Iowa Dem Says She Wouldn't Revoke Passports of Americans Fighting With ISIS

[LibCampFireClub 635]

This Iowa dem is more whacky than a Nancy Pelosi fruit loop party.

Iowa Dem Says She Wouldn't Revoke Passports of Americans Fighting With ISIS

During a televised debate, last week, candidate for U.S. Congress Staci Appel (D-IA) opposed the idea of revoking passports of Americans who have admitted to joining and fighting with terrorist organizations.

Appel said, “I would not be urging taking away their passports. I think we need to make sure that we work through the system and look through it on a very diligent basis.” Her comment came after Republican candidate David Young said that if he were elected to Congress, he would call on the State Department to revoke the passports of admitted terrorists. Young, who previously served as U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley’s chief of staff said, “our State Department has that authority. Right now, they’re not doing it. They’re guising it under the gauge of religious freedom — that’s absurd to me.”

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2014/09/16/Iowa-Dem-Says-She-Wouldn-t-Revoke-Passports-of-Americans-Fighting-With-ISIS-Video

Edited September 17, 2014 by ExExpat

[Merrytooth 5,748]

Well, UK and Australia have already taken steps to cancel the passports of their citizens who are ISIS fighters.

US should do the same.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Well, UK and Australia have already taken steps to cancel the passports of their citizens who are ISIS fighters.

US should do the same.

Good plan, makes sense. But, it may be deemed as being insensitive or offensive in the land of the free and home of Mike the headless chicken.

Edited September 17, 2014 by ExExpat

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

She didn't say we shouldn't take away passports.. Just that we would not knee-jerk do it.. .What's the diff? They don't come back or come back and get apprehended at the airport.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

She didn't say we shouldn't take away passports.. Just that we would not knee-jerk do it.. .What's the diff? They don't come back or come back and get apprehended at the airport.

Think about that for a moment. Take for example the thousands of illegal people from other countries who have been streaming across our borders every day for the past several months. Most of these people just want a better life, but everyone together is treated the same. Wouldn't want to profile, would we? After they are ferried to various cities across the US they are released with a document indicating they must appear in person at an immigration hearing on said date.

Now consider those considering traveling to top vacation spots like: Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. Every US citizen has the right to due process, but we Americans also have the expectation of our government, to quote the big guy "Not do stupid stuff." If Americans are going to these places, then those are the ones whose email should be read daily, social posts copied, telephone calls recorded, and lists of friends and contacts developed.

It is the responsibility of our State Department to know these things before they leave, and get an alert when they return. The only knee jerk required is the knee pushing them into the wall as they get their hands buckled behind their backs.

You see, in America, our citizens do NOT have the right to aid our enemies, provide or receive assistance from them, and if they are talking to them, they should be monitored carefully to gain as much intelligence as possible before popping the squirrely traitor / terrorist.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

DoS ought to revoke all passports and only re-issue said passports to those that can prove that they're not affiliated with ISIS or any other undesired organization. Forthwith, Americans should have to provide evidence of non-affiliation with terrorist organizations as part of the regular application for a US passport. Just to be on the safe side, you know. If you've got nothing to hide, that shouldn't be a problem, right?

[Rob L 3,811]

Brietbart never put the entire relevant clip ( including the question) on its site but chose to cherry pick her response ( as they are wont to skew)

I am not sure Ms Appel is the strongest candidate ( she is not projected to win) but she does not sound or look niave or incompetent on this issue. For those standing up for truth justice and the American way here is the entire transcript Re ISIS and Terrorism. Make up your own mind after reading

Henderson: 13 years on, terrorism still exists. President Obama this past week announced that he authorizes air strikes into Syria. Mr. Young, do you think Congress should vote to authorize those strikes? Or do you think the President has authority to do as he has done?

Young: Well, the President has outlined in the War Powers Act from 1973 that he has those powers. And you hear many members of Congress say that, and acknowledge that he does have that. But I think Congress needs to buy into this, to be consulted for authorization, appropriations, because when the President and Congress work together on issues, especially such as this national security, it's very important. I think Congress needs to be involved.

Henderson: How would you vote were you a member?

Young: Well, I don't get classified briefings or have that intelligence information, but I would make sure that I was on the floor and listening to the debate at every moment.

Henderson: I'll turn to you. How would you approach this as a member of Congress? And do you think the President has the authority to act on his own?

Appel: I think he has the authority to act whenever our homeland is threatened. And I think we are threatened with ISIS. I do believe the way that he has put forward the air strikes and the humanitarian aid and working with folks on the ground makes sense and the training. So, I approve of how he has done it.

Henderson: She mentioned working with people inside the state of Syria. Mr. Young, do you agree that it's a good idea to arm and train people inside Syria?

Young: Well, we need to make sure we know who we are arming and what side they fall on. You know, when the President spoke last night for months that he had been indecisive. I did see some resiliency in him last night. He talked about not just managing this crisis and this threat of ISIS but he talked about destroying it and I was happy to hear that word finally because I thought it was long overdue.

Henderson: Mrs. Appel, one final question on this subject. Congressman Dave Loebsack who sits on the Armed Services Committee said it's really hard to tell who the good guys and the bad guys are in Syria. He is concerned about that component of the President's proposal. It sounds as if you do not share those concerns.

Appel: Well, I do share those concerns. We just need to make sure we're working with the right people and arming the right people. We need to work with people that want to defend their own freedom and so that takes time and working and listening to the folks on the ground.

Obradovich: You mentioned a security interest for the United States. The President last night talked about that there had been threats and that ISIS might pose some future security threat to the United States. Do you think that that is sufficient American interest to get more involved militarily in that region? Or are there other interests as well that are involved here?

Borg: Mrs. Appel?

Appel: So, ISIS is, you know, it's growing and it is taking over two really weak countries. And we need to make sure, you know, I look at it as a mom, I want to make sure my homeland, my state, my family is protected. So, I appreciate what the President is doing.

Obradovich: And Mr. Young, do you feel like American interests are sufficiently represented in this action? Is there going to be enough, is there enough of a threat actually to the United States to justify this? And are there other interests in the United States that the President should be paying attention to?

Young: Well, the threat is big and it's getting bigger and it is getting larger and ISIS is on the move. They're looking to overtake Baghdad. I believe that they want to go south from the news reports that I've heard and what I have read. They want to grasp control of the oil fields in the Middle East. Imagine if they harness that and what that could do to the price of fuel around the world, what that could do to the pocketbooks of Americans. Look at what that could do to our economy. But more importantly, these terrorist thugs are trying to come to America. There's homegrown terrorism here. We're getting reports about it. We need to be diligent in all angles, overseas and here at home.

Borg: But what does that mean if you were elected to Congress, sitting there now what would you be urging?

Young: I'd be urging our State Department to revoke the passports of those that they suspect who have admitted that they are part of terrorist organizations. Our State Department has that authority. Right now they're not doing it. They're guising it under the gauge of religious freedom. That is absurd to me.

Borg: And Mrs. Appel, what would you be doing if you were sitting in Congress now?

Appel: Well, Congress has the role of oversight. They need to make sure that what we're working on --

Borg: What would you be urging?

Appel: I would not be urging taking away their passports. I think we need to make sure that we work through the system and look through it on a very diligent basis.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You're looking for context on Breitbart? Pass the bong!

[LibCampFireClub 635]

The video tells the story. It's the sort of thing that makes the reasonable person say, "Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining." She's a whack-job who stepped on her own thingy in front of cameras. Video tape is good in catching spin doctors and presidents who say you can keep your doctor and it's Bush's fault.

Democrat’s Response After Her Opponent Urges Revoking Passports of People Who Have ‘Admitted They Are Part of Terrorist Organizations’

During a recent televised debate, Iowa Democratic candidate for U.S. Congress Staci Appel argued against her opponent’s suggestion of revoking passports of people who have “admitted they are part of terrorist organizations.”

Republican candidate David Young, who previously served as U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley’s chief of staff, said he would call on the State Department to revoke the passports of admitted terrorists if he were elected to Congress.

“Our State Department has that authority,” he said. “Right now, they’re not doing it. They’re guising it under the gauge of religious freedom — that’s absurd to me.”

When Appel was asked what she would be “urging” on the same topic if she were elected, she said she “would not be urging we be taking away their passports.”

“I think we need to make sure that we work through the system and look through it on a very diligent basis,” she added.

Watch the video below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT-N9vEkeaM

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/09/16/democrats-response-after-her-opponent-urges-revoking-passports-of-people-who-have-admitted-they-are-part-of-terrorist-organizations/

Edited September 18, 2014 by ExExpat

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The Blaze doesn't do context either. Thanks for bringing that to our attention but it is widely known already.

[Karee 4,190]

You're looking for context on Breitbart? Pass the bong!