Spokesperson plays down concern shooting of Indian engineer was inspired by President Trump’s stance on immigrants.

by Al Jazeera

The White House has sought to dispel concerns that the fatal shooting of an Indian engineer and the wounding of two other men was inspired by President Donald Trump’s rhetoric.

Addressing the killing that occurred in the US state of Kansas this week, Sean Spicer, the White House spokesperson, said on Friday any loss of life is tragic but it would be absurd to link the action to Trump’s stance on immigrants.

Spicer said it was too early to guess the motive for the incident, in which a man opened fire in a crowded bar in an apparently racially motivated attack.

The assailant, who witnesses said had shouted: “Get out of my country” before he opened fire, has been charged with murder.

Srinivas Kuchibhotla, 32, died at a hospital while Alok Madasani, 32, and Ian Grillot, 24, were in a stable condition after the attack on Wednesday night in Olathe, Kansas.

Barman Garret Bohnen told the Kansas City Star newspaper that Kuchibhotla and Madasani stopped at the bar for a drink once or twice a week.

“From what I understand, when he [the gunman] was throwing racial slurs at the two gentlemen, Ian stood up for them,” Bohnen said.

Adam Purinton, the suspect, was taken into custody on Thursday and later charged, authorities said.

Asked if the shooting could be a hate crime, Eric Jackson, FBI special agent, said it was too early to determine.

‘Top-of-his-class’ guy

Kuchibhotla was a software engineer at Rockwell Collins, an avionics and information technology company, Rod Larson, his line manager, told the newspaper.

“He was very sharp, a top-of-his-class kind of guy,” Larson said.

“His personality was exceptional. He was the kind of employee every manager would want. I couldn’t say anything slightly bad about Srinivas.”

Sushma Swaraj, India’s foreign minister, said on Twitter “I am shocked”, adding that she would help the family to bring Kuchibhotla’s body back to Hyderabad.

Vikas Swarup, spokesperson for India’s foreign ministry, said Kuchibhotla was from Telangana state.

.@USAndIndia strongly condemns the tragic shooting of two Indians and one American in Kansas.Our deepest sympathies. https://t.co/wGjUv35iIJ

— MaryKay Loss Carlson (@USAmbIndia) February 24, 2017
Grillot said in an interview from his hospital bed that when the shooting broke out, he hid until nine shots had been fired and he thought the suspect’s gun magazine was empty.

“I got up and proceeded to chase him down, try to subdue him,” Grillot said in a video posted on the Kansas City Star’s website. “I got behind him and he turned around and fired a round at me.”

Grillot said the bullet went through his hand and into his chest, just missing a major artery.

“It’s not about where he [the victim] was from or his ethnicity,” Grillot said. “We’re all humans, so I just did what was right to do.”

US Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas posted a statement on Facebook about the shooting, expressing concern for the safety of other immigrants.

“I strongly condemn violence of any kind, especially if it is motivated by prejudice and xenophobia,” Moran said.

Fund-raising drive

A GoFundMe page has been set up to collect money to fly Kuchibhotla’s body to India.

The page has crossed its original $150,000 goal, raising nearly $200,000 in eight hours.

The US embassy in New Delhi condemned the shooting.

“The United States is a nation of immigrants and welcomes people from across the world to visit, work, study, and live,” MaryKay Carlson, US charge d’affaires, said in a statement.

“US authorities will investigate thoroughly and prosecute the case, though we recognise that justice is small consolation to families in grief.”

Hate crimes against Muslims in the US shot up 67 percent in 2015 to their highest levels since the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, according to FBI statistics released in 2016.

Overall, 57 percent of the 5,850 reported incidents were motivated by race or ethnicity, while 20 percent were related to religion.

President Donald Trump has stepped up his verbal attacks on widely respected US news organisations.

(Photo: Michael Vadon/flickr/cc)

by Al Jazeera

US President Donald Trump has ratcheted up his verbal assault on the media, describing it as “the enemy of the American people” in a tweet.

Shortly after landing at his holiday home in Mar-a-Lago, Florida – where he is spending a third consecutive weekend – the president lashed out.

“The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!” he wrote on Friday.

Trump had tweeted an earlier post which targeted the New York Times, CNN, NBC “and many more” media organisations – and ended it with the exclamation “SICK!”

But he swiftly deleted that before reposting the final version – adding two more “enemies” to his list.

The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 17, 2017

Many US presidents have criticised the press in the past, but political analysts say Trump’s language has more closely echoed criticism leveled by authoritarian leaders around the world.

Trump, who regularly accuses the media of overstating his problem, also has accused journalists of failing to show sufficient respect for his accomplishments – including in their coverage of a long-winded press conference on Thursday in which he voiced a litany of grievances against the industry.

Many journalists were taken aback by the extraordinarily combative press conference, which was described by some as bizarre, but Trump echoed words of praise he got from one right wing commentator and insisted that it had been a bravura performance.

The 70-year-old partly built his election campaign on criticising the press as biased.

Month of tumult

In four tumultuous weeks, Trump has seen his national security advisor ousted, a cabinet nominee withdraw, a centerpiece immigration policy fail in the courts and a tidal wave of damaging leaks.

Trump tried to put that first month of difficulties behind him as he pitched himself as a champion of US jobs and industry during a visit to Boeing in South Carolina.

Trump visited North Charleston to renew a campaign vow to champion jobs and industry.

“As your president, I’m going to do everything I can to unleash the power of the American spirit and to put our great people back to work,” he said.

“This is our mantra, ‘buy American and hire American.’ We want products made in America, made by American hands,” he said, pledging to wean the country off imports.

Although the unemployment rate is at a low five percent and wages are rising steadily, a triple whammy of deindustrialisation, globalisation and automation have hit the US heartland hard.

In a major policy shift, US president says he would back a single-state solution, after meeting Israeli PM Netanyahu.

(Photo: Michael Vadon/flickr/cc)

by Al Jazeera

President Donald Trump has dropped Washington’s commitment to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, backing away from a long-held position of the US and the international community in the Middle East.

In a joint press conference on Wednesday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump said he would back a single-state solution if the two sides agreed to it.

“Looking at two-state or one-state, I like the one that both parties like. I’m very happy with the one both parties like. I can live with either one,” Trump told reporters after meeting Netanyahu in Washington.

“The United States will encourage a peace and really a great peace deal … We will be working on it very, very diligently. But it is the parties themselves who must directly negotiate such an agreement,” Trump said.

A two-state solution – the idea of Israel and Palestine living side-by-side and at peace – has been the bedrock of US and international diplomacy for the past two decades.

Al Jazeera’s James Bays, reporting from the White House, said Trump’s comments marked “a very dramatic development” in the search for peace in the Middle East.

“Now, for the first time upending long-standing US policy, Trump says he is not wedded to a two-state solution, and that’s a fundamental change – basically ripping up the long-standing roadmap.

“It’s going against UN Security Council resolutions; it’s going against the agreed position of the international community.”

Netanyahu said that he wanted to focus on “substance” and not “labels,” when asked about his support for a two-state solution.

“There are two prerequisites for peace. First, the Palestinians must recognise the Jewish state … Second, in any peace agreement, Israel must retain the overriding security control over the entire area west of the Jordan River,” he said.

Trump also said that Washington was working to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

“I would like to see that happen. We are looking at it very very strongly. We are looking at it with great care. Let’s see what happens.”

“I’d like to see you pull back on settlements for a little bit,” Trump told Netanyahu on the illegal Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories.

Earlier on Wednesday, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres had warned that there was “no alternative” to a two-state solution to the conflict, after a White House official said peace did not necessarily have to entail Palestinian statehood a day before.

“There is no alternative solution for the situation between the Palestinians and Israelis, other than the solution of establishing two states and we should do all that can be done to maintain this,” Guterres said during a visit to Cairo on Wednesday.

Palestinian officials also issued their warnings to the US against abandoning a two-state solution.

“If the Trump administration rejects this policy it would be destroying the chances for peace and undermining American interests, standing and credibility abroad,” Hanan Ashrawi, a senior member of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), said in response to the US official’s remarks.

“Accommodating the most extreme and irresponsible elements in Israel and in the White House is no way to make responsible foreign policy,” she said in a statement.

In setback to US president, appeals court declines to back ban on travellers from seven predominantly Muslim countries.

(Photo: Michael Vadon/flickr/cc)

by Al Jazeera

A federal appeals court has refused to reinstate US President Donald Trump’s ban on travellers from seven predominantly Muslim nations, dealing another blow to his young administration.

In a unanimous decision, the panel of three judges from the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals declined on Thursday to block a lower-court ruling that suspended the ban and allowed previously barred travellers to enter the US.

Shortly after the ruling, Trump responded furiously on Twitter, writing his response in capital letters.

He told reporters his administration ultimately would win the case and dismissed the ruling as “political”.

Trump’s January 27 order barred travelers from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen from entering for 90 days and all refugees for 120 days, except those from Syria, whom he would ban indefinitely. He said his directive was “done for the security of our nation, the security of our citizens.”

District Judge James Robart in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order on the ban on February 4 after Washington and Minnesota states sued, prompting Trump to label him a “so-called judge”.

The 9th Circuit judges noted that the states had raised serious allegations about religious discrimination.

Asked about Trump’s tweet, Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson said: “We have seen him in court twice, and we’re two for two.”

An appeal to the Supreme Court is possible.

A point-by-point rebuttal

In its ruling on Thursday, the 9th US Circuit rejected the administration’s claim that the court did not have the authority to review the president’s executive order.

“There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy,” it said.

Al Jazeera’s Rob Reynolds, reporting from San Francisco, said the court presented “a point-by-point rebuttal of the government’s case in the ruling”.

Speaking to Al Jazeera, Melanie Sloan, a consultant and a longtime ethics monitor in Washington DC, said: “This tells the world that there is a significant portion of our country that is not behind this kind of thing at all.

“We will work very, very hard to defeat this kind of discriminatory ban that really doesn’t help anybody.”

Justice Robart’s ban order temporarily suspended the nation’s refugee programme and immigration from countries that the Trump administration says raise security concerns.

Justice department lawyers appealed to the 9th US Circuit, arguing that the president has the constitutional power to restrict entry to the US and that the courts cannot second-guess his determination that such a step was needed to prevent terrorism.

The states, however, said Trump’s travel ban harmed individuals, businesses and universities.

Citing Trump’s campaign promise to stop Muslims from entering the US, they said the ban unconstitutionally blocked entry to people based on religion.

Both sides faced tough questioning during an hour of arguments on Tuesday conducted by phone – an unusual step – and broadcast live on cable networks, newspaper websites and social media. It attracted a huge audience.

The judges chipped away at the administration’s claim that the ban was motivated by “terrorism fears”, but they also challenged the states’ argument that it targeted Muslims.

Sloan, the Washington DC-based ethics monitor, said: “It’s really wonderful. As an American I can be so proud of these folks and the image we want to project to the world.

“I think you will see, going forward in the Trump administration, that often it will be lawyers and judges who will be on the forefront, stopping these abuses of power. Remember we are only in Week Three of the administration.”

Judge Robert temporarily halted the ban after determining that the states were likely to win the case and had shown that the ban would restrict travel by their residents, damage their public universities and reduce their tax base.

‘Thoughtful opinion’

Robart put Trump’s executive order on hold while the lawsuit worked its way through the courts.

After that ruling, the state department quickly said people from the seven countries – Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen – with valid visas could travel to the US.

Commenting on the 9th Circuit decision, Noah Purcell, Washington state’s solicitor-general, described it as an “excellent, well-reasoned, careful, thoughtful opinion that seriously considered all the government’s arguments – and rejected them”.

He said it is “important to recognise the real impact that this is already having on people’s lives. We have just been hearing from people all over the state and all of the country about what a difference this has made, and we’re so thrilled for that”.\

The Supreme Court has a vacancy, but there is no chance Trump’s nominee, Neil Gorsuch, will be confirmed in time to take part in any consideration of the ban.

The ban was set to expire in 90 days, meaning it could run its course before the court would take up the issue.

The US administration also could change the order, including changing its scope or duration.

“We could go on for several more rounds … but presumably everything would be done very quickly, just as this has happened,” David Levine, a law professor at the University of California’s Hastings College in San Francisco, told Al Jazeera.

“The US government has several choices. One is that they could go to the Supreme Court in Washington … to see if they can get a stay. The other thing they can do is try to and get a majority of judges in the 9th Circuit here to agree to review the ruling.

The government has 14 days to ask the 9th Circuit to have a larger panel of judges review the decision “en banc,” or appeal directly to the Supreme Court, which will likely determine the case’s final outcome.