Sympathy admirable; security essential
Despite the recent Paris incident that occurred Nov. 13, President Obama is sticking to his plan to harbor approximately 10,000 Syrian refugees in the United States. White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes stated that "we have a robust vetting procedure for refugees." The problem with the process is that it is far from perfect. Of course no bureaucratic operation is perfect, but why assume risks when it isn't necessary?
Two weeks ago "60 Minutes" ran an episode on the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) mishandling of security clearances for American citizens. Some of the people mentioned were Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, Aaron Alexis, and multiple others. If OPM cannot conduct adequate security checks on people that can be referred to credible sources, how will the U.S. government collect information on Syrians with little to no credible references or history? We simply cannot verify the history or intent of these people. I sympathize with the Syrian people but we must consider the very real threat of terror striking America again.
The risk is too great and at best the President should suspend any effort that would increase the national security threat level. The market analysis for taking in Syrian refugees has been exercised in Europe and it has become, to say the least, a disaster. The only responsible option our country's leadership has is to examine and mitigate the risks in order to protect our own citizens.
John Shull
Pine Mountain
Public or private cost?
Sheriff Mike Jolley has gone out of his way to point out that he paid $553 of his own money to fund the installation of a sign on government property.
I'm curious to know -- and I'd be highly interested in seeing a reporter from the Ledger ask this -- is Sheriff Jolley equally willing to fund defending any lawsuits resulting from this sign being posted on government property out of his own pocket?
It's a simple question.
Dominick Hunter
Columbus
Unwelcoming message
I am a Jew. I own a home in Callaway Gardens in Harris County. My neighbors are Christian and Jewish, and I chose to buy a home because I love the Christmas celebrations at Callaway. I love my Christian neighbors' deep faith. I did not take offense that when my neighbors first met me, they asked what church I belong to, and they did not take offense that I did not belong to a church. This is what a neighborhood and a community should be. I choose to enjoy Christmas lights and music, I chose to purchase a home at Callaway, I choose to say Merry Christmas to those who celebrate the holidays, and I respect those who wish me a Happy Chanukah when they see me. It is a matter of mutual respect. I do not take any offense at those who wish me a Merry Christmas, because it is done as a friendly gesture.
What Sheriff Mike Jolley erected is not a sign celebrating Christmas; it is a sign saying "We do not care about or respect you or your beliefs." If a business did this, I would not patronize the business, but when the chief law enforcement official puts this sign on public lands, I am not given that choice. I am forced to pay for his salary and the public lands where the sign is erected. I question whether I will be respected, or whether my property rights will be secure. I question that if I am stopped, will a Christian be treated better than I would be. Whether or not Sherriff Jolley is fair is irrelevant; the appearance is that he is not -- justice will not be meted out objectively, and that religion will matter to the Sherriff -- when it should not.
Matthew Dietz
Pine Mountain
The grim reality
As a retired former Special Operator, having worked in some of the most dangerous areas of the world, I would like to comment on "Deadly force."
I want to go on record right here to say I am not "Pro Law Enforcement." For certain, I am not "Anti Law Enforcement." For or against law enforcement is beyond the scope of this essay.
I have been taught by military and civilian professionals on the use of deadly force. Without ambiguity, they have always taught that in a situation where deadly force is called for, one keeps on shooting until "the threat is neutralized."
Notice they did not teach to wound the antagonist. They taught to shoot center mass as many times at it takes to "neutralize the threat."
People who think that one must be "objective" in the use of deadly force have never been shot at by someone who intended to kill them. There is nothing objective about that. It scares the poop out of you and you will use a whole magazine or whatever at your disposal to neutralize the antagonist. It is highly subjective. Life or death is never "objective"!
When I hear the mothers of these killers say that the cops could have shot their babies in the leg, I remind you, the "babies" were not trying to shoot you in the leg -- they were trying to kill you.
I'm just saying remember the other side of the equation.
Ted Ellison
Phenix City
This story was originally published December 2, 2015 at 6:40 PM with the headline "Sympathy admirable; security essential ."