http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/us/san....html?_r=0
Quote:Tashfeen Malik, who with her husband carried out the massacre in San Bernardino, Calif., passed three background checks by American immigration officials as she moved to the United States from Pakistan. None uncovered what Ms. Malik had made little effort to hide — that she talked openly on social media about her views on violent jihad.
FROM OUR ADVERTISERS
She said she supported it. And she said she wanted to be a part of it.
American law enforcement officials said they recently discovered those old — and previously unreported — postings as they pieced together the lives of Ms. Malik and her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, trying to understand how they pulled off the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil since Sept. 11, 2001.
Had the authorities found the posts years ago, they might have kept her out of the country. But immigration officials do not routinely review social media as part of their background checks, and there is a debate inside the Department of Homeland Security over whether it is even appropriate to do so.
Quote:In an era when technology has given intelligence agencies seemingly limitless ability to collect information on people, it may seem surprising that a Facebook or Twitter post could go unnoticed in a background screening. But the screenings are an example of the trade-offs that security officials make as they try to mitigate the threat of terrorism while keeping borders open for business and travel.
“We run people against watch lists and that’s how we decided if they get extra screening,” said C. Stewart Verdery Jr., a senior Homeland Security official during George W. Bush’s administration. “In cases where those lists don’t hit, there’s nothing that distinguishes them from people we would love to welcome to this country.”
Ms. Malik faced three extensive national security and criminal background screenings. First, Homeland Security officials checked her name against American law enforcement and national security databases. Then, her visa application went to the State Department, which checked her fingerprints against other databases. Finally, after coming to the United States and formally marrying Mr. Farook here, she applied for her green card and received another round of criminal and security checks.
Ms. Malik also had two in-person interviews, federal officials said, the first by a consular officer in Pakistan, and the second by an immigration officer in the United States when she applied for her green card.
All those reviews came back clear, and the F.B.I. has said it had no incriminating information about Ms. Malik or Mr. Farook in its databases. The State Department and the Department of Homeland Security have said they followed all policies and procedures. The departments declined to provide any documentation or specifics about the process, saying they cannot discuss the case because of the continuing investigation.
Meanwhile, a debate is underway at United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that approves visas and green cards, over whether officers conducting interviews should be allowed to routinely use material gathered from social media for interviews where they assess whether foreigners are credible or pose any security risk. With that issue unresolved, the agency has not regularly been using social media references, federal officials said.
She should have been rejected on the fake address alone.
Apparently Homeland Security has a policy that forbids employees from screening visa applicants social media. How stupid is that?
(12-14-2015 04:51 PM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ]Apparently Homeland Security has a policy that forbids employees from screening visa applicants social media. How stupid is that?
Incredibly stupid. I mean - potential employers do it all the time for job applicants. It's prudent to do it for a job, but not for allowing a foreigner in the country?? Really??
I guess it isn't PC to just go look at public social media stuff!! Just how effed up is that.......................but our government is protecting us - right!!!
Obviously it's all President Obama's fault.
(12-14-2015 04:51 PM)VA49er Wrote: [ -> ]Apparently Homeland Security has a policy that forbids employees from screening visa applicants social media. How stupid is that?
Exactly what I would expect from a western PC agency. That should be the first place you look.
(12-14-2015 05:04 PM)gsu95 Wrote: [ -> ]Obviously it's all President Obama's fault.
It's due to someone's stupidity. At this point just take a govt org chart and throw a dart and more than likely you'll be correct.
(12-14-2015 05:04 PM)gsu95 Wrote: [ -> ]Obviously it's all President Obama's fault.
Nobody has yet said that. I generally think the government inept at most whatever it undertakes - this doesn't surprise me at all.
With that said, at the end of the day he is the man in charge and he most certainly signed up for the job.
It just seems our government time after time goes around in "three stooges mode" and none of the bureaucrats ever get held accountable.
And to think that if they were in the country already they would have no difficulty getting a gun.
(12-14-2015 05:38 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]And to think that if they were in the country already they would have no difficulty getting a gun.
I think this is tongue-in-cheek, but to me it points out the folly of the 'do not fly list' comments.
Here we aren't checking social media and we apparently aren't comparing databases even within the government...
and people wonder why we don't trust the process?
(12-14-2015 06:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2015 05:38 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]And to think that if they were in the country already they would have no difficulty getting a gun.
I think this is tongue-in-cheek, but to me it points out the folly of the 'do not fly list' comments.
Here we aren't checking social media and we apparently aren't comparing databases even within the government...
and people wonder why we don't trust the process?
So people that are already in this country and are a threat, we don't care about. We only care about people who aren't here yet who are a threat.
(12-14-2015 05:04 PM)gsu95 Wrote: [ -> ]Obviously it's all President Obama's fault.
If he were a leader he would take responsibility, but if we have learned anything from the past seven years of his clown show he couldn't lead an alcoholic on a free tour of a distillery with the promise of all you can drink shots at the end.
A little off-topic but I'm watching an episode of Charlie Rose on PBS interviewing 4 reporters from the Middle East, basically Iraq and Libya, all talking about what's going on over there. Kinda interesting.
(12-14-2015 06:59 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2015 06:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2015 05:38 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]And to think that if they were in the country already they would have no difficulty getting a gun.
I think this is tongue-in-cheek, but to me it points out the folly of the 'do not fly list' comments.
Here we aren't checking social media and we apparently aren't comparing databases even within the government...
and people wonder why we don't trust the process?
So people that are already in this country and are a threat, we don't care about. We only care about people who aren't here yet who are a threat.
But we are supposedly checking out those wishing to come here already......and obviously failing miserably.
Of course we would care about "in-country" threats, but I'm guessing that only the most blatant examples might be noted.
(12-14-2015 07:51 PM)Crebman Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2015 06:59 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2015 06:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2015 05:38 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]And to think that if they were in the country already they would have no difficulty getting a gun.
I think this is tongue-in-cheek, but to me it points out the folly of the 'do not fly list' comments.
Here we aren't checking social media and we apparently aren't comparing databases even within the government...
and people wonder why we don't trust the process?
So people that are already in this country and are a threat, we don't care about. We only care about people who aren't here yet who are a threat.
But we are supposedly checking out those wishing to come here already......and obviously failing miserably.
Of course we would care about "in-country" threats, but I'm guessing that only the most blatant examples might be noted.
Remains to be seen whether they're failing miserably. So far since 9/11 isn't this the only attack we've seen that was definitely Islamic in nature? Meanwhile we've had lots of mass shootings by home-grown lunatics that were not religious in nature.
(12-14-2015 06:59 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2015 06:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2015 05:38 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]And to think that if they were in the country already they would have no difficulty getting a gun.
I think this is tongue-in-cheek, but to me it points out the folly of the 'do not fly list' comments.
Here we aren't checking social media and we apparently aren't comparing databases even within the government...
and people wonder why we don't trust the process?
So people that are already in this country and are a threat, we don't care about. We only care about people who aren't here yet who are a threat.
I'm not sure how this has anything to do with anything I've said. Monitoring social media and the government sharing information across the various agencies is something we should do regardless of whether they are here yet or not. It seems you're trying to make a point that may not be there.
(12-14-2015 10:29 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2015 07:51 PM)Crebman Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2015 06:59 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2015 06:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2015 05:38 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]And to think that if they were in the country already they would have no difficulty getting a gun.
I think this is tongue-in-cheek, but to me it points out the folly of the 'do not fly list' comments.
Here we aren't checking social media and we apparently aren't comparing databases even within the government...
and people wonder why we don't trust the process?
So people that are already in this country and are a threat, we don't care about. We only care about people who aren't here yet who are a threat.
But we are supposedly checking out those wishing to come here already......and obviously failing miserably.
Of course we would care about "in-country" threats, but I'm guessing that only the most blatant examples might be noted.
Remains to be seen whether they're failing miserably. So far since 9/11 isn't this the only attack we've seen that was definitely Islamic in nature? Meanwhile we've had lots of mass shootings by home-grown lunatics that were not religious in nature.
????
Boston Marathon bombing?
Ft Hood?
Chattanooga?
2002 LAX El Al shooting?
2006 Baltimore theater shooting?
2006 Seattle Jewish Federation shooting?
2011 Walthan Mass triple homicide?
2014 Moore OK murder?
(12-14-2015 05:38 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]And to think that if they were in the country already they would have no difficulty getting a gun.
Or Vote !
(12-14-2015 06:59 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2015 06:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2015 05:38 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]And to think that if they were in the country already they would have no difficulty getting a gun.
I think this is tongue-in-cheek, but to me it points out the folly of the 'do not fly list' comments.
Here we aren't checking social media and we apparently aren't comparing databases even within the government...
and people wonder why we don't trust the process?
So people that are already in this country and are a threat, we don't care about. We only care about people who aren't here yet who are a threat.
We do care about Them, We just Don't want More of Them !
(12-14-2015 06:59 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2015 06:23 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (12-14-2015 05:38 PM)NIU007 Wrote: [ -> ]And to think that if they were in the country already they would have no difficulty getting a gun.
I think this is tongue-in-cheek, but to me it points out the folly of the 'do not fly list' comments.
Here we aren't checking social media and we apparently aren't comparing databases even within the government...
and people wonder why we don't trust the process?
So people that are already in this country and are a threat, we don't care about. We only care about people who aren't here yet who are a threat.
The FBI have arrested over 70 people in the last 18 months regarding terrorist activities, most were born here. So your statement is not accurate.