
Malevolence Tempered by Incompetence - TorKlingberg
https://lawfareblog.com/malevolence-tempered-incompetence-trumps-horrifying-executive-order-refugees-and-visas
======
grey-area
A really important point from the article:

 _Put simply, I don’t believe that the stated purpose is the real purpose._

This is a ban on Muslims under another cover, it has no practical purpose, and
that's what makes it malevolent. Like the fact that it was released on
Holocaust memorial day, and the statement on that day omitting to mention jews
for no discernable reason, it is intended to demonstrate absolute power, and
to inculcate a feeling of helplessness in any that oppose the administration
or belong to groups they do not respect.

I now believe it is a prelude to much worse. This is why trump has moved from
being a political opponent to a moral enemy for many people these last few
days.

~~~
gadders
Why is it only 7 Muslim countries then? Why not all of them?

~~~
grey-area
To try to confuse and disarm partisan Democrats and legitimise by comparison -
they clearly had that line about it being Obama's list prepared.

Plus you've got to start somewhere, they had plans to expand the list.
Remember Trump would have preferred to ban all muslims, he was quite explicit
about this.

------
ranko
It's claimed that history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the
second as farce. The current presidency seems to be a troubling mixture of
both.

Experience often tempers incompetence, but there's no such hope for malice.
Given what we've seen so far of Trump's autocratic tendencies (issuing
executive orders rather than passing legislation), there's plenty more of both
to come...

------
chopin
The author views this from a utilitarian point of view. As he seems to view
torture under the same point of view, I have very mixed feelings about this.
There should be lines not to cross, no matter what.

~~~
mijoharas
I've got to both agree and disagree with this point.

On the one hand I'd agree with you on the point of speaking out against
torture from a moral perspective (further, from a utilitarion perspective as
well because it doesn't work[0]).

On the other hand, I think the point is more emphatic because even on
utilitarian grounds, this policy doesn't make any sense, so the only logical
argument is malevolence. I'd say this is a more chilling proposition,
especially when stated by someone who has the views he admitted to having.

[0]
[http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674743908](http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674743908)

------
grabcocque
One weird thing is the way it doesn't ban Muslims from the countries which are
primary exporters of anti-American violence: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE and
Lebanon.

~~~
gadders
The countries are the ones identified as high risk by the Obama
administration.

------
TorKlingberg
I posted this after seeing it linked in several other places. To me, the key
quote is this one:

 _In other words, this is not a document that will cause hardship and misery
because of regrettable incidental impacts on people injured in the pursuit of
a public good. It will cause hardship and misery for tens or hundreds of
thousands of people because that is precisely what it is intended to do._

