Sunday, February 5, 2017

What is Extreme Vetting and What Does It Mean?


     The Executive Order temporarily banning immigration from seven Muslim countries,which has ignited a major legal skirmish, was based on a campaign pledge to prevent immigration of Muslims who are national security risks.   In candidate Trump's words, to be placed, "Until we know what the hell is going on".  Translated, this clearly inferred to the public that we are unsafe now under current vetting procedures, and that what we needed was to find security against Islamic terrorism by developing "extreme vetting".  Putting aside the hasty incompetence of the White House legal staff in the preparation of the order and fast forwarding beyond whatever legal outcome evolves, the question remains. What is extreme vetting and what will it mean to national security?

     "To appraise, verify, check for accuracy, authenticity, validity etc." is the given definition of vetting.  I can only assume that extreme vetting is pressing the current level of effort to some exertion of both in time and effort that provides a level of security deemed better or where we as a nation want to be.  Set aside again the adequacy of the present level of vetting and how well it has been working and go to the heart of the issue.
     
      The central question is this:  How can the vetting process be upgraded to prevent entry of any radical Islamic believers?  I do not know what they are doing now, so this is pure speculation but it must have to do in part with their religious beliefs.  So what religious beliefs do they have that are a security threat?  The answer must be the radical beliefs that threaten us.  And where are they found?  They are found in Koran--the extremist passages often cited by the Islamic terrorists obligating them to violet jihad or holy war. No need to quote them as any Koranic scholar can point them out.

   So the extreme vetting questioning goes like this;  Are you from (fill in the blank of which of the seven countries cited in the order are you coming from)?  Then are you a Muslim (mark yes or no)? If yes, then you believe in the Koran (confirm yes or no).  If the answer is yes then the next obvious question is do you believe in all of the Koran (mark yes or no).  If the answer is yes, then are we to believe that since there is no repudiation of the Koranic verses that are offensively radical, that exclusion is automatic?  Could be. But this is unlikely to hold legal challenge on constitutional grounds (First Amendment).  

     Lets proceed assuming the answer to the last question is no, then the respondent must detail those verses in which he or she is not a believer.  Any answer is threatening to the respondent's conscience because any believing Muslim believes that the Koran is the sacred word of God and cannot be changed or deleted.  He cleverly conceals his true beliefs and  then where does the extreme vetting go? Do we pull a Guns of Navarone (movie) and break out the scopolamine?  Time for a little water boarding Mr. Trump? No! The situation is clear.  There is no degree of vetting, extreme or otherwise that does not come down to word against word. Future behavior can only be pledged, never guaranteed.

       This is why laws governing separation of church and state are so critical.  When words are broken then the law and the constitution come in to restore the boundaries.  So the conclusion is simple.  Extreme vetting is nothing more that a scare tactic aimed at deceiving the electorate that they are unsafe and that this noxious nothing called extreme vetting is going to make them safe.  Didn't we learn anything from Senator Joe McCarthy?

      So Mr. President, you want to know what the hell is going  on!  I'll tell you.  We are paying attention!