It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

More Fake News? Airlines told to allow banned travelers into US after judge's order

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Yet another story with shady sources.
'customs officials have reportedly told US airlines'...
Yeah, ok.
I'm not buying into this junk anymore.
Unless the sources are solid, it's just all the same white noise.
How bout the rest of you?
Is it really a story if the sources aren't able to be checked?


Saturday 4 February 2017 07.49 GMT
Customs officials have reportedly told US airlines that they can board passengers who had been barred from entering the country after a federal judge in Seattle ordered a temporary halt on Donald Trump’s travel ban for refugees and people from seven predominantly-Muslim nations.


The Guardian

Edit: The news outlets are reporting refugees with green cards are now allowed to fly to the US, thats BS. Refugees don't have green cards. Green card holders have been flying for several days now. The media is working overtime to deceive people, or they are just that incompetent.
edit on 4-2-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 02:18 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Right now it seems unclear. The EO is still valid and running, yet an appeals court has also decided to override it.

Personally I think the appeal court will soon be overridden by a superior court, nullifying the nullification.

The EO is perfectly legal, and the judge that ruled against it did so in personal belief and not actual legality imo.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 02:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99


Personally I think the appeal court will soon be overridden by a superior court, nullifying the nullification.
There was no nullification. The federal judge does not have the authority to nullify the EO.



The EO is perfectly legal, and the judge that ruled against it did so in personal belief and not actual legality imo.

No.
The judge who issued the restraining order did so in response to a motion put before him. His opinion was that the motion had merit.

edit on 2/4/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 02:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

source?



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 02:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Do you believe Customs officials have told US airlines that they can board passengers who had been barred from entering the country?
Or is it just more fake news....



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 02:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Phage

source?


Asking Phage for a source...That's blaspheme.

Phage is a source.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 02:33 AM
link   



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 02:35 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

I think that, in light of the restraining order, it would be prudent for CPB to comply lest they be held in contempt.

Whether or not they have made such a statement, I can only go by what a great number of reputable sources have said about it.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 02:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: whyamIhere

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Phage

source?


Asking Phage for a source...That's blaspheme.

Phage is a source.

I understand this, but taking someone's word as factual without evidence makes one a sheep.

In that sense I'll continue trusting Phage, yet ask for verification for my own personal knowledge. I read what he gives me, and learn from it.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 02:44 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Freedom of the press protects the reporter from having to reveal a source.

That the source must exist is part of their code of ethics. That is what a publication or news outlet bets it's bread and butter on.
If they constantly make up stories they are relegated to the supermarket checkout aisles with flashy headlines about bat boy and Hillary's alien baby.
The media depends on its reputation for accuracy . They don't risk that lightly. Billions of dollars are at stake.
When all news becomes fake news we have exited reality.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 02:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

AKA 99% of CNN's reporting.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 02:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: D8Tee

Freedom of the press protects the reporter from having to reveal a source.

That the source must exist is part of their code of ethics. That is what a publication or news outlet bets it's bread and butter on.
If they constantly make up stories they are relegated to the supermarket checkout aisles with flashy headlines about bat boy and Hillary's alien baby.
The media depends on its reputation for accuracy . They don't risk that lightly. Billions of dollars are at stake.
When all news becomes fake news we have exited reality.


Wow you really got me with that one.

You should become a comedian or something.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 02:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: D8Tee

Freedom of the press protects the reporter from having to reveal a source.

That the source must exist is part of their code of ethics. That is what a publication or news outlet bets it's bread and butter on.
If they constantly make up stories they are relegated to the supermarket checkout aisles with flashy headlines about bat boy and Hillary's alien baby.
The media depends on its reputation for accuracy . They don't risk that lightly. Billions of dollars are at stake.
When all news becomes fake news we have exited reality.


Hasnt been accuracy in media since wwII .



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 02:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99

assets.documentcloud.org...

Do you think that ruling will stand?

The court document gave basically zero evidence, so it seems like it is a case of EO legality. TRO's on immigration are perfectly legal and allowed by the POTUS, yet this court claimed it otherwise. I really don't see this court ruling standing for more than a week.

What do you think?



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 02:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Sillyolme

AKA 99% of CNN's reporting.



CNN has been trying to get away with the same crap FOX has been pulling for years. The difference is they are being called out on it more frequently.

I wish all the 24/7 media/news channels would regain some integrity.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 03:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Sillyolme

AKA 99% of CNN's reporting.


I wish all the 24/7 media/news channels would regain some integrity.

Even VICE news became partisan, that was my one go to for non-partisan journalism, but ever since they sold out to HBO they have been shlt.

Pretty much all news sources are shlt. really makes it tough in deciphering truth from the blabber they tend to spew.

I don't watch MSM for this specific reason. I think the last time I did was in 2012 to see if Obama won again.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 03:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

I got rid of cable and my TV years ago. Occasionally I catch a clip of something on the internet, but for the most part I read all of my news.
edit on 4-2-2017 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 03:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

I don't think the judges order will be easily overcome by the DOJ.

Evidence of what? The entire point is the question of the legality of the EO. Have you read the motion? That's the meat of the matter.
assets.documentcloud.org...


edit on 2/4/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 03:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99

I don't think the judges order will be easily overcome by the DOJ.

Evidence of what? The entire point is the question of the legality of the EO. Have you read the motion? That's the meat of the matter.
assets.documentcloud.org...


Well that's a whole new document isn't it. Give me a few to read through it.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 03:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: D8Tee

Freedom of the press protects the reporter from having to reveal a source.

That the source must exist is part of their code of ethics. That is what a publication or news outlet bets it's bread and butter on.
If they constantly make up stories they are relegated to the supermarket checkout aisles with flashy headlines about bat boy and Hillary's alien baby.
The media depends on its reputation for accuracy . They don't risk that lightly. Billions of dollars are at stake.
When all news becomes fake news we have exited reality.


Do you even understand what you just posted?
The MSM's reputation is ruined because they have gone full "bat boy".
It has been the buzzword you used for a very long time and the people who rely on them for news exited reality many years ago.




top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join