Barry and is great idea to empty gitmo
Community
Just saw that on the news, Mad Dog. I think it was Obamas plan, at the very beginning, to let go as many of the Americas Most Wanted, as possible.
Yes, As we knew, and Rush, Hannity and Savage did their damndest to enlighten the sheeple. Mad Dog
Nope, I'm not going to say that. Many of these guys should have likely been locked up for good. Around 20% of the released detainees have returned to terror. That's a piss-poor percentage in my opinion.
What I will say is that these terrorist activities are not occurring on American soil (which has been my point). These are people that would never be let into the United States. If we want to talk about the terror threat in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nigeria, etc I'm happy to...those places are FAR more dangerous than they are here, and there the threat is statistically significant.
Does terror occur? Yes. Are there places in the world where terror is a very real and credible threat? Yes. Do we need to keep terrorists out? Yes. Is the risk of becoming a terror victim in the United States anything to worry about? No.
I wouldn't say that to the loved ones of the people who have been shot by Islamic asdocoiated terrorist in this country in the last two years. Might get your dental plan upgraded pretty quickly. At the least.
While the terror threat isn't nearly as high here as in other countries, it does/did take a concerted effort to prevent that from happening.
God Bless men
There's a difference between something being terrible/tragic/awful and also being statistically unlikely to happen. I've never said that because these events are unlikely to occur they're not awful and never would that be any kind of consolation or condolence. The two are unconnected.
When you get the lecture on the airplane, it is to put your mask on before tending to your children. That's to remind you that you can't take care of anyone else until you have taken care of yourself. The US needs to follow that same maxim. We have problems here we need to fix first. Fixing problems elsewhere should be number 1886 on the priority list.
That's what it means to put "America First". Get your own house in order so you can help your neighbor.
Immigration has always brought with it challenges around assimilation. Immigrants often come from the poorest places as well. It has been this way for literally hundreds of years, and those issues certainly have hair on them.
But let's be crystal clear...the President is not basing his ban on assimilation or the extent to which people need supported. The title of the Executive Order is Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States. Not Protecting the Nation from Foreigners who won't Assimilate and Cost us Too Much Money.
And accepting immigrants and refugees does not mean we can't and shouldn't support our vets. The two are not mutually exclusive. Our vets face significant challenges and we should be doing all we can to help these people as well. We prioritize benefits to Veterans and we should.
"We have problems here we need to fix first"
EXACTLY!!! Stop worrying about a terrorist threat that for all statistical purposes basically doesn't exist! Let's get to work on fixing our infrastructure, lowering taxes, growing jobs, fixing healthcare, and reducing regulations!
"We prioritize benefits to Veterans and we should."
I
I call BS on that statement right there, and I have the proof to back up my stance.
When I joined the Military, I was promised Health Care the rest of my life. When I went to sign up for it in 2005, I was informed that the Then Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, had decided in 2003 that it was to cost prohibitive to fulfill that obligation and withdrew lifetime benefits for Veterans, unless it was "Service Related", and then they would only cover said injury.
I have the letter (yeah, they couldn't even tell me to my face, had to do it thru the mail) in my locker and look at it every morning and think of all the people who gave NOTHING and get EVERYTHING FOR FREE!!!
Yeah, that kind of BS talk gets my blood flowing, so please stop with the manufactured regurgitation of BS that is spewed in hopes that if said enough, will eventually become truth.
Mike...maybe I should provide a bit of context to my statement. We spend $160 bln on Veterans Benefits...we spend $4 bln resettling refugees. That's all I meant when I said we prioritize veterans benefits versus those to refugees/immigrants. I wasn't trying to say that we prioritize veterans above all else, because we clearly don't.
You can go back and read my comments. I've stated and feel veterans still get the shaft (under basically every administration) and that we are not doing enough for them. We should absolutely do more for them.
If this is the same article I already read, the guy was released in 1984, sorry but that one's on Bush.
bk,
That analogy and insight is about as best that can be provided without political preference. Regardless it somehow will fall on deaf ears.
Ebola's home incubation and deadly spread was on the African continent. Somehow with every safeguard in place it found its way into America.
One mistake,one oversight from the outside entering America that would deploy a "dirty" bomb could be cataclysmic in death, destruction and just as importantly morale. I am not prepared nor willing to forego EVERY effort at our disposal to prevent such a event, and if toes must be stepped upon in the wrongful detaining of a innocent subject, so be it. The price of inconvenience for a few is inconsequential to one slipping through the sieve to carry out their mission.
The Rock
"EXACTLY!!! Stop worrying about a terrorist threat that for all statistical purposes basically doesn't exist!" YET! fixed.
It's not a matter of if, just a matter of when. Seems to me that being pro active in this area is the smart way to conduct business. It also seems to me that the risks of letting people in from these areas far out weigh the reward.
bb, the risks based on what?? How are you measuring these risks? Refugees from these countries have killed a grand total of zero people. There are other countries that have supplied far more terrorists than the countries addressed by this ban? I can say a lot of things may carry a small statistical risk that haven't happened YET. A meteor strike, Yellowstone erupting, aliens attacking earth. I think it's a waste of time to mobilize a ton of resources or spend time focusing on these yet to happen problems. Terrorism is a lot more real than those examples, but nobody has provided any compelling evidence to me that the system is broken to the degree that we need to take the measures we have, which do come at a cost.
Trax, by what measure is this the BIGGEST immediate threat we face as a nation? What metric are you using? I think there are other priorities that we should be addressing instead of spending time crafting legislation to ban people from countries who provide a historically low rate of terrorists in this country.
This terrorism argument is no different than the left's argument on gun control. They both accomplish the same thing (banning things in the name of safety that statistically are not that dangerous) and to me they are both incredibly flawed.
There are churches in eastern Kentucky and Tennessee, that handle rattlesnakes as part of the worship service.
Statistically, you will probably never get bit by those snakes, therefore, by your argument BigEasy, you should join them in their worship rituals.
That's not my thing so I'll pass. I know a couple of pastors have died within the last few years as a result of these rituals. Seeing as that is a couple more people than have been killed by terrorists from the banned countries during that time (which again, is zero), you think Trump's next EO will address the threat of snake worshipping on the American public?
I think the actions we see today (as in this very thread) are predicated on what has and is happening internationally. There have been many abroad who have been hurt and killed because of domestic terrorism caused by outsiders.
Before Katrina, everything seemed ok, now you have programs in place for things such as that. As we see and hear about other disasters happen, we become more aware of our own preparedness. You see more people buying emergency kits such as "72 hour kits" because of lessons learned.
When oil took a nose dive, I started to become more cognizant of spending and debt. When I was cut loose a year ago (that's what I get for being a drilling engineer), I had little to no debt and enough financially to be ok for quite some time. I was prepared. We as a nation need to be prepared, that's all. It's a sign of the times...
the left wishes to ignore the point. Those people from those seven nations are not banned because of the amount of terrorism that they have committed on USA soil, although Somalis have and probably others, They are banned because the governments are so unstable that there is no way to get proper paperwork on the people wanting to immigrate and because of the ease with which terrorist can infiltrate the countries.
God bless, Steve
Seems to me the killer in the Ohio Incident was from immigrant parents of one of these failed states...Somalia? Regardless, the Risk reward. It doesn't take a lot of resources to put a ban in place until a comfortable vetting method can be installed. Going back to the risk reward...I maintain that the risk far outweighs the reward, If they can't be properly vetted then it's just a matter of time until we have another problem in this country. Do you mean to tell me that immigrants from the 7 listed countries are so valuable to the US that we can't live without them until they can be properly vetted? I'm pretty sure we can do just fine inconveniencing them for a period of time.
bb, you mean the Ohio attacker? He was the only one that died in that incident. But yes, he was Somali. Again, he didn't kill anyone.
I'm all for fixing what's broken with the vetting process. Nobody can tell me what's broken. There's no data to suggest anything is broken. The President has made comments that it's clear he either doesn't understand the process or is flat out lying. Things like saying there's no process (wrong...it lasts years) and saying they had to rush to roll it out because bad people would flood in (wrong...you can't just bypass the process and rush in). If the President were to tell me exactly the things that are broken and how he intends to fix them, I'd say fine. Nobody has said what "extreme vetting" is or how it's different than the system we have.
Until someone can show me that, I'll continue to argue that this is not really about fixing a broken process and making things safer. I'll argue that it's about maintaining a campaign promise based on no data and dripping with racist undertones.
So unless there was loss of life, it doesn't count? Intent isn't sufficient? Sixby hit the issue on the head, the gov. Of the failed states has failed or is non cooperative to the degree that it's impossible to vet the people coming from those states. You have to put a halt to people coming from those states. There is no other option. Anything else is irresponsible. It's either a temporary situation or it can be permanent, whichever is in OUR best interest
If the president tells the public exactly what the algorithms are, the terrorists then change their models to bypass the system.
You don't broadcast your tactics or your criteria for vetting. How can that not be obvious?
I never said it didn't count. You called him a killer. I was pointing out that he wasn't. That's just a false characterization that it's impossible to vet those individuals. It's not. We've been doing it. There are multiple barriers in the screening process to identify threats. Just because one barrier is flawed or faulty does not necessarily mean the entire process is broken or doesn't work.
karma, he said he couldn't allow a grace period during the roll out of the EO and that it would be effective immediately because bad people would rush in during that grace period. “If the ban were announced with a one week notice, the ‘bad’ would rush into our country during that week. A lot of bad ‘dudes’ out there!” Trump wrote on Twitter.
You can't just skip the visa line and rush in. These things take time and can't be accelerated. So he either doesn't understand the refugee/visa process or he's lying.
" Is the risk of becoming a terror victim in the United States anything to worry about? No."
Tell that to the victims of the 9/11 attacks.
"I never said it didn't count. You called him a killer."
Semantics. He is a killer, he was just unlucky in this instance. The system didn't prevent that outcome. The idea that this concept is even up for discussion is beyond me.
You think these people have been properly vetted? I don't believe that, I have never heard anyone else admit there is proper vetting coming from these countries. I would say you have to be very naieve to believe that. Or maybe doing what the governments doing and walking around with your fingers crossed. Your article states that there is a rigorous vetting process of people coming from these 7 states. Where are they getting the information on the individuals? The whole reason Obama listed these 7 states was because they could't get the background information reliably on the people from these countries. either because the government is in such chaos they can't provide it or they won't provide it. I fail to see the harm in halting any influx of people until we are confident that they can be properly vetted. If there is any doubt and there seems to be a lot of it, wait and put a better system in place. I fail to see the issue with that.
Sleepyhunter, statistical probability is no consolation when terrible things happen. Never said it was. Statistical probability is important when establishing and judging the effectiveness of policy.
bb, we'lol just have to agree to disagree. I understand your point of view. The previous administration didn't feel we needed to halt any influx of these people because they weren't being properly vetted. The numbers I've seen suggest 90% of Syrian refugees are turned away. Typically we err on the side of caution if there are gaps or holes in the intelligence data and deny entry.
But I know that's not necessarily a guarantee of future success. We'll see.
If you care to read, another good article written by someone who has been screening refugees that provides more detail around the process than anything else I've seen. You're gonna have to look past her obvious frustration though.
Big Easy... I agree...we'll just have to agree to disagree. I get it, I understand your argument, I understand the examples used in your links. I get that not all and probably most of the refugees are probably good guys. The problem is it's too difficult to separate the good guys from the bad guys. If you miss one, the results can be catastrophic. Who's lives do you want to gamble with? Like the old saying, We have to catch them every time. They only have to get someone through occasionally. If it were up to me, I would put a ban on every single muslim immigrant until they can prove without a doubt to us that they aren't a risk.
Obama is the largest sponsor of terror. His billions to Iran and then another cash drop of pallets of money so they can fund their nuclear bomb and missile program. The release of terrorist back to active duty.
When you think about what he has done he should be in Gitmo!
Obama stands by his friends Bwana.
