Some updates on the political situation. Everything is very preliminary right now, because it's (apparently deliberately) unclear.
Several Federal judges have issued stays against the "Muslim ban" order. However, there are confirmed reports from multiple sources that Customs & Border Patrol (CBP, part of the DHS) is willfully disregarding those stays, denying access to counsel, moving the people they're holding to undisclosed locations so that nobody can get habeas corpus, and deporting people. This is very certainly not a local commander's decision; it goes up to the Sec'y of HS at least, and directly to Trump at most.
But – and here's the kicker – it's incredibly unclear what the scope of this refusal is. There's no clear news coming out, and we're getting more useful reports from the Twitter feeds of top attorneys in the field (both from groups like the ACLU, who have done heroic work tonight, and from attorneys at top firms, who have been joining this pro bono) than we are from anywhere else.
If this is a refusal of unambiguous Federal court orders, then this is serious, serious beyond the scale of anything we've seen in our lifetimes: it's DHS saying that if Trump tells them to do one thing and the courts another, they will do what Trump says and best of luck to the courts trying to enforce that. Which is to say, they're establishing a precedent that DHS actions are not subject to any sort of court review, or to anything other than the personal fiat of Trump – including their right to detain people, deport them, or hold them incommunicado.
Alternatively, this might be something else, a decision by CBP counsel that certain court orders don't apply to certain cases; this is serious too, since they're trying to create "facts on the ground" faster than the courts can react, but it doesn't mean a wholesale rejection of the system of law. I simply don't have enough information yet, and hope to update as we know more.
Separately, there was another story today: Trump reorganized the National Security Counsel. The two most prominent changes are this: Steve Bannon now has a seat on it, and the Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were both demoted: they only attend meetings of the Principals Committee which "[pertain] to their responsibilities and expertise."
(The other full members of the PC, incidentally, are the secretaries of State (Tillerson), Treasury (Szubin), Defense (Mattis), and Homeland Security (Kelly), the AG (Sessions), the President's Chief of Staff (Priebus), the National Security Advisor (Flynn), and the Homeland Security Advisor (Bossert). You can read the full order here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/presidential-memorandum-organization-national-security-council-and)
The demotion of the DNI and CJCS is surprising and I don't yet know what it means. There currently is no DNI – Coats' nomination is yet to be confirmed. It's hard to imagine what meetings wouldn't pertain to their "responsibilities and expertise," especially given that secretaries with much more specific responsibilities (like Treasury) weren't demoted. Bannon's promotion, however, is more significant: Trump is known for not attending many meetings, and delegating those, and Bannon is likely to be his principal representative in the NSC.
My gut read is that this is something which will prove very important in the long run. Trump's rift with the existing military and intelligence establishments is well-known, and he's made numerous statements, directly and through surrogates, about his interest in constructing alternative establishments reporting directly to him. Bannon would be a logical person to manage that subchain, as his "Chief Strategist" role doesn't come with a large org to manage already, or with Congressionally mandated restrictions. That would be the skeleton of a new internal security system, with the DHS and FBI (both very loyal to Trump) in the loop, together with a new private "security force" rolling up to Keith Schiller that takes over a lot of Secret Service roles, and a hypothetical new intelligence force, with Bannon being either de facto or de jure in charge of all the new organizations, and little to no legal supervision over them.
It's not clear, again, that this is where it's going, but it's definitely the configuration I would keep my eyes open for. It would promote Bannon from a Goebbels to a Himmler, which I suspect he would be just fine with.
So: Many signs out there, but nothing clear yet. These could range from incredibly serious to passing things, depending on how the next week or so plays out.
Update (00:51 PST): The DHS has put out an official statement, and I'll be damned if I can figure out what it means. It starts out by saying that they will continue to enforce all of Trump's orders, and that the orders remain in place, but it does offer a nod (later on) to complying with judicial orders.
Text here: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/department-homeland-security-response-recent-litigation
Update (02:06 PST): The Washington Post's story pulls together a range of official statements, which make it clear that this is deliberate and central policy, ordered personally by Trump. The exact meaning of the DHS statement remains unclear, but most people are reading it as an intent to continue to do whatever they want; it may involve a suggestion that if they don't want to grant a waiver to someone with a green card, they may do it by simply revoking the green card on the spot.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/refugees-detained-at-us-airports-challenge-trumps-executive-order/2017/01/28/e69501a2-e562-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_airports-1046am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.560b5a336b45
Update (07:55 PST): Sources confirming that DHS lawyers had flagged the banning of legal permanent residents as illegal ahead of time, but were specifically overruled by Bannon. Note the implications both for the deliberacy of the act and for the extent of Bannon's power. Also, Priebus confirmed on "Meet the Press" that the omission of Jews from the Holocaust Remembrance Day statement was deliberate and is not regretted.
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/steve-bannon-personally-overruled-dhs-decision-not-to-include-green-card-holders-in-travel-ban-cnn/
Update (12:59 PST): Priebus announced that the order will no longer be applied to those with green cards. The rest of the order stands (including those with visas other than permanent residency), and it remains unclear who has been deported so far, who is still being held, or what exactly CBP will be doing next. Increasing evidence signals that deployment of this policy really was complete chaos, even internally, with the head of CBP not even being pre-briefed.
https://nyti.ms/2jFy45B
Several Federal judges have issued stays against the "Muslim ban" order. However, there are confirmed reports from multiple sources that Customs & Border Patrol (CBP, part of the DHS) is willfully disregarding those stays, denying access to counsel, moving the people they're holding to undisclosed locations so that nobody can get habeas corpus, and deporting people. This is very certainly not a local commander's decision; it goes up to the Sec'y of HS at least, and directly to Trump at most.
But – and here's the kicker – it's incredibly unclear what the scope of this refusal is. There's no clear news coming out, and we're getting more useful reports from the Twitter feeds of top attorneys in the field (both from groups like the ACLU, who have done heroic work tonight, and from attorneys at top firms, who have been joining this pro bono) than we are from anywhere else.
If this is a refusal of unambiguous Federal court orders, then this is serious, serious beyond the scale of anything we've seen in our lifetimes: it's DHS saying that if Trump tells them to do one thing and the courts another, they will do what Trump says and best of luck to the courts trying to enforce that. Which is to say, they're establishing a precedent that DHS actions are not subject to any sort of court review, or to anything other than the personal fiat of Trump – including their right to detain people, deport them, or hold them incommunicado.
Alternatively, this might be something else, a decision by CBP counsel that certain court orders don't apply to certain cases; this is serious too, since they're trying to create "facts on the ground" faster than the courts can react, but it doesn't mean a wholesale rejection of the system of law. I simply don't have enough information yet, and hope to update as we know more.
Separately, there was another story today: Trump reorganized the National Security Counsel. The two most prominent changes are this: Steve Bannon now has a seat on it, and the Director of National Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff were both demoted: they only attend meetings of the Principals Committee which "[pertain] to their responsibilities and expertise."
(The other full members of the PC, incidentally, are the secretaries of State (Tillerson), Treasury (Szubin), Defense (Mattis), and Homeland Security (Kelly), the AG (Sessions), the President's Chief of Staff (Priebus), the National Security Advisor (Flynn), and the Homeland Security Advisor (Bossert). You can read the full order here: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/presidential-memorandum-organization-national-security-council-and)
The demotion of the DNI and CJCS is surprising and I don't yet know what it means. There currently is no DNI – Coats' nomination is yet to be confirmed. It's hard to imagine what meetings wouldn't pertain to their "responsibilities and expertise," especially given that secretaries with much more specific responsibilities (like Treasury) weren't demoted. Bannon's promotion, however, is more significant: Trump is known for not attending many meetings, and delegating those, and Bannon is likely to be his principal representative in the NSC.
My gut read is that this is something which will prove very important in the long run. Trump's rift with the existing military and intelligence establishments is well-known, and he's made numerous statements, directly and through surrogates, about his interest in constructing alternative establishments reporting directly to him. Bannon would be a logical person to manage that subchain, as his "Chief Strategist" role doesn't come with a large org to manage already, or with Congressionally mandated restrictions. That would be the skeleton of a new internal security system, with the DHS and FBI (both very loyal to Trump) in the loop, together with a new private "security force" rolling up to Keith Schiller that takes over a lot of Secret Service roles, and a hypothetical new intelligence force, with Bannon being either de facto or de jure in charge of all the new organizations, and little to no legal supervision over them.
It's not clear, again, that this is where it's going, but it's definitely the configuration I would keep my eyes open for. It would promote Bannon from a Goebbels to a Himmler, which I suspect he would be just fine with.
So: Many signs out there, but nothing clear yet. These could range from incredibly serious to passing things, depending on how the next week or so plays out.
Update (00:51 PST): The DHS has put out an official statement, and I'll be damned if I can figure out what it means. It starts out by saying that they will continue to enforce all of Trump's orders, and that the orders remain in place, but it does offer a nod (later on) to complying with judicial orders.
Text here: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/01/29/department-homeland-security-response-recent-litigation
Update (02:06 PST): The Washington Post's story pulls together a range of official statements, which make it clear that this is deliberate and central policy, ordered personally by Trump. The exact meaning of the DHS statement remains unclear, but most people are reading it as an intent to continue to do whatever they want; it may involve a suggestion that if they don't want to grant a waiver to someone with a green card, they may do it by simply revoking the green card on the spot.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/refugees-detained-at-us-airports-challenge-trumps-executive-order/2017/01/28/e69501a2-e562-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_airports-1046am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.560b5a336b45
Update (07:55 PST): Sources confirming that DHS lawyers had flagged the banning of legal permanent residents as illegal ahead of time, but were specifically overruled by Bannon. Note the implications both for the deliberacy of the act and for the extent of Bannon's power. Also, Priebus confirmed on "Meet the Press" that the omission of Jews from the Holocaust Remembrance Day statement was deliberate and is not regretted.
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/steve-bannon-personally-overruled-dhs-decision-not-to-include-green-card-holders-in-travel-ban-cnn/
Update (12:59 PST): Priebus announced that the order will no longer be applied to those with green cards. The rest of the order stands (including those with visas other than permanent residency), and it remains unclear who has been deported so far, who is still being held, or what exactly CBP will be doing next. Increasing evidence signals that deployment of this policy really was complete chaos, even internally, with the head of CBP not even being pre-briefed.
https://nyti.ms/2jFy45B
View 197 previous comments
+Laird C: Humperdinck! Humperdinck! Humperdinck!49w
+Anne-Marie Clark: In social ethology, this is what dominance plays, in generalised terms, look like: the would-be dominator doing things that the would-be submittors don't like, and getting away with it.49w
+Andres Soolo Yup. Trump does it because he's insecure and needs the strokes. Bannon does it because he's not insecure and likes seeing others in pain.49w
+Laird C: It's off-topic here, but if you're interested in me elaborating on what +Mike DeSimone already said, create a new post and plus me in. I'll be happy to discuss it.49w
Thank you for this compendium. There is much to worry about - and begin planning action against.49w
And if you haven't already seen it, this analysis bears reading: facebook.com - I don't like to talk about politics on... - Heather Richardson | Facebook49w
Yes, do read the Heather Richardson piece https://www.facebook.com/heather.richardson.986/posts/654265404770041
(same as what +Pat Kight shared)49w
+Dan Thompson
GWB's National Security Presidential Directive from 2001 establishing the National Security Council defines the makeup of the Principals Committee. I'm sure that, as with the Security Council, the President can issue a permanent invitation to anyone to attend meetings. Whether he can change the makeup of the NSC/PC I've no idea. It is not codified as the NSC is, so it could be he can issue his own Directive putting Bannon at the top of it. As it is defined now, though, IMHO it does not look like Bannon can sit on the Committee. (Disclaimer: IANAL)
____________________________________________________________________
The NSC/PC shall have as its regular attendees the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, the Chief of Staff to the President, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (who shall serve as chair). The Director of Central Intelligence and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall attend where issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise are to be discussed. The Attorney General and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall be invited to attend meetings pertaining to their responsibilities.
https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-1.htm49w
As far as I am concerned, Trump's decision to disobey a lawful order of the court is an impeachable offense (contempt of court), in and of itself.49w
+Andres Soolo To answer my question about the 6
https://www.change.org/p/u-s-attorney-channing-d-phillips-drop-felony-charges-against-journalists-who-covered-inauguration-day-protests
4 relatively official journalists released. 3 independents still charged.49w
You'd think he could at least shave and wear a suit. Even his hero Lenin was well-groomed.49w
مخحغققق لقثثث49w
مخحغققق لقثثث49w
مخحغققق لقثثث49w
مخحغققق لقثثث49w
+Andres Soolo You are precisely right (about demonstrations). Demonstration is a basic instrument for mobilization of people who belong to different social groups, which rarely meet in everyday life, but which care about same or similar fundamental value sets. It is not a demonstration itself that makes a difference. It is an establishment of communication and increased readiness to direct, united and coordinated action of people across social strata that can change social reality.49w
+Marla Caldwell Numbers per se does not make a difference unless real people will stand for their rights and liberties in real confrontation with power-lusting minority. It is one of the oldest story on the planet (along with love story, god story, etc.). Dostoyevsky put it pretty nicely: "I had more to learn; something bigger pushed me: I had to learn then, and as quickly as possible to find out if I'm a louse like everybody else, or a human being? Will I be able to cross the line or not! Do I dare to bend down and pick it up or not? Am I a trembling creature or I have the right ... ". It seems that time has come (again) when everybody should answer this question by his/her every next step. God bless us!49w
+Scott Carpenter I've known a few Sikhs. They're respectful and friendly people. I hope things work out for him.49w
God help us when our military troops are now flying trump flags on the back of their US trucks !! It makes me wonder if or when we're going to be issued mandatory trump armbands !! I just want to say I've never felt or harboured hate in my heart until now, I've always preached peace but he's gutted me with anger towards himself and his clooneys !!!48w
mzthill1965@gmail.com48w
Add a comment...
Related Collections