Row over Trump's travel ban
After a federal judge suspended Trump's travel ban for citizens from seven predominantly Muslim countries a federal court of appeals in San Francisco has been charged with examining the ban and is expected to announce its decision in a week's time. What strategy is the new US president pursuing here?
A terrorist attack would help Trump
US President Donald Trump's decree policy is reminiscent of the way Hitler seized power, columnist Heleen Mees warns in De Volkskrant:
“The historic significance of the Reichstag fire in 1933 is not that it was lit by Marinus van der Lubbe (whereby historians still don't agree on this point), but that a terrorist attack can be used to justify a coup d'état. ... The 1930s are relevant to understanding Trump's presidential decrees. It's pointless to talk about the effectiveness of the travel ban. Because the real goal is not to make America safer, but to create chaos and fuel anger. A terrorist attack is exactly what Trump needs to boost his dismal approval ratings. Then he could say that he was right all along and use terror as an excuse for curtailing civil rights.”
Judges defend the rule of law
The power struggle between Trump and the judiciary shows just how important the latter is for democracy in the US, Právo comments:
“The court reminded Trump that the US is governed by the rule of law, and that the president is also subject to the laws in force. His order has several Achilles' heels. Particularly because it's unclear whether the constitution even gives him the right to sign such orders. Especially given that the order is based on the principle of collective guilt, which conflicts with the basic human rights anchored in the American constitution. Even if what we're dealing with is just a temporary rule, according to the principles of constitutionality and international law the president must not lump potential terrorists together with those fleeing terror and war.”
President disregards limits on his mandate
Trump's obstinacy is worrying, De Tijd writes:
“This president clearly refuses to recognise the limits of his mandate. This is no longer about visas for citizens from Iraq, Iran, Yemen and four other countries. ... There are good reasons to believe the US will face serious difficulties during this presidency, like the 9/11 attacks or the bank crisis in the past. If the president's obstinacy is already causing problems in the current situation, what can we expect in a real emergency? ... What will happen if the commander-in-chief of the American army remains just as headstrong but the circumstances he must react to take a sudden dramatic turn?”
More opinions