A Tale Of 2 Trumps On Las Vegas Vs. NYC Terror Attacks
The Donald Trump (and by extension Sarah Huckabee Sanders) in the wake of the Las Vegas terror attack in comparison to the Donald Trump in the wake of the NYC vehicular terror attack could not have a sharper contrast. In the aftermath of the Las Vegas attack that left just shy of 600 wounded and more than 50 dead, when asked about gun regulation, at least a ban on bump stocks that turn semi-automatic rifles into fully automatic machine guns, Trump and Sanders both said that now is a time for healing, unity, and grieving, not one for policy discussions and politicizing a tragedy. That time, they stated, would come. Of course, that time never did in fact come and here we are more than a month removed from the Las Vegas attack and bump stocks still remain legal with no potential changes to that reality for the foreseeable future. It is also notable that neither Trump nor Sanders even coined the Las Vegas terror attack as an act of terror, presuming that from their view mass killings of innocents are only acts of terrorism when committed by radical Islamists.
Fast forward to this week’s Halloween NYC vehicular terror attack committed in the name of radical Islam and ISIS, Trump did not even remotely hesitate to jump to politicizing the tragedy in unjustly and erroneously blaming Chuck Schumer, democrats, and immigration policy for the attack, but he also blamed the United States justice system referring to it as a “joke” and a “laughing stock.” He went further to elaborate on some of the reasons that he felt so poorly about the US Justice system which generally comes down to due process, as he complained about timelines in which in his view it takes too long to bring perpetrators of terror to justice. He also stated that the penalties are not strong enough which has many political and judicial analysts wondering what in Trump’s mind would be strong enough, in light of the fact the surviving Boston Marathon bomber is currently on death row and is likely to be executed once his appeals are exhausted.
One has to wonder what Trump would consider an appropriate response to terror suspects. Would he be more satisfied to have due process suspended and enact extra-judicial killings as is the case with Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte with whom he shares mutual admiration? One can only speculate, but it is clear that Trump believes that it is at least okay to ignore the Constitution on this matter as he stated publicly that the NYC terror suspect should be sent to Gitmo and treated as an enemy combatant. Remarkably, he stated this on camera while sitting right next to US Attorney General Jeff Sessions who knows full well how unconstitutional such a move would be and subsequently followed a completely different constitutionally consistent course of having the suspect charged and tried in federal court.
In this tale of two Trumps on his terrorism policy, here are some key takeaways:
- A mass killing of innocents is only considered an act of terrorism if committed by a radical Islamist.
- Mass killings committed in the name of radical Islam justify politicizing of a tragedy and is a referendum on immigration.
- If a mass killing event occurs at the hands of a crazy, gun wielding white person, it is a tragic event that warrants unity, grieving, and lots of “thoughts and prayers,” but policy discussion is inappropriate, as is a review of gun policy.
- No matter what happens, its the democrats fault (recall that Sanders somehow blamed bump stocks on the Obama administration and we know who Trump is blaming for the NYC attack).
Another wonderful day in the alternate reality show that is the Trump Presidency.