Since his mannerisms make him out as country or – as we say in Africa – a villager, his case may be more of naivety rather than good acting. If that is true, then the problem is his gullibility (to others or to self) that the means he intended and intends to use to reach those worthy goals are proper. The tragedy is that US presidents that are gullible are ready puppets for the US money-power establishment. President Bill Clinton was not an “angel,” but was smart enough to largely stave off the influence of the money-power establishment.
Corey Brettschneider points out three important ways in which the Trump executive order violates US law. First, it violates two aspects of the US Constitution – the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. By the Equal Protection Clause the Constitution shelters people irrespective of their religion or lack of it, creed, etc., and The Establishment Clause prohibits policies that favour one religion over another. And then the Trump order also violates a statute passed by Congress called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), “that protects religious believers from adverse effects of federal government policy,” such as Trump’s executive order.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, Corey Brettschneider explains, is to also ensure one religious group is not favoured over another. And that is where Trump’s own mouth is one of his problems. Brettschneider writes: “On Friday, the same day he signed the new policy, Trump taped an interview with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network. [During that interview Trump suggested that] Christian Syrians would receive special treatment under the ban. Although the specifics of that special treatment are not yet clear, Trump’s response to Brody indicates an intent to enact the kind of religious favoritism banned by the Establishment Clause.”
The columnist cites several court cases in which the US Supreme Court and other lower courts gave judgement by using these clauses and RFRA in favour of victims, individuals, or a legal entity or group. These include the court orders that released hundreds of Moslems caught by the order and therefore were detained in airports in cities around the US. The only instance of a court judgement that could have been used to make a case for those in favour of the executive order, Corey Brettschneider points out, is a verdict in favour of a law passed by the lower House of the US Parliament, Congress, and enforced by a US president; not an executive order issued solely by the president.
Towards her conclusion, Corey Brettschneider, who approaches the issue from a legal perspective, also writes: “One final thing: There is a popular counter-argument to all constitutional challenges to the [Trump] executive order—one often cited by Trump adviser, Kellyanne Conway, that goes like this: Because the new policy does not target all Moslem-majority countries, it cannot be considered an act of discrimination against Moslems. Legally, this is a weak argument. A violation of the Establishment Clause, the Equal Protection Clause and RFRA is still a violation, even if it affects only one person, let alone the large numbers affected by this policy.”
That is as good a conclusion as any ending to the constitutional argument can ever be. And that leads back to the larger import of the ban, for US domestic affairs, for the role of the US in global affairs and for humankind.
Conceptually, the basic problem of mistreating some Moslems in the name of fighting terrorism is that it tends to create in people’s minds the false but clear perception that a Moslem is a terrorist. Hence, baseline, too many other people come away thinking every Moslem is a dangerous person to live with or have as a neighbour. However, a Moslem is not a terrorist; neither is a terrorist a Moslem. A strong definition of a terrorist is someone who kills people for political reasons either by using religion as a personal camouflage or because the intended victims (or victims) belong to a different religion. Thus the Taliban is a terrorist organisation, and President George W. Bush and UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, are terrorists. A soft definition of a terrorist is someone who mistreats people of a different religion simply because they belong to that religion. That would make Trump a terrorist.
That would make Trump a terrorist, because, in his effort to fight terrorism, Trump is fighting and destroying sane and worthy humankind values that a terrorist stands against. And to rephrase what someone said, it is important for those fighting evil to watch out lest they become like those they are fighting. Even for a good person fighting evil, if his or her chosen means make him or her throw worthy humankind values out of the window, he or she has, in principle, become just like the terrorist he or she intends to stop. That is how the anti-terrorist arrives as a terrorist. And that is what Trump’s executive order makes him.
Finally, Sally Yates is a heroine not just for recognising the wrongness of the executive order, but also for immediately taking a courageous stand against it in her duty as a public official. And she took that honourable stand with cherished humankind values – as the Ghana Armed Forces College motto would say – even “to the peril of [her job].”
She did precisely what Abraham Lincoln did in 1860, taking a stance with what is right and going to a righteous war to defend it and prevent the split of a country (USA) by those whose only options were the wrong or the split. Sally Yates did, in principle, what US Attorney-General, Eliot Richardson, did when in 1973 he disobeyed President Richard Nixon’s direct order to sack US Special Prosecutor, Archibald Cox, who had subpoenaed Nixon to present secret tapes for investigation into the Watergate scandal that eventually forced Nixon to resign. Eliot “resigned”.
The (UK) Independent newspaper says Sally Yates has been nominated for the JFK Courage Award. Even if she wins it, it will not be enough to encourage others to emulate her pre-eminent example. One day the USA itself must honour Sally Yates for standing with the US Constitution and also with humankind values cherished by sane men and women.
“The tragedy is that US presidents that are gullible are ready puppets for the US money-power establishment.”
“…The basic problem of mistreating some Moslems in the name of fighting terrorism is that it tends to create in people’s minds the false but clear perception that a Moslem is a terrorist.”
“…It is important for those fighting evil to watch out lest they become like those they are fighting. …That is how the anti-terrorist arrives as a terrorist.”
Join GhanaStar.com to receive daily email alerts of breaking news in Ghana. GhanaStar.com is your source for all Ghana News. Get the latest Ghana news, breaking news, sports, politics, entertainment and more about Ghana, Africa and beyond.
