National Security And The Refugee Program

On January 8th, Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-TX), along with Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC) and other Members of the Homeland Security Committee, held a press conference about the arrest of two Iraqi refugees. The video of the press conference is posted at YouTube.

This is the press conference:

This is the story as reported on News 25 in Texas:

House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-TX) wants the Senate to take up the American Security Against Foreign Enemies (SAFE) Act of 2015.

McCaul’s push for the SAFE Act was included in a statement responding to two Iraqi-born refugees being arrested by U.S.officials on terror-related charges.

“While I commend the FBI for their hard work, these arrests heighten my concern that our refugee program is susceptible to exploitation by terrorists,” Chairman McCaul said.

The House passed the legislation in November with a bipartisan majority.

It requires comprehensive background checks of every refugee from Iraq or Syria before they can come into the U.S.

The FBI would have to certify the background investigation of each person.

In addition, the Secretary of Homeland Security, along with the FBI Director and the Director of National Intelligence, would have to certify to Congress that each refugee is not a security risk.

This is the Congressional oath of office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

It’s time for the members of Congress to live up to their oath.

Keeping Politics Out Of Our Military

Unfortunately, we are a stage in our country where everything is political. I don’t know exactly how or when we got here or how to get our of here, but here is where we are. It was refreshing today on Fox News Sunday to hear Senator Kaine say that decisions about guns on military bases should be made by the military in order to avoid politics playing a part in the decision.

The Washington Times reported today:

“I trust the military leadership on this. I don’t live on a military base, and I don’t serve in the military,” the Virginia Democrat said on “Fox News Sunday.” “For those of us in Congress to say ‘here’s what they should do,’ I worry that it would be a little political rather than really about safety or security.”

The article also reported:

Rep. Steve Stockman, Texas Republican, is pushing “The Safe Military Bases Act,” which would allow base personnel to arm themselves.

Fellow Texas Republican Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, argued Sunday that, at the very least, senior military leadership on base ought to be able to carry weapons.

There are a few things to consider here. If senior military leadership had been armed, would the shooter have been brought down sooner? But there is something else to consider. Fort Hood is a gun-free zone. The shooter knew that when he opened fire he would be the only gunman in the room (at least for a short time). Had the shooter known that someone in the room might be armed, would he have taken the chance? The guards at the gate cannot reasonably be expected to search every vehicle or person who comes on base for a gun–the lines getting on to the base would be endless if that were attempted. Obviously, not everyone respects a gun-free zone, so I would suggest creating the possibility that someone in any given area of the base would be armed and prepared to shoot back in case of an attack. It is noteworthy that most of the mass killings we have seen have occurred in gun-free zones, where the killer knew that there would be no opposition. I think we need to create at least some potential opposition.

Enhanced by Zemanta