Discussion for article #243017
Well⌠Ryanâs promise to bring back âregular orderâ didnât even get lip service. What happened to the idea that bills could be talked about and debated in a adversarial committee meeting where experts could be sworn in and the pros and cons discussed before they are sent to the senate?
The American SAFE Act requires comprehensive background checks of every refugee from Iraq or Syria before they can be admitted into the United States and certification that each does not pose a threat.
Specifically, under this legislation, no refugee from Iraq or Syria will be admitted into the U.S. unless:
the FBI Director certifies the background investigation of each refugee; and
the Secretary of Homeland Security, along with the FBI Director and the Director of National Intelligence, certifies to Congress that each refugee is not a security threat to the United States.
https://homeland.house.gov/press/mccaul-introduces-bill-to-protect-americans-from-isis/
Obama wants to admit 10,000 refugees in the next year. There are roughly 2000 work hours in a year (50 weeks X 40 hours). This bill requires the heads of all our major intelligence/law enforcement agencies to personally certify, individually, 5 refugees per hour, all year long. Terrorists will love having these people diverted from actually doing anything other than stamping refugee admittance papers year round.
2 Likes
ya mean the way itâs suppose to be??? awww come on that would mean the republicons working togeather with the dems to come to a joint aggrement that isnât too phucked upâŚand ya know the republicons they cant have that now can they
This weeks fear du jour from the âtough guysââŚ
This is apparently the new âregular orderâ. Write 'em up and vote on 'em. Since theyâre going to be working only 2 days a week next year, they have to cut corners somewhere.
From what I have heard the bill is useless. It is just a method for xenophobia and being jerks about unfounded fears. I the bill pointed out additional checks and criteria to meet than it may be alright. But this just sounds like âwe do not know what the checks are, we are unhappy with them anyway and we want it betterâ. without defining anything.
Also, assurances that every individual is totally safe is something nobody can promise to anyone. Who is to say someone doesnât commit a crime somewhere along the line.
They should call it what it is ⌠The Republican Cowering Pussies Act.
Nevertheless, some Democrats, including no less than Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, have said they would like to see a âpauseâ in the program after last weekâs attacks, suggesting there might be some bipartisan support for the Republican bill.
Seriously fuck Schumer.
Edit: I donât care if he is normally a reliable vote for most Democratic positions, if he canât stand by our Democratic president and stick up for our partyâs values when the going gets tough like this he doesnât deserve to be made the leader of the party in the Senate.
The assholes are fishing for support. I got an e-mail with a âsurveyâ link from my GOP stooge in this morningâs email. I was so pissed off I wrote a reply.
Here it is:
Dear Congressman XXXXX,
I received an appalling e-mail message from your office today. Your message is an appeal to fear, it is logically fallacious and appeals to our baser natures. In other words, it is typical Fox-News inspired nonsense. Please allow me to respond point by point.
Before I begin, though, letâs discuss names. Names are important: the self-proclaimed caliphate of Abu Bakr al-Bagdadi is known variously as ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria), ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) and Daesh (an English transliteration of the Arabic acronym for the groupâs Arabic name). The group considers Daesh to be derogatory (to the point that there are reports of flogging of people using the term in areas they control) because it sounds similar to Arabic words with meanings they dislike.
Since the group dislikes that label, and I strongly dislike the group, I will refer to them as Daesh. I will note that Secretary Kerry also refers to them as Daesh and the usage is spreading in our government.
As we stand with France following the Friday attacks, these events require a reevaluation of our strategy in fighting ISIS. As a member of the House Intelligence and Armed Services Committees, I am receiving multiple classified briefings throughout the week.
You are attempting to establish a claim to argue from authority. An argument from authority is a logical fallacy because your premises and facts are not available for consideration, criticism and rebuttal.
It is proving to be clear this was an attack in ISISâs war on civilization. It started with beheading Christians and religious minorities in Syria and Iraq. From a Russian airliner to suicide bombs in Beirut, and now to the streets of Paris, radical Islam is not a contained threat.
This is an argument from authority and an appeal to fear. What precisely is âradical Islamâ? Is Daesh (a/k/a ISIS, ISIL) all of radical Islam, or merely a component? Where does Al Qaeda fit in the puzzle? Boko Haram?
How about the Salafi (Wahhabi) state in Saudi Arabia? Or should we overlook their semi-civilized behaviors because they happen to have a lot of oil and weâre sort-of friendly with the ruling clique there? If you are receiving classified briefings you should be aware that the Saudis have historically funded much of I believe you would label âradical Islamâ.
This is a war we cannot win with words alone. Artful speeches and public denouncements do not stop bullets and bombs. The current strategy is not working, and if we change nothing it will continue to not work. A strategy, a smart use of force,and a greater commitment to victory, is required.
This is a thinly veiled criticism of the Obama administrationâs actions in Iraq and Syria. Have you considered that virtually all of our current trouble can be traced back to the dissolution of the Baâathist regime in Iraq following the Bush invasion? That it was the Bush administrationâs decision to dissolve the Iraqi army combined with its failure to moderate the Shiâa governmentâs oppressive behavior towards the Sunni minority that made the resources available for the formation of Al Qaeda in Iraq (which later morphed into Daesh)?
That is unveiled criticism of the second Bush administrationâs actions that have led the world to the current situation. Now you want, âA strategy, a smart use of force and a greater commitment to victoryâ? Where were your calls when the second Bush administration was lying our way into a war?
If you really want a strategy and a smart use of force, you and the GOP leadership in Congress should get off your collective backsides and determine what use of force to authorize to President Obama and his administration. Is it okay for the administration to use a couple of W-80s to flatten Raqqa? I would oppose that action myself, but itâs certainly one possible reply. On the other hand, given the current French and Russian bombing campaigns in Raqqa, a nuclear warhead is probably unnecessary. Tell the administration what is acceptable and what is not and you might see an actual strategy. Perhaps Congress ought to consider doing something it hasnât done since December 11, 1941 and declare war against Daesh.
Itâs plausible: Daesh claims to be a State actor and it holds territory.
We do not want to fight this war here. The world must defeat this ideology of death at its doorstep, not ours.
Ideology of death? An appeal to fear, again? Wasnât once enough, Congressman? By the way, Congressman, it isnât war until you get off your ass and declare a war. Daesh has more-or-less declared war on us (although I am not aware of an explicit declaration against the United States); but you donât have to wait on them.
At this point in time, the United States should move to indefinitely suspend the admittance of Syrian refugees. It is impossible to properly vet these individuals with any degree of confidence to permit resettlement into the United States.
All involved, I believe, are better served with an established safe haven in their own region. More so, the root cause for fleeing oneâs homeland cannot be ignored.
Letâs consider our previous experiences with refugee camps. In Europe following World War II they seem to have worked fairly well. They were temporary, and the refugees were returned or resettled in fairly short order.
Following the partition of Palestine in 1947, the established Palestinian refugee camps have not worked at all. The host States have not acted to resettle the refugees and have insisted that they remain isolated in them. As a result, the camps have been focuses of terrorism both towards their host states (particularly Lebanon) and towards our supposed ally Israel.
It seems to me that your proposal for a safe haven (nice euphemism for refugee camps, by the way) has no hope for success unless there is an explicit commitment to ensure that they are strictly temporary. The refugees need to be resettled. My strong preference would be for them to return to Syria and Iraq. I imagine that is your preference, too.
But the real bottom line is that they are independent human beings with hopes, fears and desires â just like you and me. If they donât want to return to the site of the horror that forced them to flee for their lives, they should not be forced to return. I seem to recall Jefferson saying something about inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
On the paternal side of my family, my grandfatherâs namesake ancestors fled religious persecution in the North of England in the late 17th century. His wifeâs (my grandmother) namesake ancestors fled famine in Ireland in the middle 18th century. Iâm very glad your sort were not present to send them back across the ocean. If you look into your past, Iâm sure you will find similar histories in your ancestry. What does it say of a person, when she pulls up the ladder behind her upon reaching safe haven for herself?
This is not an indictment of the millions of suffering refugees displaced by the brutality of ISIS and Assad. It is an abundance of caution recognizing the depravity of ISIS fighters who would disguise their intentions to cross our border and carry out future attacks. Our first responsibility is to successfully protect our nation.
I beg to differ, Congressman XXXXX. It is a judgement that your personal safety and mine is more important than their need.
Once again, you appeal to fear. Do you truly believe that a relative handful of Daesh terrorists can endanger the United States of America? Even if every person admitted was an actual committed Daesh fighter, they represent a drop in the ocean of our population.
More than your appeal to fear, it appears that you are grossly mis-stating the facts. At this point, it appears that (1) the Syrian passport is a forgery, and (2) the majority of the attackers in Paris were French and Belgian citizens who were radicalized at home. Ignoring the plight of the refugees does nothing to halt the radicalization of U.S. citizens both here and abroad. American citizens are not somehow particularly immune to Daeshâs appeals.
You said earlier that, â⌠this is a war we cannot win with words ⌠aloneâ. If it is a war, it is an undeclared war. The lack of a declaration changes the legal facts but not the realities. One of the realities is that in wars people suffer. The United States was fortunate in the wars of the twentieth century that they were mostly fought on foreign soil. I was born within sight of Pearl Harbor, the only action on U.S. soil in the second world war. I have British and German colleagues who were born within sight of devastation on their soil. I am a relative rarity among my generation of US citizens: my British and German colleagues are not rarities among their contemporaries.
People suffer in a war. This will be an unconventional war: Daesh will endeavor to create agents and cells within our society to attack our society. We will win this war with better ideas. We must fight this war with ideas as well as with weapons. One of our best ideas is this: a basic respect for people as all being created equal. Part of that basic respect is to look at the suffering of others and note that it could easily be me suffering. I would want and appreciate succor in those circumstances. How can I not treat these refugees as I would want to be treated?
We can vet these people. No, we canât vet them perfectly: there are no perfect systems. We can vet them carefully, though. We will make mistakes. We have to rely on our police and intelligence agencies to do their jobs. They are the backup system to protect us from those mistakes.
The refugees are not an existential threat to us. Daeshâs existential threat to us does not lie in their ability to kill people. Rather, it lies in their ability to force the sorts of basic changes in our society that you advocate.
1 Like
It is so easy to be a hateful, bigoted fuck that spews fear and spawns anger.
Trying to work within the constraints of civilized society to rationally and compassionately address world issues is hard. Really damned hard.
Instead of trying to solve these world issues, the Extremist Republicans lash out with fear and bluster.They are so caught up in their self-righteous hate that they canât bear to see what they really are⌠cowards.
The Pants-Wetting Caucus is applying the same logic to the Syrian refugee issue that they did to voter ID - they ignore the fact that the time and effort involved in committing the fraud isnât worth the risk. What terrorist would go through the potentially 2 year refugee screening process that will likely not be approved when they could apply for a temporary visa or hop on a plane as a tourist? And thanks to the pants wetters own stupidity, ISIS gains a brand new recruitment tool.
Thanks, assholes.
And in their quiet room, Republican leaders are praying for a bloody yuuuge terrorist attack on the US in the next year. Itâs the only way they win the Presidency, and for them, winning is everything no matter who is elected.
Donât forget the bonus - any time a national security event happens, republicans can scream, âWhat were those directors spending their time on when XXX bombing was planned and carried out? BUREAUCRATIC PAPERWORK?!?â
now the whole world can see what assholes these hypocritical repub are!
This is a calculated, chicken shit move by GOP leadership. Scare the ever-loving shit out of the electorate, put forth a facade that they are the party tough on terrorism, in hopes that they vote Republican. They know they have no chance on the issues. Cowardly fucks.