AP Exclusive: DHS report disputes threat from banned nations

tommyjo

New Member
Owww...this one's gonna hurt...

Analysts at the Homeland Security Department's intelligence arm found insufficient evidence that citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries included in President Donald Trump's travel ban pose a terror threat to the United States.

A draft document obtained by The Associated Press concludes that citizenship is an "unlikely indicator" of terrorism threats to the United States and that few people from the countries Trump listed in his travel ban have carried out attacks or been involved in terrorism-related activities in the U.S. since Syria's civil war started in 2011.

Trump cited terrorism concerns as the primary reason he signed the sweeping temporary travel ban in late January, which also halted the U.S. refugee program. A federal judge in Washington state blocked the government from carrying out the order earlier this month. Trump said Friday a new edict would be announced soon. The administration has been working on a new version that could withstand legal challenges.

Homeland Security spokeswoman Gillian Christensen on Friday did not dispute the report's authenticity, but said it was not a final comprehensive review of the government's intelligence.

"While DHS was asked to draft a comprehensive report on this issue, the document you're referencing was commentary from a single intelligence source versus an official, robust document with thorough interagency sourcing," Christensen said. "The ... report does not include data from other intelligence community sources. It is incomplete."

The Homeland Security report is based on unclassified information from Justice Department press releases on terrorism-related convictions and attackers killed in the act, State Department visa statistics, the 2016 Worldwide Threat Assessment from the U.S. intelligence community and the State Department Country Reports on Terrorism 2015.

The three-page report challenges Trump's core claims. It said that of 82 people the government determined were inspired by a foreign terrorist group to carry out or try to carry out an attack in the United States, just over half were U.S. citizens born in the United States. The others were from 26 countries, led by Pakistan, Somalia, Bangladesh, Cuba, Ethiopia, Iraq and Uzbekistan. Of these, only Somalia and Iraq were among the seven nations included in the ban.

Of the other five nations, one person each from Iran, Sudan and Yemen was also involved in those terrorism cases, but none from Syria. It did not say if any were Libyan.

The report also found that terrorist organizations in Iran, Libya, Somalia and Sudan are regionally focused, while groups in Iraq, Syria and Yemen do pose a threat to the U.S.

The seven countries were included in a law President Barack Obama signed in 2015 that updated visa requirements for foreigners who had traveled to those countries.

Christensen said the countries were also selected in part because they lacked the ability to properly vet their citizens and don't cooperate with U.S. efforts to screen people hoping to come to the U.S.

The report was prepared as part of an internal review Trump requested after his executive order was blocked by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. It was drafted by staff of the Homeland Security Department's Intelligence and Analysis branch at the direction of its acting leader, David Glawe.

White House spokesman Michael Short said this was not the full report that Trump had requested. He said he believes "the intel community is combining resources to put together a comprehensive report using all available sources, not just open sources, and which is driven by data, not politics."

The intelligence document was circulated beyond Homeland Security.

The draft document reflects the tensions between the president's political appointees and the civil servants tasked with carrying out Trump's ambitious and aggressive agenda. Trump has repeatedly complained about leaks meant to undercut his policies and suggested he does not trust holdovers from the Obama administration.

Trump originally said the ban was necessary to overhaul the vetting system for both refugees and would-be foreign visitors, saying that terrorists may try to exploit weaknesses to gain access to the United States. The order sparked chaos, outrage and widespread protests, with travelers detained at airports and panicked families searching for relatives.

But several courts quickly intervened and the 9th Circuit ultimately upheld a ruling blocking the ban and challenged the administration's claim that it was motivated by terrorism fears.

Trump's ban temporarily barred citizens from the seven countries from coming to the United States for three months. The order also temporarily shut down the U.S. refugee program for four months and indefinitely banned anyone from Syria.

A senior administration official told the AP on Sunday that a draft of the revised order will target those same seven countries. The official would not be named discussing the document before it is made public.

In a speech to the Conservative Political Action Committee Friday, Trump reiterated his claims on terrorism.

"We are going to keep radical Islamic terrorists the hell out of our country," Trump said.

He said he singled out the seven countries because they had already been deemed a security concern by the Obama administration.

https://www.apnews.com/39f1f8e4ceed...HS-report-disputes-threat-from-banned-nations

The actual report is here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3474730-DHS-intelligence-document-on-President-Donald.html

The report is titled "Citizenship Likely an Unreliable Indicator of Terrorist Threat to the United States"...
 

littlelady

God bless the USA
It is the same list Obama put out. The AP has already become an unreliable news source. Too bad. Back in my parent's day, they were the best. Bottom line is the NWO just got crushed, and they are crying like a bunch of babies. They don't have to change our diapers, anymore. WE are changing theirs. Go, Trump! No fear!

And what did DHS do? Go out into the streets to interview people like Watters does. Really? This was done in a matter of 2 weeks. Root the skunks out. It shouldn't be too hard to follow the smell of treason.

I know from the article that the research has been going on for 2 years, but really why wasn't this important when Obama was prez?

Sorry, all a bunch of crap. JMO, yo. Keep scrambling, tj, to find some reason that Hillary was not elected prez. Thank God, she wasn't.

I am not, totally, enamored with Trump, but something had to change (not Obama's change)....so be it. It is what it is, for now. Live with it.
 
Last edited:

Kev_Russell

New Member
It is the same list Obama put out. The AP has already become an unreliable news source. Too bad. Back in my parent's day, they were the best. Bottom line is the NWO just got crushed, and they are crying like a bunch of babies. They don't have to change our diapers, anymore. WE are changing theirs. Go, Trump! No fear!

And what did DHS do? Go out into the streets to interview people like Watters does. Really? This was done in a matter of 2 weeks. Root the skunks out. It shouldn't be too hard to follow the smell of treason.

I know from the article that the research has been going on for 2 years, but really why wasn't this important when Obama was prez?

Sorry, all a bunch of crap. JMO, yo. Keep scrambling, tj, to find some reason that Hillary was not elected prez. Thank God, she wasn't.

I am not, totally, enamored with Trump, but something had to change (not Obama's change)....so be it. It is what it is, for now. Live with it.

You picked a really bad day to quit huffing spray paint.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
the document you're referencing was commentary from a single intelligence source versus an official, robust document with thorough interagency sourcing," Christensen said. "The ... report does not include data from other intelligence community sources. It is incomplete."


Yeah, I'll skip this. Sounds like more housecleaning is in order.
 

Bird Dog

Bird Dog
PREMO Member
"While DHS was asked to draft a comprehensive report on this issue, the document you're referencing was commentary from a single intelligence source versus an official, robust document with thorough interagency sourcing," Christensen said. "The ... report does not include data from other intelligence community sources. It is incomplete."

For someone who states we don't read entire articles.....she obviously didn't......
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
This shouldn't be controversial;

The report is titled "Citizenship Likely an Unreliable Indicator of Terrorist Threat to the United States"...



9/11; 15 KSA, not even on the list. 1 Egyptian, not on list. 2 UAE, not on list. 1 Lebanese. Not on list.

Omar Mateen; born in the USA

Nidal Hasan; Born in the USA

Sayed Farook; Born in the USA
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
This shouldn't be controversial;





9/11; 15 KSA, not even on the list. 1 Egyptian, not on list. 2 UAE, not on list. 1 Lebanese. Not on list.

Omar Mateen; born in the USA

Nidal Hasan; Born in the USA

Sayed Farook; Born in the USA

But does the ban make you 'feel good'?
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
But does the ban make you 'feel good'?

No. It was, obviously, not a reasoned order. So, what then? The simplest explanation is an impulsive CiC doing an impulsive thing. However, as impulsive as he is, Trump's impulses have been working for him for 40 years. So, it makes me wonder if the goal was to incite the demonstrations and sap energy, put political opponents in the weak position of defending Islam?
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
No. It was, obviously, not a reasoned order. So, what then? The simplest explanation is an impulsive CiC doing an impulsive thing. However, as impulsive as he is, Trump's impulses have been working for him for 40 years. So, it makes me wonder if the goal was to incite the demonstrations and sap energy, put political opponents in the weak position of defending Islam?

You are over thinking it. His impluses have been working in large part do to his celebrity and wealth. Neither of those matter a whole lot in international or domestic politics. The travel ban is a good lesson in the reality of his powers. He overstepped thinking he was a king and found out no one that matters was impressed and the rules do apply to him.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
You are over thinking it. His impluses have been working in large part do to his celebrity and wealth. Neither of those matter a whole lot in international or domestic politics. The travel ban is a good lesson in the reality of his powers. He overstepped thinking he was a king and found out no one that matters was impressed and the rules do apply to him.

He did not overstep he did the right thing.
Still waiting for the new EO which will be written utilizing what he learned by his mistakes in the first.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Owww...this one's gonna hurt...

Homeland Security spokeswoman Gillian Christensen on Friday did not dispute the report's authenticity, but said it was not a final comprehensive review of the government's intelligence.

"While DHS was asked to draft a comprehensive report on this issue, the document you're referencing was commentary from a single intelligence source versus an official, robust document with thorough interagency sourcing," Christensen said. "The ... report does not include data from other intelligence community sources. It is incomplete."

Taking this seriously I am not. :bigwhoop:
 
Last edited:

Larry Gude

Strung Out
You are over thinking it. His impluses have been working in large part do to his celebrity and wealth. Neither of those matter a whole lot in international or domestic politics. The travel ban is a good lesson in the reality of his powers. He overstepped thinking he was a king and found out no one that matters was impressed and the rules do apply to him.

THAT is over thinking it. His impulses are exactly what made him a celebrity and rich and, not to put too fine appoint on it, President of the United States of America. And if some career folks in the system are either trying to do their jobs and see that the rules are followed to the best of their abilities or, perhaps, being a little choosey as to when to take issue based on personal or political considerations then the clash between the executive and them probably is going to favor the President of the United States of America as things play out.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Do you think there is ANY need whatsoever to improve the vetting process with persons coming from ANY country?
For instance, any country from which we get zero information about the person entering?

Is there ANY justification for halting the process for ANY nation, even for as little as a week? A month?

SIX months, in the case of Iran?

IF it were reasonable - then which nations are certainly highest on the list? Switzerland?

Maybe nations we've already determined are hostile to the United States?

What might you do?

I know what some answer will be, and I'll address them in advance - we have history of people from some nations, but since 9/11 we've established protocols and agreements that accomplish much of the vetting on *THEIR* end. The bigger problem is when it's nations from which we have almost nothing on their end.
 

Kev_Russell

New Member
Do you think there is ANY need whatsoever to improve the vetting process with persons coming from ANY country?
For instance, any country from which we get zero information about the person entering?

In ways does the vetting process need to be improved?

Normally when I talk to people about this, they say something along the lines of "we need to ensure that these people aren't going to pose a terrorism risk."

The problem with that is one of logic. One of the most basic rules of logic is that one cannot prove a negative. It is therefore impossible to "prove" that anyone won't pose a terrorism threat.

Keeping that in mind, how does the vetting process need to be improved? What is missing in the process?
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Keeping that in mind, how does the vetting process need to be improved? What is missing in the process?

Information.

If you come from a lot of nations - for instance, Canada, we don't have a process at all beyond waving a passport. They don't need visas to visit. Pretty sure they're unique.
A lot of European nations, same thing - visas are waived. A valid passport and a show of good faith. Countries where we waive visas have very low overstay rates.
Many countries we've visited have similar ease of travel - for instance, a visa for Ethiopia can be obtained at the airport for twenty bucks and a very short wait.

But getting visas does depend on getting information from the government of origination of the traveler between many countries.
What happens if that country is, say, Somalia - and there ain't no information? Because there's no government to speak of?
Or other nations hostile to us, where such information is either suspect or non-existent?

Then we have to do the work on OUR side.

For some countries when I traveled, I had to get a visa and it took a while but the main work was first through OUR country. We have a number of steps to ensure a reasonable exchange.
Some nations, we don't have that luxury. We have to do the checking *here*.

I don't see it even matters if there's a "threat". It's stupid not to improve a process that is demonstrably weak.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
In ways does the vetting process need to be improved?

Normally when I talk to people about this, they say something along the lines of "we need to ensure that these people aren't going to pose a terrorism risk."

The problem with that is one of logic. One of the most basic rules of logic is that one cannot prove a negative. It is therefore impossible to "prove" that anyone won't pose a terrorism threat.

Keeping that in mind, how does the vetting process need to be improved? What is missing in the process?


This is all wrong from the get go. Not you, per se, but the entire perspective of the thing.

Pre 9/11, pre Bush, we KNEW who Mohamed Atta and company were. Our laws at the time prevented proactive protection of the US. One piece of paper, a memo, by the Assistant US AG of the US, guaranteed the Pearl Harbor of four era; a 'surprise' attack that was not a surprise.

So, instead of one person exercising judgment, ostensibly one of our best and brightest, one memo that said "Yeah, follow your leads and do what we need doing" we created the TSA, DHS ands Patriot Act and then went on to lose not one but two wars and instead of having a world where we KNEW where the few really hard core bad guys were and what they were doing, we, because we're the US and it's what we do, we went BIG and created 1,000's of smaller problems.

All that for one piece of paper.

Which brings us to today, talking about 'prevention', this ethereal concept of better a million violations of everyone's rights every day rather than make a touch call and deal with the problem before it got out of hand. Trump's just adding another tiny, small layer to that #### sammitch we've created. Trump held a few people up at the airport, is causing more pain in the ass for a few more people. Obama just executed people, judge jury, push a button you're dead.

So, who does the left protest?
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Information.

What happens if that country is, say, Somalia - and there ain't no information? Because there's no government to speak of?
Or other nations hostile to us, where such information is either suspect or non-existent?

that was the biggest JOKE about Obama Administration 'we are seriously vetting Syrian Refugees '

1) we are actively trying to have Assad overthrown - how much 'cooperation' is going to be done between the US Embassy in Syria and the Syrian Gov.
2) it takes a yr and a half of vetting for Syrian Refugees - yeah what about these people that fled last month
 
Top