Yesterday, February 7, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the government's appeal to overturn a decision by a U.S. District Court judge in Washington State to impose a "temporary" restraining order on the executive order putting a 90-day timeout on visas for aliens from certain designated high-risk nations.
Unusually, the entire hearing was live-streamed. According to the Daily Caller, the government's attorney, August Flentje, "argued that, absent the order, the U.S. was at risk of terrorist attack. [Circuit Court Judges] Friedland and Clifton appeared skeptical of that position, asserting the risk was too abstract."
Dear Judges Friedland and Clifton,
Respectfully speaking, what can you possibly be thinking?
When the Bataclan Theater was attacked in Paris, I doubt that anyone in the theater believed an attack was imminent. Likewise, when the Brussels and Istanbul international airports were attacked, I'm sure no one saw that coming. The same with the truck murders in Nice, France, during Bastille Day celebrations.
If, on September 10, 2001 you had asked anyone in America, government officials included, whether an attack was imminent, they would have looked at you as if you were mad, and I'm sure the same blank response would have pertained on December 6, 1941.
The entire aim of terrorists is to strike fear into the hearts of their victims by attacking when and where least expected.
By your line of questioning, you have unwittingly put your fingers on precisely the reason that matters of national security, defense, foreign policy, and homeland security are matters for the political branches of government; most emphatically not for the judiciary.
The Judiciary Has No Business Second Guessing National Security Issues
Topics: National Security