News

Stanford: Trump immigration ban 'deeply antithetical' to university values

International students grapple with academic, personal consequences

The executive order President Donald Trump signed last Friday banning entry into the United States for 90 days for citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries immediately threw Stanford University student Ramin Ahmari's life into a state of uncertainty.

Ahmari, who was born and raised in Germany by Iranian parents, holds dual citizenship in both countries, although he doesn't identify as Iranian and has never lived there. (He said he cannot rescind his Iranian citizenship until he's 25 years old and meets certain requirements.) A junior studying computer science, Ahmari has been in the United States since 2014 on a student visa.

His personal and academic plans have been jeopardized by the president's new immigration ban, he said, because now he's fearful that if he leaves the United States, he will not be able to return. He had intended to study abroad at Oxford University in London this summer, graduate with two minors in human rights and statistics, pursue a master's degree and, if necessary, travel home to Germany to visit his parents, who are both sick. Because of the ban, he has decided to forego the two minors and master's program so he can finish his undergraduate degree as soon as possible and be able to work in case he has to leave the country.

"What I am faced with is either education or family at any point," he said in an interview with the Weekly. "That's deeply unfair."

Ahmari is among many international students at Stanford and across the country who have been impacted by the ban. A Sudanese graduate student in anthropology at Stanford, Nisrin Elamin Abdelrahman, was among those detained at airports on Friday as soon as the ban went into effect. A legal permanent resident of the United States, she was held, questioned and briefly handcuffed at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York after returning from a research trip in Sudan, she told other media outlets.

Abdelrahman declined to comment for this story, citing "security and other reasons."

Anita Husen, director of The Markaz: Resource Center, which supports the Stanford Muslim community, said that there are students, faculty and staff who are currently out of the country and cannot return, and others who have had to cancel academic and personal plans to travel abroad.

Ahmari said he decided to speak out publicly, despite fears of government retribution or people's negative reactions, in the hopes that his story will help others understand the "immutable" impact of the new policy.

"My story is not Democrat. My story is not Republican. My story is just personal," he said.

Ahmari is passionate about both computer science and human rights. He lives in a student residence that he described as a "community of activists" and is a part of CS + Social Good, a student-led group that works to use computer science to have social impact. He is also a part of Pulse, a campus fashion and lifestyle magazine, and is helping to research computational biology in Stanford's Dror Lab.

Ahmari first publicly shared how the executive order has impacted him in a Facebook post this weekend that has since been shared more than 100 times.

"America, the place I went to for opportunity, academia and tolerance, has suddenly become a golden cage, one that hates the intersectionality of my identity in more than just one way -- a fact it has made painfully clear now," he wrote.

Since the ban went into effect last week, Ahmari said he has perceived more people judging him as a danger "based on the way I look," he told the Weekly.

"They think I'm Iranian and they think I'm Muslim and that's everything I am to most people," Ahmari said. "That is something very difficult to process."

Stanford has been reaching out to members of the campus community who are from the seven countries identified in the ban to provide information and support, including pro bono legal counsel, special drop-in hours for counseling services and an informational event with immigration law experts. Soon after Trump signed the new executive order, Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne, outgoing provost John Etchemendy and new provost Persis Drell sent a message encouraging those who could be affected by the immigration ban to "postpone international travel for the time being."

"We recognize that those who set national immigration policy must account for national security considerations to keep our country safe," the trio wrote in a second statement issued this weekend. "But policies that restrict the broad flow of people and ideas across national borders, or that have the effect or appearance of excluding people based on religion or ethnicity, are deeply antithetical to both our mission and our values."

They also said a recent Association of American Universities statement that calls for an end to the ban "reflects our concerns and priorities."

Tessier-Lavigne also joined 47 other college and university presidents on Thursday in signing a letter to Trump asking him to "rectify or rescind" the executive order, which "threatens both American higher education and the defining principles of our

country," the letter reads.

The university does not share information about students' or staff's immigration status, religion, nationality, ethnicity or other information with anyone, including law enforcement authorities, unless required by law, Stanford's statement noted. The Stanford Department of Public Safety also does not inquire about immigration status in the "normal course of its duties" and "will not participate with other agencies in immigration enforcement activities unless legally required to do so."

The university is committed to "vigorously advocating before Congress, the Executive Branch, and beyond for policies consistent with its commitment to members of our community who are international, undocumented and those who are impacted by the recent executive order," the three leaders wrote.

Ahmari said he has felt supported by his university and commended Stanford for providing forums for education and dialogue on the ban.

Some student groups and faculty on campus were quick to publicly condemn the ban. In a statement, eight faculty members from the Jewish Studies Program called the ban a "scandal to our democratic culture" and a "potentially anti-constitutional policy" that the government should immediately end. The Stanford Asian American Graduate Student Association penned an op-ed in the Stanford Daily expressing its opposition to the ban despite the fact the organization has "generally remained politically neutral."

"But this executive order," the group's student-leaders wrote, "is too harmful and too detestable for us to stay silent."

"AAGSA serves the entire Asian-American graduate student population at Stanford, including Muslims," they wrote. "We will continue to provide a welcoming and inclusive environment, and we call on the university to lead and act in defense of its members and its values."

A letter signed by close to 200 faculty members by Thursday urged the administration to take more specific action, such as a pledge from Columbia University to expand financial aid for undocumented students if the federal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) programs is terminated.

Husen said The Markaz center is supporting several student-led efforts in response to the ban, including a "speak-out" event on Thursday and a creative expression event on Friday.

Ahmari said he has also been part of many organic conversations on social media and in person with students, both those in similar situations and others who simply want to help.

He acknowledged that there are also people on campus who supported Trump and favor the ban. Ahmari said anyone interested in speaking with him -- whether it's someone in need of support, or someone who disagrees with his views -- can contact him directly.

Stanford's Bechtel International Center has been posting information about the executive order on its website over the last several days. Stanford also created this week a special web page to post information and resources on immigration policy and later a dedicated email address (travelban@stanford.edu).

Representatives from the Bechtel Center, as well as the law school's Immigrants' Rights Clinic and The Markaz: Resource Center will provide information and answer questions for students directly impacted by the ban at an informational meeting on Thursday evening. A separate forum is also scheduled for Thursday to give an overview and general information to the broader Stanford community.

For more information, go to bechtel.stanford.edu.

Related content:

Stanford joins universities in challenging Trump's travel ban

Appeals court to hear Trump administration's bid to reinstate travel ban

County files suit over president's executive order

Stanford student, others sue Trump over immigration ban

Palo Alto man helps Afghan interpreter receive visa

Santa Clara County to file lawsuit against President Trump's order

---

Follow the Palo Alto Weekly/Palo Alto Online on Twitter @PaloAltoWeekly and Facebook for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

We can't do it without you.
Support local journalism.

Comments

8 people like this
Posted by realist
a resident of Stanford
on Feb 1, 2017 at 10:39 am

Are all of these people named in this article recent immigrants or non-Christians or women? Trump has been very vocal about his voter base being white Christian men. If that was enough to carry the election, there is no reason for Trump to listen to other groups now.


17 people like this
Posted by Richard Placone
a resident of Barron Park
on Feb 1, 2017 at 12:04 pm

My wife Jeanne and I want to go on record that we not only oppose the recent government ban on travel, but offer our moral support to all the students at Stanford who now find themselves in compromising positions because of the government's turning away from our founding democratic principles. We have been and continue to be involved in activities that bring members of the local Muslim communities together with our own Catholic/Christian community here and in San Jose. This is a time when all Palo Alto citizens need to show at least moral support to our neighbors at Stanford, in our local businesses or as residents in our community, as being welcome regardless of their national origin or faith.


64 people like this
Posted by resident
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Feb 1, 2017 at 12:33 pm

The Ban is for 90 days so that the methods for vetting can be updated. It is not an Ideological issue - it is a process issue. The number one activity is to make sure that the US citizens are protected and the people coming in have been vetted. Obama performed the same action in his presidency so it is not a R and D issue - but a national issue.


53 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 1, 2017 at 12:47 pm

So much misinformation and fear mongering, particularly from the media, sensationalizing this issue. The truth is that the roll out was flawed and the reality is a lot less threatening than the headlines portray. There is a temporary tightening of immigration procedures and it remains to be seen what will happen after the 90 days. Over-reaction has been rampant due partly to the media incitement.


20 people like this
Posted by Mil
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Feb 1, 2017 at 12:54 pm

The ban would have been appropriate had it included Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan among many other countries. If my recollection is correct 15 of the 19 hijackers of 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia. The idea that the president is trying to protect the American people is absurd at best and disingenuous. What is he going to do about home grown American born terrorists? They are the ones responsible for most recent terrorist acts. God helps us!


11 people like this
Posted by realist
a resident of Stanford
on Feb 1, 2017 at 12:58 pm

The best ways to clamp down on home-grown terrorists are (1) increased intelligence gathering on known hate groups and (2) stricter gun control. Neither of these are going to happen under Trump. Try again.


21 people like this
Posted by Longtime Resident
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Feb 1, 2017 at 1:45 pm

"Resident from Charleston Meadow's" comment is spot-on.

Best to actually read the document, considering it is legal, and about time for this to be addressed.

Media coverage causes over-reaction, and near hysteria among those that do not take time to educate themselves about details.


24 people like this
Posted by Robert Eugene Johnson
a resident of Downtown North
on Feb 1, 2017 at 1:46 pm

Re: the post submitted by "Mil": "The ban would have been appropriate had it included Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan among many other countries ... Fifteen of the 19 hijackers of 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia."

No country --- including Saudi Arabia --- housing the business interests of Donald Trump was included in the ban. So much for homeland security. In other words, money trumps everything else.

No ethnic or religious test is ever "appropriate" in denying access to America's shores --- always and forever.

Trump is trying to turn the Statue of Liberty to face inland, rather than to the east, toward the welcoming harbor. What are the words on its pedestal? "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"


7 people like this
Posted by I Know this Sounds Stange....
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 1, 2017 at 2:01 pm

I know this bizarre, but since the election I have had a dream, a nightmare actually that is very surreal and invades my sleep about once a week.

This is not a joke or a prank, but I keep dreaming that the tide in NY Harbor is unusually high, like a king tide, and the water is very dark. The Statue of Liberty animates, bends forward and lifts her wet drape-- and it is dripping blood! She looks up, her eyes huge, and says, "They must not pass, it isn't safe."

I have interpreted this to mean that the U.S. will either be attacked, or we will be involved in a war on American soil.

The thought of this scares me to death, but I can think of no other meaning to this [portion removed.]


1 person likes this
Posted by Longtime Resident
a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Feb 1, 2017 at 2:19 pm

[Post removed.]


9 people like this
Posted by Greenmom
a resident of South of Midtown
on Feb 1, 2017 at 2:21 pm

Resident:
It is an ideological issue, a prejudice issue, to target especific group of people for their religion. Everybody understands the need for immigration procedures in place, but a sudden ban like this, like I said, on a specific group of people accross the border is prejudiced and abusive at the least. It is an ideological issue and an attack to our democracy and American values, and for sure it has disrupted the life of innocent people. It is an impulsive move and a dangerous one, for the same safety reasons that it was supposedly done, and destructive for the affected innocent people that have nothing to do with terrorism and who are just trying to live their lives, just like you and me.


12 people like this
Posted by 38 year resident
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Feb 1, 2017 at 2:49 pm

@ realist.....Neither increased intelligence or stricter gun control happened during the 8 years of the Obama presidency. Try again.


7 people like this
Posted by Scotty
a resident of Green Acres
on Feb 1, 2017 at 2:49 pm

[Post removed.]


12 people like this
Posted by 38 year resident
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Feb 1, 2017 at 2:53 pm

[Post removed.]


26 people like this
Posted by dennis
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Feb 1, 2017 at 3:39 pm

"Resident,' is spot on in his remarks. Also, how soon we forget 9/11 and the many other terrorist actions that have occurred by people entering countries where if properly vetted would have helped in the prevention of these horrors. This is a long road that the world is traveling, and many lose sight that Islam is not a religion. That is just part of it, for in truth Islam is both male dominated church and state: it covers and controls all aspects of life from A to Z, embedding itself in a seventh century culturalism that is out of date with modern civilization. Our founding fathers knew this all too well. Our basic freedoms are in danger for this is war, a conflict for the very premise of our Declaration of independence and Constitution.


19 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Feb 1, 2017 at 4:08 pm

"how soon we forget 9/11 and the many other terrorist actions that have occurred by people entering countries where if properly vetted would have helped in the prevention of these horrors."

[Portion removed.]

How soon Trump "forgets". Fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. Another is from Lebanon, and their leader from Egypt. Strangely, none of these proven terrorist suppliers is on Trump's banned list. Neither is Pakistan, a renowned extremist training base and the former host of Osama bin Laden. Nor is Afghanistan, which is steadily Talibanizing.

Curiously, Trump seems to have personal business interests in all of these countries. Yet their citizens are free to travel to the US.

Probably just a coincidence. But keep your window drapes drawn just in case.


35 people like this
Posted by Nayeli
a resident of Midtown
on Feb 1, 2017 at 4:55 pm

I support this temporary moratorium (with exemptions) until a better vetting system is created. It isn't just about the potential immigrants and refugees tied to terrorist groups and ideology, but also those that adhere to some very radical ideology too that is more common in those countries.

I read some comments online that linked to Pew Research polls of Muslims throughout the world. While most Muslims are obviously peaceful people, I was surprised by very shocking numbers who believed in things that are way outside of the norms for society.

For instance, a Pew poll indicated that only 22% of the people in Iraq feel that it is never justifiable to kill girls or women for reasons of honor. Similar sentiments is held in the other countries with this ban. There are other issues too. A majority of the citizens of those countries believe that women do not have a say in whether they wear the hijab. A majority in those countries believe that Sharia law takes precedent over national law, that women must always obey their husbands, think poorly of Jews, etc.

Here is a link to Pew Research's polls. Remember to scroll down and visit all 14 pages of the polling report.
Web Link

Obviously, the polls indicate that not EVERYONE believes such things. Most Muslims around the world are amazing and wonderful people! Most hate terrorism and violence more than anyone else -- and peaceful Muslims are often the largest number of victims of violent extremism in the Middle East.

However, there is a significant portion of the population of these targeted countries that embrace ideas that are just not compatible with American society. We have to ask whether or not we want individuals who believe that violence is an acceptable form of religious adherence to immigrate into this country. After all, the individuals who are targeted and groomed for terrorist groups are often those devout members of each society who are given to certain beliefs like this.

So, I wholeheartedly support a revamped vetting process. I do hope that it isn't as long as 90-days. I think that there are some very good people who we should help escape the violence and extremism in places like Syria. At the same time, I think that America should only accept individuals who are open enough to realize that violence is not the answer and that a free society is not an enemy of religious faith. A father who comes to America must be willing to allow his daughters and wife to make up their own mind about things like the hijab, marriage, work or life in general.


2 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Green Acres
on Feb 1, 2017 at 6:12 pm

Part of the problem is that Islam is simply too mysterious to many Americans. The hijab/burka seems to clash with Western culture and Islam is shrouded in secrecy.

I think Steve Bannon believes that Islam needs to be limited in the USA in some way -- Bannon seems to think that Islam tends to spread fast and take over the host culture, and force Sharia law on the populace, like in some neighborhoods in France, Sweden and England.

The argument is that we are being naive and exposing ourselves to this risk by letting Musims become a majority decades from now unless we start using quotas again.

It's important to understand the motivations of the enemy instead of screaming "nazi", using censorship, and shutting down the conversation so that nothing is learned.


38 people like this
Posted by Sanctimonious City
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 1, 2017 at 6:50 pm

We have hit the proverbial sanctimonious jackpot with this issue. If this column were a slot machine, it would be three bars for ignorance, bias and misinformation.

Since there is such a dearth of knowledge in geography, current events and the war on terror from a supposedly educated and concerned community let's go through the list, shall we?

Libya - Come on, you must remember this one. This is the country the Obama administration destroyed and then turned into a killing zone for American ambassadors. If you need something to jog your memory I highly recommend the critically acclaimed movie 13 hours. You can watch how Hillary and her state department abandoned their field officers, blamed it on a false narrative about a video and then lied to the grieving families and nation while secretly discussing the truth on soon to be hacked emails.

Yemen - I know. I know. This one is easy to confuse with Oman which is on our side but recent events should give you some hints. A Navy SEAL (William Ryan Owens) was killed there last week in a raid on AQAP. For some reason, PAonline does articles about privileged computer science majors rather than a true American hero like Ryan who gave his life for our country. This is also the place that consistently lobs surface to surface missiles at our ships and tries to blow them up with suicide boat bombs every week. The country is currently consumed as a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Somalia - The poster child for failed states. This country has been in a perpetual state of civil war for over 25 years. Known for chewing through humanitarian aid money faster than a warlord through a khat bush, shooting down helicopters with RPGs, and holding merchant ships for ransom, it can at least be credited for inspiring two Oscar nominated films (Captain Phillips and Black Hawk Down).

Sudan - Caught in a rotating cycle of famine, civil war and genocide, this country gives George Clooney something to do in between Oceans Eleven sequels. He's gonna run out of ideas for bad scripts long before Sudan runs out of strife. If there was ever a basket of deplorables (Scourges not people) then this would be it.

Iraq - Ahhh, the birthplace of ISIS. Camp Bucca is not the delicious Italian restaurant with family sized portions on Emerson St. (Buca di Beppo). It was the US detention camp where the Obama administration planted the ISIS flower garden that would become the JV team. By leaving prematurely, the Shias were able to murder the remaining moderate Sunnis and then ISIS blossomed to murder any remaining moderate Shias. The result, it has now essentially been annexed as a province of Iran. Kinda like Barron Park and Palo Alto.

Syria - One of the most murderous civil wars in centuries. Torture, indiscriminate civilian killing and chemical weapons. Unfortunately, many of the moderate allies that we funded with $500 million were captured and killed by ISIS thanks to tips from Edward Snowden and Wikileaks. Now it is just a competition of cruelty between ISIS and the Russian and Iranian backed dictator Assad for the Tyranny Trophy.

Iran - lastly we come to the world's greatest sponsor/exporter of terror and home country of our illustrious hero in the article. Flush with over $150 billion in ransom money from Obama and an unimpaired nuclear/ballistic missile program, they are going full throttle on their pledge to wipe Israel from the map and destroy the great Satan otherwise known as Palo Alto and the rest of the USA.

The only question is how to spend all the money. Another summer with thousands of Hezbollah rockets raining down on Israel? Some additional insurgencies in Bahrain and Afghanistan perhaps? How about more terrorist bombings in India and Saudi Arabia? Too many choices and not enough time bombs.

So the list of seven countries is comprised of failed states, known enemies and hotbeds of terror. They don't have the apparatus, infrastructure or good will to properly vet applicants.

For those of you who think the process review is unwarranted then I encourage you to go visit or at least research these bucolic destinations and make up your own mind. If you do, you might agree in the priorities and feel a little more sympathy for Ryan rather than for Ramin.


20 people like this
Posted by Scotty
a resident of Green Acres
on Feb 1, 2017 at 9:27 pm

Sorry Stanford. Safety First.


10 people like this
Posted by resident
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Feb 1, 2017 at 9:53 pm

The countries identified in the Ban for 90 days have very weak country resources. They have weak governments so few resources to manage their residents. As you all notice we have had major breakdowns in the computer systems all over the world so time needed to get all systems working more efficiently. It is not ideology, it is not prejudice, it is a number of logistical criteria that are not working well. That is why the DNC was hacked - things at just not working well.


7 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Feb 1, 2017 at 9:54 pm

"I highly recommend the critically acclaimed movie 13 hours ... it [Somalia] can at least be credited for inspiring two Oscar nominated films (Captain Phillips and Black Hawk Down) ... this country [Sudan] gives George Clooney something to do in between Oceans Eleven sequels."

Look, we can't get all worked up over every country somebody makes a movie about. We have much bigger problems, starting with a new president who puts his personal earning power ahead of Americans' safety. See my above post about Trump's curiously unproscribed countries where he has personal business interests.


"I support this temporary moratorium (with exemptions) until a better vetting system is created."

The current system apparently does a much, much better job of vetting immigrants from the Trump's List countries than terrorists born in the USA, like Timothy McVey, Adam Lanza, Dylan Roof, the San Bernadino shooter, the Pulse shooter, etc. How do you propose to vet and deport them before they strike?


1 person likes this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Feb 1, 2017 at 10:11 pm

[Portion removed.]


26 people like this
Posted by Sanctimonious City
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 1, 2017 at 11:12 pm

[Portion removed.]

The list of countries targeted in Trump's executive order were originally identified in 2015-2016 for the "Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act" passed under the Obama administration.

So the list could not be selected in order to benefit Trump because he was not yet President. The Exec Order just increased the level of travel restrictions from those countries not which ones were affected.

Sadly, the other points not recognized by your posts are that we are at war. In wars, by definition some of our sons and daughters will die. Mr. Owen was killed attacking an Al Queda headquarters in a far off land in the hope that it would prevent them from planning and executing additional attacks against us.

He was a father and winner of three previous Bronze Stars. He never got to go to Oxford. His summer study abroad program was defending our country and protecting your freedoms. [Portion removed.]

In the meantime, if anybody wants to know more about Ryan you can read more online.

Web Link


27 people like this
Posted by Best Country Ever
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Feb 2, 2017 at 12:46 am

The first obligation of the President is to protect Americans. We come first, not foreigners, visitors or refugees who also are intent on bringing not just themselves, but extended family here and then going on taxpayer welfare. America comes first, (except if you live in the PC Bay Area).


5 people like this
Posted by Stanford Grad
a resident of Barron Park
on Feb 2, 2017 at 12:51 am

[Post removed.]


3 people like this
Posted by And now what
a resident of Barron Park
on Feb 2, 2017 at 6:26 am

"I support this temporary moratorium (with exemptions) until a better vetting system is created."

Here is our current vetting system: Web Link

Please point out where it is failing.


7 people like this
Posted by 38 year resident
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Feb 2, 2017 at 10:08 am

38 year resident is a registered user.

[Post removed.]


5 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Feb 2, 2017 at 4:58 pm

Curmudgeon is a registered user.

"The list of countries targeted in Trump's executive order were originally identified in 2015-2016 ... So the list could not be selected in order to benefit Trump because he was not yet President."

Maybe you didn't notice: it was Trump who signed the EO being discussed. It has his name on it. Its content belongs to him. Him alone.

Trump--nobody else--kept the door open to the proven terrorist producing countries in his EO. He could have closed it. He didn't. To help his enterprises over there and here. Get on board with it.


1 person likes this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Feb 2, 2017 at 8:49 pm

Curmudgeon is a registered user.

"In wars, by definition some of our sons and daughters will die. Mr. Owen was killed attacking an Al Queda headquarters in a far off land... ."

I strongly disagree with your contention that casualties in war are necessary. This one is a case in point.

It seems the Trump gang were in a hurry to get in some shooting as early as possible, to build The Donald's image as a war president. Web Link . Of course, neither they nor any of their family members would get shot at.


8 people like this
Posted by Sanctimonious City
a resident of Barron Park
on Feb 3, 2017 at 1:12 am

Sanctimonious City is a registered user.

[Portion removed.]

Sadly, Mr. Owens was in a real war where people get hurt and killed. He gave his life serving our country and for that we owe him our gratitude and respect.

According to Curmudgeon's web link, the raid was planned under the Obama administration and was delayed due to weather until after the inauguration. Maybe if Obama had still been in charge, he would have chosen just to blast the site with drone strikes like he usually did. During his tenure he ordered over 500 drone strikes killing, I mean blowing bubbles at, about 2,500 people but he just couldn't get this one under the wire.

Unfortunately, using drones does not provide the ability to capture high value targets or minimize collateral damage. However, it does create about 90% of the casualties from unintended bystanders. For some reason, Hellfire missiles seem to be attracted to wedding parties like tornados to a trailer park. Still, a 10% success rate is not bad for a bunch of teenage joystick jockeys sitting in air conditioned trailers half a world away in Nevada.

The benefits of drones to Obama were they looked cool, made it seem like he was doing something and most importantly the dismal results were easily hidden from the public by a smug and disingenuous administration. Surprisingly, we didn't even need a Russian hacker or Wikileaks to find out about the program. It was just your run of the mill whistle blower.

Web Link


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Be the first to know

Get the latest headlines sent straight to your inbox every day.

Beer and brats: Ludwig's German Table coming to Mountain View
By Elena Kadvany | 5 comments | 3,333 views

Who Pays for Palo Alto Schools
By Steve Levy | 38 comments | 1,776 views

The Other Greenhouse Gas
By Sherry Listgarten | 8 comments | 1,731 views

Know Before You Buy: Understanding Senior Living Facility Agreements
By Max Greenberg | 0 comments | 880 views

Let’s blame car drivers, not the pedestrians wearing black clothes!!??
By Diana Diamond | 6 comments | 409 views

 

Short story writers wanted!

The 33rd Annual Palo Alto Weekly Short Story Contest is now accepting entries for Adult, Young Adult (15-17) and Teen (12-14) categories. Send us your short story (2,500 words or less) and entry form by March 29. First, Second and Third Place prizes awarded in each category.

Contest Details