DHS Shocker

[delldude]

This is a must read.
 
DHS shut down the investigation at the request of the Department of State and DHS’ own Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division.
 

 
There are terrorists in our midst and they arrived here using legal means right under the noses of the federal law enforcement agencies whose mission is to stop them. That is not due to malfeasance or lack of effort on the part of these officers; it is due to the restrictions placed on them by the Obama administration.
I was a firsthand witness to how these policies deliberately prevented scrutiny of Islamist groups. The two San Bernardino jihadists, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, may have benefited from the administration’s closure of an investigation I initiated on numerous groups infiltrating radicalized individuals into this country. 
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/263284-administration-nixed-probe-into-southern-california

 

[Dog Wonder]

Damn Constitution

 

[eolesen]

Hmm. Wasn't aware that the Constitution was an issue here. Malik was not a citizen, thus had no rights to be violated, be it the 4th or 1st Amendment.

The funny part is that there are claims that refugees will be vetted to the same standard as visa applicants. This is the standard that some people are afraid will be applied.

The Obama Administration didn't want to be embarrassed by using someone's social media presence as a weighting factor. Meanwhile, we see planes being diverted, schools being evacuated, etc. based on what someone posts on social media, so why wouldn't we want it used as a factor on whether or not someone should or shouldn't be given free roam of the country?

Again, these are non-citizens, non-residents. Once they gain entry, it's too late to do anything about it.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Tell us where you want your posts to be monitored then.

The next time you go overseas to any country, we should be able to monitor what you posted on any social media site, just to make sure you didn't get "radicalized".

It should be very simple to monitor every post from every person who enters this country, correct?

You are an IT guy. Explain it to us. Maybe we can just "shut down the internet" for scary people like Trump suggested. That would be easy...

 

[townpete]

Tell us where you want your posts to be monitored then.
The next time you go overseas to any country, we should be able to monitor what you posted on any social media site, just to make sure you didn't get "radicalized".
It should be very simple to monitor every post from every person who enters this country, correct?
You are an IT guy. Explain it to us. Maybe we can just "shut down the internet" for scary people like Trump suggested. That would be easy...

Welp, i think Snowden already proved that it was very common and very easy.

 

[Ifly2]

Hmm. Wasn't aware that the Constitution was an issue here. Malik was not a citizen, thus had no rights to be violated, be it the 4th or 1st Amendment.it.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/illegalrights.htm

Seriously?

Are you that poorly informed, (low-info voter..??? )
Or trying to pull some wool over folks' eyes?
Or just lying?

US courts have consistently ruled that the various constitutional freedoms and rights apply equally to non-citizens, even to illegal immigrants.

Once again, Eolsen smugly stating BS as if it were fact...

 

[Ms Tree]

Not the first time he has done that. He even posts photoshopped pictures without a second thought and then gets the entire thread removed when he is exposed.

 

[EastUS1]

An honest question for all of the "liberal persuasion": What possible benefit to the citizens of America (or the Nation as a whole) can you even laughably suggest we'd gain through importing countless thousands of muslim refugees?  Note that the vast majority are males of at least supposed "fighting" age, yet they ran away from any and all personal responsibility for even fighting for their very OWN country, and yet you wish them magically made "Americans"...Seriously?
 
I'd suggest instead opening the doors to such as these brave young ladies...but unfortunately for that idea, well, they actually have stuck around to fight, unlike all these thousands of young "men" you folks so eagerly wish to adopt:
 
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/meet-kurdish-women-fighting-isis-syria-n199821

 

[cltrat]

An honest question for all of the "liberal persuasion": What possible benefit to the citizens of America (or the Nation as a whole) can you suggest we'd gain through importing countless thousands of muslim refugees?

good luck getting any sort of answer on that other than some sort of touchy feely pc one

 

[Ifly2]

An honest question does not have so many conditions that there is only one answer that will fit the question.

Your "honest question" is more like the classic "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

NTL, there are good reasons to accept refugees. True refugees, those who were facing religious persecution, genocide, etc. Mostly, they are humanitarian reasons, or "touchy-feely ones". Kind of lime we should have allowed more European Jews to emigrate during WW2. Because it would have been/is the right thing to do.

Or, since so many of y'all think that this is a christian nation, necause that is what the man you claim to follow and emulate taught.

It really isn't about what good they can do us, it is about us doing good.

Yes, they should be thoroughly vetted and preference given to families and those most at risk, and not to military aged single males. Yeah, that is an issue.

 

[EastUS1]

It really isn't about what good they can do us, it is about us doing good.

 
In other words; you can obviously offer NOTHING in the way of even fantasized benefits for America for taking in these fine people?
 
Well, if it's just touchy-feely/what-a-good-person-you-are cuddly notions you need: How 'bout we just contract for a whole lot of middle eastern appearing Cabbage Patch Dolls instead, and of course issue them out to loving liberals? One certainly wouldn't want your delusional fantasies of both self worth and the magical ability to "save" everyone else anywhere in the whole wide world to at all suffer in any way.  Umm....Just to keep things even the least bit real though; we could have them set up so that say, oh even 96% will say "I wuv you" when you hug them..and only the rest will explode when you do. Happy now?
 
Per: "It really isn't about what good they can do us, it is about us doing good."..? Really?...Aww...how cute and so wewy, wewy pwecious indeed! Well, I'd hate to completely crush your childlike innocence, but by the second week of the Rwandan genocide, we'd been briefed at even the Squadron level of my USAFR unit. This was while yet another loving liberal, none other than Slick WIllie was infecting the Oval Office. American forces could've put a stop to that murderous insanity within at worst a week hence, but good old Clinton-boy instead pretended that it either wasn't going on, or that he somehow didn't have the intell breifings available at even unit levels, and well over another half MILLION people were subsequently murdered. Whenever some dipsheep "liberal" and "caring" politician's moving their lips; one must always look for their REAL agenda.  Welcome to the grown-up world kid.

 

[EastUS1]

Yes, they should be thoroughly vetted.....

 
I'll apologize for what now I see as perhaps a bit of unintended cruelty to "dumb animals" here, but exactly HOW does any person, much less gargantuan government agency, "thoroughly" vet ANYONE who has ZERO to offer in the way of even so much as a proven country of origin/personal history, or even so an at ALL proven personal NAME?
 
I'm all ears here. Please do proceed.....?

 

[Ifly2]

Hey,
You asked a question
A very heavily loaded one
I answered both your question, "it is not about what good it does us...", and the underlying why, "it is about doing good and Jesus said to do that..."

I don't care, honestly.

I am ok with letting real no bs refugees come IF we can determine thst they are not radicalized, etc., just as "we" did with my Irish ancestors.

So far as the whole savimg tje world blah blah blah thing, that was W & Co's excuse for invading Iraq. We were going to save them from tje bad guy we forced on them and supported until we didn't, and force our way of life on them and then the region.

Were you as upset/disgusted/threatened or whatever by that very expensive and collossally failed bit of touchy feely do good ism?

(I'm gonna' go ahead and guess that that whole thing was somehow "different"...)

 

[EastUS1]

.....
I don't care, honestly.

I am ok with letting real no bs refugees come IF we can determine thst they are not radicalized, etc....

 
I'd strongly suggest that even so much as a sea sponge (or even door jamb)  should very much "care, honestly" about this situation, but your actual mileage clearly varies there.
 
Per: "I am ok with letting real no bs refugees come IF we can determine thst they are not radicalized, etc...." Best Joke of the Day so far. Kindly expand on just exactly what magical methods you might suggest for accomplishing that miraculous determination? Seriously; I'm absolutely ALL ears here. How might you suggest anyon e determine who's "real", versus "bs refugees"? This might even surpass your above efforts at providing the best Joke of the Day yet seen....So?
 
Btw: Your feebly attempted comparison with those escaping the Great Famine in good old Ireland with a buncha' worthless muslim punks that'd rather run than even fight for their very OWN country is such utter BS. My own family tree also hails from Ireland on one side (much earlier), and yet was not bent on inflicting any caliphate on anyone...save for Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna at the time, who's 'immigration policies" were evidenced at Goliad and the Alamo. I'm not at all against accepting actually decent and productive people into America, but becoming an open cess pool/collecting pond for the sewers of the middle east hardly qualifies...Umm...haven't even their very own neighboring (and of course, oh-so-loving) muslim nations denied them entry for "reasons of security"?
 
"there are good reasons to accept refugees....." Name even ONE for accepting in a mass of mostly male muslims of military age?...And btw; why was it all these "noble" young "men" somehow managed to find the "strength" of true "character" to leave pretty much ALL their women and children behind to be then defenselessly slaughtered in a frikkin' war zone anyway?

 

[delldude]

Hmm. Wasn't aware that the Constitution was an issue here. Malik was not a citizen, thus had no rights to be violated, be it the 4th or 1st Amendment.

The funny part is that there are claims that refugees will be vetted to the same standard as visa applicants. This is the standard that some people are afraid will be applied.

The Obama Administration didn't want to be embarrassed by using someone's social media presence as a weighting factor. Meanwhile, we see planes being diverted, schools being evacuated, etc. based on what someone posts on social media, so why wouldn't we want it used as a factor on whether or not someone should or shouldn't be given free roam of the country?

Again, these are non-citizens, non-residents. Once they gain entry, it's too late to do anything about it.

 
It was Obama who stated this was a violation of their 'privacy rights'.....where does it say in COTUS, foreigners have 'privacy rights' when being investigated for terrorist ties before they arrive in the US??
 

Tell us where you want your posts to be monitored then.

The next time you go overseas to any country, we should be able to monitor what you posted on any social media site, just to make sure you didn't get "radicalized".

It should be very simple to monitor every post from every person who enters this country, correct?

You are an IT guy. Explain it to us. Maybe we can just "shut down the internet" for scary people like Trump suggested. That would be easy...

 
And the issue here is the Obama admin shutting down investigations of foreign persons who have been discovered  linked to terrorist organizations attempting to harm US citizens......and their 'privacy rights'.
 
Ted confirmed what Snowden already provided, 100% snooping by your gov't......and it isn't working, either.
 

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/illegalrights.htm

Seriously?

Are you that poorly informed, (low-info voter..??? )
Or trying to pull some wool over folks' eyes?
Or just lying?

US courts have consistently ruled that the various constitutional freedoms and rights apply equally to non-citizens, even to illegal immigrants.

Once again, Eolsen smugly stating BS as if it were fact...

 
Your link specifically deals with illegal immigrants. Tell me whayt COTUS protections apply to persons living outside the US ?