This is what LIBERAL political correctness leads too..

[WhatWouldObamaDo]

DEATH.......

Former DHS Official Drops Shocking Revelation About Secret U.S. Policy on Visa Vetting Procedure
Dec. 14, 2015 10:01am Jason Howerton
1.2K
SHARES
A secret policy in place at least through the fall of 2014 reportedly prohibited U.S. immigration officials from analyzing social media activity as part of the screening process for foreign nationals applying for visas.

John Cohen, former acting under-secretary at the Department of Homeland Security for intelligence and analysis, dropped the explosive details after it was revealed that San Bernardino terrorist Tashfeen Malik spoke openly about violent jihad and martyrdom on social media prior to her arrival in the U.S.



ABC News

Malik and her husband, Syed Farook, killed 14 people and injured dozens more in the California terrorist attack. Malik entered the U.S. under a “fiance” visa, which was issued after she had already shown signs of radicalization.

In an interview with ABC News, Cohen confirmed “immigration officials were not allowed to use or review social media as part of the screening process.” He said Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson even refused to end the policy in early 2014.

More from ABC News:

One current and one former senior counter-terrorism official confirmed Cohen’s account about the refusal of DHS to change its policy about the public social media posts of all foreign applicants.

A spokesperson for the DHS, Marsha Catron, told ABC News that months after Cohen left, in the fall of 2014, the Department began three pilot programs to include social media in vetting, but current officials say that it is still not a widespread policy. A review of the broader policy is already underway, the DHS said.

Cohen told “Good Morning America” the Obama administration decided not to inform the public of the policy because officials feared it “would be embarrassing.”


President Barack Obama speaks in Washington, Thursday, Dec. 10, 2015. President Barack Obama’s advisers are finalizing a proposal that would expand background checks on gun sales without congressional approval. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

The social media exclusion, he explained, centered around concerns for “optics” and “concerns from privacy and civil liberties perspective that while this was not illegal, that it would be viewed negatively if it was disclosed publicly.”

Cohen said the arguments being made in favor of not reviewing the social media accounts of visa applicants — as to not invade their privacy — are being made in “bad faith.”

“There is no excuse for not using every resource at our disposal to fully vet individuals before they come to the United States,” he added.

A State Department spokesperson told ABC News the agency is now “actively considering additional ways to incorporate the use of social media review in its various vetting programs.”

 

[The Tradition]

This can't be true. I was told our vetting program is very rigorous.

 

[naturalmwa]

Let me get this right. Cons are mad our government isn't more intrusive and that Obama erred on the side of privacy and civil liberties? Cons are showing their authoritarian proclivities.

 

[timinatoria]

This can't be true. I was told our vetting program is very rigorous.

I did 't know whether to laugh or cry at the gullible fools who were convinced the vetting is adequate because the Obama administration said how 'rigorous' the whole the was.

What an effing joke.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Let me get this right. Cons are mad our government isn't more intrusive and that Obama erred on the side of privacy and civil liberties? Cons are showing their authoritarian proclivities.

Regardless, it's still a mistake. As long as they guard against confusing this name with that name, I have no problem with a look at what someone is posting on open social media platforms.

 

[dbq hawk 32]

Let me get this right. Cons are mad our government isn't more intrusive and that Obama erred on the side of privacy and civil liberties? Cons are showing their authoritarian proclivities.

I don't really care how intrusive our government is into the lives of non-citizens.

Also, you would expect someone's letters to the editor would be reviewed if they applied for citizenship, why not their tweets?

 

[artradley]

Regardless, it's still a mistake. As long as they guard against confusing this name with that name, I have no problem with a look at what someone is posting on open social media platforms.

I agree. By definition people post stuff on social media for public consumption and no expectation of privacy. That's a bizarre rule.

 

[Herkmeister]

I did 't know whether to laugh or cry at the gullible fools who were convinced the vetting is adequate because the Obama administration said how 'rigorous' the whole the was.

What an effing joke.

Well said. I was speechless and unable to respond.

 

[fredjr82]

This can't be true. I was told our vetting program is very rigorous.

The worldwide average is between a year to a year and a half. For Syrian refugees, it takes two years on average.

One of the longest vetting processes in the known world for these refugees. I'd say you were told the truth on how rigorous our vetting process is/was

So you can educate yourself a little more, here is the vetting process for Syrian Refugees.

 

[Herkmeister]

I don't really care how intrusive our government is into the lives of non-citizens.

Also, you would expect someone's letters to the editor would be reviewed if they applied for citizenship, why not their tweets?

I hear ya.......can't wait for the dumb ass who thinks he can overcome this argument.

 

[dbq hawk 32]

The worldwide average is between a year to a year and a half. For Syrian refugees, it takes two years on average.

One of the longest vetting processes in the known world for these refugees. I'd say you were told the truth on how rigorous our vetting process is/was

So you can educate yourself a little more, here is the vetting process for Syrian Refugees.

What makes you think length of review = rigor of review? It could just as easily be evidence of incompetency.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

It would be kinda important to note here that Tashfeen Malik was not a refugee and the vetting process for refugees seeking political asylum is very different from the process for someone seeking a regular visa.

 

[The Tradition]

It would be kinda important to note here that Tashfeen Malik was not a refugee and the vetting process for refugees seeking political asylum is very different from the process for someone seeking a regular visa.

And you don't see a problem with that?

 

[timinatoria]

What makes you think length of review = rigor of review?

Because the Obama administration says so.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

And you don't see a problem with that?

A problem with what? The vetting process for regular visas being different then the vetting process for refugees? Well...no. Why would you?

 

[The Tradition]

A problem with what? The vetting process for regular visas being different then the vetting process for refugees? Well...no. Why would you?

Well, the chick who breezed through on a spousal visa after swearing allegiance to ISIS just shot up a holiday party with her husband.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Well, the chick who breezed through on a spousal visa after swearing allegiance to ISIS just shot up a holiday party with her husband.

And? She shot it up with legally purchased weapons. She was aided in her slaughter by gun manufacturers who found a way around the CA ban on high-capacity magazines...but that doesn't seem to ding your radar at all. Weird, huh?

 

[dbq hawk 32]

And? She shot it up with legally purchased weapons. She was aided in her slaughter by gun manufacturers who found a way around the CA ban on high-capacity magazines...but that doesn't seem to ding your radar at all. Weird, huh?

So your solution is to restrict 2nd amendment rights of citizens instead of scrutinize non-citizens?

 

[fredjr82]

What makes you think length of review = rigor of review? It could just as easily be evidence of incompetency.

Because the Obama administration says so.

I'll concede that the length of time isn't necessarily "rigorous" on it's own merit, but if you saw the departments that did the screening during that timeframe I assume you'd admit they're rigorous when compared to other vetting processes.

Also, I'll present this fact from my link that you apparently haven't taken the time to read.
The security checks have a pretty good record. Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the U.S. has admitted some 750,000 refugees. None have been arrested on domestic terrorism charges, though two—a pair of Iraqis in Kentucky—were charged with terrorist activities connected to aiding al-Qaeda.

By all means however, don't let that fact get in the way of your hatred of the Obama administration.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

So your solution is to restrict 2nd amendment rights of citizens instead of scrutinize non-citizens?

Pretty sure I said I was fine with looking into their social media postings. Let me check.

Yep...I said that.

As for your query, of course, I am. I'm also for restricting freedom of speech. Freedom of religion. Freedom of assembly. So are you.

 

[fredjr82]

So your solution is to restrict 2nd amendment rights of citizens instead of scrutinize non-citizens?

I don't think that's what he wanted to do. How about we hold the gun manufacturers responsible for making the high capacity magazines that are technically illegal? Is the vetting process, in your opinion the only point of failure in this situation? If so, you're a sheep.

 

[timinatoria]

I don't think that's what he wanted to do. How about we hold the gun manufacturers responsible for making the high capacity magazines that are technically illegal? Is the vetting process, in your opinion the only point of failure in this situation? If so, you're a sheep.

This is a pretty fantastic deflection from the original topic don't you think?

 

[Jakeleg Jake]

My "vetting" process for the human feral dogs...

 

[dbq hawk 32]

I'll concede that the length of time isn't necessarily "rigorous" on it's own merit, but if you saw the departments that did the screening during that timeframe I assume you'd admit they're rigorous when compared to other vetting processes.

Aside from length of time, why would you assume that? And even if they are more rigorous how would that imply they are rigorous enough?

 

[dbq hawk 32]

I don't think that's what he wanted to do. How about we hold the gun manufacturers responsible for making the high capacity magazines that are technically illegal? Is the vetting process, in your opinion the only point of failure in this situation? If so, you're a sheep.

Are they technically illegal? As far as I know, that federal ban went away in 2004.

 

[fredjr82]

This is a pretty fantastic deflection from the original topic don't you think?

Were you having a hard time following this thread? Look who I quoted, try to find the post that I quoted with that response, and then follow along on why I responded the way I did. For someone who seems to have such a better understanding of everyone else in this thread you seem to be having a hell of a time following along. Let me know if I can help you better understand the flow of the thread moving forward.

 

[Jan Itor]

Let me get this right. Cons are mad our government isn't more intrusive and that Obama erred on the side of privacy and civil liberties? Cons are showing their authoritarian proclivities.

Cons, as some of you like to put it, have always been for the Federal Government doing what it takes to protect this country.

 

[fredjr82]

Are they technically illegal? As far as I know, that federal ban went away in 2004.

So you're confused about the Federal Assault Weapons Ban and High Capacity Magazine Ban? LOL!!

 

[timinatoria]

Were you having a hard time following this thread? Look who I quoted, try to find the post that I quoted with that response, and then follow along on why I responded the way I did. For someone who seems to have such a better understanding of everyone else in this thread you seem to be having a hell of a time following along. Let me know if I can help you better understand the flow of the thread moving forward.

Damn....a little bitch today jr?

 

[fredjr82]

Damn....a little bitch today jr?

You accuse me of deflection and then get all butt hurt when I explain to you the way I responded. Don't take it out on me that you can't follow along. I even offered to help you moving forward so you didn't come across as such a retard.

 

[timinatoria]

You accuse me of deflection and then get all butt hurt when I explain to you the way I responded. Don't take it out on me that you can't follow along. I even offered to help you moving forward so you didn't come across as such a retard.

This thread is about the responsibility of gun manufacturers in terrorist attacks?

I'll have to read the first post. You kinda seem a little sensitive today. Need a hug?

 

[dbq hawk 32]

So you're confused about the Federal Assault Weapons Ban and High Capacity Magazine Ban? LOL!!

The FAWB reached its sunset in 04 and hasn't been renewed. The High Capacity Magazine Ban outlawing the production and importation of magazines holding over 10 rounds was part of that law.

If I am wrong, please educate me.

 

[The_Joker13]

Are they technically illegal? As far as I know, that federal ban went away in 2004.

They are banned in California, not on the federal level.

 

[dbq hawk 32]

They are banned in California, not on the federal level.

Thanks for confirming my suspicions

 

[Trevor4Iowa]

So your solution is to restrict 2nd amendment rights of citizens instead of scrutinize non-citizens?

How about do both? We already scrutinize non citizens, but we have regular Americans killing other Americans every day! Crazy that everybody thinks guns are good and we should just ad more guns. Guess what, guns are a HUGE problem in this country!

 

[fredjr82]

The FAWB reached its sunset in 04 and hasn't been renewed. The High Capacity Magazine Ban outlawing the production and importation of magazines holding over 10 rounds was part of that law.

If I am wrong, please educate me.

Gladly....

For example, in the United States, the now-expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 outlawed the manufacture or importation, but not the sale or possession, of magazines that could hold more than ten rounds. Eight U.S. states, and a number of local governments, ban or regulate magazines that they have legally defined as high-capacity. The majority of states (42) do not ban or regulate any magazines on the basis of capacity.

As of March 2014, Washington, D.C. and eight U.S. states have high-capacity magazine restrictions or bans

California
Colorado
Connecticut
Hawaii (on handguns only)
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New York

 

[thewop]

DEATH.......

Former DHS Official Drops Shocking Revelation About Secret U.S. Policy on Visa Vetting Procedure
Dec. 14, 2015 10:01am Jason Howerton
1.2K
SHARES
A secret policy in place at least through the fall of 2014 reportedly prohibited U.S. immigration officials from analyzing social media activity as part of the screening process for foreign nationals applying for visas.

John Cohen, former acting under-secretary at the Department of Homeland Security for intelligence and analysis, dropped the explosive details after it was revealed that San Bernardino terrorist Tashfeen Malik spoke openly about violent jihad and martyrdom on social media prior to her arrival in the U.S.



ABC News

Malik and her husband, Syed Farook, killed 14 people and injured dozens more in the California terrorist attack. Malik entered the U.S. under a “fiance” visa, which was issued after she had already shown signs of radicalization.

In an interview with ABC News, Cohen confirmed “immigration officials were not allowed to use or review social media as part of the screening process.” He said Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson even refused to end the policy in early 2014.

More from ABC News:

One current and one former senior counter-terrorism official confirmed Cohen’s account about the refusal of DHS to change its policy about the public social media posts of all foreign applicants.

A spokesperson for the DHS, Marsha Catron, told ABC News that months after Cohen left, in the fall of 2014, the Department began three pilot programs to include social media in vetting, but current officials say that it is still not a widespread policy. A review of the broader policy is already underway, the DHS said.

Cohen told “Good Morning America” the Obama administration decided not to inform the public of the policy because officials feared it “would be embarrassing.”


President Barack Obama speaks in Washington, Thursday, Dec. 10, 2015. President Barack Obama’s advisers are finalizing a proposal that would expand background checks on gun sales without congressional approval. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

The social media exclusion, he explained, centered around concerns for “optics” and “concerns from privacy and civil liberties perspective that while this was not illegal, that it would be viewed negatively if it was disclosed publicly.”

Cohen said the arguments being made in favor of not reviewing the social media accounts of visa applicants — as to not invade their privacy — are being made in “bad faith.”

“There is no excuse for not using every resource at our disposal to fully vet individuals before they come to the United States,” he added.

A State Department spokesperson told ABC News the agency is now “actively considering additional ways to incorporate the use of social media review in its various vetting programs.”

This isn't black and white. Of course we should be denying radicals Visa's based on things they do on social media, as the internet is how Terrorists communicate. However, where do we draw the line between free speech and dangerous radical rhetoric? As American's, we can say pretty much anything we want and as long as we don't do anything illegal, we're good to go. Why should we hold others to any other standard?

Common sense is where we draw the line, and that's where nobody can agree. Here's my stance: Non-citizens should not be given the rights of citizens, and therefore any comment deemed remotely anti-American can and should be used to determine eligibility for entrance into America. I'm sure we have lots of people who would make fantastic contributions to America waiting to be approved for Visa's, let's move on to them and leave the questionable types out.

Why sit and debate whether someone who may have some shade in their background should get in or not? We're not hurting for population or diversity. We are hurting for job opportunities and economic growth. It simply doesn't make sense to let questionable people in when we can move on to more productive visa applications. Plus, the shady people can simply go to Mexico and walk across the border if they want to be here so bad, and we'll probably let them stay!

 

[The Tradition]

How about do both? We already scrutinize non citizens, but we have regular Americans killing other Americans every day! Crazy that everybody thinks guns are good and we should just ad more guns. Guess what, guns are a HUGE problem in this country!

People would think twice about shooting at people if they thought their victims might shoot back. An armed society is a polite society.

 

[HawktimusPrime]

Let me get this right. Cons are mad our government isn't more intrusive and that Obama erred on the side of privacy and civil liberties? Cons are showing their authoritarian proclivities.

Just let em' all in then? Are we expected to let non-natural born citizens just do whatever?

 

[fredjr82]

This thread is about the responsibility of gun manufacturers in terrorist attacks?

I'll have to read the first post. You kinda seem a little sensitive today. Need a hug?

The quote I responded to certainly was. Did I counter one of your arguments with my so-called deflections? No I was responding so someone who made a comment about the high capacity magazine ban in CA. Listen, we can do this all day or you can just come out and ask me for help in following the life of a thread. Either way, you look like a retard and I for some reason continue to try to help you understand why I responded the way I did.

Not anymore sensitive today than in previous days. Just don't like to be called out by people with just terrible taste in comedy shows.