It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tashfeen Malik Passed 3 U.S. Gov. Background Checks

page: 1
22
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+7 more 
posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 06:52 PM
link   
Obama can't wait to get as many Syrian refugees as possible...into the country as quickly as possible...and he tells critics that we should trust him when he tells us that they will ALL be thoroughly vetted...EVEN though there is much less information available to vet these refugees, than we had available on CA terrorist, Tashfeen Malik.

I don't trust Obama. He lies to the American people to get what he wants. He lied to get Obamacare and, right now, he wants thousands upon thousands of Syrian refugees flooding into the U.S...even as we now discover ISIS is printing counterfeit Syrian passports and they had plans to infiltrateISIS terrorists into the U.S. along with Syrian refugees.

The San Bernardino terrorist was put through and passed; not One; not Two,...but THREE government background checks, before she was welcomed into the country...and into the annals bloody terrorist history.

Despite the fact Malik gave false information...AND was previously active on social media, zealously voicing her support of violent jihad...the U.S vetting process fatally failed the U.S. citizenry...and many people died because of it.

Are you willing to bet your life and the lives of your family and friends...that THIS TIME we can really trust Barack Hussein Obama?
I don't believe the U.S. government's vetting process...or this U.S. President has earned our trust, given their track record on this.



Tashfeen Malik reportedly passed all three thorough and rigorous background checks despite questionable social media posts about




Tashfeen Malik, who along with her husband killed 14 people in Southern California, reportedly passed three background checks by American officials before she moved from Pakistan to the United States and none of them found her social media posts about jihad.

The New York Times reports U.S. law enforcement officials discovered old and previously unreported postings as they investigated Malik and her husband Syed Rizwan Farook. Immigration officials don’t usually check social media posts as part of their background checks, according to the newspaper.

Malik’s path to the U.S. immediately highlighted the U.S. government’s immigration vetting practices after she was identified as one of the attackers in San Bernardino, Calif. The Obama administration is reviewing the program, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said Monday. He didn’t specify what changes were going to be made.

Johnson said it was too soon to tell if the government missed signs that Malik may have been radicalized before she was approved for her visa.

"That assumes, and this investigation is still under way, that there were flags that were raised or should have been raised in the process of her admission to the United States, and I am not prepared to say that and I'm not prepared to make that declaration," Johnson said.

The K-1 visa program is among the smallest visa categories managed by the government. Of more than 9.9 million visas issued in fiscal 2014, just 35,925 -- roughly 0.3 percent -- were fiance visas, according to State Department figures.

Much of the focus is on rooting out marriage fraud. A couple must prove they have physically seen each other within the past two years, unless meeting in person would violate "strict and long-established customs" or cause an "extreme hardship."

The applicants are subject to a vetting process that includes at least one in-person interview, fingerprints, checks against U.S. terrorist watch lists and reviews family members, travel history and places where a person has lived and worked. Social media include is rarely included.

Foreigners applying from countries recognized as home to Islamic extremists, such as Pakistan, undergo additional scrutiny before the State Department and Homeland Security Department approve permission for a visa. Malik had been living in Pakistan and visiting family in Saudi Arabia before she passed the background check and entered the U.S. in July 2014 with Farook, a U.S. citizen whose family was originally from Pakistan.

In the social media era, it seems impossible that something like a supportive tweet or post would go unnoticed during the vetting process. However, The New York Times reports the screenings are trade-offs as the try to lessen the threat of terrorism while keeping the border open for business and travel.

“We run people against watch lists and that’s how we decided if they get extra screening,” C. Stewart Verdery Jr., a senior Homeland Security official during George W. Bush’s administration, told The Times. “In cases where those lists don’t hit, there’s nothing that distinguishes them from people we would love to welcome to this country.”

Malik was vetted by three separate American agencies before entering the country. First, Homeland Security checked her name against law enforcement and national security databases. Then, her application went through to the State Department, which reviewed her fingerprints against other databases and finally, she applied for a green card and was thoroughly reviewed once more.


www.foxnews.com...



U.S. Visa Process Missed San Bernardino Wife’s Zealotry on Social Media

www.nytimes.com...[ editby]edit on 13-12-2015 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-12-2015 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 07:00 PM
link   
So, what have we learned from this unfortunate situation? Background eludes to "background" IE, finger prints and criminal history.

Should we unravel every layer of anyones social life, media and on line activities prior to approving background checks?

Had someone cbecked her FB post (s) or atleast reported them (if they were public) perhaps a different turnout would have prevailed.?.

SF



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: ReadLeader
So, what have we learned from this unfortunate situation? Background eludes to "background" IE, finger prints and criminal history.

Should we unravel every layer of anyones social life, media and on line activities prior to approving background checks?

Had someone cbecked her FB post (s) or atleast reported them (if they were public) perhaps a different turnout would have prevailed.?.

SF

Unless you are an American citizen, then they can tell you the size and color of your last poop.

But of course we know that is why Homeland Security was established. To secure the homeland from the American citizens.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

As an employer, our "new-hires" must undergo background and drug testing. We go a bit futher and investigate thier on-line profile (s) ... This is where we loose 71% of viable candidates... whether is denotes excessive boozing, and other social unacceptable behavior..inappropriate language and "pictures" etc.

Maybe we DO need more thorough "All Inclusive" background checks...




posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: ReadLeader
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

As an employer, our "new-hires" must undergo background and drug testing. We go a bit futher and investigate thier on-line profile (s) ... This is where we loose 71% of viable candidates... whether is denotes excessive boozing, and other social unacceptable behavior..inappropriate language and "pictures" etc.

Maybe we DO need more thorough "All Inclusive" background checks...


Considering we're seeking radical Islamic mass-murderers, rather than alcoholics...maybe we do.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

They have just as much of a right to America as any American does.

If a few dozens of American citizens have to die every year so they can come in too bad.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: forkedtongue
a reply to: IAMTAT

They have just as much of a right to America as any American does.

If a few dozens of American citizens have to die every year so they can come in too bad.


PLUS....they'll vote 70% Democrat.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 08:00 PM
link   
.....and yet I get harassed for having my sandals on top of my laptop sharing a bin. Tisk, tisk and shame on me.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: forkedtongue
a reply to: IAMTAT

They have just as much of a right to America as any American does.

If a few dozens of American citizens have to die every year so they can come in too bad.


PLUS....they'll vote 70% Democrat.


Oh ya, I forgot to add that part.

Thanks.

Just trying to keep it real.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Rosinitiate

Lol. Seriously. Even my pre check (bypass) flags me because of my middle name..... ha



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Well considering they are vetting all the unwanted refugees through this same set of guidelines I feel better. Why can't people see that this is a bad idea to trust the Government to vet these people? Clearly they don't know what the hell they are doing and this just provides more proof of their incompetence.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: forkedtongue
a reply to: IAMTAT

They have just as much of a right to America as any American does.

If a few dozens of American citizens have to die every year so they can come in too bad.



Actually they don't have a right to be here until they are thoroughly vetted and the fact is our procedures don't work. You seem like someone eager to have your fellow American citizens killed. I bet you support Obama. He doesn't care about American citizens either.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   
The forms they fill out are yes/no questions like: "Are you going to the U.S. for any terrorist activity?"

That is a real question----a 'yes' or 'no' question! Un-freakin'-believable! As if anyone would say 'yes'!

We have a problem, America.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 08:47 PM
link   
It must be easy for you to say that we should check the social media of all Muslims since you aren't a Muslim. If we are going to be checking the social media of people for background checks, it had better be for everyone. I'm not against that.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords





Questions for K-1 Visa Applicants

Do you seek to engage in terrorist activities while in the U.S.?

Have you ever/do you intend to provide money/support to any terrorist groups?

Do you have any skills or training in explosives, nuclear,or chemical experience?

Have you ever been a member of, or been involved with a paramilitary unit?


www.ar15.com...
edit on 13-12-2015 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

I think he was being forkedtongue in cheek.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

The K-1 visa program and the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program are not one in the same.

travel.state.gov...

www.state.gov...



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

Of course they're different.
Sloppy work is indicative or the overall process.
People are dying due to this incompetence...as I'm sure you know.
edit on 13-12-2015 by IAMTAT because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Should they have checked her social media? Of course. Maybe they did and at that time she wasn't yammering on about how great being a terrorist is. Do they have to continue looking in on people after they've been vetted? During her process, which is way shorter and cleaner than the refugee process, she passed. I think the only discrepancy was an incomplete address. She's from Pakistan and lived in Saudi Arabia, both US allies but obviously Saudi Arabia should always be a red flag because Saudi Arabia, need I say more?

The refugee vetting process is much more in depth and takes at least two years but is usually longer. I would trust the refugee vetting process over the I just married an American vetting process any day of the week. But good news, as a result of her terrorist acts the K-1 visa program is being re-hauled, which sucks for all non terrorists who will mostly have a two year waiting period before living with their spouse in the USA>



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Why are you surprised?

They check databases and conduct interviews, they don't read peoples' minds and they can't see the future — and thankfully not because that's a scary f'ing thought — that's objective reality.

Let's first keep in mind that you're conflating two separate processes. Syrian refugees go through a more strenuous and lengthy process starting with the fact that fact that only 1% of people will even get a referral from the UNHC (the largest source of referrals):

PolitiFact Sheet: 5 questions about Syrian refugees


Before refugees face U.S. screening, they must get a referral from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (or occasionally a U.S. embassy or another NGO). The UN refers about 1 percent of refugees for resettlement through its own vetting process, which takes four to 10 months. During that process, UN officials decide if people actually qualify as refugees, if they require resettlement, and which country would accept them.

Once the cases are passed along to the United States, the refugees undergo security clearances. Their names, biographical information and fingerprints are run through federal terrorism and criminal databases. Meanwhile, the refugees are interviewed by Department of Homeland Security officials. If approved, they then undergo a medical screening, a match with sponsor agencies, "cultural orientation" classes and one final security clearance.

Syrian refugees in particular must clear one additional hurdle. Their documents are placed under extra scrutiny and cross-referenced with classified and unclassified information.

The process typically takes one to two years or longer and happens before a refugee ever gets onto American soil.


Keeping that in mind and returning to my earlier point — there's no perfect system. There's no way of guaranteeing with absolute certainty that a person intent on doing us harm will be caught by screening. We could double the background checks, double the interviews, double the time it takes and somebody could still slip through.

What do we do with this information? Trump has created quite a commotion by saying we should deny Muslims admission into our country. How will that work? Will the government screeners "just know" who is or is not a Muslim somehow? What if *gasp* the person lies as people with nefarious agendas are want to do? What if the would be terrorist outwardly adopts a different faith in preparation?

What then? Ban people based on their names? Appearances? What about ethnically European converts from other religions coming from European countries?

No system is foolproof. So what might seem like "common sense" to some people is really just sharing in Donald Trump's stupidity. Unlike his stupid solution for male pattern baldness, this kind of a blithely unaware idiocy has negative consequences for other people.

1. We're making assholes of ourselves in front of the rest of the world. France, who suffered an attack that took 130 lives a month ago today, not only reaffirmed their commitment to take in Syrian refugees but increased it. In doing so, they affirmed their commitment to liberty and free and open society. They denied the terrorists.

By contrast to France's response and not in keeping with our own concept of ourselves as a beacon of freedom and enlightenment, our response has been both illaudable and unpragmatic. We allowed an orange haired muppet in love with the sound of his own voice to use the very tool of terrorists — irrational fear — for his own political gain. What's in it for us? Not security.

2. Not only are people being played for fools and demonstrating a lack of character for nothing, we're making ourselves out to be the boogeyman of Muslim extremist propaganda. This does nothing but strengthen their ability to recruit. So now we have two winners — Trump and Muslims extremists — and everyone else is a loser, not least of all the American people who are actually less secure.

3. This is not what we say we stand for. Do we not actually believe that freedom requires accepting a measure of risk? I hear so much big talk about freedom and liberty when it comes to other issues. Guns? Oh boy, don the tricornes and break out the quotes. Mention national background checks, it's all, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants!"

Speaking of empty rhetoric, I hear people say that we should, "just bomb the hell out of the Middle East!" but we don't because "we've lost the stomach for it." So many war hawks sitting comfortable behind their monitors tap-tap-tapping away. Is it all just bullsh!t? At the end of the day, are we really nothing more than a nation of weak minded cowards who abandon our ideals at the first whiff of danger?

Do people really want to make America great again?

Let's start by collectively growing a pair.
edit on 2015-12-13 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
22
<<   2 >>

log in

join