Obama Admin Considers Resettling Thousands of Syrian Refugees in U.S.

Obama Admin Considers Resettling Thousands of Syrian Refugees in U.S.

They'll disappear into the night and we won't know who or where they are until the killings begin. Then it will be too late.

It should be noted that Congress resisted accepting Iraqi refugees in 2003 following the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Between 1983 and 2009, the U.S. resettled a total of 76,205 Iraqis. Meanwhile, seventy percent of total refugees in the U.S. were on food stamps in 2009. Within that number, 95 percent of Iraqi refugees were food stamp recipients. Additionally, the report shows an unemployment rate of 46 percent in 2009 among Iraqi refugees. A total of 219 Syrian refugees were resettled in the U.S. between 1983 and 2009.

LA Times:

Homeland security officials require careful vetting of refugees, with multiple interviews and background checks before they are allowed to enter the country. Under normal circumstances, the screening process can take a year or longer.

U.S. officials are likely to be extra careful with Syrian refugees. As Islamic militants take a more prominent role in the rebel forces, officials worry about fighters with Al Qaeda ties trying to enter the country. Two resettled Iraqis were convicted of trying to send arms to Al Qaeda from their home in Bowling Green, Ky.

If You Never Watch Another Video..Watch This

They will kill us all, or worse.

Part 2

Somali nationals released from Mexican prison and heading north.

Is Holder Ignorant, Stupid, or Something Else?

Holder balks at blaming 'radical Islam' for terror attempts

Despite crediting the Pakistani Taliban with fostering the recent failed car bombing in Times Square, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. was reluctant Thursday to say radical Islam was part of the cause of that and other recent attacks.

Mr. Holder, testifying to the House Judiciary Committee, repeatedly balked at a half-dozen questions from Rep. Lamar Smith, the ranking Republican on the committee, about whether "radical Islam" was behind the attempted car bombing, last year's so-called "underpants bomber" or the killings at Fort Hood in Texas.

"There are a variety of reasons why people do these things. Some of them are potentially religious," Mr. Holder told the committee Thursday, though he would not go further than saying people who hold radical views may have "had an ability to have an impact" on Faisal Shahzad, the man the Justice Department says tried to detonate a car bomb in Times Square.

Holder hasn't read Arizona law he criticized

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who has been critical of Arizona's new immigration law, said Thursday he hasn't yet read the law and is going by what he's read in newspapers or seen on television.

Mr. Holder is conducting a review of the law, at President Obama's request, to see if the federal government should challenge it in court. He said he expects he will read the law by the time his staff briefs him on their conclusions.

"I've just expressed concerns on the basis of what I've heard about the law. But I'm not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people are doing the review, exactly what my position is," Mr. Holder told the House Judiciary Committee.

This weekend Mr. Holder told NBC's "Meet the Press" program that the Arizona law "has the possibility of leading to racial profiling." He had earlier called the law's passage "unfortunate," and questioned whether the law was unconstitutional because it tried to assume powers that may be reserved for the federal government.

Rep. Ted Poe, who had questioned Mr. Holder about the law, wondered how he could have those opinions if he hadn't yet read the legislation.

Thats what a lot of us would like to know.

DCExaminer Morrning Email

Byron York - Dems dread Supreme Court fight after elections
Anyone who is 90 years old doesn't need an explanation for retiring. But even though Obama will be in office for three more years, there is one particularly pressing reason Democrats would like to see Stevens go now rather than later. That reason is coming up this November.

Susan Ferrechio - Democrats consider big gamble on global warming plan
On the heels of their improbable passage of a massive health care bill, Democrats are weighing an ambitious global warming bill that few lawmakers were even willing to consider just months ago.
"After seeing health care reform pass, it seems to me they can pass any bill they want if they set their minds to it," said Marc Morano, a global warming skeptic and former top aide to Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.,

Sara Carter - Somalis with terrorist links feared headed to U.S. border
Somalis with ties to a terrorist organization are believed to be plotting to illegally enter the United States after being mistakenly released from custody in Mexico, a confidential federal law enforcement report said.
The report, obtained by the Washington Examiner, said that 23 Somalis who entered Mexico illegally earlier in the year were caught there, then released in late January.
Only 16 of the 23 people were identified by both Mexican and U.S. law enforcement officials, while the "other 7 are unknown," the report says.

Michael Barone - Tea partiers outpoll Obama
Democrats’ efforts to tar the tea partiers as crackpots and racists don’t seem to be paying off. Pollster Scott Rasmussen reports that 48% of voters say that tea partiers’ views on major issues are closer than those of Barack Obama to their own views, while 44% say Obama’s views are closer to theirs. Among independents, tea partiers’ views are preferred to Obama’s by a 50%-38% margin. The margin for tea partiers is even larger when voters are asked whether their views are closer to those of tea partiers or of average union members. The score: 45% tea partiers, 35% union members.

Pirates In Virginia?

Who Is Smuggling Somali Aliens Into the U.S. – And Why?
Michael Cutler

I was recently sent an alarming article entitled “Va. man accused of helping smuggle Somalis into U.S.” It details how a 35-year-old man, Anthony Joseph Tracy, facilitated the illegal entry of some 270 aliens who are citizens of Somalia. Somalia is a country that has become associated with terrorist activities, including piracy on the high seas. In the jargon of our government, Somalia is a country of "Special Interest" because of its established relationship with terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda and Al-Shabaab.

According to the report, some of the 270 Somali nationals who were aided in entering our country by Mr. Tracy have fanned out across our nation and are now believed to be hiding in plain sight in a variety of states including New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, Minnesota and Arizona.

Our nation's very survival is being threatened by transnational criminal organizations and international terrorist groups. In order to attack our nation, the terrorists need to be able to enter our country and then embed themselves in communities around the United States while they wait their call to action.

More after the jump

SEAL 3 Update

5 POTENTIAL WITNESSES COULD SUPPORT SEALS ACCUSED OF ABUSE
By Kate Wiltrout The Virginian-Pilot NORFOLK

Five sailors could offer testimony contradicting the government’s main witness in the controversial prosecution of three Navy SEALs accused of mistreating a suspected Iraqi terrorist. But whether they’ll take the stand is in question after the government denied their requests for immunity on Friday.

Attorney Charles Gittins represents the five potential witnesses, including two officers who led the SEAL detachment that captured Ahmed Hashim Abed in Fallujah in September. Abed is the alleged mastermind of the murders of four Blackwater contractors in Fallujah in 2004.

Gittins said his clients’ testimony would be inconsistent with some or all of the statements made by Petty Officer 3rd Class Kevin Demartino, the Navy master-at-arms who claimed to have seen a SEAL hit Abed while he was being held in a U.S. detainee facility after his capture.

“If your intent is to have a fair trial, they are witnesses you’d want to hear from,” Gittins said.

Monica Lombardi, who is defending one of the accused SEALs, said the government’s decision not to grant immunity to key defense witnesses raises questions about the “fundamental fairness” of the process. “They contradict a lot of what the government is alleging as having happened,” Lombardi said. “Where is the government going with this case, and how are they going to ensure the accused’s right to a fair trial?”

The prosecutions of Matthew McCabe, Jonathan Keefe and Julio Huertas, all assigned to SEAL Team 10 in Virginia Beach, have drawn widespread criticism, political heat and demonstrations outside the Norfolk base.

The cases are being handled locally, but the decision to press charges was made by Maj. Gen. C.T. Cleveland, head of Special Operations Command Central. Cleveland did so after the SEALs declined administrative punishment, which could have compromised their careers in special warfare.

McCabe, a petty officer second class, is charged with assault, making a false statement and dereliction of duty. Lombardi’s client, Petty Officer 1st Class Huertas, is charged with impeding an investigation, making a false statement and dereliction of duty, while Petty Officer 2nd Class Keefe faces charges of dereliction of duty and making a false statement.

Lombardi said she will consider asking the military judge overseeing Huertas’ case to “abate” the proceeding, a ruling that could force the government to either grant immunity or drop the charges.

The next hearing in the case is scheduled for March 8 in Norfolk.

Eugene Fidell, a lawyer and president of the National Institute of Military Justice, said abatements are rare. “Although it can be done, it’s a tall order,” Fidell said.

My only question/concern is why defense witnesses, who would contradict prosecution witnesses statements, would need immunity. Are they afraid of retribution for telling the truth? If so, why?

Representative Sue Myrick NC-09

I really do like this lady's attitude.

PROFILE: Middle Eastern Male 18-45, One-way Ticket

Screening must include religion, ethnicity
Steven Emerson - Jan 05, 2010
InvestigativeProject.org

In the wake of the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound flight on Christmas Day, security experts, political commentators and the media have been asking one question: How can the United States prevent terrorists from smuggling homemade bombs through security?

The most frequent answer has been full body scanners, a developing technology used in a handful of airports around the world. Although these scanners may be effective, they are at best the right answer to the wrong question.

The question that law enforcement and security professionals must ask is how to prevent the terrorists themselves from getting on the airplane. Once we focus our attention on individual terrorists rather than their potential weapons, one fact is immediately clear: We must completely change the way we go about airport security and counterterrorism in general.

The procedures are both inadequate and ineffective. The current random searches do only a minimum to improve security. Nothing is more unproductive than searching an 80-year-old woman in a wheelchair from Sweden or a 3-year-old child simply because she or he was the 10th person in line. Quite simply, the system has failed and must be revamped.

Recognizing existing deficiencies, on Monday the Transportation Safety Administration announced it has taken the first step toward implementing a revised screening process for airline passengers. TSA will mandate that "every individual flying into the U.S. from anywhere in the world traveling from or through nations that are state sponsors of terrorism or other countries of interest will be required to go through enhanced screening."

This is a step in the right direction. But more should be done.

More after the jump.

Possible terrorist "dry run"

Sean Linnane aka Stormbringer has a round up of various descriptions of a possible dry run of a hi-jacking on Air Tran Flight 297. Or it could be a bunch of Muslims trying to get a lawsuit going....


StormBringer

Here are the links to the story:

Testing.....testing

FAA to investigate cell phone use.......

PDF on incident by the Houston Commander of the Houston Regional Chaplain Corps

If the Government Won't Do Its Job

"When policemen break the law, there is no law"

U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News.

According to the officials, the Army was informed of Hasan's contact, but it is unclear what, if anything, the Army did in response.

Allow me to clear that up---- NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said that he requested the CIA and other intelligence agencies brief the committee on what was known, if anything, about Hasan by the U.S. intelligence community, only to be refused.

In response, Hoekstra issued a document preservation request to four intelligence agencies. The letter, dated November 7th, was sent to directors Dennis Blair (DNI), Robert Mueller (FBI), Lt. Gen Keith Alexander (NSA) and Leon Panetta (CIA).

Robert Spencer in Front Page Magazine

Jihad at Fort Hood
Robert Spencer - Nov 06, 2009 FrontPage

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army psychiatrist, murdered [fourteen] people and wounded twenty-one inside Fort Hood in Texas [Thursday], while, according to eyewitnesses, "shouting something in Arabic while he was shooting."

Investigators are scratching their heads and expressing puzzlement about why he did it.

According to NPR [1], "the motive behind the shootings was not immediately clear, officials said." The Washington Post [2] agreed: "The motive remains unclear, although some sources reported the suspect is opposed to U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq and upset about an imminent deployment."

The Huffington Post spun faster, asserting that "there is no concrete reporting as to whether Nidal Malik Hasan was in fact a Muslim or an Arab."

Yet there was, and what's more, Major Hasan's motive was perfectly clear - but it was one that the forces of political correctness and the Islamic advocacy groups in the United States have been working for years to obscure. So it is that now that another major jihad terror attack has taken place on American soil, authorities and the mainstream media are at a loss to explain why it happened - and the abundant evidence that it was a jihad attack is ignored.

Ralph Peters-What Cowards They Are

From a Blue Star Mom:

I am disgusted by the Army's gutless chain of command and I suggest to you that the terrorist attack at Ft. hood could have been prevented had the chain of command done something about Hasan and his erratic behavior.

12 Brave Soldiers are dead because the Army stood by and allowed this fanatic to carry on. We all know why the Army did nothing, it is because of the dangerous and reckless "politcal correctness" nonsense that permeates our society. I suggest to you that the terrorists are dancing in the streets over what Hasan has done and if you think for one minute this has not emboldened other fanatics in this country, you are kidding yourselves.

And yes, I include the current boy sitting in the White House in the list of cowards, along with most of the current members of the House and Senate.

Everyone of you is as complicit in the deaths of these 14 Americans as the gunman. You are as guilty as if you had pulled the trigger.

There were people debating this all weekend. They say it isn't terrorism, because there was no "political motivation" for the killings. I call Bravo Sierra. An act of terrorism is not defined by motivation, it is defined by the act itself. This act was designed to terrorize the men and women at Ft Hood. Therefore, it is TERRORISM, committed by a practitioner of the Muslim faith, and therefore it is Islamist Terrorism.

Had this mooozie been a Christian or a Jew, he would not have committed this act.

The Bible and The Torah do not command their followers to kill non-believers.

Fort Hood's 9/11
Ralph Peters

On Thursday afternoon, a radicalized Muslim US Army officer shouting "Allahu Akbar!" committed the worst act of terror on American soil since 9/11.
And no one wants to call it an act of terror or associate it with Islam.

What cowards we are. Political correctness killed those patriotic Americans at Ft. Hood as surely as the Islamist gunman did. And the media treat it like a case of non-denominational shoplifting.

This was a terrorist act. When an extremist plans and executes a murderous plot against our unarmed soldiers to protest our efforts to counter Islamist fanatics, it’s an act of terror. Period.

When the terrorist posts anti-American hate-speech on the Web; apparently praises suicide bombers and uses his own name; loudly criticizes US policies; argues (as a psychiatrist, no less) with his military patients over the worth of their sacrifices; refuses, in the name of Islam, to be photographed with female colleagues; lists his nationality as "Palestinian" in a Muslim spouse-matching program, and parades around central Texas in a fundamentalist playsuit — well, it only seems fair to call this terrorist an "Islamist terrorist."

But the president won’t. Despite his promise to get to all the facts. Because there’s no such thing as "Islamist terrorism" in ObamaWorld.

Fry Him-Lethal Injection Is Too Humane

As someone who has buried family members who were victims of violence, (Google James Baxter Wiseman) and then had the satisfaction of knowing that the perpetrator will never ever do it again, I am fully and completely in favor of strapping the DC Sniper into Ole Sparky and pulling the lever.

There Were 14 Lives Taken At Ft Hood

The news reports keep saying 13 people were killed by the asshat moozie jihadi turncoat. They are wrong.

There were 14 lives taken by this worthless piece of excrement in search of its 72 goats in whatever passes for paradise in their twisted little minds.

One of the Warriors who died was pregnant. Two months pregnant.

So this lying piece of scum took a truly innocent life when it decided to load two weapons, pack extra clips, and walk into a building full of unarmed people and start shooting. Some of those killed were shot in the back, BTW.

There is a room in Hell reserved for monsters such as this. There is no room service, no bellhops, no phone, no pool. And if there is justice, there are no windows or doors, once its inside. Just the screams of the souls this terrorist sent to Heaven.

The Ambassador on the Front Lines

H/T Blackfive

We often, and justly, celebrate the US military and its members. We occasionally (and justly) express astonishment at the US State Department. Yet it is very much worth remembering that some of their members have led remarkable careers of service and contributed much to the American nation.
Among the greatest of these is Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who was General Petraeus' comerade in leading the strategy that saved Iraq from the fire. That was not the only thing of interest he has done, though, from hitch-hiking across Afghanistan, to being present at the Beruit bombing, to being our man in Kabul following the invasion and re-opening the US Embassy. His wife sets a standard for State Department wives as proud as that of a military wife, having remained by his side in theater even after their home was rocketed.
All of this, and more, is recounted in his retrospective on the years since 9/11. It's worth reading through. Some of it you may agree with, some not, but he has more than earned the right to be heard.

The Ambassador on the Front Lines

The 8 a.m. US Airways shuttle from Washington to New York City took off pretty much on time. The mid-September sky was clear, the air still, and most of the flight was perfectly uneventful. My State Department colleague David Pearce and I read the papers and looked over our notes as the plane began its descent toward LaGuardia.
"Look!" somebody said, and a rumble of alarmed voices spread through the cabin. One of the towers of the World Trade Center was on fire, and smoke churned over the upper stories like a thunderhead over lower Manhattan. We craned our necks to see through one window, then another as our plane banked and made its approach to the runway. Then, just as we landed, we saw in the distant skyline the second tower erupt in flames. Cell phones rang out, and random, frightened voices tried to make sense of what was happening.
For a diplomat, I have seen a lot of violence in my career. I survived the 1983 U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut that was, until that day in September 2001, among the most infamous attacks on Americans in the history of terrorism. David is as experienced in the Middle East as anyone we have at State. But you didn't need our expertise to know, when that plane hit the second tower, that this was the work of terrorists.

Gitmo Could Be Coming To A Town Near You

The residents of Standish, Mich. are facing a serious problem and it could potentially be a problem for the residents of this Commonwealth.

I've heard the arguements from some of the supporters of this, and I wonder how the short term benefits they claim they will receive will be viewed in the harsh reality of a terrorist attack if the terrorists are housed in the prison.

In Standish, Mich., site of a nearly vacant prison, residents are beginning to realize that the Obama Administration is serious about bringing terrorists to the United States, where they will quickly achieve the rights that should be reserved ONLY for Americans and those legally here.

Jennifer Granholm, the governor of Michigan, fears for her political life. She has been desperately seeking an alternative to the Obama plan, such as California or Pennsylvania sending prisoners to the Standish correctional facility. With recent news that California can’t afford to pay the costs of housing their inmates in Michigan, the governor is running out of ideas.

Fortunately, residents of Standish are starting to recognize that it isn’t worth the risk of bringing more than 230 of the most dangerous Islamic radicals in the world to a small town that could be potentially vulnerable. Not only will these Islamic extremists try to recruit from within the prison population, think of the undesirable elements that will come to town to be close to these murderous cut-throats.

Obama is trying to shove Gitmo on America without listening to the opposition from the American people, just like he did with the bailouts, the take-over of the auto industry, the trillion dollars of wasteful spending and now his health insurance bill that would lead to a complete federalization of medicine.

Too fast, no accountability, no communication with stakeholders, like the American people who might be under attack, and no consideration of the danger posed by these detainees. We can choose to put our own national security at risk, or we can continue to hold the terrorists at Gitmo, where an ideal facility has been built that abides by all international laws and is tailor-made for the purpose of housing these evil terrorists. The choice seems obvious: If it’s not BROKEN, don’t try to FIX IT!

The only reason Obama has for doing this is to appease his fringe left-wing constituency, which would like to see the terrorists go free, and to reassure weak-kneed European governments that America would rather be an appeaser than a strong leader.

A Travesty of Justice

United Conservatives of Virginia respectfully requests that the members of the VA Congressional delegation immediately begin steps to reverse this travesty of justice. Its time to stop punishing our Warriors for doing the job we asked them to do.

In May 2008, a known member of an al Qaeda cell, Ali Mansur, was suspected of having organized an attack on the young Army Ranger’s platoon, which killed two U.S. soldiers and injured two more under Lt. Behenna’s command. For some unfathomable reason, Army intelligence ordered that Mansur be released and ordered Lt. Behenna, who was then 24, to escort the terrorist to his home.

On the way, Behenna questioned Mansur in an effort to learn additional information about other members of the terrorist cell, as well as who was financing it. During the interrogation, Mansur attacked Lt. Behenna, who killed the terrorist in self-defense.
But instead of expressing relief that one of their own had survived the attack, the government cast Mansur as the “victim” and prosecuted Lt. Behenna for premeditated murder! The following timeline was taken, in part, from the website that has been established in support of Lt. Behenna – Defendmichael.com – and confirmed by his mother, Vicki.

Read the rest here

We Need Someone Else

Family Security Matters
Part 1 of 2

No one should doubt that one of the most important Cabinet posts is that of Secretary of Homeland Security. Terrorism is one of the defining issues of the 21st century. The U.S. faces a daunting array of threats to our domestic security. The occupant of that post must be up to the job. The stakes are too high. While Secretary of Commerce, Education, Agriculture and other Cabinet posts have merit, few Americans can name the posts – let alone their Secretaries. But nearly everyone who is at least occasionally paying attention to the real world can name the Secretary of Homeland Security.

And to prove her gravitas, last week Secretary Napolitano allowed a DHS report to paint veterans as possible converts from war heroes to terrorists. Not an inspiring performance.

Threats to the US: 2009
Let’s take inventory of the Homeland Security threats facing the United States: Numerous inadequately secured sources of hazardous materials (think weapons of convenience); a growing fifth column of radical Islamists in our midst developing paramilitary training camps containing increasingly powerful weapons including in all likelihood advanced armor piercing high caliber arms, our own home grown crazies (think Timothy McVeigh); ~11 million illegal aliens, some of which are violent criminals, members of gangs, drug cartels or engaged in the ‘human pipeline (jihadists and others), human trafficking, domestic gangs and drug cartels going international and teaming up with global criminal or terrorist groups.

From a health preparedness perspective, DHS has yet to provide the true leadership to connect all the preparedness regimes, NIMS notwithstanding. Overcrowded health care facilities incapable of dealing with a widespread epidemic, overburdened and undertrained public health departments are mostly unprepared how to spend DHS funds and clearly unfamiliar with security – in spite of being an ersatz performance culture of preparedness.

Then there’s the persistent vulnerability based upon government reports…our porous borders to the North and South, a Mexico problem that threatens the security of several US states.

Let’s not forget the political officials on the take or not paying their taxes. While we’re at it, we continue to face, even eight years post-9/11, inadequate safeguards on technology transfers, biological labs, cyber terrorism, protections against tainted imported products (intentional and accidental), inadequate screening of shipping, poorly protected railways carrying highly toxic chemicals, readily available radioactive materials, inconsistent security oversight of BSL 3 and BSL 4 labs (hold the most dangerous pathogens known) nationwide and the list goes on and on and on. The public remains woefully disengaged from the preparedness process as suggested by numerous security experts, the World At Risk Report Commission, and studies demonstrate first responder agencies – medical and law enforcement are inadequately prepared for asymmetric warfare using unconventional weapons.

Oh and let’s not forget those über dangerous folks – our veterans. Yes, the “go to” people our nation depended upon to protect the Republic have now been labeled potential targets as vulnerable to extremist recruitment and possibly a risk factor for extreme violence. Painting all veterans with the same brush is an indefensible and abominable treatment of people who served their country. Yet the veterans are described as dupes of right wing influence in a DHS report. Veterans as a group deserve better treatment and respect, and do not warrant being singled out as a threat to domestic security. The U.S. government’s track record on caring for returning veterans is in need of further scrutiny, NOT the folks who wore the uniform.

And the “go to” person President Obama tapped to handle these problems is none other than Janet Napolitano. You could almost hear the terrorists cheering and the career intelligence professionals groaning from day one. Is there anyone tracking morale or retirements at the key agencies under the DHS umbrella? Bringing disparately functioning performance cultures together – intelligence, law enforcement, disaster response – has its merits, but when the proverbial you-know-what hits the fan, that is not the time to exchange business cards. And clearly, the silo mentality within organizations historically has been a barrier to effective collaboration, especially when you add the layers of security classifications and the complexities of “courtesy clearances.” But putting these agencies under one roof isn’t the instant cure for these ills, proximity to teams notwithstanding. No one should doubt the dedication of the respective agencies in DHS or disrespect their noble efforts for a good cause, but DHS is still being pulled by multiple strings in different directions; net result…where is it going? And who ultimately is leading it?

Is Janet Napolitano up to the job? And if not, what can we do about it? There are many ways to examine the effectiveness of public policies and the people hired to create, enforce or repair them. Since the proof is in the tasting, ones record, resume or list of actions is evidence enough.

Let’s take a look at Secretary Napolitano’s first public efforts.
Secretary Napolitano gave us a great insight from day one into what she was all about. In fact, no sooner had her words faded from her initial roll out she was then called out to explain why the expurgation of terms such as “terrorist,”, “terrorism,” and “the war on terror” from the lexicon of preparedness and DHS after her first speech to Congress.

Napolitano replied to the criticism: “In my speech, although I did not use the word ‘terrorism,’ I referred to ‘man-caused disasters.’ That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.”

When I first heard the term “man-caused disasters” my first thought was the South Park episode where they spoof form VP Al Gore and his global warming hysteria, replacing it on the show with manic concerns over a dangerous creature – he was trying to warn the kids about “man-bear-pig.” (Check it out on YouTube…it is hysterically funny). Then I thought the biggest “man-caused disaster” was the election of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the total control of the White House and Congress by folks who don’t seem to grasp the reality of good versus evil. It may soundssquare and trite but both exist. The latter cannot be wished away or destroyed as easily as erasing words in a policy book.

“Man caused disasters.” Let’s be frank. How does sounding like an idiot enhance Secretary Napolitano’s capability “to prepare for all risks?” Buying into this, let alone being a mouthpiece for such nonsense, is beneath this intelligent woman. She is not an idiot. She should not be placed in or agree to a position where she has to sound like one. Actions always speak louder than words. Weak words betoken weak actions.

But let’s drink the Kool Aid® for a moment. If a change in definition could enhance capability, adopt the slightly more meaningful terms the Brits use: “Disruptive Threats” or “Disruptive Challenges” – even though those are inadequate to the task as well. Though not as comical as “man-caused disasters” or “man-bear-pig” they, too fail to underscore the intent, the context, the evil associated with the event. Terrorism is just that – an act – a willing, deliberate, planned, and executed act of murder and destruction. “Man-caused disasters” or “all risks” do a disservice to the special and specific category of threat we face – terrorism, the intentional use of violence directed consciously by people towards other specific human and physical targets for the sole purpose of killing and frightening and destroying to accomplish an agenda.

Now What?

Not satisfied with with freeing enemy combatatants or moving them to the US, now he wants to fund the importation of terrorists from Hamas.

$20.3 Million to aid refugees Obama opening floodgates by inviting Hamas to “migrate” to the U.S.A.?
By Judi McLeod & Michael Travis
Thursday, February 5, 2009

On his first official day in the White House, President Barack Obama was on the horn to President Mahmoud Abbas. “The spokesman for President Abbas revealed that Mr. Obama had told the Palestinian leader that their conversation was his first with a foreign statesman since taking office.” (TimesOnLine, Jan. 22, 2009). Some thought that first call to the leader of the Palestinian authority was for spite. Others for statesman like reasons, still others for appeasement.

Given that a clip from Al-Jazeera televised Hamas-controlled Palestinians “burning up the phone bank from Gaza” to rally support for his presidential campaign, perhaps the telephone call was made out of gratitude.

Seven days later on January 27, President Obama signed Presidential Determination No. 2009-15, which allocates $20.3 million for Palestinian migration and refugee assistance. [Today] a memo sent by President Obama to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seems to invite Hamas to “migrate” into the United States of America.

The presidential determination covers the “Unexpected Urgent Refugee and Migration Needs Related to Gaza.”
“By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 2(c)(1) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 (the “Act”), as amended (22 U.S.C. 2601), I hereby determine, pursuant to section 2 (c) (1) of the Act, that it is important to the national interest to furnish assistance under the Act in an amount not to exceed $20.3 million from the United States Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund for the purpose of meeting unexpected and urgent refugee and migration needs, including by contributions to international, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations and payment of administrative expenses of Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration of the Department of State, related to humanitarian needs of Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza."

“You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register,” President Obama instructs the new Secretary of State.Read more here

Catch and Release Won't Work for Terrorists

The Laws Of War Have Served Us Well
Our armed forces shouldn't have to play catch and release.
By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey

This week, President Barack Obama signed an executive order to close the terrorist detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay within the year. It was a symbolic repudiation of the Bush administration's policies, but Gitmo is not the crucial issue. The real question is whether Mr. Obama will uphold the legal architecture necessary to continue the war against al Qaeda and its jihadist allies.

What Mr. Obama's national security team will quickly discover is that the civilian criminal-justice system is an inadequate tool to deal with terrorists. President Bush's policies -- particularly treating captured terrorists as unlawful enemy combatants and employing a military court system to try them -- were dictated by the very real need to defend American citizens, not by disdain for the rule of law.

The Bush administration chose the law-of-war paradigm because the international law of armed conflict gives the U.S. maximum flexibility to meet the jihadist threat, including the right to attack and destroy al Qaeda bases and fighters in foreign countries. The alternative legal framework, the civilian criminal-justice system, is unsuitable for several key reasons. Civilian criminal suspects quite obviously cannot be targeted for military attack. They can be subjected only to the minimum force necessary to effect an arrest. They cannot -- consistent with international law -- be pursued across national boundaries. And finally, they are entitled to a speedy trial in a public courtroom. These rules cannot be ignored or altered without constitutional amendment.

In addition, the type and quality of evidence necessary for convictions in civilian courts is simply unavailable for most captured terrorists. One federal district judge recently concluded that although the government's information on one detainee was sufficient for intelligence purposes -- that is, he presumably could have been targeted for deadly attack -- it was insufficient to hold him without trial.

Trying senior al Qaeda leaders for relatively minor offenses ancillary to their major war crimes (like Al Capone for tax evasion) also is not the answer. Even if convictions and punishments could be obtained in this way, the cause of justice and historic closure requires the perpetrators to be charged with their worst offenses. This view informed the Nuremberg prosecutions.

Many have advocated for the creation of a U.S.-based national security court. Such a court would certainly be subject to constitutional challenge, and likely could not handle the sheer number of detained enemy combatants. A few hundred detainees at Guantanamo is one thing, but U.S. forces have captured and processed thousands of prisoners in the war on terror, and still hold upward of a thousand al Qaeda fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan, with many more to come in the years ahead.

Some changes to the Bush policies are obviously inevitable. But what Mr. Obama must keep in mind is that the laws of war form a relatively seamless web. Different elements -- military detention and prosecution, and robust rules of engagement driven by combat necessities -- reinforce each other. So while he may grant detainees additional due process rights (the courts have already established a right to habeas corpus proceedings for those at Guantanamo), he must continue a system of
military detention for most of the captured fighters.

That's because the law of war requires that enemies be "granted quarter" -- meaning prisoners must be taken if they surrender. But if these prisoners cannot be held until hostilities are concluded and must be released only to fight again, the military would be consigned to a deadly game of catch and release. Without a viable detention regime, the U.S. cannot fairly ask its soldiers to risk their lives in combat any more than we can send in troops with defective equipment.

Since routinely prosecuting captured terrorists in the civilian courts is unrealistic, some sort of military court system for the detainees must be retained, regardless of whether they are called military commissions or special courts martial. This renvigorated military court system must be directed to begin prosecuting those captured enemy fighters that have committed war crimes against American troops or civilians. The fact that none of the individuals now held in U.S. custody in Iraq or Afghanistan has been brought to justice, even in situations where there is sufficient evidence to prosecute them, is historically unprecedented and a slap in the face of the U.S. troops fighting this war. Giving de facto immunity to war criminals is also inconsistent with international legal norms.

Republicans like Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), who have criticized some Bush policies, must make their voices heard here.
This system of detention and military trials must also apply here at home. We cannot limit the military legal paradigm to overseas operations. Al Qaeda has already successfully targeted American territory, and may do so again. Foreign fighters entering the U.S. to carry out attacks should not have rights superior to those on distant, more conventional battlefields. Not only does this double standard create exactly the wrong incentives for our enemies, but it is legally unsustainable. The Supreme Court has indicated a willingness to extend constitutional protections to detainees held where the United States exercises a sufficient level of control, and this ruling can easily be extended beyond Gitmo.

Finally, the new administration cannot behave as if the military justice system for detainees is shameful, like some crazy uncle in the attic. These are legitimate laws of war and should be treated as such.

Mr. Bush's opponents have denigrated this system for nearly eight years. Many of them have now assumed power, and with power comes responsibility -- especially when it comes to protecting Americans from their enemies.

Messrs. Rivkin and Casey are Washington, D.C., lawyers who served in the Justice Department under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.