"I think we met the enemy, and they are us." (DHS considers family who paid ransom as enemies)

[berni_mccoy]

That is what Rep. Gary Ackerman, chair of the Foreign Affairs Subcmte. on the Middle-East, just said in a hearing on DHS harsh administration of policy and laws (on C-Span 2). This is in direct response to a particular case in which a family paid $7000 in ransom to get their nephew back from kidnappers (their nephew was killed anyway). DHS considers them terrorists and won't allow them in the country as refugees (they are Iraqis). The administration official is saying that they are just enforcing the laws that Congress passed. Ackerman said no one in congress envisioned that we would be punishing victims of crimes and that this is an example of how badly the administration has been interpreting laws (paraphrasing there).

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. how sick. but par for the GOP "coarse". nt

[MADem]

2. Yep, we are completely ignorant. No two ways about it.

Kidnapping has a long and storied tradition in that part of the world, and terrorism isn't the main driver of the practice, either. It's often how you ensured the proper conduct of an enemy or political rival. They still use it for that purpose on the tribal level today--the old "I'll look after old so-and-so while you're away" routine. It's also used more cravenly, to make a buck off the rich--steal little Ali, who, if the kidnappers are smart, spends a lovely time off in the country unaware and having fun, and make a demand for money for his safe return. It's kinda like carjacking, only with people, and if all goes well, you get your family member back.

Of course, anyone who thinks that it's all about terrorism is just a dunce. And we've got plenty of those around these parts, unfortunately.

[suffragette]

3. This is about the Patriot Act and Real ID

It is the application of the parts of these regarding material support. Many groups, including the ACLU, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and religious organizations opposed Real ID because of these and other onerous provisions.

It looks like they are attempting to change some of these provisions. Better, I think, would be to repeal them.

Here's some info from January 2007:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-immig12jan12,1,139202.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

The laws deny entry to anyone who has provided terrorist groups with "material support" — which could mean anything from a bowl of rice to live ammunition — and also apply to those coerced into providing support. A Colombian woman who was kidnapped, assaulted and forced to give medical care to guerrilla groups at gunpoint is among those whose asylum claims were rejected on material-support grounds, as is a Sri Lankan man who was kidnapped by the Tamil Tigers and paid his own ransom.

On Thursday, officials from the Departments of Justice, State and Homeland Security announced a series of changes to the material-support policy, including the expanded use of waivers to allow entry to groups that would otherwise be banned.

Paul Rosenzweig, assistant secretary for international affairs at the Department of Homeland Security, said the changes were the result of concern over the "unintended consequences" of the material-support provisions, which are part of the Patriot Act and Real ID Act.

[magellan]

4. Why doesn't the government go hang itself

It's been willingly giving material support to terrorists since at least 2003, and I'm not just talking about helping terrorist recruitment ambitions.