert Sack Rodriguez v. Swartz Rogue Justice Rome Statute Ron Wyden Roof Knocking Rosenberg vs Pasha Rothstein v. UBS AG Roy Cohn Royce Lamberth Rule 41 Rules of Engagement Rumsfeld v. Padilla Russia Rwanda Ryan Vogel Saddam Hussein SAFE Act of 2015 Safe Harbor safe zones Sahel Salahi Saleh v. Titan Corp Salim v. Mitchell Samantar v. Yousuf San Bernardino Shooting sanctions Sarah Cleveland Sarah Koenig SASC Saudi Arabia Schengen Zone Schlesinger v. Councilman Schrems Scotland Scott Shane SCOTUS SDNY Second Circuit Secrecy Secret Law Secret Service Section 215 Section 702 Security security agreement Security Assistance security clearance self-defense Senate Senate Armed Services Com Senate Foreign Relations Senate HSGAC Senate Intelligence Commi Senate Judiciary Committe Senegal Separation of powers Serdar Mohammed v. SSD Serial Service Providers Sexual Assault Sexual Violence Seymour Hersh SFRC SGBV Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl Sharia shooting Siege Warfare signals collection Silicon Valley Sir John Chilcot SJC Slahi slavery Smith v. Maryland Smith v. Obama Snooper's Charter Snowden Snowden Treaty social Social Media Solicitor General Somalia Sonia Sotomayor Sony South Africa South Ossetia South Sudan Special Forces special rapporteur Spying Sri Lanka SSCI SSCI Report SSCI Torture Report standing Stanley McChrystal Starvation state immunity State of the Union State Responsibility state secrets state secrets privilege State v. Andrews Statehood Staten Island Status of Forces Agreemen status-based immunity statute of limitations StellarWind Stephen Williams Steve Dycus Stimson Center StingRays Stored Communications Act Sudan Sunshine Week superior responsibility Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada Surveillance Suspension Clause Sustainable Development G Syria Syrian opposition Syrian refugees Szabo v. Hungary TACT 2000 Tadic Tahir-ul-Qadri Taliban Taliban Sources Project Tallinn Manual target Targeted Killing Targeting Decisions Taylor v. KBR Teaching Technology Ted Cruz term limits terrorism terrorist Terrorist Expatriation Ac Third Circuit Thomas Ambro Thomas Griffith Thomas Lubanga Dyilo Tim Kaine Tim Starks Title III Tony Blair Tor Tor Browser torture Torture Report trafficking transitional justice Transparency transparency reports Treasury Department Treaties Treaty Implementation Treaty Law Trump Trump Administration Trump Administrations truth commission Tuaua Tunisia Turkey Turkmen Turkmenv.Hasty Turner v. Safley Tweet Roll Twitter UANI UDHR Uganda Uhuru Kenyatta Uighurs UK UK Elections UK High Court UK Parliament UK Supreme Court UK Terrorism Act 2000 Ukraine Umm Sayyaf UN Assistance Mission in UN Charter UN High Commissioner for UN High Commissioner on H UN Human Rights Committee UN Security Council Uniform Code of Military United Kingdom United Nations United Nations General As United Nations Human Righ United Nations Human Righ United States ex rel. Acc United States v. Graham United States v. Moalin Universal Declaration of Universal Jurisdiction Universal Periodic Review Unlawful Combatants UNSC UNSC Resolution 1441 UNSC Resolution 2178 UNSC Resolution 2249 unwilling or unable US AID US Army US Holocaust Museum and M US v. al-Darbi US v. al-Shibh US v. Garcia US v. Khadr US v. Mehanna US v. Mohammed US v. Warshak USA Freedom USA Freedom Act Use of Force USS Cole Vance v. Terrazas Verdugo-Urquidez Veterans Veterans Day Veto Victor Restis Video Vietnam Vladimir Putin Vojislav eelj voluntary manslaughter Vulnerabilities Equities war War Crimes War Crimes Act war memorial War on Drugs War on Terror War Powers War Powers Resolution Warafi warrant canary Warsame Wartime Contracts Washington Post Wassenaar Arrangement Waziristan weapons Weapons of Mass Destructi Weekly Recap West Bank Westgate WhatsApp Whistleblowing White House Wikimedia v. NSA William Bradford William Ruto William Samoei Ruto Wiretap Women Women in combat Women's Rights Wong Kim Ark Yahoo Year End 2015 Year End 2016 Yemen Yezidis Yugoslavia Zakharov v. Russia Zehalf-Bibeau Zero-Day Vulnerabilities Zimbabwe Zivotofsky v. Clinton Zivotofsky v. Kerry

The Presidents Executive Order is only eight days old, and already there are many cases challenging it in federal court. The cases have been brought by many different categories of aliens, as well as some States and other U.S. plaintiffs, challenging several different provisions of the E.O.but mostly section 3(c), the temporary ban on entry of immigrants and nonimmigrants from seven Muslim-majority nations (which has colloquially been referred to as the travel ban provision).

Plaintiffs have asserted an array of grounds for relief from implementation of section 3(c), the most prominent of which include:

(i) an absence of statutory authority (i.e., questioning whether section 3(c) falls within the scope of Congresss delegation to the President under 8 U.S.C. 1182(f)heres a useful CRS Report on the historical use of that presidential authority);

(ii) a violation of 8 U.S.C. 1152(a)(1)(A), which prohibits discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas on the basis of, inter alia, nationality or place of residence;

(iii) denials of due process in violation of the Fifth Amendment;

(iv) the absence of a rational basis for singling out aliens from the seven specified nations, in violation of the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment (heres a really interesting post from Peter Spiro suggesting that this might finally be the case that tests whether theres any limits to judicial deference on that question in the immigration context); and

(v)de factoreligious discrimination in violation of the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment and/or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

It isverydifficult to keep track, in anything approaching real time, of the various arguments by all the parties and the government, and the actions of all the courts. Fortunately,the Civil Rights Litigation Clearing House has established a website with links to many of the filings and orders in most or all of the cases19 to date. A site well worth bookmarking.

As most Just Securityreaders know, last evening Judge James Robart of the Western District of Washington issued a temporary restraining order in State of Washington v. Trump, the case brought by the States of Washington and Minnesota. In addition to the merits questions, this particular suit raises very interesting questions of the States Article III standing to sue. The States primary (but not exclusive) asserted injury is that the excluded aliens include students who will be prevented from attending, paying tuition to, and contributing to the mission of, the States public universities.

The primary effect of Judge Robarts order is to temporarily enjoin enforcement of section 3(c)not only as applied to aliens who would certainly visit or live in Washington and Minnesota, but with respect to all affected aliensuntil he can hear the case on the merits. He also enjoined enforcement of certain provisions of section 5 of the Order, which indefinitely suspends the entry of Syrian refugees, andwhich also suspends the U.S.Admissions Program for allrefugeesfor 120 days and then imposes procedures on, and priorities respecting, refugee admissions after those six months are up.

Tonight the United States filed a notice of appeal of the order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The court of appeals has already create a webpage that will include links to the pleadings and proceedings in that court. [UPDATE: DOJ has now filed a motion for a stay pending appeal.]

To get a sense of the arguments being pressed by the parties in that case, here are Washingtons motion for the TROand the governments opposition. Better still, heres a video of the oral argument held yesterday. In my humble opinion, both of the attorneysWashington SG Noah Purcell and Michelle Bennett of DOJs Federal Programs Sectionand Judge Robart did a remarkably fine job under very difficult circumstances and with very little time to prepare. The judges questions, in particular, went right to the heart of many of the most important and difficult issues in the case, both prompting very helpful responses from the advocates and revealing a great deal of the judges own thinking, especially on the question of whether the seven-nation limitation is supported by any rational basis(I have to find that it is grounded in facts as opposed to fiction.). I highly recommend watching.

Read more:
Getting a handle on the litigation challenging the seven-nation travel ban - Just Security

I watched with mixed emotions as my elected representatives rushed to the aid of immigrants and refugees whose rights had been violated by the Trump administration.

They were right to speak out. President Trumps temporary ban on people from seven majority-Muslim countries was unconstitutional. Thats why it was no surprise when thousands of ordinary citizens joined with city, state and federal officials to protest at airports where immigrants were being detained.

But even as an African-American who supports the rights of those who legally come to this country, it was hard for me to watch the same politicians who are silent on the shootings of unarmed blacks run breathlessly to the aid of foreigners.

Ive heard from many African-Americans who share that same frustration. Not only because our politicians stand up for immigrants and fail to do so for us, but also because weve all encountered immigrants who look down on the black community while at the same time seeking our help.

Those dynamics create tensions that are real, and Id be lying if I failed to acknowledge them. But I need black people to hear me when I say this: Joining this fight is not only about protecting immigrants. It is about protecting the Constitution, because the same Fifth Amendment that grants due process and equal protection to immigrants grants those same rights to us.

And in the age of Donald Trump, were going to need those rights.

If the feds instituted a national stop-and-frisk policy, that would be a Fifth Amendment claim, Mary Catherine Roper of the American Civil Liberties Union told me. Can they single out people they dont like and exclude them from due process? What if they said a cop on site can take your drivers license? Thats the equivalent of this. He starts with the most vulnerable group, but not to put too fine a point on it you arent too far behind.

I agree with Ropers assessment. Trumps strategy seems to involve casting vulnerable groups as the enemy. After he targets immigrants and religious minorities, blacks and other people of color likely will be next.

If those groups can be turned against one another, we are all weakened, and that makes us easier targets.

Thats why its dangerous for African-Americans to say the immigration battle is not our fight. Especially since some of those immigrants are black.

A lot of people affected by the order are people who would be coming from Africa, Ajmel Quereshi, of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, told me in an interview. And a lot of those people would say they are African-American. The executive order applies to Sudan and Somalia. There are large communities in the U.S. from those countries, and they consider themselves part of the African American community.

Second, in a more metaphorical sense, the executive order discriminates against people based on national origin. The 14th Amendments equal protection clause protects against that, and the 14th Amendment has been an essential protection for African-Americans throughout the 20th century. If we were to cut away from that, whos to say we wouldnt see a cutting away (of rights) in the African-American community in the United States?

For me, thats the key question facing the black community. Are we willing to sacrifice our own rights by refusing to stand up for the rights of others?

I hope not, because blacks fought in every American war to secure those rights. And if we rest on the fact that the 14th Amendment granted full citizenship to formerly enslaved people following the Civil War, if we think the battle is over because that amendment granted due process and equal treatment to all persons, then our fight has been for nothing. Complacency has won the day.

The battle over immigration is a fight for the Constitution a document thats been paid for with the blood of many Americans. We honor their sacrifice when we stand for the rights of others. And when we stand for the rights of others, we stand up for ourselves.

If there are tensions between blacks and immigrants, we should resolve them while fighting side by side for the Constitution that protects us all; we should quell them while remembering that prejudice is our enemy; we should face them with the knowledge that were stronger when were unified.

Because after this battle is over, there will be others.

Trumps false claim that millions voted illegally is most likely a precursor to voting-rights restrictions. His attacks on federal employees will expand to other workers. His rants against Black Lives Matter are the first steps to curtailing protests.

So, yes, fighting Donald Trumps travel ban is absolutely a black issue.

We arent fighting only for immigrants. Were fighting for our very lives.

http://limaohio.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/web1_Solomon_Jones.jpg

Solomon Jones is a columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Readers may email him at sj@solomonjones.com.

Original post:
The Lima News | Solomon Jones: Dangerous for African-Americans ... - Lima Ohio

The following is an opinion column by R Muse*

Even for those whose job it is to keep tabs on the consequences of Americans installing a bonafide fascist in the White House, it is getting to be a substantial chore to keep up with the atrocities coming at a frightening breakneck speed. It is apparent that there is a reason the public servants who take the oath of office and swear to defend and support the U.S. Constitution should have a fairly clear understanding of the nations founding document and uncontested law of the land; they are required to follow it like every other citizen and that includes the mentally ill fascist in chief Donald Trump.

Of course Trumps executive overreach banning Muslims from a select few Muslim majority countries was both contrary to 239 years of American history and a decidedly bigoted act. It was also a decidedly profit-driven act because Trump only banned immigrants from the Muslim-majority nations that he doesnt have business investments in. It is also noteworthy that the countries he picked on have not been responsible for the death of even one American on American soil.

The Muslim-majority nations that are responsible for all deaths on American soil, including the Saudis responsible for the terror attacks on 911, were spared Trumps executive action; only because he has investment and business interests in those countries. One wonders how the Trump will explain that little factoid to his bigoted followers; until realizing that they are stupid enough to believe whatever dirty lie the Trump tells them about how the media is lying about his very selective and profit-driven hatred of Islam.

Despite Trumps selective defense against radical Islam he claims is the purpose of the ban, there are, as Slates Mark Joseph Stern points out, serious constitutional problems with Trumps executive order as a whole. Forget, for a moment, that Trumps order gave preferential treatment to Christians and denigrated Islam, what any reasonable person considers a religious test to enter a secular nation, or that Trumps order unilaterally established a state religion; he is shredding a mainstay of Americas democracy and civil rights. Trumps order violates the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution because he believes the document cannot possibly apply to the Trump.

What any fascist worth being compared to Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein knows is necessary to earn their stripes is eliminating the concept of due process; exactly what Trumps executive overreach accomplished. According to a lawsuit filed on Saturday by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Trumps religious, unconstitutional, illegal and profit-driven executive order has led to the flagrantly unconstitutional detention of perfectly legal immigrants whose lone crime is their national origin and religion. As any sane human being with an ounce of intellect and gram of decency knows intrinsically, Trumps nasty order isnt only wrong on moral and human grounds, it is also illegal in a nation with a 239-year old Constitution.

Specifically, besides establishing, by Republican executive order, a religious test to create an America that is evangelically pure, Trump violated the Fifth Amendment he just publicly swore to god to uphold. That Amendment provides basic procedural guarantees to any person detained in the United States no matter if they are natural citizens, visitors, immigrants or Muslims. The Fifth Amendment forbids the government, including a bigoted fascist government employee in the White House who thinks he is above the law, from depriving any individual of liberty without due process of law. That includes an arrest warrant, indictment, charge, legal counsel, trial and so on.

Thus far, the people being detained according to Trumps order all arrived in America lawfully and with the requisite documentation issued by the United States government. As noted by Mr. Stern, pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act those immigrants, Muslims or not, have a legal right to apply for asylum and have their claims processed by federal authorities. But this is Trumps America and instead of adhering to the law or the Constitution, on orders from fascist Trump the government has placed most immigrants in detention without a hearing or any kind of judicial oversight (due process), and banned them from speaking with legal advocates (attorneys).

It doesnt matter how god-like Trump believes he is, he cannot issue an order that unconstitutionally deprives anyone in America, immigrant or not, of their liberty without due process of law. The government cannot indefinitely detain a lawful visitor without a hearing or any semblance of reasonable suspicion just because a so-called president issued an unconstitutional executive dictate. He is also prohibited by the equal protection segment of the Due Process clause from singling out lawful visitors based on their religion or nation of origin.

Still, Trumps order mandates that federal law enforcement officers ignore longstanding fundamental constitutional principles because he thinks he can implement an illegal system. An illegal system, by the way, that informs any thinking person that in Trumps America the people are ruled by a government of one man, not laws or a Constitution. It is a governing entity that has no compunction about locking up [his] perceived enemies based on their identity and religion.

The only reason due process laws even exist was to limit an authoritarian tyrants ability to summarily order unlawful arrests of his perceived enemies. Obviously, Trump really does want to emulate Philippine president Rodrigo Dutertes practice of detaining human beings without any evidence they violated any law or judicial process. At least Trump has not yet order law enforcement officials to summarily execute the legal immigrants, but if left unchallenged by decent Americans it cant be far off.

Donald Trump is a danger to the nation, and the world, on myriad levels, and paramount among those dangers is his flagrant disregard for any laws, but particularly the nations law of the land, the Constitution. One thing is clear about Trump; he not only has no concept that he is not above the law, he willingly trashes the Constitution he just swore to somebodys god that he would support and defend. That is so much more than just really bad news, it is a Constitutional crisis informing that America is now really in crisis.

The above commentary is the sole opinion of its author.

Constitution, Constitutional crisis, Due Process, Fifth Amendment, immigrants, Islamophobia, Muslim immigrants, trump, trump muslim ban

More:
Opinion: Trump Creates a Constitutional Crisis With Muslim Ban - PoliticusUSA

Hameed Darweesh aided U.S. armed forces in Iraq as a translator and electrical engineer for over a decade. For obvious reasons, that put his life at risk. After his home was raided by Baghdad police and two of his colleagues were murdered at work, he and his family fled to another part of Iraq, according to court documents. Darweesh and his family then had to flee their new town when a shopkeeper informed him men driving around in a BMW were asking for him and wanted to know where he lived.

Darweesh is one of thousands of Iraqis who have risked their lives by cooperating with or working for the U.S. government. Congress created the Iraqi and Afghan Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program to get people like him who have "provided faithful and valuable service to the United States Government" out of harm's way. But the process is painfully slow, and the number of people who actually receive visas after receiving promises of protection from the U.S. is shameful.

After over three years of applications, background checks, medical exams and other processing, the Darweesh family finally received their visa last week. They got on a plane immediately. While they were in the air, thinking they were finally on their way to the land of the free, President Trump signed a cruel and illegal executive order on immigration.

The order bans nationals from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering the United States for 90 days; the White House initially said this should be interpreted to include even those who are lawful permanent residents of the U.S. who had been out of the country temporarily. The order also halts all refugee admissions from anywhere in the world for 120 days, and all refugee admissions from Syria where one of the greatest humanitarian crises since the Holocaust is underway indefinitely.

Darweesh was separated from his family upon arrival at New York's JFK airport and held in detention without access to his attorneys for 19 hours. While he was detained, the ACLU and other legal groups filed an emergency petition in New York federal court on behalf of Darweesh, another Iraqi man detained at JFK and similarly situated individuals that is, the unknown number of visa- and green-card-holders being unlawfully detained at airports across the country.

Trump's executive order is all kinds of illegal. As the ACLU's complaint explains, the Fifth Amendment bars the government from depriving individuals of their liberty without due process of law. The Immigration and Nationality Act, as well as U.S. obligations under international law, give any alien present in the U.S. the right to apply for asylum. And the United Nations Convention Against Torture bars the U.S. from returning a noncitizen to a country where he or she faces torture or persecution.

Attorneys also argued Trump's executive order violated detainees' Fifth Amendment right to equal protection of the law because it discriminates on the basis of national origin and is motivated by animus toward Muslims. And they said Trump lacks the authority for his actions under the Immigration and Nationality Act, which gives the president broad immigration powers but specifically forbids discrimination on the basis of a person's race, nationality or place of birth or residence in the issuance of visas.

The New York court issued an emergency order temporarily barring the government from deporting anyone being held under Trump's order nationwide because those individuals will likely be able to prove after a full hearing that their due process and equal protection rights have been violated. It didn't order that detainees be released, but Darweesh and a number of other detainees held at JFK have been. In a similar lawsuit brought by detainees at Dulles airport, a Virginia court barred deportations for lawful permanent residents (people with green cards) for seven days and ordered that detainees be allowed to speak to lawyers. A Massachusetts court, meanwhile, ordered all detainees in the state to be released. "Lawyer flash mobs" at airports across the country have been frantically trying to get detainees released, but the situations of the estimated 100 to 200 people who the ACLU estimates have been impacted by Trump's order across the U.S. seem to be varied. Others have already been sent back to their countries.As of Sunday afternoon, there are reports of customs agents in New York violating the court orders.

These court orders don't help visa-holders who aren't currently in the U.S. or in transit, but another lawsuit is in the works that hopefully will. Trump's order is also a violation of the First Amendment's protection against the establishment of religion, which prevents the government from preferring one religion over another. It can be difficult to prove that the intent of a law is to discriminate on the basis of religion, but Trump has been unusually candid.

The man who made "Muslim ban" a household term is now claiming his executive order is nothing of the sort almost certainly because someone told him banning a religious group would be unconstitutional, as was obvious even to Mike Pence. So now Trump is denying the law is meant to discriminate against Muslims and is trying to stick to calling it "extreme vetting," with mixed results. He told reporters Saturday, "We're going to have a very, very strict ban, and we're going to have extreme vetting."

Rudy Giuliani told Fox News on Saturday that Trump had stopped calling it a Muslim ban and tasked Giuliani with coming up with "how to do it legally." Indeed, someone on Trump's team appears to have made some effort to make the executive order look less unconstitutional on its face. It states that once the refugee program resumes in 120 days, applicants who are members of minority religions in their country will receive preference this is a sneaky way to give priority to Christians over Muslims fleeing persecution in Muslim-majority countries. But Trump came right out and told the Christian Broadcasting Network that the plan is to favor Christians.

There's further evidence of animus toward Muslims in the unnecessarily cruel way Trump implemented the ban. One almost wishes it was the administration's incompetence that caused the chaos and confusion that has ensued across the globe since Trump's order was released late in the day Friday from massive protests to the flurry of legal filings to the detention of a 77-year-old woman as her 9-year-old granddaughter sat at the airport with a "Welcome home, grandma" sign. Trump could have put an equally draconian order in place in an orderly manner with fair warning so people didn't leave their countries only to end up stranded in the U.S. or sent back. Trump didn't just crack down on immigration he did it in the most theatrical way possible to show his supporters he's serious about making life hell for Muslims. That amounts to further evidence of an unconstitutional purpose for the courts to take into account.

But there's something even worse than Trump's lack of concern for all the specific laws and constitutional precedents his order violates: his fundamental disdain for the principle, underlying all of our laws, that promises matter. Acting in reliance on representations made by the United States of America, people left their homes and sold their belongings. Some bought expensive plane tickets or a new shirt to celebrate their new life. Others turned down lucrative jobs or a prestigious education in other countries that would have loved to have them. Hameed Darweesh and the others with Special Immigrant Visas, who make up a quarter of those impacted by Trump's order, put themselves and their families in danger.

In his business career, Trump famously bilked Trump University students with promises he later denied making, took money entrusted to him by shareholders for ventures he ran into the ground and regularly refused to pay contractors what he'd agreed to. What Trump calls "renegotiating" a deal is nothing more than breaching a contract with someone less powerful who can't do anything about it.

And now, as president, he's acting on our behalf.America has made promises that have been relied upon by countries and people all over the globe and Trump doesn't care at all about keeping them.

Sign up for our newsletter to receive breaking news directly in your inbox.

See the rest here:
All the Ways Trump Defies the Law and the Constitution by Targeting Muslims - RollingStone.com

Donald Trump speaks before signing an executive order. A judge blocked a portion of his Muslim ban on Saturday night, holding that it likely violates the Constitution.

Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images

On Saturday night, U.S. District Judge Ann M. Donnelly blocked a significant portion of Donald Trumps immigration ban from taking effect. Trumps executive order, which targeted Muslim refugees from seven Muslim-majority countries, purported to take effect immediatelytrapping thousands of people in legal limbo. Immigrants traveling to the United States on lawful visas were detained at airports across the country, and those attempting to fly to America were refused entry on their flights.

The ACLU filed a lawsuit Saturday morning on behalf of two Iraqi refugees detained at JFK International Airport and others similarly situatedthe many lawful immigrants who had just arrived in the U.S. on a valid visa or were then en routealleging a constitutional violation. Donnelly ruled in their favor, issuing a nationwide stay. Her order forbids the government from deporting lawful immigrants who arrived after the ban was issued. Its immediate effect should be the release of any immigrants currently being detained at airports and allowing entry to those who left for America before the order was signed, as the government is no longer able to legally deport them.

Donnellys order held that Trumps ban very likely violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. That bedrock constitutional principle forbids the government from depriving individuals of liberty arbitrarily and without a fair hearing. Yet this discriminatory capriciousness was the essence of the ban. In accordance with Trumps executive order, Customs and Border Protection agents detained immigrantswithout judicial approvalwhose only crime was their national origin, then threatened to deport them. This capricious denial of liberty without basic due process clearly ran afoul of the Fifth Amendment. Donnelly also suggested that the bans targeting of individuals on the basis of national origin and religion probably violated the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause.

Much of Trumps order remains in force. Immigrants and even green-card holders from those seven Muslim-majority countries are still generally prohibited from entering the U.S. The ACLU and other legal groups will challenge the remainder of the ban in due time. But for now, they have won relief for a number of immigrantsand scored the first legal victory against President Donald Trump.

*Update, Jan. 28, 2016: U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema has also issued an order requiring the government to let the dozens of lawful permanent residents being detained at Virginias Washington Dulles International Airport speak to attorneys. Her order bars the deportation of those held at Dulles for at least one week.

Go here to read the rest:
Judge Blocks Part of Trump's Muslim Ban as a Likely Violation of the Constitution - Slate Magazine (blog)