An Obama administration plan to allow Syrian refuges into the United
States is raising concerns within the intelligence community and on
Capitol Hill -- with one GOP House leader calling it a “federally
sanctioned welcome party” to potential terrorists.
The State Department has defended the plan to welcome refugees from
the war-ravaged western Asia country, saying the U.S. was founded on the
principles of helping such people.
However, House Republicans are concern about members of The Islamic
State, whose de facto headquarters is in Syria, infiltrating the refugee
system and getting on American soil.
Mike McCaul, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security,
said Friday night on Fox News’ “Hannity” show that the policy is
“dangerous and reckless.”
The Texas lawmaker said he also recently wrote National Security
Adviser Susan Rice about the policy, which includes brining in refugees
from neighboring Turkey, where millions of Syrians have fled because of
their civil war.
In the letter, he and fellow Republicans raised concerns about the
U.S.’s screening process, which is hindered by the
intelligence-gathering challenges in Syria.
"You have to have information to vet,” FBI Assistant Director Michael
Steinbach, said in a Feb. 11 House homeland security hearing.
“Databases don't [have] the information on those individuals, and that's
the concern.”
McCaul suggested at the hearing that allowing Syrian refugees into the U.S. would be a “huge mistake.”
“Most of (the refugees) are women and children, but there are male
actors that concern me,” he said. “This would be a federally sanctioned
welcome party, if you will, to potential terrorists in the United
States.”
An estimated 7 million Syrians are seeking refugee status, and 500 have reportedly already been allowed into the U.S.
"It's clearly a population of concern," Nicholas Rasmussen, the
director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said at the hearing.
Said Steinbach: "I'm concerned. We'll have to take a look at those
(terror watch) lists and go through all of the intelligence holdings and
be very careful to try and identify connections to foreign terrorist
groups."
Steinbach and Rasmussen were joined at the hearing by Francis Taylor,
who runs the Department of Homeland Security’s intelligence office.
Taylor acknowledged his agency was concerned about any group that
might be coming to the U.S. for “nefarious purposes.” However, he said
he was “not in a position” to agree or disagree with the refugee policy
because it was under the offices of the secretary of State.
The State Department did not send a witness to the hearing. But Larry
Bartlett, an agency director for refugee admission, told ABC News that
the vetting process is "intensive," deliberate and includes information
and guidance from the Defense Department and other U.S. intelligence
agencies.
"We have a very slow process of moving refugees through our pipeline,
and part of it is because of the security vetting component," he said.
Despite the concerns of Rasmussen and the others who testified, they
vowed that the screen process would be as rigorous as possible.
"Any tasking we're given ... will be as thorough as we can make it," Taylor said.
Rasmussen said the U.S. intelligence community would put its “full weight” behind vetting refugee candidates.
Broken taillight? Soon, it might not be a problem.
State lawmakers are revving up efforts to abolish or roll back car
inspections -- arguing that the government-mandated check-ups amount to
little more than a hassle and a tax.
The Mississippi state Senate recently passed a bill that would eliminate vehicle inspections completely.
State Sen. John Polk, a Republican and supporter of the bill, said
states are going this way because they've found the inspections
"unnecessary."
"Cars have become much more reliable today," Polk said. The measure heads next to the Mississippi House for a vote.
While safety advocates argue the inspections are still important, the
proposal follows other efforts at the state level to roll back
inspections. New Jersey, for example, eliminated their safety
inspections back in 2010. And some Pennsylvania lawmakers are pushing
anew to get rid of inspections for cars less than two years old.
There are two types of regulated inspections: safety and emissions. A
handful of states -- including Florida, Alabama and Hawaii -- don't
require any. Today, at least 18 states require periodic safety
inspections, and roughly three-dozen states require emissions
inspections.
Those considering moving away from inspections argue they're antiquated.
In Mississippi, the inspections cost drivers $5 per year. The penalty for not having a valid inspection sticker is $50.
Mississippi Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves believes the stickers are used to essentially collect a "$5 tax."
"Many states are eliminating the inspection sticker as vehicles are
manufactured with improved safety features, and I think we should join
them," Reeves said in a written statement. He also complained that state
troopers have to spend time inspecting inspection stations, when they
are trained to "protect Mississippians' safety on the road."
But some drivers think the inspections are worth it. "I think they're
a good thing. They keep broken-down cars off the road, for safety
reasons. It's not expensive either," said Long Beach, Miss., resident
Cameron Hatch.
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation,
Mississippi had more than 2 million registered vehicles -- which puts
the state's annual revenue from safety inspections at more than $6
million. That's a tiny fraction of the state's budget, expected to be
more than $6 billion for 2016.
"This is not about money," state Sen. Billy Hudson told The Clarion Ledger. "I don't care if we are losing money on it or making money. It's a public safety issue."
But AAA Public Affairs Vice President Mike Wright said some safety inspections are not worth it.
"Nobody can prove with any degree of certainty that spending the
money, suffering the inconvenience of getting your vehicle inspected,
actually produces desired results," said Wright, who added only the
smallest portion of car accidents are caused by motor vehicle defects.
Driver error is the biggest cause, Wright said, while stressing that
drivers should still get their vehicles inspected periodically.
The Department of Transportation created a vehicle inspection program
after Congress passed the Highway Safety Act in 1966. But in 1976,
Congress allowed states to abandon their inspection programs.
The safety inspection typically involves a driver bringing a car to
an authorized shop for testing on the brakes, steering, suspension and
headlights, among other factors. Drivers get a sticker on the windshield
to show their car has passed.
In Pennsylvania, state Sen. John Wozniak, a Democrat, is leading an
effort to eliminate safety inspections for cars less than two years
old.
"When you look at accidents and crashes of states that have
inspections to those that do not, their accident rates are not much
different," said Wozniak, who plans to introduce a bill.
Wozniak also wants to toss out emissions inspections in his state; he
said there is a 99 percent passing rate for emission tests. "If you had
your kids in school and that's the kind of grades they were bringing
home, you'd say well done ... we don't need these inspections anymore,"
he said.
An EPA spokesperson disagreed, saying: "The Clean Air Act's
inspection programs are important tools for protecting public health by
reducing smog pollution. Although newer vehicles have better emissions
control technologies, a significant number of vehicles do not pass their
emissions test -- up to 10 percent or more of the tested fleet."
Some car maintenance shop owners say the inspections are just good for business.
"A lot of [auto shops] don't do it because they think it's a
nuisance, but I like them," said Hal Mardis, owner of the Goodyear Auto
Service Center in Ridgeland, Miss. "It brings in a lot of traffic for
me. We do 1,600 a month."
But if Mississippi gets rid of the safety inspections, Mardis thinks
his business won't be affected: "We are well-established enough that I
don't think we're going to drop a lot of business because of it."
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced Friday
the discovery of a new virus that may be spread through tick or insect
bites. The virus may have contributed to the 2014 death of a Kansas man
who was otherwise healthy.
Working with experts from the Kansas Department of Health and
Environment (KDHE) and University of Kansas Medical Center (UKMC),
researchers found that the virus is part of a group of viruses called
thogotoviruses. The virus was named Bourbon virus for the county in
which the patient lived. The case is the first time a thogotovirus has
been shown to cause human illness in the U.S. and the eighth known case
of it causing symptoms in people.
According to the report, the patient, who was over 50 years old, was
working outside on his property in late spring 2014 when he received
several tick bites and
found an engorged tick on his shoulder. Several days later, he fell ill
with nausea, weakness and diarrhea. The next day, he developed a fever,
anorexia, chills, headache, myalgia, and arthralgia. The patient visited
his primary care physician on the third day, at which point he was
prescribed an antibiotic for a presumed tickborne illness. The next
morning, his wife found him experiencing reduced consciousness and we
was taken to the local hospital.
Test results for many infectious diseases came back negative and a
sample of the patient’s blood was sent to the CDC, which found evidence
of an unidentified virus. Researchers used Advanced Molecular Detection
(AMD) and determined it was a new virus.
According to the news release, the CDC is working with KDHE and UKMC
to identify additional cases of Bourbon virus disease, determine who
gets sick and with what symptoms, and how people are getting infected.
CDC experts are also working to better understand the virus itself to
potentially prevent and control Bourbon virus.
CDC researchers believe other undiscovered viruses are likely causing
illness, with this finding and recent discoveries of Heartland virus in
Missouri and severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome viruses in
China.
Top Republican senators Friday demanded answers after a military
official revealed “detailed operational information” about a looming
Iraqi mission to retake Mosul from the Islamic State, saying the
disclosure has put the mission at risk.
“Never in our memory can we recall an instance in which our military
has knowingly briefed our own war plans to our enemies,” Sens. John
McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said in a letter to
President Obama.
“These disclosures not only risk the success of our mission, but
could also cost the lives of U.S., Iraqi, and coalition forces.”
The senators asked who was responsible for the briefing, conducted
Thursday by a military official, and whether they had White House
approval. “Those responsible have jeopardized our national security
interests and must be held accountable,” they wrote.
The letter follows criticism in other corners that the military may have revealed too much detail in previewing the operation.
On Thursday, the U.S. military official outlined plans to retake
Mosul and said the “shaping” for the battle is currently underway. He
said the Iraqi military hopes to begin operations in the “April, May
timeframe” with the goal of retaking Mosul before Ramadan begins on June
17.
The official then went a step further and leaked that five Iraqi Army
brigades will be used in the fight, as well as several smaller
brigades, composing a total force of up to 25,000 Iraqi troops. Three
brigades of Kurdish Peshmerga fighters will participate as well.
But the details, disclosed at the close of a White House summit on combating violent extremism, raised some concerns.
"That is pretty amazing that that information's out there," retired
Gen. Jack Keane, former Army vice chief of staff and a Fox News military
analyst, said Friday.
A current and former military intelligence officer also told Fox News
that the decision to publicly announce the plan was counterintuitive
because it "telegraphs" the timing and number of units involved. The
officers said it would allow Islamic State, also known as ISIS, or ISIL,
to prepare for the battle by laying improvised explosive devices.
Both officers questioned whether political considerations on the part
of the Obama administration factored into the decision to announce the
offensive.
The Obama administration wasn't the first to discuss plans to retake Mosul, however. Iraqi government leaders previously had talked
about the looming offensive, and Defense officials are pushing back on
the notion that anything tactical was revealed on Thursday.
CENTCOM sources also stressed that the briefing on Thursday came from the military, not the White House.
Keane suggested there should be nothing surprising about the fact that Iraqi forces are looking to retake Mosul before Ramadan.
"ISIS is not stupid," he said, adding that their fighters already
know that Mosul is the key to any counteroffensive and have likely been
preparing for weeks. "This is not something new to ISIS."
However, Keane said the details about the force size and other elements were "surprising" to hear.
ISIS militants overtook Mosul last June, as the group marched across
large sections of Iraq and Syria, sending Iraqi forces fleeing. At this
point, officials estimate there are between 1,000 to 2,000 ISIS
insurgents in the city of Mosul. Military leaders have been talking
about retaking the city for some time, but they have said they won't
launch the operation until the Iraqi troops are ready.
Included in the force would be a brigade of Iraqi counterterrorism
forces who have been trained by U.S. special operations forces. The
brigades include roughly 2,000 troops each.
The CENTCOM official said the U.S. will provide military support for
the operation, including training, air support, intelligence and
surveillance. The official said there has been no decision made yet on
whether to send in some U.S. ground troops to help call in airstrikes.
"But by the same token, if they're not ready, if the conditions are
not set, if all the equipment they need is not physically there and they
(aren't) trained to a degree in which they will be successful, we have
not closed the door on continuing to slide that to the right," he said.
The official also revealed for the first time that Qatar has agreed
to host a training site for coalition forces to train moderate Syrian
rebels who would return to Syria to fight the Islamic State forces
there. Other sites are in Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
Arab governments are privately expressing their concern to Washington
about the emerging terms of a potential deal aimed at curbing Iran’s
nuclear program, according to Arab and U.S. officials involved in the
deliberations.
The direction of U.S. diplomacy with Tehran has added fuel to fears
in some Arab states of a nuclear-arms race in the region, as well as
reviving talk about possibly extending a U.S. nuclear umbrella to Middle
East allies to counter any Iranian threat.
The major Sunni states, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United
Arab Emirates and Qatar, have said that a final agreement could allow
Shiite-dominated Iran, their regional rival, to keep the technologies
needed to produce nuclear weapons, according to these officials, while
removing many of the sanctions that have crippled its economy in recent
years.
'At this stage, we prefer a collapse of the diplomatic process to a bad deal,'- Arab official
Arab officials said a deal would likely drive Saudi Arabia, for one, to try to quickly match Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
"At this stage, we prefer a collapse of the diplomatic process to a
bad deal," said an Arab official who has discussed Iran with the Obama
administration and Saudi Arabia in recent weeks.
The Obama administration initially said its policy was to completely
dismantle Tehran's nuclear infrastructure as a means to protect
Washington's Mideast allies.
Now, however, U.S. officials say it is no longer plausible to
eliminate all of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, suggesting that any
final deal would leave some nuclear capability in place. Iran denies
that it is seeking to build a nuclear bomb, but a final deal providing
for nuclear enrichment capacity could prompt a competition.
Arab officials have increasingly spoken about a possible nuclear arms
race in the Mideast as the negotiations have continued for 18 months,
having been extended twice.
U.S. officials have declined to publicly disclose terms of the deal
being negotiated with Iran. But they stress that they have closely
consulted with Washington’s Arab allies about the diplomatic process.
The Obama administration believes an agreement with Iran will curtail
the potential for a nuclear arms race in the Mideast, rather than fuel
one.
"Only a good negotiated solution will result in long-term confidence
that Iran won't acquire a nuclear weapon," a senior U.S. official said.
"Given Iran already has the technical capability, our goal has always
been to get to one-year breakout time and cut off the four pathways
under a very constrained program."
