United States Court of Appeals Denies Trump’s Travel Ban

The controversial decree signed by President Donald J. Trump banning refugees and restricting travel from seven Muslim-majority countries to enter in the U.S. was declined by the U.S. Court of Appeals.

trumps-travel-ban

President of United States Donald J. Trump

Mr. Trump signed the Executive Order 13769 under the name of “Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States”resulting in the suspension of this decree on 3rd February. The U.S. Court of Appeals on 9th February unanimously rejected President Trump’s attempt to re-apply it

From this declarations, CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad said:

This victory should not lead to complacency. This and other Trump administration orders and policies still pose a threat to communities of color, religious minorities, women, and others.”  

Three judges supported arguments in order to keep the suspension of the traveling ban and Mr. Trump said he would take the case to the Supreme Court.

Trump defend his travel ban and accused the judiciary branch of becoming “political” during an address to the Washington, D.C.conference of the Major Cities Chiefs Association. He also made references to his current measures related to the electoral campaign:


“One of the reasons I was elected was because of law, order, and security.”

Mr. Trump talks directly to the American people, Courts of Appeal and to the Opposition:


“You are great men and women, and we have to allow you to do your jobs, and we have to give you the weapons that you need […] they are trying to taking away from you, because of politics, or political views.”


In those statements, he is calling for Americans to understand the travel ban as a tool for increment security and jobs. Then Trump alleged the possibility of the Courts of being influenced by the opposite party in its decisions. 

This article from The Guardian informs about Trump called for surveillance against mosques and support the idea of establishing a database for all Muslims living in the United States. This ideology has led Trump wants to the shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until he was able to figure out how to attack horrendous threats by people who believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life, in his own words.

Trump’s executive order of the travel ban restriction proposed (also applied to permanent US residents, like green-card holders and foreign visitors) the imposition of a 90-day ban on travelers from Syria, Iran, Sudan, Lybia, Somalia, Yemen, and Iraq, according to the Telegraph

However, the ban is not applied to Christians of these countries. 

Trump’s executive order has been strongly criticized by many people, as the Court of Appeals alleged that the travel ban has nothing to do with the reach of ‘national security’:

The decision to ban people from seven-Muslim majority countries to enter the United States will give further arguments to extremist groups, such as the Islamic State, and will not guarantee national security.”


By Alejandro Martínez, Marina Barberá and Alba Tissera.

Unmanned, Unethical, Unconcerned.

People in the Middle East are living under drones since October 2001, when U.S. deployed the first ones in Afghanistan. A recent report of Amnesty International have brought to light this topic, condemning situations of civilian killed by drones. How could a government explain an act like this?

MQ-9_Reaper_in_flight_(2007)

Drones are aircrafts without a human pilot inside but controlled by computers. The government of the U.S. kept the drones program in secret until less than a year and after that its use has been increased.

The U.S. is defending as this is a situation of war, but even in the condition of war, governments and countries should have ethical and moral concerns. They should not attack innocent people. While war is a bad situation in itself already, a government shouldn’t use unbalanced force against weaker countries just because it’s economically profitable.

Not only US is increasing the number of drones, but also another countries like Israel are developing it. The question is if US will still defend drones when North Corea, for example, deploy them -if they aren’t doing it already-. And what does the population think about it?

Most experts in international relationships and journalists -specially in Europe-condemn this situation; but in the U.S. some voices say that this program continues and justifies the methods used by George W. Bush against terrorism. It seems that everything is all right when it is about “national security”. And the most population doesn’t know even what a drone is, so there is a part of the Occidental world that is completely unconcerned.

“Killing a civilian who is not directly involved in hostile action is an arbitrary deprivation of life.”Amnesty International’s report “Will I be next?”

An independent study from New American Foundation has revealed, that, during Obama’s administration, between 1507 and 2438 people has died, of which between 148 and 309 were civilians. And apart from the property damage, people in Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan is living day-by-day looking at the skies and wondering if the person who has next to them could be a target.

Is it really ethical for a government which has the economical power of destroying and damaging to use all their sources and supplies to damage a weaker country? As we all know, war is always between governments not between citizens although they’re the main affected. It’s impossible to conceive that in some part of the planet, right know, a civilian family can be terrified, hearing the sound of a drone above their heads. Even during war, Humanity should have morality issues.

Saudi Arabia: The expression of international interests

Saudi Arabia is an independent state located in the Middle East, north of Yemen, bordering the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea. It has a population of 26,534,504 and its oil based industry has ensured a $740.5 billion GDP in 2012. Politically, it is organized as a constitutional monarchy under King Abdullah. The Saudi legal system is based on Islamic (sharia) law and it includes Egyptian and French elements.

In the international news, Saudi Arabia makes headlines with its multi-billion dollar oil industry, international investments in other countries and its constant human rights abuses. Only this Tuesday, Saudi Arabia executed five Yemenis under sharia law despite international pressure for reform in the legal system. The UN condemned these executions under the assumption that “they violate international standards because the bodies were left in public” as an example of the severity of the law in this country. This serves as a realistic reminder of the speed at which changes take place in a highly conservative and religious society.

Women are still treated as minors and they are not allowed to travel, study or work without permission from their male guardians. The King did announce that they will enjoy the right to vote in the 2015 municipal elections however, the harsh restrictions continue to cause international debate over whether or not the government will uphold its promise to reform the country. Detainees, including children, commonly face systematic violations of due process and fair trial rights, including arbitrary arrest and torture. Also, authorities leave very little space for public criticism of officials or government policies in the wake of the pro-democracy Arab Spring movements. The Saudi Ministry of Culture adopted policies of heavy censorship regarding printed press and broadcasted media.

This brings into focus the nature of the political class of Saudi Arabia considering the rather hypocritical attitude adopted with regards to Human Rights. The Saudi government openly condemned the H.R. violations in Syria despite its own obvious problems, having arrested a woman for driving.

 

Courtesy of Mario, A. (Setyoufreenews.com)

 

The reason for this controversial Saudi attitude can be found in the economic and political relationships that it developed over time. At the end of the Second World War US President Franklin D. Roosevelt extended American protection to Saudi Arabia, saying “the defense of Saudi Arabia is a vital interest for the defense of the United States of America”. Having such an influential ally in the international arena has its benefits, the U.S. being highly supportive with the Saudi regime. Japan is another important ally of Saudi Arabia and their joint statement related to the H.R. violations in Syria proves that both parties’ national interests are intertwined.  These interests revolve around the Saudi oil industry as Saudi Arabia exports a very large quantity of crude oil to the U.S, Europe, Japan and many other countries.

This brings into question the strength of the American resolve to stand against oppressive, non-democratic regimes which it has condemned since before the beginning of the Cold War. An interest based resolve of the American political class would imply that the rhetoric against non-democratic regimes can be brought into question.

Estados Unidos encubre sus ataques a través del Gobierno yemení

Seguiremos diciendo que las bombas son nuestras, no vuestras” afirmó el presiente de Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh.

Una nueva filtración de los documentos de diplomacia de Estados Unidos, por parte de Wikileaks, afirma que: Yemen se ha responsabilizado de los diversos ataques en contra el grupo terrorista Al Qaeda, cuando en realidad eran provocados por Estados Unidos. El informe (documento 240955) revela que había un pacto previo en el cual el gobierno yemení se responsabilizaría de los ataques, con el fin de endurecer su imagen ante el resto. Aceptando ayudas económicas y militares para reforzar su poder, a cambio de que EEUU lleve a cabo su cometido.

Leer más de esta entrada