Direct messaging is behavior

When it comes to training individuals who are doing background checks (for what else is "vetting?") there is an obvious leaning in the Department of Homeland Security, which establishes the guidelines, to single out muslims and Islam as protected from in-depth scrutiny. This, obviously, is a "political agenda" and "profiling" as promoted and institutionalized by DHS in their Countering Violent Extremism training guidelines that provides these individuals special treatment. Not once are any other ethnicities, religions or nationalities mentioned. What the CVE Training Do's and Don'ts does is wipe out all criteria for identifying individuals who have not just disdain but outright hatred and violent intent toward Americans and American society. And this is done under the guise of respecting the Bill of Rights. In this, the DHS has completely disregarded the fact that the U.S. Constitution was written to protect Americans from government and that includes government-sponsored importation of enemies of America, and that the Constitution, including the First Amendment, does not protect non-citizens.

This whole process of training government employees, law enforcement and other officials, who will be vetting individuals desiring to enter or have already entered the United States, is designed to skirt their actual behavior in favor of a glossed-over vision of the obvious. It is programmed to entertain wishful thinking. When those who interview prospective visa candidates and eventual citizens are directed to purposefully overlook personal habits and overt actions as not indicative of the candidate's beliefs regarding America, then they are doing nothing more than rolling out a red carpet to potential threats. Tashfeen Malik is a case in point and the CVE training guide is proof that the whole process is worthless and purposefully, obtusely permissive, at least in regard to anyone originating from a primarily Muslim country. Note this directive from Part D: "Don't use training that purports to teach psychological indicators of terrorism. Keep training programs focused on criminal behavior, not mental processes." Question: Is not uncommon outward behavior (instigated by mental processes) indicative of criminal behavior? Is not interviewing acquaintances, family and employers part of a proper background check? Yet, in essence, statements from the State department regarding Malik's entry into the United States on a fiancée visa nullified utilizing information gained from acquaintances of the individual. How?

---

What the DHS and State Department are claiming to be outside the realm of their inquiry is the use of direct messaging in social media

What the DHS and State Department are claiming to be outside the realm of their inquiry is the use of direct messaging in social media. Whereas this type of communication is simply an extension of the acquaintance interview and a direct outgrowth of behavior, even possible criminal behavior. We are not talking attorney- or doctor-client privilege, which doesn't apply in any case as the official is vetting a non-citizen not covered by Constitutional rights. They have only the privileges of being treated humanely. Retrieving information from acquaintances is certainly part of the background check process used by Immigration Services. Example: a personally known US citizen worked three years through unending interviews and acquaintance data-gathering to receive a fiancée visa for his intended who hailed from the UK. State and USCIS do use every kind of information in vetting individuals, even colleges do background checks on employees. If university human resource offices are utilizing this kind of verification, then how is it the State department bypassed it in the case of Malik but not the fiancée from Britain? A major problem stems from this qualifier from the Homeland Security Advisory Council (2010): "Information-driven, community based violent crime reduction efforts should emphasize stopping violent behavior regardless of the motivation." Ask any law enforcement officer and they will tell you that the foremost facet of crime solving is determining motive. HSAC assumes that violent behavior arises out of nothingness. In fact, the reason DHS dismisses motive is to avoid tagging an Islamic terrorist an Islamic terrorist. Evidently, ignoring the elephant in the room makes it disappear... that is, until you run headlong into the vast grey wall, then you simply deny its existence. No, the only extremism the Obama administration recognizes are "...plots by neo-Nazis and other anti-Semitic hate groups, racial supremacists, and [they throw in] international and domestic terrorist groups..." in "Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States." Al Qaeda is mentioned but not Islamic terrorism. Here is the core of the whole issue... When vetting an individual for entry into the US, it is expected that State/Immigration officials interview friends and family to ascertain character. Thus, communication with the candidate is acceptable for scrutiny because what they, as acquaintances, are told by the visa candidate crafts the opinion and feeds the knowledge of the witness. Whether they are told something in conversation personally or online, it is still information that helps the friend or family to understand the personality and intentions of the candidate and comes under guidelines set by DHS - it is behavior and could possibly be criminal in nature. If it is the intention of the administration to give a free pass to all individuals originating from predominantly muslim countries, it has outdone itself and placed all of America in jeopardy as a result. Obama's groupies now include the republican Congress as they pass an omnibus budget funding the terror-laced refugee population his administration is poised to welcome. Obviously vetting doesn't work... the republicans in office proved that. Maybe they believe the propaganda campaign "we are all muslims." Hmmm, as "muslim" means "darkness" or "causing darkness" in Arabic, they may indeed be "muslim." (Thanks to Rush Limbaugh for posting the CVE link on his website and bringing the matter to the fore, and my Australian friend of Lebanese descent who offered the translation of "muslim.")