They obviously were. And the point still stands. Those seven countries are not the ONLY Muslim-majority countries, so it is still a misleading spin statement. Why doesn’t it say the seven high-risk terrorist countries? Answer: That wording doesn’t foment religious strife for political purposes.
Why didn't trump ban countries that actually committed terrorist attacks that resulted in US deaths?
Because the title is “EXECUTIVE ORDER: PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES”
I thought it was insightful. Possibly the best post authored by you that I’ve ever read. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I don’t think that measuring the success of our screening measures by “deaths” due to terrorist attacks is anything but a talking point for the left at this point. Any sincere inquirer should be asking if there were would-be terrorists admitted into the country, not how many people those would-be terrorists killed.
TL;DR: I think you are looking at the wrong metric.
I certainly don’t have encyclopedic knowledge of the nationalities and travel histories of all terrorists who have tried to attack the United States in recent years. I happened to recall several of them spent time in Yemen and offered up an example. That was all. I suspect that trying to change your mind on this EO is a Sisyphean task anyways, so I’m not overly-inclined to spend my morning doing research for you.
I see. So you base your judgment of the effects of the order based solely on the title?
Do you similarly presume the facts of a news article based only on the title?
Thank you, that’s very kind of you to say. Does it cause you, in any way, to rethink your position on this policy, or any other policies?
Ok but how do we measure your desired metric? Sounds like something you have to feel rather than something you can actually quantify. How many would-be terrorists have we let in since 9-11-01? Any clue? How can we decide policy based on something we can’t measure objectively? Seems like a good way to make really bad policy.
I think that it is difficult to justify the urgency with which the EO was implemented (particularly in light of the chaos and confusion that resulted).
Not entirely, but it’s generally one good indication of the point of the article. Don’t you agree?
You didn’t ask me whether or how I “presume the facts” about Trump’s EO. You asked me “How do you know what the point of the order is”?
FWIW to you, I’ve read the entire text of the Executive Order. My admitted uncertainty (“I’m not clear on all the specifics”) is how the various agencies and personnel involved might implement the order. Will they stop people subject to the order at foreign airports from boarding planes bound for USA, or will they wait until they land here before detaining them / sending them back? I suspect it’s the former, but there’s some uncertainty there for me. I read Passengers from Iraq, Yemen barred from NYC-bound flight after Trump refugee ban which seems to confirm my hunch that it’s the former too, but I don’t know if that’s really in effect everywhere.
I’m not sure you have a good point here, but carry on and we’ll see.
No worries! Make a totally unsubstantiated claim and then blame me for how unpersuasive it is, and refuse to do any research to back it up. Cool–I’ll do your research for you:
So, no, it’s not “people who spent time in Yemen.” It’s “aliens from Yemen.”
I’m pretty sure you’re no longer going to claim the edict would respond to the Nigerian Underwear Bomber. So I’ll repeat the question: is there any terrorist, competent or otherwise, whom you believe would have been stopped by the EO?
New America worded it like this:
That’s probably a pretty good group to examine. Do you agree?
Why such a concern about only *past *deaths in the OP? Surely it’s *future * deaths the policy is concerning itself with. And why the concern with only the US? I would think that the experiences of the wider world with refugees and immigrants are relevant to this decision.
They are described in that quote as “Americans and people residing inside the United States”. Clearly anyone under the category Americans would not have been caught up using this EO since it has nothing to do with American citizens.
So that leaves us with those residing inside the United States. Of these, how many came over as refugees? How many are from the 7 targeted countries? Would any at all have been denied entry if this EO had been in place?
Since its been 16 years since 9-11, I would hope some research would have been done into these questions by your side considering how great a concern it is to you. Can you point to any right wing research into this over the past decade and a half? Or is the EO more of a gut feeling that it’ll help kind of thing? Maybe taking a little time to study the issue and understand what we’re supposed to be terrified of a little better would have been a good idea?
Yes. Let’s start by discussing the pair from Bowling Green. I suppose you could hang your hat on them only providing “material support to terrorists”, but two former Iraqi insurgents who were trying to ship Stinger missiles to other terrorists is hardly a win for our refugee vetting system, would you agree?
In this day and age? No. No I don’t.
Funny, there are other views on what the “point” of the order is, and those come from, you know, actually READING the thing.
The point is - Would this order, having been in place starting in January 2000, have stopped any terrorist incidents in the US?
The present system is not the one that let those two slip through.
I’d say 2 out of 73,000 is pretty good for a human based system.
I could also hang my hat on:
In other words, they committed the crimes in Iraq. They committed, nor planned to commit, no crimes in the US. Is this the best example you have of how we’ll be protected? Because such an order would have done nothing except make it more difficult to arrest these two: the only reason they were caught at all is that they, upon moving to the US, started talking with an informant about their activities.
Had such an order been in place, they would have remained back in Iraq, presumably with their network of anti-US forces and away from informants. They probably would never have been arrested, but chances are reasonably good that they would have returned to their life of building bombs to attack American forces, something they gave up on moving to the US.
Crap–the lede is buried there. My fault–will respond more later.
It doesn’t say they are the only Muslim-majority countries, or imply it. Americans may be relatively dumb, but I’m sure your average readers is aware that there are more than seven majority-Muslim countries.
That line conveys only objective facts: the seven affected countries are all majority-Muslim, and the order has been challenged.
How would you have phrased it?
Your idea of a misleading spin statement is “The executive order banning new arrivals and refugees from the seven Muslim-majority countries had already been challenged in court a number of times…”.
Yet, your idea of objective journalism is “high-risk terrorist countries”, which is a subjective value judgment (and nonsensical, what is a “terrorist country”?).
It’s pretty clear who’s out to foment religious strife for political purposes, and it isn’t CBS News.