Terrorism

Brussels Attacks Prove PC Police Will Not Defeat Islamic Terrorism

The sun had not yet begun to creep up over the horizon on Tuesday morning when my alarm clock went off, and I was awakened to the somber voice of a news reporter describing the scenes of carnage in Belgium after a series of Islamic terrorist attacks rocked the city of Brussels just a hours earlier as Belgians were on their way to work.

Initial reports indicate that passengers at the Brussels international airport heard gunfire around 8AM local time, followed almost immediately by an explosion at a passenger check-in desk. Moments later, as passengers panicked and fled the area, a second explosion hit inside the terminal. Within minutes rescue operations had begun. Just over an hour later, at 9:10AM local time, a third explosion hit a train at the Maelbeek Metro subway station, near the European Union headquarters. At least one of the explosions has been determined to be the result of a suicide bomber.

Obama Welcomes Terrorists, Shuns Allies

If we have learned nothing else from the Obama years, it is that Obama cannot be trusted. In his first days in office he insulted one of our strongest allies, England, when he returned a bust of former Prime Minister Winston Churchill (and in the first attempted assassination by boredom, Obama later sent to Queen Elizabeth an iPod containing a collection of his speeches). This was followed by truly dangerous actions, which put our allies in harm’s way, as with his decision to renege on our commitment to Poland and the Czech Republic to build a missile shield in Eastern Europe as a firewall against Russian aggression. Obama instead sent Hillary to Russia with a “reset” button for Putin, and we all know how disastrously that turned out.

Yet none have felt the consequences of Obama’s betrayal as harshly as have our allies whom he abandoned in Iraq and Afghanistan after making the decision to unilaterally withdraw U.S. forces against the recommendations of his senior theater commanders and top military advisers. Claiming he was leaving behind a “stable, sovereign, and self-reliant Iraq”, Obama left them to fend for themselves. In the vacuum created by the exit of American forces, we have witnessed the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, as well as the rise of the most brutal, murderous Islamist terror regime we’ve seen to date, ISIS.

PC Security Policies Welcoming In Jihadists

Last night’s GOP debate focused on foreign policy and national security. It’s a good thing, too, because the stratospheric levels of unbridled incompetence and militant political correctness that is the hallmark of the Obama administration should terrify each and every American. Even in the aftermath of the ISIS-inspired attack in San Bernardino, which left 14 dead and 21 wounded, the Obama administration is doubling down on its PC policies, and in the process putting the lives of each and every American at increased risk.

With multiple investigations underway into Islamist terrorists Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik following the San Bernardino attack, reports are revealing that what can only be termed political correctness on the part of the Obama administration has directly contributed to an inability to prevent the deaths of U.S. citizens.

Despite strong protests from senior officials within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Obama administration refused to end a secret policy which prohibited security officials from reviewing the social media posts of foreign citizens attempting to obtain visas for entry into the United States. This was due to the fear of DHS Director Jeh Johnson that the policy might create “bad public relations”.

Speaking to ABC News, former acting Under-secretary for Intelligence and Analysis at DHS, John Cohen, reported that “During that time period immigration officials were not allowed to use or review social media as part of the screening process…The primary concern was that it would be viewed negatively if it was disclosed publicly and there were concerns that it would be embarrassing.”

Red State: Obama’s better than Rand Paul on security

randdove

Not content to let Rand Paul have his minor, temporary Patriot Act sunset victory, conservative blogger and video auteur Ben Howe took to Red State just minutes before the expiration of the act’s surveillance powers to proclaim the Kentucky senator and presidential candidate worse than Obama on national security.

As far as I’m concerned, Rand Paul’s view of ISIS and our role in “creating” them is pretty much a deal breaker. It shows such an uninformed and naive view of radical Islam that it makes me expect President Paul to be as dangerous as a President Obama in this regard. In fact I’ve reached the point where I question whether Obama might actually keep us safer than Rand Paul would.

Howe joins a crescendoing chorus of Republicans who might have a hard decision to make come November 2016 if Rand Paul is indeed the party’s nominee. I predicted this intra-party schism almost two years ago, but I’m stunned by the accelerated timeline. I expected Republicans hawks to flip to Hillary if Rand was the nominee. I didn’t expect them to all but do so 8 months before any primary votes are cast.

Whether or not you think it’s outrageous for Rand to have said “hawks in our party” “created” ISIS, let’s review the evidence. (Because that’s what thinking people do. We don’t just hear something that sounds outrageous, gasp, and shun the speaker.)

With 24’s return, does Jack Bauer have the same appeal to a different America?

Jack Bauer

Tonight marks the return of the smash TV hit 24, its first new production since the series finale in 2010. A lot has changed in the last four years, and while Fox looks to have another ratings success on its hands with this more limited run series, Live Another Day, is the world still a safe place for Jack Bauer’s brand of no holds barred counter-terrorism?

Fatefully, the first season of 24 began production in March 2001. Fox premiered it in November 2001, less than two months after the 9/11 attacks, when other media companies were still censoring their output to not offend America’s new sensitivity to all things related to commercial air travel, skyscrapers, patriotism, and terrorism.

Over the next eight seasons, television audiences were fearlessly treated to assassination attempts, nuclear attacks, internal coups, electrocuted nipples, and an unending stream of yelled demands and immunity agreements. And we loved every minute of it.

C.I.A. to Senate Intelligence - do as I say, not as I do

The Senate Intelligence Committee is apparently getting a taste of what it’s like to be the subject of a C.I.A. investigation, and isn’t very pleased. It has partially come to light that the spies have been watching the committee, primarily over an investigation into the Bush administration’s interrogation and detention program in the wake of 9/11. Yes, it’s the long and expensive investigation into the C.I.A.’s use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” coming back to bite the committee.

It’s no secret that the C.I.A. was less than pleased with the findings the investigation, and when the Senate Committee managed to get their hands on a secret document that contradicted C.I.A. Director John Brennan’s contentions that their initial investigation was at least partially false, things started to get ugly. Like many other webs of intrigue in our government these days, one almost needs a scorecard to keep track.

1. The Senate Intelligence Committee engaged in an investigation of the interrogation and detention program. This cost taxpayers more than $40 million because the C.I.A. insisted that the investigation had to take place in a secure location, and all the material had to be reviewed by an outside contractor before it could be released to the committee staff.

2. The investigation found that the techniques like waterboarding used by the C.I.A. really didn’t yield a great deal of useful information. It certainly didn’t justify the use of those techniques, and placed the U.S. in a difficult situation when it came to foreign relations.

“60 Minutes” on Benghazi: al-Qaeda announced plot online prior to attack

The media has spun much of what we now know to be true about the attack in Benghazi that claimed the life of Chris Stevens over the past year.

A witness to the attack, and what happened afterwards, was recently interviewed for a segment of 60 Minutes on Benghazi. The security officer talked about the frustrating and terrifying experience. He was sent to Benghazi to train the Libyan militia securing the Benghazi mission. He calls himself Morgan Jones.

During the night after the September 11th attack in Benghazi, the former British soldier was able to sneak into the hospital that had been under control of al Qaeda to search for Ambassador Stevens, who had been reportedly taken there after the attacks. The security officer was able to find him but it was already too late, the Ambassador had already been killed.

According to the report, the official statements issued by the White House had absolutely nothing to do with the facts. The attack against the Benghazi mission had been planned. Al Qaeda had posted plans regarding the attacks against the U.S. and the U.K. online before the assaults.

Months before the attacks were carried out, Ambassador Stevens authorized a series of detailed cables to Washington making specific claims of possible threats. He specifically detailed that al Qaeda flags had been spotted flying over government buildings, which could be interpreted as a sign that their presence in the region had been challenged.

What Syria Can Teach About Net Neutrality

Internet killswitch

There is a focus, and rightly so, on what the U.S. reaction to the crises in Syria will be — if anything — from the perspective of how strong the United States looks on the world stage, and what that means as regards our relationships with long-standing allies. These are important considerations.

But Syria may have something else to teach us that is just as timely and relevant as the ubiquitous relevance of international relationships and war games. The country, along with the other hotbed of unrest Egypt, is the Petri dish of the Internet “killswitch.” (Read: what happens when the government controls access to the Internet and decides a population has had enough of communication and information gathering. Yeah. Scary.)

Mashable reports:

The Internet is a decentralized global network, designed to be resilient and hard to take down. But it’s still possible to black out a certain area, or even an entire country, disconnecting it from the rest of the world.

That’s what happened in Egypt in 2011 and three times in Syria in just the last year…does Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime have stronghold over the country’s Internet access? Most likely yes, according to experts.

Thomas Massie introduces bill to keep Obama from sending arms to Syria

Thomas Massie

President Barack Obama’s promise to send arms to rebel forces fighting against Bashad al-Assad alongside al-Qaeda operatives in Syria, has been met with much criticism from multiple Senate members. Senators from both sides of the aisle have come together to push legislation that would prohibit the President and the Pentagon from sending rebels any form of aid.

Now, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and nine other House members decided to act by introducing legislation that would challenge the President’s decision by blocking aid that wasn’t previously authorized by Congress.

Co-sponsors include Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA), Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL), Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL), Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), Rep. Phil Roe (R-TN), Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-TN), and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX).

The War Powers Protection Act of 2013 would keep the U.S. from sending any military assistance to the rebel forces unless Congress has issued a formal declaration of war.

Rep. Massie has stated that “since our national security interests in Syria are unclear,” risks could be far too great if we choose to aid rebel forces, particularly now that it has been noted that al Qaeda’s Iraqi wing in Syria insists on fighting alongside the Al-Nusra Front.

The Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states that no war can be declared without Congress’ approval, which doesn’t seem to keep the President from continuing with his plan of aiding the rebels.

Holder’s Drone Memo: More Questions Than Answers

In advance of the President’s counterterrorism speech today at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C. – where it’s anticipated he will lay out new restrictions for America’s drone programs - Attorney General Eric Holder released a 5-page memo disclosing that, since 2009, America has assassinated four of its own citizens in “counterterrorism operations” - more specifically, via drone strike.

Unfortunately, the memo’s admissions create more questions than answers.

1) The memo asserts that targeting and killing of citizens can only happen outside the U.S., tacitly readdressing the concerns Senator Rand Paul addressed in his 13 hour filibuster. But the right to due process is not contingent on geography; like it or not, these rights extend to citizens overseas. The fundamental assertion in the memo is, as Spencer Ackerman points out, that “Holder defended killing Americans the administration believes to be members of al-Qaeda without due process, a constitutionally questionable proposition.”


The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.