By the same authority anyone else gets sent there, I suppose. Guantanamo is completely illegal, and always has been, since neither prisoners of war nor criminal convicts have their respective rights granted at the facility. Since it violates the Geneva Convention it’s unconstitutional, too, because all treaties become the law of the land. So to the extent Bush approved it and Obama didn’t instantly abolish it despite his claimed intentions, Trump can certainly send more people there. The thing I don’t understand is how the Supreme Court could ever have upheld its existence.
Most crooks grouse about the DOJ, no surprise that DJT does.
I get that Gitmo is illegal, but why/how would the NYPD and criminal justice system of the state of New York turn the guy over in the first place?
They would not. It might provoke an interesting constitutional confrontation if they did, AFAIK.
Of course they generally cooperate with the FBI and the marshal service. Even if no federal crime was committed, I doubt they will burn their bridges over a mass murderer. If it was some random Muslim guy who hadn’t obviously committed some terrible offense it might be another story.
I’ve heard sending him to gitmo is a legal non-starter and no, trump has no authority. Like most things he says he’s going to do, he won’t do.
This though:
I can only imagine the jackboot authoritarian response when/if we have a major, co-ordinated attack.
I wish one of these reporters would ask SHS during the press conference the following question:
Last month, a white man shot hundreds of innocent people and killed 58 in the worst mass shooting in American history, and the president was all demur.
But when a brown man runs over and kills 8 people, the president is calling him an “animal” on twitter.
Why the difference?
A day after a suspected terrorist killed eight people and injured 11 others in New York City, President Trump said the man allegedly responsible for the attack helped bring 23 people to the US from overseas. Federal authorities, however, have been unable to confirm the commander-in-chief’s claim.
Trump made the comments during a cabinet meeting Wednesday, connecting Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov, the 29-year-old terror suspect, with “chain migration,” a term used by some to refer to an immigrant sponsoring family members for a green card.
Did the Federal authorities check with Fox and Friends, because that’s most likely where the “intel” is coming from.
Also, from that article (because Discourse won’t let me quote for some reason):
Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for reduced immigration, said the comments didn’t make sense. “There’s no way that in seven years someone would be able to bring 23 people to the United States,” Krikorian said. “Chain migration doesn’t work that fast.”
This is from a guy who works for a group actively seeking to limit immigration, so in other words technically allied with Trump’s and Conservatives cause. Even he is saying the President is misinformed lying.
Smokescreen much? This is obviously Trump and Co. trying to desperately change the focus from the Russia investigation and using a lone wolf copycat wannabe terrorist as a catalyst to induce more anti-immigrant hysteria. “So what if Trump had Russian help winning the election? We NEEDED him to win because only Trump can save us from brown people with trucks!”
I’m still amazed that Trump, with access to literally every piece of information that anyone could possibly have, about everything the government does, still bases his decisions and statements entirely upon what he sees on Fox and Friends.
He’s like a retarded child.
like?
I was watching MSNBC and they were bragging about how Islamic terrorists these days are “low tech” compared to in the past. This is dangerous hubris IMO. Firstly, using box cutters in an airplane in 2001, or explosives in a fishing boat next to USS Cole, isn’t exactly “high tech”. Secondly, terrorists will use whatever tech they can get their hands on, “high” or “low”. Thirdly, I wish people wouldn’t say such things as if it were a predictor of what happens in the future. This is not a topic to start bragging about, period. You can’t really stop the cops/intelligence community from bragging like this. But journalists should know better!
Yeah, you can’t get much more low-tech than 9/11, though it required some operational capacity to train the pilots and coordinate the hijackings.
Well he is sort of old, so he’s not literally a child.
So apparently there was some kind of pipe bomb go off in NY?
I was just thinking the other day that government agencies should get together and produce a direct-to-dvd light entertainment morning show every day that summarizes the necessary briefing information that the president needs to absorb in between attacks on liberals, victims of sexual harassment, and science.
Wouldn’t matter. His standards for information are the same as his base: if it agrees with what I already feel/know, it’s right, if not, shitcan it. And he instinctively distrusts pretty much everyone, because, well, he’s not very trustworthy himself, and everyone must be just like him right?
Well that’s the thing, script the show so that it walks very closely with the Fox News propaganda machine and narrative style, only every third sentence make one of the anchors say: “We have intelligence to suggest that X are preparing to move their troops near Y. Good thing Clinton lost the election hugely and Trump is in charge to handle it, amirite folks?”
I’m not sure I’m comfortable with this picture. It basically sounds like there would be a propaganda arm of the U.S. Intelligence community who would specifically target the President.
Basically sounds like a liaison officer blended with a lobbyist.