What Finally Becomes Of Our Fears - our response to terrorism

28 Mar 2016 11:38 #11 by Something the Dog Said

ramage wrote: I hope that everyone, here in the mountains at least, had a Happy Easter unfortunately not for Christians in Pakistan and the Muddle East.
With regard as to what I would do regarding the threat of terrorism, I find all of your suggestions very good and trust that continued vigilance of visitor screenings means that an individual will not be allowed entry into the country without proper assessment. This visitor screening would, in my mind, apply to those crossing our borders illegally as well as those seeking asylum. This would require enforcing laws that are currently being ignored


I am curious as to the laws "that are currently being ignored". Can you specifically point out which laws are being ignored and how enforcement of those laws would prevent terrorists from entering the country?

"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

28 Mar 2016 14:52 #12 by ramage
Start with this one:

Secure Fence Act of 2006
Great Seal of the United States
Long title An Act To establish operational control over the international land and maritime borders of the United States.
Enacted by the 109th United States Congress
Citations
Public law Pub.L. 109–367
Statutes at Large 120 Stat. 2638–2640
Codification
Acts amended Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
U.S.C. sections amended 8 U.S.C. § 1103, 14 U.S.C. § 637
Legislative history
Introduced in the House as H.R. 6061 by Peter T. King (R-NY) on September 13, 2006
Committee consideration by House Homeland Security
Passed the House on September 14, 2006 (283–138, 1 Present)
Passed the Senate on September 29, 2006 (80–19)
Signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2006

The US-Mexico border fence near El Paso, Texas. The Secure Fence Act of 2006 authorizes the construction of 700 additional miles of the double chain link and barbed wire fences with light and infrared camera poles.
On October 26, 2006, U.S. President George W. Bush signed the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Pub.L. 109–367) into law stating, “This bill will help protect the American people. This bill will make our borders more secure. It is an important step toward immigration reform."[1]

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

28 Mar 2016 15:48 #13 by Something the Dog Said
Congress only appropriated 1/3 of the cost of building the fence. The administration is waiting for congress to fully fund the cost in order to finish the remaining fence. The administration is not "ignoring" that act, just waiting for congress to provide the funds to do so. Tell congress to do their job.

"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
The following user(s) said Thank You: hillfarmer

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

28 Mar 2016 21:30 #14 by Blazer Bob

ScienceChic wrote: I agree wholeheartedly with this article. "...terrorism’s goal is fear. And I will no longer be an accomplice in spreading fear. Terrorism’s goal is to make us react.
Shameful."

.

[/quote]

That is so right on. What is wrong with those people in Begium? Their air port is still closed. Ridiculous. This makes so much more sense.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

28 Mar 2016 21:31 #15 by ramage
Dog,
I agree with you, tell the Congress and Administration to do their job. I did not put the onus on either in my comment. I pointed out an act of Congress approved by the executive that is now the law. Do you have a disagreement with that?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

29 Mar 2016 12:27 #16 by Something the Dog Said
my disagreement is your statement that the law is being ignored. The administration is not ignoring the law, it complied with the law to the extent that congress allowed it to. I also disagreed that that the failure to complete the wall has lead to an onslaught of foreign terrorism in the U.S.. There has been little terrorism in the U.S. from foreign sources since 9/11. Almost all terrorism in the U.S. has been from domestic sources, primarily white conservative males.

In my opinion, the two areas regarding foreign sources of terrorism in the U.S. that need to be addressed has absolutely nothing to do with building a wall between Mexico. Those areas are the visa waiver program that allows citizens from certain countries to enter the U.S. without the background search provided by a visa and the laxness of the background checks on foreign born spouses. Neither of those require building a wall, neither of those are being ignored, they just need Congress to provide the appropriate legislation to enact them.

"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

29 Mar 2016 12:52 #17 by ScienceChic
I too think that a wall won't do any good to make us safer, what is needed is more manpower and resources to do thorough background checks of those applying for visas, and the spouses as STDS mentioned. History has proven that physical barriers are always overcome in some way or another; to truly effectively combat terrorism requires knowledge. It's a disservice to those who are coming here who do not mean us harm to have to wait months on end for their paperwork to be processed, and following up on potential problem people should be done in a more timely fashion.

Rick, going back to your points, I wholeheartedly agree that leaders should stand up for what is right - look at the photo ops past presidents have done with despots and dictators, look at the regimes we've helped topple by providing weapons - it's more often than not come back to bite us in the ass.

I also recognize that the world is a lot more gray than that. I would much prefer that we make progress diplomatically than through violence. A photo op with a dictator today who will not be around forever, but allows us to strengthen ties with the people of a country previously considered an enemy counts as a small step forward in my book. I'd much prefer that than the mess that we've helped create in the Middle East the past 40 years alternately propping up the lesser bad guy with guns and ammo.

I haven't had time to make it through all 3 separate reports in-depth, but there's some good info here.
Scientific American: Special Report: The Psychology of Terrorism
Five experts share recent studies, classical research and professional experiences that shed light on defusing the threat of extremism
By THE EDITORS on March 25, 2016

Since September 11, terrorism has been an ever present threat gnawing at our collective peace of mind. In recent years those fears—particularly of domestic attacks by Islamic extremists—have spiked. They are up by 38 percentage points since 2011 in France, 21 points in the U.K. and 17 points in the U.S., according to a survey released by the Pew Research Center last summer. And that was before Paris, San Bernardino and Brussels.

But “fear itself,” as President Franklin D. Roosevelt so famously pointed out, is not very useful. To contend with a threat, it is better to understand the forces that shape it. That is where science enters in.


"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

29 Mar 2016 13:04 #18 by Something the Dog Said
Until about six months ago, the Belgium terrorists would have been able to freely travel to the U.S. without a background check unless they were on the airlines No -Fly list. This has now been tightened slightly to prohibit those travelers who have been to Syria, Iran, Iraq or Sudan in the last five years. Of course, that assumes that there is a record of individuals who have traveled to the prohibited countries.

"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

29 Mar 2016 13:05 #19 by ramage
"The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, required DHS to complete construction by December 31, 2008, of either 370 miles or other mileage determined by the Secretary, of reinforced fencing along the southwest border wherever the Secretary determines it would be most practical and effective in deterring smugglers and aliens attempting illegal entry." GlobalSecurity.org

From DHS.gov. Gross Discretionary Budget Authority: Fiscal 2016 $51, 949,007,000.

I would argue that there are sufficient funds already authorized, so how is Congress not allowing the Executive to comply? My argument is not with the present administration alone, as I state both the Congress and Executive have not done their job.
As to laws being ignored look no further than the "so-called"sanctuary cities which refuse to enforce the laws regarding illegal aliens,, for example the murderer of Kate Steinle."
As to your assertion that almost all terrorism in the U.S. has been by white conservative males, were the San Bernadino killers white conservative males, the Boston marathon killers, the Fort Hood killer?
The Executive has had no issue with issuing orders as to allowing illegal aliens into the country why can it not issue an executive order to strengthen the background checks as you suggest?
The following user(s) said Thank You: Jukerado

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

29 Mar 2016 17:59 #20 by ramage
People,
I don't have a dog in this fight. (Sorry about the pun, Something the Dog said). My issue is with the current government of the USA. Both Republicans and Democrats. Judging by the support that Sanders and Trump are receiving from opposite ends of the political spectrum I am not alone. My frustration is with an establishment that does not listen to the public that elected them and the dishonesty that they exhibit, once elected to pubic office, including the President and the Congress. Sanders and Trump frighten these people, again, from different perspectives.
Laws and oaths seem to apply only to us, peons, not the ruling class. Look at the money amassed by politicians while in office, LBJ, Harry Reid, Eric Cantor to name but a few. Quite frankly I would prefer a Sanders or Trump presidency and let the chips fall were they may. Perhaps during those 4-8 years a new (NOT THIRD PARTY) will surface and the will of the people will be expressed.
I have opinions as to what I would want the government to do and neither Sanders nor Trump mirror them, but i am more than ready to show the door to the current established politicians.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.182 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum
sponsors
© My Mountain Town (new)
Google+