Ilhan Omar Voted In Favor Of Allowing Payments To Families Of Terrorists In The Form Of Life Insurance Beneficiaries According To Report

Ilhan Omar Voted In Favor Of Allowing Payments To Families Of Terrorists In The Form Of Life Insurance Beneficiaries According To Report

    It seems that Omar, very similar to self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist/freshman congresswoman from ny Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has been unable to stay her mouth shut, causing some big problems for the Democratic Party as an entire. 
    Chicksonright.com explains that “the Democrats created a debacle for themselves with the failure to either specifically condemn her or to be ready to make a stand-alone resolution simply condemning anti-Semitism.”


    Omar has voiced her controversial positions within the past. 
    “In 2017, the Minnesota legislature was considering a bill, H. F. No. 1397, to permit insurance companies to deny payouts to beneficiaries if the insured’s death was ‘directly or indirectly as a result of the insured’s furtherance of terrorism,’” reports Chicksonright.com. 
    The bill was in response to the 2015 San Bernardino shooting. Syed Rizwan Farook, a California man who, together with his wife Tashfeen Malik, shot and killed 14 people, had previously taken out two life assurance policies worth a combined total of $275,000. After Farook was killed during a shootout with enforcement, his mother was to be the first beneficiary of the policies.

    However, the federal filed a lawsuit to seize the cash, saying it planned to disperse the funds among the surviving victims and therefore the families of these killed within the attack.
    “Terrorists must not be permitted to supply for his or her designated beneficiaries through their crimes,” said then- U.S. Attorney Eileen M. Decker during a statement.“My office intends to explore every legal option available to us to make sure these funds are made available to the victims of this horrific crime. we'll still use every tool available to hunt justice on behalf of the victims.”
    Representative John Lesch and Representative Ilhan Omar voted against the Minnesota bill, but it still managed to pass. (At the time, Omar was a neighborhood of the Minnesota legislature.)
    Lesch stated that he wasn't against the meaning behind the bill, however, he explained that he had some concern because the choice was “by the insurance companies that it'd give the businesses an excessive amount of discretion over what constituted terrorism so as to deny benefits,” consistent with Chicksonright.com.

    Representative Omar has not explained why she voted the way she chose to, and she or he has not yet skilled the Daily Caller News Foundation request for comment.
    And then there was a letter she wrote to guage Michael Davis in 2016 requesting that the judge show leniency for young ISIS recruits: 
    Omar has been criticized by some on the political right for a letter she sent a judge back in 2016 posing for leniency to be shown to nine Minnesota men charged with getting to join ISIS. “The best deterrent to fanaticism may be a system of compassion,” reads one portion of the letter. “We must alter our attitude and approach; if we truly want to affect change, we should always refocus our efforts on inclusion and rehabilitation.”
    As you are undoubtedly deliberate with great caution the sentencing of nine recently convicted Somali-American men, I bring back your attention to the ramifications of sentencing young men who made a consequential mistake to decades in federal prison. Incarcerating 20-year-old men for 30 or 40 years is actually a life. Society will haven't any expectations of them to be 50 or 60-year-old released prisoners; it'll view them with distrust and revulsion. Such punitive measures not only lack efficacy, they inevitably create an environment during which extremism can flourish, aligning with the presupposition of terrorist recruitment: “Americans don't accept you and still trivialize your value. rather than being a nobody, be a martyr.”

    The best deterrent to fanaticism may be a system of compassion. We must alter our attitude and approach; if we truly want to affect change, we should always refocus our efforts on inclusion and rehabilitation. A long-term prison sentence for one who chose violence to combat direct marginalization may be a statement that our justice system misunderstands the guilty. A restorative approach to justice assesses the lure of criminality and addresses it.

    The desire to commit violence isn't inherent to people — it's the results of systematic alienation; people seek violent solutions when the method established for enacting change is inaccessible to them. Fueled by disaffection turned to malice if the guilty were willing to kill and be killed fighting perceived injustice, imagine the consequence of the hearing, “I believe you'll be rehabilitated. I would like you to become a part of my community, and together we'll thrive.” We use this type of distributive justice for patients with chemical dependencies; treatment and societal reintegration. the foremost effective penance is making these men ambassadors of reform.

    The restorative approach provides a long-term solution – through the self-declared Islamic State may soon suffer defeat, their radical approach to change-making will continue because it has throughout history – by criminalizing the undergirding construct instead of its predisposed victims. Therein, this ruling can set a precedent and has the potential to be a landmark case in addressing extremism.
    Thank you for your careful attention.
    Minneapolis, a city within Omar’s district, has witnessed a number of its young male residents join, or plan to join, terror groups like ISIS and Somalia-based al-Shabab, consistent with one Fox news article. 

    Post a Comment