Donald Trump’s rhetoric surrounding impending terrorist attacks on US soil has focused almost exclusively on attackers from abroad.
The president is fixated on the idea that terrorists will attack the country from abroad, despite the fact that of the seven Muslim-majority countries he attempted to prohibit people from, not one produced a terror attack on the US.
His executive order was blocked at the weekend, but he is adamant that the order protects the US, and blocking it makes the country vulnerable to foreign terrorism.
He also attacked federal judge James Robart on Twitter, for his role in blocking the executive order:
He told reporters in the White House:
We have a big court case we're well represented. We're going to see what happens…It could [go to the Supreme Court]. I mean we'll see. Hopefully it doesn't have to.
It's common sense. Some things are law – and I'm all in favour of that – and some things are common sense. And this is common sense.
Ryan Lizza, of The New Yorker, argues that a terror attack from abroad would work in Trump's favour.
After the events of 11 September 2001, the Bush administration implemented a number of controversial policy measures. Tighter immigration measures were introduced by a Visa security program, and US law enforcement was given sweeping powers to conduct searches without a warrant, as well as wide-reaching surveillance powers.
Lizza suggest that Donald Trump could implement such extreme measures.
John Yoo was a lawyer for the Bush administration who supported the post-9/11 domestic policy changes. He told the The New Yorker:
If there is another terrorist attack, I could see Trump seeking all of the powers that the President can exercise during wartime. The domestic powers would have to be approved by Congress, such as limitations on habeas, domestic warrantless surveillance, and an internal security act.