The comments system there requires that one log in with Facebook, and I've pointed out before that I will not attempt to log into my Facebook account as long as Facebook insists that I send them scans of government issued ID, so here's my observation:
Hey, now, every Detroiter knows Greek chain migration gets you Coney Island stands and excellent family restaurants!
I would further point out that a hundred years ago chain migration of people from Mediterranean and Eastern European nations was a Concern, leading to, among other things, New York's Sullivan Act.
I don't actually know that chain migration, per se, is a significant factor in terrorist attacks that have occurred in America.
On the other hand, there have certainly been several terrorist attacks perpetrated by immigrants, so maybe someone ought to look into that...
...as I am sure they are. (Based on White House comments shared in that Powerline post.)
Really, evaluating someone for immigration should rely on a bit more than just "My third cousin twice removed is living in Dearborn."
The history geek in me wants to make a Leon Czolgosz (or maybe Vito Corleone) joke, but the fact that Czolgosz was native born kind of ruins it. (The rest of the family was born in Poland.)
So Trump tweets that he'll meet with the NRA about not letting people on "a watchlist" buy a gun.
Naturally, folks started losing their minds, because "The NRA's selling us out again!"
NRA-ILA | NRA Statement on Terror Watchlists: The executive director of the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action, Chris W. Cox, released the following statement regarding terror watchlists:
We are happy to meet with Donald Trump. The NRA's position on
this issue has not changed. The NRA believes that terrorists should not
be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror
watchlist who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by
the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. If an
investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement,
the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the
sale, and arrest the terrorist. At the same time, due process
protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who
are wrongly put on a watchlist to be removed. That has been the
position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S.
Senate. Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play
politics with this issue.
See, the problem is with the nature of a "watchlist."
One recalls that numerous people found themselves on the "No Fly" list who did not belong there.*
And just how does one wind up on a watchlist?
Good question.
And how does one get off a watchlist if one does not belong there?
Before September 11, 2001, the no-fly list, which names people who are
banned from boarding flights in or out of the U.S., contained 16 people.
A leak revealed
that that number had grown to 47,000 as of 2013. Most of those names
were added after President Obama took office. The broader terrorist
watch list maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center has an even more
expansive scope; the estimated number of people on the list has ranged
from 700,000 to more than 1.5 million, figures which include Americans and foreigners.
One and a half million. 1,500,000.
Somewhere along the line, it developed that the douchebag Orlando murderer -- I refuse to name him -- had been on a "watchlist" while the FBI investigated him for whatever they were investigating him for, and then they dropped the investigation because they found no evidence of actual, you know, crimes having been committed, and poof!, he was off the watchlist.
The FBI pointed out that doing things like denying the douchebag from being able to buy a gun might tip him off that he was on a watchlist, which might result in compromising the investigation.
This,of course, ignores the fact that we are talking about denying people their constitutional rights because they are suspected of maybe having done something naughty.
Or not.
I find it curious (there's a nice, neutral word!) that so many of the people who pitch a fit over the thought of having to provide ID to proof of eligibility to vote want to deny people the right to keep and bear arms over claimed statements of opinion.
So... What other Constitutional Rights should be compromised if one is on one of the mysterious watchlists? Since Facebook seems to figure so prominently in the radiclaization of J. Random Douchebag, maybe we should Internet access, and other aspects of First Amendment activity as well?
And, hey, they're accused of being terrorists, or at least terrorist sympathizers and enablers, so maybe we should throw out that pesky Fifth Amendment, as well! Which, come to think of it, that damned Fourth Amendment restricting search and seizure, etc., etc., sure gets in the way!
The Sixth is already on life support, so why bother?
So...
Frankly, I think the NRA's statement is lukewarm, at best, but it's something.
ETA: Here is what Ted cruz has to say:
* Granted Teddy Kennedy belonged on the "no drive" list...
Federal prosecutors say a Washington state Army deserter who made
statements supporting fighters from the Islamic State group has been
charged with illegally possessing firearms, including a machine gun.
Daniel Seth Franey, 33, has lived in Montesano for the last three years, working as a commercial fisherman out of Westport.
He
appeared before a judge Monday afternoon, charged with six felony
counts for illegally possessing automatic weapons and other firearms.
The
investigation started after a few people went to police saying Franey
talked about his support for ISIL and his desire to kill Americans.
Once again, many if not most of the evidence comes from "undercover Federal agents", posing the question "Which came first, the plot or the investigation?"
In this case at least, the court documents at the linked article indicate that "Witness 1" contacted the local sheriff's office, which is what launched this particular investigation.
Islamic State has sanctioned the harvesting of human organs in a previously undisclosed ruling by the group’s Islamic scholars, raising concerns that the violent extremist group may be trafficking in body parts.
The ruling, contained in a January 31, 2015 document reviewed by Reuters, says taking organs from a living captive to save a Muslim's life, even
if it is fatal for the captive, is permissible.
For a U.S. government translation of the document, click here
Reuters couldn’t independently confirm the authenticity of the document. U.S. officials say it was among a trove of data and other information
obtained by U.S. special forces in a raid in eastern Syria in May.
"The apostate's life and organs don't have to be respected and may be taken with impunity," says the document, which is in the form of a fatwa, or
religious ruling, from the Islamic State’s Research and Fatwa Committee.
"Organs that end the captive's life if removed: The removal of that type is also not prohibited," Fatwa Number 68 says, according to a U.S. government translation.
and
The group of documents reviewed by entitled "Lessons Learned From the Abu Sayyaf Raid" - show how the Islamic State has provided a legal justification to its followers for a range of practices.
For instance, “Fatwa Number 64” dated January 29, 2015, provides detailed rules for rape, prescribing when Islamic State men can and cannot have sexual intercourse with female slaves.
While the importance of metadata to American counterterrorism will
continue to be a hot-button topic, the disastrous effect of the Snowden
affair and its political aftershocks on our intelligence agencies is not
up for debate. Neither is the fact, as attested to by several Western
intelligence chiefs, that Snowden’s leaks have made terrorists more
careful in their communications, and therefore more difficult to
intercept. Just as bad, several top secret NSA programs, beyond
metadata, that assisted counterterrorism have been downscaled since 2013
out of fears they may “look bad” if leaked.
“Before Snowden we had a definite bias for action,” explained a
senior NSA official with extensive experience in counterterrorism. “But
now we all wonder how the White House will react if this winds up in the
newspapers.” “It’s all legal,” the official added, “the lawyers have
approved, and boy do we have lots of lawyers – but will Obama throw us
under the bus again?”
That concern is widespread in American counterterrorism circles, where
the Obama administration’s worries about appearing “Islamophobic” are
well known. This White House early on warned intelligence personnel
about using the term “Islamic terrorism” even in classified reports that
would never be released to the public. “Since 2009 we’ve opened
investigations of groups we knew to be harmless,” explained a Pentagon
counterterrorism official, “they weren’t Muslims, and we needed some
‘balance’ in case the White House asked if we were ‘profiling’ potential
terrorists.”
We had these two groups in our sights; if the investigation had
continued and additional links been identified and dots connected, we
might have given advance warning of the terrorist attack in San
Bernardino. The combination of Farook’s involvement with the Dar Al
Uloom Al Islamiyah Mosque and Malik’s attendance at al-Huda would have
indicated, at minimum, an urgent need for comprehensive screening. It
could also have led to denial of Malik’s K-1 visa or possibly gotten
Farook placed on the No Fly list.
But after more than six months
of research and tracking; over 1,200 law enforcement actions and more
than 300 terrorists identified; and a commendation for our efforts; DHS
shut down the investigation at the request of the Department of State
and DHS’ own Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Division. They claimed
that since the Islamist groups in question were not Specially Designated
Terrorist Organizations (SDTOs) tracking individuals related to these
groups was a violation of the travelers’ civil liberties. These were
almost exclusively foreign nationals: When were they granted the civil
rights and liberties of American citizens?
Worse still, the
administration then went back and erased the dots we were diligently
connecting. Even as DHS closed my investigation, I knew that data I was
looking at could prove significant to future counterterror efforts and
tried to prevent the information from being lost to law enforcement. In
2013, I met with the DHS Inspector General in coordination with several
members of Congress to attempt to warn the American people’s elected
representatives about the threat.
In retaliation, DHS and the
Department of Justice subjected me to a series of investigations and
adverse actions, including one by that same Inspector General. None of
them showed any wrongdoing; they seemed aimed at stopping me from
blowing the whistle on this problem. Earlier this year, I was finally
able to honorably retire from government and I’m now taking my story to
the American people as a warning.
...one of the shooters in last week’s massacre at a San Bernardino
social services center, asked a friend to buy two rifles used in the attack
so he could dodge a federal background check and also may have been
planning an even larger assault, according to government sources
familiar with the ever-widening investigation.
One of the sources said Thursday that {dirtbag who's name I will not repeat}
wanted to make sure “the guns were not tied back to him” when he asked
Enrique Marquez to make the purchases at a Southern California gun store
in 2011 or 2012. {DwnIwnr} feared he “wouldn’t pass a background check” if
he attempted to acquire the military-style rifles on his own, the
source said.
...while the critiques of the president’s antigun pitch are correct, they are also beside the point. Because liberal calls for gun control aren’t about keeping guns from bad guys. It’s what you talk about so you don’t have to talk about the reality of Islamist terror. And focusing on the weaponry is part of a liberal argument that dates to the Cold War, when calls for arms control were likewise used to avoid addressing the ugly reality of communism.
Understand this, and you
understand why Senate Democrats reacted to San Bernardino by putting forth antigun legislation. Why the New York Times ran a gun control editorial on its front page, and the Daily News
used its own cover to feature the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre underneath San Bernardino killer Syed Farook—labeling them both terrorists. And why President Obama used Sunday night’s address to whine about those resisting his call for gun measures that would not have stopped any of the shooters.
Put simply, today’s liberalism cannot deal with the reality of evil. So liberals inveigh against the instruments the evil use rather than the evil that motivates them.
As always, you can get to a Wall Street Journal article without paying to go behind the paywall by Googling the article title: The Liberal Theology of Gun Control.
The Islamic State’s message is stark: Western civilization is doomed.
Its last bastion, America, lacks the will for war. The infidel loves
life and treats it as an endless feast. Jihadis have to ruin that feast
and persuade the “infidel” to abandon this world in exchange for greater
rewards in the next.
One {thing that stood out} was that the attacks in Paris were coordinated by a cell operating
from a neighboring country*. The attackers were divided into two groups,
one that was assigned to suicide missions and one that was assigned to
escape. That’s not the normal M.O. and the cops are asking why the
change. Several did escape. At least one got to a neighboring country.
The logical conclusion is that the escapees were being saved for “the
next big thing.”
The revelations that at least four French citizens were involved in the
attacks — three brothers and a man who lived around Chartres, about 60
miles southwest of Paris — seemed destined to exacerbate longstanding
fears in France about the place of Muslim immigrants and converts in
French society.
{I}magine if Paris had joined the Americans in the invasion of Iraq; the now-dominant Western narrative of that conflict might have been very different. Because of the attacks Friday, the narrative will change. The soft-power-heavy, somewhat guilty Western analysis of Islamic militancy—where the progressive-minded avoid referring to Islam in describing an antipathy that sanctifies killing—is now dead in Europe and will soon be irretrievably embarrassing across the Atlantic.
President Obama’s inability to have an adult conversation about Islam’s manifest problems with modernity, which also tore Christianity apart, have kept the West’s loudest bully pulpit from provoking contentious and entirely appropriate debates among Muslims. The advancement in the Middle East of grand modern causes—the abolition of slavery, the slow march of women’s social and political rights, the expansion of education, the brutal tug of war between secularism and religion—has always been stirred by Western thought and actions.
Having the French more vigorously in this game will help compensate for the politically correct, ahistoric timidity that has seized much of the intelligentsia in the U.S. and Britain. Trailblazers in analyzing modern Islamic fundamentalism, the French could well rescue the American left from its fixation on Islamophobia. They could provide encouragement and cover to American liberals to reflect and act without fear of being labeled Islamophobes (who are a dime a dozen on the American right and, as handmaidens of isolationism, don’t matter).
The governors of Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington, and
Connecticut, meanwhile, have backed the Obama administration’s policy,
voicing their support for accepting refugees in their states.
At least the governor of WA hasn't doubled down like the governor of CT apparently did....
So, in the last 14 months my work schedule has changed, let's see... 4 times? 5?
Anyway, I am now home and awake during television programs during which I was previously either at work or asleep.
So I can now state that the program Madam Secretary, which I reviewed last September in the post The Lynching of Disbelief, has gotten no better.
The Secretary of State's husband is evidently a professor at the National War College, and uses his position to recruit foreign students to be US agents. (Or "sources". I wasn't a HUMINTer, the terminology is slippery...)
Having learned that the mother of "the first US-born ISIS leader" is a State Department employee, the Secretary of State conducts the interview.
Personally.
Alone.
We decide to Predator/Hellfire said US-born ISIS leader instead of taking him with Delta -- BTW, I did appreciate that, for once, the media went with Delta and not the SEALs -- because some operators might be captured, but "What can we learn by wringing him out?" never seemed to enter the equation.
Far from a dramatic three-day standoff, the assault on the Westgate
Mall lasted only a few hours, almost all of it taking place before
Kenyan security forces even entered the building. When they finally did,
it was only to shoot at one another before going on an armed looting
spree that resulted in the collapse of the rear of the building,
destroyed with a rocket-propelled grenade. And there were only four
gunmen, all of whom were buried in the rubble, along with much of the
forensic evidence.
During the roughly three-and-a-half hours that the killers were
loose in the mall, there was virtually no organized government response.
But while Kenyan officials prevaricated, an unlikely coalition of
licensed civilian gun owners and brave, resourceful individual police
officers took it upon themselves to mount a rescue effort. Pieced
together over 10 months from more than three dozen interviews with
survivors, first responders, security officers, and investigators, the
following account brings their story to life for the first time since
the horrific terrorist attack occurred exactly two years ago.
An attack on a crowded shopping mall is a nightmare scenario everyone with a piece of the counter-terrorism role, or just an interest in it, has sweated over. It's easy to say it'll go better "here" than it did "there", but however it goes, it's not going to be pretty.
And I am reconsidering the easy way we dismiss so many of the techniques learned in classes like I wrote about in "Urban Defensive Tactics" class, 12/14/14 as being "inappropriate for non-LEOS or military."
Still highly unlikely we'll ever use them. And the conventional wisdom is that, in a case like that, even a trained, armed citizen should hunker down and defend self and other citizens, not go hunting the bad guys, if for no reason than to avoid being confused for a bad guy by the first responders, but...
