I would hope they will attend the meetings where their input is valuable. I think the larger issue on most people's mind is the addition of Bannon as a voting principle and policy maker to the council.
Trump removes JCS and DNI from National Security Council
- Thread starter scoutpilot
- Start date
I would hope they will attend the meetings where their input is valuable. I think the larger issue on most people's mind is the addition of Bannon as a voting principle and policy maker to the council.
Scout, what is the taste of "How did I end up in this situation?"
http://www.businessinsider.com/john-kelly-takes-blame-for-botched-trump-travel-ban-2017-2
From Gen. Kelly's testimony before Congress concerning the policy whose name shall not be mentioned other than in POTUS' tweets.
"The desire was to get it out quick so that potentially people that might be coming here to harm us would not take advantage of some period of time that they could jump on an airplane and get here," Kelly told the House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security.
"This is all on me by the way. I should have delayed it just a bit so that I could talk to members of Congress," he said.
Count me among Gen. Kelly's biggest fans. I respect his decision to take the responsibility and protect the White House. Owning up is primal instinct we wish for all our DD's and DS's. He took the job, but I'd give a month's wages to sit down with him and a couple glasses of bourbon to hear what he really thinks about the White House operation.
I agree with you on respecting his decision to own up to a mistake. That's an important quality. Though I'd also say that if it's used to mask the inadequacies of people with more power, that's a problem of another sort.
But can anyone help me understand just the basic logic of that shared quote? I mean, as anything other than a fear tactic? When was the last major non-citizen terrorist incident on US soil? Where's the resonance for the idea that we have a crumbling immigration & travel system that would allow people with intent to do harm to 'jump on an airplane and get here?' If the system is so inadequate why haven't we been flooded with incidents over the past 8+ years?
I'm genuinely curious to hear how people think about this. Can anyone provide evidence about systemic dysfunctionality? Beyond the shear reality that to be alive is to be under some measure of daily threat, and the corollary reality that every system created and operated by humans is imperfect, aren't we doing something right if we judge by the lack of major incidents perpetrated by non-citizens in the past 15 years?
But can anyone help me understand just the basic logic of that shared quote? I mean, as anything other than a fear tactic? When was the last major non-citizen terrorist incident on US soil? Where's the resonance for the idea that we have a crumbling immigration & travel system that would allow people with intent to do harm to 'jump on an airplane and get here?' If the system is so inadequate why haven't we been flooded with incidents over the past 8+ years?
I'm genuinely curious to hear how people think about this. Can anyone provide evidence about systemic dysfunctionality? Beyond the shear reality that to be alive is to be under some measure of daily threat, and the corollary reality that every system created and operated by humans is imperfect, aren't we doing something right if we judge by the lack of major incidents perpetrated by non-citizens in the past 15 years?
The fact that this thread exists warms my heart almost as much as Steve Bannon on the NSC chills it. US News reported in January 21 that his appointment bypassed Senate Approval, which may be required by law. ( sorry can't seem to attach link on phone). not that it would make a difference ( see DeVos confirmation). But at least there would be a public forum for debate. I am Truly terrified for our country and our constitution
scoutpilot
10-Year Member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2010
- Messages
- 4,479
Hey let's be clear. Flynn also advises him on the dollar...
https://www.google.com/amp/www.mirr...p-so-confused-basic-9777539.amp?client=safari
KP2020Dad
DS - USMMA '20
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2015
- Messages
- 169
Once again, you hear what you want to hear. In the last administration, the only senior military leader that could offer advice in NSC meetings was CJCS. My point is that is not the case in the admin. Let me be clear, I don't have a problem with Flynn, but I understand there are those that do. The good news for them is that Flynn isn't the only senior military leader offering advice to POTUS.
KP2020Dad
DS - USMMA '20
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2015
- Messages
- 169
They are actually invited to all meetings. This new order allows them to not attend meetings that are out of their scope.
It fundamentally means that meetings can be held without them. For whatever reason the likes of Steve Bannon decides. Yikes.
Also: Do you really think that a core operating problem of our government has been that the NSC Principals had meeting bloat? Seriously? What actual problem is this 'innovation' designed to solve?
KP2020Dad
DS - USMMA '20
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2015
- Messages
- 169
Fair enough, but I think the actual language of "shall" would encompass both of our interpretation approaches.
KP2020Dad
DS - USMMA '20
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2015
- Messages
- 169
This is pure conjecture at this point and the reason for my original post. We have no idea how this "new NSC order" will actually play out and it is silly to think that our military is in danger because ODNI and/or CJCS will not be in NSC meetings at all times.
madhttr
AROTC Dad
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2016
- Messages
- 84
I've heard this point made and I think it is more valid than the prevailing partisan rancor about the policy. But the attacks and general unrest in European countries that have accepted large influxes of refugees seem to at least be a cause for concern. There wasn't a major incident perpetuated by non-citizens before 9/11 either, but that doesn't mean enhanced security of air travel wasn't needed. Agree that all risk cannot be eliminated and the imperfection of human systems (TSA being exhibit 1A). Whether this is the right policy with all of its intended/unintended consequences is open to debate and the roll-out was certainly botched, but my question is: is there some value in sending a message to people with intent to do harm that there is "extreme vetting" taking place, even if the details and effectiveness of such activity are somewhat unclear? Like posting a security system or beware of dog sign in your yard might cause a thief to move on to the next house, it's not foolproof, but it may be a deterrent. Just one way to look at it--but I can see how the way it was implemented points more to a fear tactic than a carefully crafted policy.
Thanks for this measured reply.
My first response is: Our relationship to refugees is SO different than that of European countries that, again, this doesn't seem to be more than a fear tactic. In 2016, Germany took 1,000,000 Syrian refugees. We took 10,000. All of this while we have a population that is 4x Germany's. If anything, we already look protectionist & selfish on the world stage -- we have the refugee equivalent of a mile-high, neon Beware of Dog sign with a shrieking siren. We don't need to further emphasize that stance for optics. I do not know a single person who works in immigration or refugee vetting (and I live in DC and have friends who are actively involved on a daily basis from big picture policy at DHS to being refugee interviewers at ICE to foreign service consular officers) who thinks our system is thin or loose.
My second response is: There are perception consequences in both directions, and the insistent and heightened drama of 'extreme vetting' (and especially Trump's chosen language around it) also makes us seem biased in the global context. This is highlighted by the Ayatollah's recent remarks that we're showing our true face. This kind of posturing feeds into the motivating rhetoric of extremists. To me that's a much, much more significant danger.
Finally: I'm not flippant about the reality that there are serious threats in the world. Clearly there were threats we didn't perceive prior to 9/11. But the answers aren't simplistic & obvious, which is why we need to focus on empowering intelligence professionals who are focused on identifying unknown/new/innovative tactics. We're well-practiced at responding to known threats -- our relative safety for the past 15 years seems to be the best indicator of this. We aren't going to be made safer by appealing to raw fear & belligerence.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2012
- Messages
- 2,254
This link is to a NY Times article is about the US possibly exceeding the 10K goal of Syrian refugees.
Interesting to note is the articles' refugee application's timeline mentioned, a refugee's application started in February, his family is in the US by June with additional investigative steps added! Expanded "extreme vetting" in just 5 months (at most)! Although 31 state governors didn't want these refugees, their wishes appear to have made little consequence. Also of the 10K accepted Syrian refugees total, 99% are Muslim & make up approx 12% of the total # of the 85K refugees allowed in since October, 2015 (the start of the 2016 fiscal year).
In addition, as per the Pew Research Center, as of 09/30/2016, the end of the fiscal year , 12,486 Syrian refugees were accepted . I could not find a reliable # to include for calendar year 2016, but if Pew is correct, at 1,000/month with the additional push to approve applications mentioned in the NYT article, I would assume at least 3K more for Oct-Dec bringing the total to over 12K.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/06/...-goal-of-accepting-10000-syrian-refugees.html
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/05/u-s-admits-record-number-of-muslim-refugees-in-2016/
Interesting to note is the articles' refugee application's timeline mentioned, a refugee's application started in February, his family is in the US by June with additional investigative steps added! Expanded "extreme vetting" in just 5 months (at most)! Although 31 state governors didn't want these refugees, their wishes appear to have made little consequence. Also of the 10K accepted Syrian refugees total, 99% are Muslim & make up approx 12% of the total # of the 85K refugees allowed in since October, 2015 (the start of the 2016 fiscal year).
In addition, as per the Pew Research Center, as of 09/30/2016, the end of the fiscal year , 12,486 Syrian refugees were accepted . I could not find a reliable # to include for calendar year 2016, but if Pew is correct, at 1,000/month with the additional push to approve applications mentioned in the NYT article, I would assume at least 3K more for Oct-Dec bringing the total to over 12K.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/06/...-goal-of-accepting-10000-syrian-refugees.html
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/05/u-s-admits-record-number-of-muslim-refugees-in-2016/
madhttr
AROTC Dad
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2016
- Messages
- 84
Good discussion New Kid. Your first response is what I would like to hear more of in the press. What is our current vetting process and what do the people who are actually involved in it say? Most people (myself included) do not know. Instead what we hear in the press is polarizing: if you're for some kind of slow down/increased scrutiny in the process (not even to say a "ban" or that it singles out Muslims) you're a racist, xenophobe, islamophobe hater; and to your third point, if you're against this particular policy you're for letting in thousands of terrorists. It's absolutely fair to point to distinctions between Europe and the US and argue the effectiveness of the policy. I would quibble with whether Trump's chosen language and political posturing makes things worse with extremists. They seem to hate us regardless of who is in office or what policies we implement, but there is much to criticize with Trump's style and it is a valid concern. We are in absolute agreement that the answers are not simplistic and obvious and on the value of empowering our intelligence professionals. This is the common ground that I wish we could find on this and a number of different issues. But I'm not holding my breath that the press will facilitate it in the least.
I feel like you've willfully misread the article that you provided. The five month timeline is from when they receive notice that they're allowed to begin the official application process. This isn't some casual thing. They'd been refugees for 3+ years at that point and had almost certainly waiting to get the word that they could even begin the official application process. And one of the main points of the article is that lots more resources were provided in order to ensure that the bureaucratic timeline didn't get delayed even while they added more steps. So yes, they added more steps and they still met their time goal. That's the point.
Did you read this part?
"So he did not hesitate when he learned in February that his family could apply. American officials grilled him extensively during several interviews about “the tiniest details,” Mr. Al Smadi said, once calling him back for a second hourslong round of questioning because of a two-day discrepancy in the dates he had provided for his service in Syria’s military."
That's just one detail that seems to highlight rigor in the process. Is there anything in that article that highlights a lack of rigor?
Have you spent time with refugees in the US and talked with them about the process to get here? It's extremely thorough. My sister sponsors a refugee family down south, my cross-the-street neighbors growing up sponsored a refugee family, and I dated a guy who was a refugee investigator. The stories on both sides of the process compel me to think that our current system is earnest and effective -- within the constraints of any human enterprise -- at vetting. I'm sure it has problems; all systems do. But as with most things, those problems are almost certainly related to internal details that aren't being discussed by laypeople. Those kinds of details tend to be arcane and don't stir the pot of resentment that can be easily transmuted into political capital.
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2012
- Messages
- 2,254
I did not willfully misread the article and I resent your statement that I did. I stated the facts the reporter wrote. The beginning of the investigation is the beginning of the investigation. It ended 5 months later. While someone can be a refugee for 3+ years, that has no bearing on when the investigative process started, right? Until I read this article, I was under the impression that the process took 2 + years from beginning to end. My interpretation of the timeline mentioned is that when the prior administration wanted these investigations expedited & concluded with a determination so that the refugees can enter the US, they were. Government agencies can comply with an order. The additional steps were mentioned in order to give the reader the impression that these investigations, even though expedited, were just as thorough as the 2 year one's were. Either you believe that or not. While I think you do, I respectfully disagree. I have supervised investigations & it would be hard (to say the least) to condense 2 years into 5 months with the same level of accuracy & completeness. Also, my understanding is that records from Syria are in ruin & are missing/destroyed/taken by terrorists. Would it be possible for you to ask the refugee investigator you know if they believe that 5 month investigations can be as accurate 2 year investigations as well as their opinion as to the reliability of Syrian records that they have examined? Lastly, when politics enter investigations the means will justify the end result wanted. 30 years in LE (28 assigned to patrol units) in a large metropolitan city taught me that. Ask your friend about that too. That should also answer your question about me spending any time with refugees, which I will assume is way more time spent with them ( overwhelming assisting them as victims/reporters/witnesses) than you.
EDelahanty
10-Year Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2010
- Messages
- 1,577
Business Insider is carrying a story that Trump once called Flynn at 3 a.m. to ask whether we wanted a strong dollar or a weak dollar. Flynn replied he didn't know and Trump should ask an economist.
I hope this is fake news.
One reason to think it's not true is that 3 a.m. is prime tweeting time, so it's unlikely he would be calling anybody then.
I hope this is fake news.
One reason to think it's not true is that 3 a.m. is prime tweeting time, so it's unlikely he would be calling anybody then.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2010
- Messages
- 16,005
You never fail to disappoint! I had quit reading this thread until I saw you had posted, so I decided to have a look. Thanks for the laugh I knew I could count on!
Apologies for what felt like an accusation. I think it resulted from a genuine point of confusion. Which is: In order to apply for refugee status from the US government you have to have been referred to the screening process -- you have to be officially 'invited' to go through the vetting by another agency like the UNHCR. Often when people talk about the entire refugee application process all of these stages are lumped together. So this family would have 'begun' the process -- involving both an agency like the UNHCR and then a US-funded refugee support center -- much earlier. But neither of those steps would count as part of that five month period referred to in that article. That five period is just the official US screening process. That's why I highlighted that they'd been refugees for 3+ years. You can read about the basics of the process here: https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/...-consultation-worldwide-processing-priorities
Or you can read a good overview from Newsweek in 2015 here: http://www.newsweek.com/heres-process-refugees-have-go-through-enter-us-398254
As this article says, the full, multi-stage process takes 18 - 24 months and only 1% of refugees even move to the US screening process.
So it strikes me that your sense that the process used to take 2 years is possibly reflective of that broader timeline. I certainly haven't seen anything that indicates that the official US refugee investigatory process has been reduced from 24 months to 5 months. I just don't think the US screening -- which is what's detailed in that article -- used to be 24 months. I can't find anything online that identifies how long the process has historically taken, but I did find statutory guidance that identifies that asylum status is supposed to be determined within 6 months (180 days). So it makes sense to me that refugee status would generally have involved a similar kind of timeline.
Or maybe not. Maybe you do have a source that highlights a radical reduction in time or resources or thoroughness devoted to the process. In which case I'd genuinely be very interested to see it. I just don't know anyone who works close to the process who thinks that it's currently minimal or cavalier. Another good general infographic overview is here: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.go...screening-process-refugee-entry-united-states
As for that article -- and why I thought you were willfully misreading it -- it specifically states that extra resources were apportioned in order for them to effectively meet the processing targets. You seemed to be saying that it was concerning that the process wasn't taking even longer, even though the numbers involved had increased. And I was highlighting that that was the particular point the article was making. That the department didn't anticipate being able to reach the targets on the proposed timeline, but then lots of extra resources were provided and so they met the goals. That's why it was news.
Part of what I find so curious about all of this is that it's generally accepted -- and long has been -- that claiming refugee status is the single hardest way to gain entrance to the US. It's a lengthy, thorough, arduous process. It seems like the least likely route to pursue for someone who wants to covertly enter the US in order to wreak havoc.