The rebellion action in the [US] Department of Justice
By Tiberiu Dianu
Donald Trump has triggered guerrilla warfare in the United States administration.
On Friday, January 27, 2017, President Donald Trump issued the Executive Order on Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States. A refined version appeared on Monday, January 30, on the official White House page.
The mainstream media, together with their left-wing acolytes and part of the anti-Trump Republicans have been trying to present this executive order (EO) as a “Muslim ban” with anti-constitutional overtones.
The legal interpretation of the EO (containing 11 sections, on which I will comment at a later date) leads to different conclusions. The document refers to suspension of immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries of particular concern, referred to in Section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12) for a period of 90 days from the date of the order. The order excludes the foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, NATO visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas (Section 3 of the EO).
People travelling to the United States during this period of time, coming from “countries of particular concern” (dual citizens, permanent residents, refugees, immigrant- and nonimmigrant visa holders) have been and are to be subjected, for reasons of security, to “extreme vetting” at US ports-of-entry by customs officials. This has been done in accordance with the current Department of States regulations, according to which “[a] visa allows a foreign citizen to travel to a US port-of-entry (generally an airport) and request permission to enter the United States. A visa does not guarantee entry into the United States. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials at the port-of-entry have authority to permit or deny admission to the United States.”
In addition, the Trump administration officials offered the necessary clarifications after the EO was issued, including the president, in a Statement Regarding Recent Executive Order Concerning Extreme Vetting.
In spite of all these, on the same Monday, January 30, acting Attorney General Sally Yates, an Obama appointee, announced she would not defend the order. She said she would refuse to put the power of the Department of Justice behind this measure in the courts and she directed lawyers at the department to refrain from trying to defend the order. In a letter to the department attorneys she said she was not “convinced that it is appropriate to do so.”
Yates defied the president’s EO, based rather on moral principles than legal facts. She also chose not to resign, if her views were in contradiction with the president’s, but rather to confront him. As a result, Trump fired her by a hand-delivered letter in the evening of the same day, and replaced her with Mr Dana J. Boente (appointed in 2015 by former President Obama as US attorney for the eastern district of Virginia), who stated that he would support the order.
The Yates episode was a first sign of rebellion in administration, on the part of Democrats. This was done in order to neutralize the support that the DOJ was supposed to bring for the presidential executive orders against legal challenges. This “guerrilla action” was supposed to back up, and coordinate with, the keeping of Trump’s nominee for attorney general, Sen. Jeff Sessions, for as long as possible in the confirmation hearings by the Senate Democrats
The moral of the story is that, after the confirmation of all Trump’s nominees, energetic measures are required, in order to “clean the house” within the departments and agencies, from top to bottom, not only at the top.
IMAGE:T iberiu Dianu has published several books and over 100 articles in law, politics, and post-communist societies. He currently lives and works in Washington, DC, and can be followed on Medium.https://medium.com/@tdianu
For more on this story go to: http://www.caribbeannewsnow.com/topstory-Commentary%3A-The-rebellion-action-in-the-Department-of-Justice-33389.html
The article favors the presidential executive order on the Muslim ban. This is instrumental in maintaining the country’s security. The order is important and should be treated with seriousness. It refers to the suspension of admitting people from certain nations with potential of danger and terrorism (not necessarily Muslim, like Venezuela and North Korea).
Entering the country will be subjected to more rigorous rules, in order to minimize the risk of another 9/11. The then-acting Attorney General, an Obama appointee, refused to enforce the order, rejecting it for “moral reasons.” Logically, she was fired.
We simply cannot afford to have an administration talking with two voices on this topic, especially during the current times, characterized by massive waves of immigrants in Europe and the United States.
President Trump acted quickly, signing many of his executive orders during his first days since the Inauguration. First, he took steps in order to protect the American state. Despite his measures, there are still people who disobey the presidential decrees.
Only through such swift decisions the Democrat LEFT-overs will understand that the new laws must be respected. It is hard for them to accept them, therefore people who disobey legal orders will react from time to time.It will take them some time to get used with the new American spirit and the new laws.
Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, an Obama holdover, took advantage of her last days in office and refused to implement such an executive decree, betraying her oath as a public servant. She couldn’t hack, so she got sacked on the spot by the President.
A negative vote for this article was posted by mistake. A positive vote was posted instead afterwards.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is a body of the U.S. federal government that enforces its laws. It is represented in the cabinet by the Attorney General, the country’s lead law enforcement officer and adviser to the President on matters relating to justice.