« So Look Out For The Union Scumbags | Main | "The Era of McCain is Over" »

Homeland Security Assessment Makes No Mention of Islam

The Department of Homeland Security released two documents that discuss strategy over the next four years. The documents do not once mention Islam (or any variant). Shocking or just another 'to be expected from this administration'?

The 108-page Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, made public last week by the Department of Homeland Security, uses the term "terrorist" a total of 66 times, "al Qaeda" five times and "violent extremism" or "extremist" 14 times. It calls on the U.S. government to "actively engage communities across the United States" to "stop the spread of violent extremism."

Yet in describing terrorist threats against the United States and the ideology that motivates terrorists, the review - like its sister document from the Pentagon, the Quadrennial Defense Review - does not use the words "Islam," "Islamic" or "Islamist" a single time.

Sen Susan Collins (R-ME) who is the ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, is not pleased.
"To understand a threat and counter it, we must know our enemy," said Ms. Collins, the ranking member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. "While there are other threats to our national security from other types of violent extremism, the gravest threat comes from Islamist extremists. ... In a review such as this, it is critical that we identify and address the specific threat posed by Islamist extremism."

Ms. Collins noted that the publicly available portions of the recent Pentagon report on the attack at Fort Hood also did not use terms related to Islam. "We shouldn't be reluctant to identify our enemy," she said.

And her views are not unique.
Patrick Poole, a counterterrorism consultant to government and law enforcement agencies, said the documents reveal a "culture of willful blindness that continues to grow" within senior levels of government.

"For our military, intelligence, and homeland security agencies to continue to ignore the short- and long-term strategic threat from jihadist groups, and the radical Islamic ideology that fuels them, is nothing less than a dereliction of duty," Mr. Poole said.

"The current administration seems hellbent on doubling down on the previous administration's failure to comprehend this threat, and there are American citizens and armed service members [who] are going to die as a result."

I'm not sure what more there is to say, really. The Jammie Wearing Fool blog takes it one step further.
Don't let it be said the Obama administration is reluctant to identify their enemies. Just look at their failed wars against Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.
Harsh, perhaps, but if the Obama administration didn't want such observations to be made they should be more professional and less partisan in their behavior.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/38229.

Comments (44)

Take a bow Barry..... (Below threshold)
914:

Take a bow Barry..

To think that one can judge... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

To think that one can judge the affectiveness of the anti-terror program by counting the number of times certain words appear is foolish. Do you think twice as many terrorists would be captured if the word was used twice as many times?

You are correct Tina that t... (Below threshold)

You are correct Tina that to truly judge the effectiveness of the program, one would need to read the entire document. (And be an expert in such areas.)

But the omission of the word is glaring. It smacks of a Hollywood movie where the terrorist are either white, angry, American conservatives, or someone from Ireland, or an angry Israeli--anything but a Islamic extremist from an Arab country.

To talk about terrorism and not mention Islam is like writing a report about forest fire prevention and not mention "campfires". And for the authors to claim that the omission wasn't by design is laughable.

"To think that one can judg... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

"To think that one can judge the affectiveness of the anti-terror program by counting the number of times certain words appear is foolish."

Tina, I ask that you consider this in the context of this administration's overall approach to terrorism. As an example, the ongoing controversy of trying what we have considered enemy combatants in civil courts. I think openly identifying one's enemies is not too much to ask. Rememeber we have a Homeland Security D

Sorry,As I was writi... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

Sorry,
As I was writing, we have a Homeland Security Department that early on in this administration was openly (and I emphasize openly) suspicious of terrorist recruitment from returning military personnel jihadis being trained overseas. Yet I am still not sure what their rationale was for that.

Tina -"Do you t... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Tina -

"Do you think twice as many terrorists would be captured if the word was used twice as many times?"

Do you think broadcasting a description of the following would be useful when a crime is committed?

"Be on the lookout for a bank robber wearing a blue shirt."

What's missing from that?

DETAILS MATTER. Pretending otherwise is a sure setup for failure.

I ask that you consider ... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

I ask that you consider this in the context of this administration's overall approach to terrorism. As an example, the ongoing controversy of trying what we have considered enemy combatants in civil courts.

Obama's policy on trying terrorists in civil courts is exactly the same as Bush's. I'm sick and tired of this huge double standard on the part of some conservatives.

The enemies of America get ... (Below threshold)
Jim Addison:

The enemies of America get especially sensitive treatment from far-left extremists like Obama.

Say, weren't they all supposed to stop hating us once we elected the cool black dude who went around the world apologizing, bowing down, and kissing butt? What happened with that?

TinaS "the behind-the-curve... (Below threshold)
Drago:

TinaS "the behind-the-curve talking points purveyor": "Obama's policy on trying terrorists in civil courts is exactly the same as Bush's. I'm sick and tired of this huge double standard on the part of some conservatives."

Uh, no it's not. In fact, the methods developed and put into place for trying terrorists came about after 9-11 and the Richard "da shoe bomber" incident.

It was those very high value target procedures that Obama and Field Marshal Biden have gotten rid of.

But, as of today TinaS, did you know that the Obama admin has pulled the "where to try these guys" power from Eric Holder and Military Commissions are BACK on the table!

"back on the table".

You do understand what that means TinaS, don't you?

That means that, for awhile, Military Commissions for trying high value detainees was "off the table".

And since trying all of these jerkoffs by Military Commissions/Tribunals was the Bush Admin policy after 9-11 and the shoe-bomber, that means that obambi's policy was not exactly like Bush's!

Ouch!!!

Obama throws TinaS, Steve Green and the other voice-actuated idiots under the bus again!!!

Of course, TinaS still loves her some "obambi-messiah", so obambi hasn't really lost anything with his base.

I apologize for introducing logic into this conversation TinaS. You may resume your previously fact-free and logic-free existence.

Tina: reading a little of ... (Below threshold)
SteveM:

Tina: reading a little of Marc Thiessen who was, you know, there in the Bush administration may relieve you of such notions.

This is one of the two docu... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

This is one of the two documents that the author used to perform his word analysis on. I don't think the author mentioneded the name of the second report so I'm only listing this one. If he did and I missed it, then please point that out.

My suggestion is to read the document and decide if you agree/degree with the actual plans that are outlined, not the choice of words.

Word counting is a lazy form of analysis that can easily lead to the wrong conclusion being made.

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/qhsr_report.pdf

But, as of today TinaS, ... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

But, as of today TinaS, did you know that the Obama admin has pulled the "where to try these guys" power from Eric Holder and Military Commissions are BACK on the table!

Drago,

I found an article that seems to contradict this statement. Can you please provide a source for your statement. You did say "as of today" so its possible your source is more uptodate than mine.

Attorney General Eric Holder is leaving open the possibility of trying professed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed before a military commission instead of the civilian trial originally planned for New York City

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35367199/ns/us_news-security/

It is a complete waste of t... (Below threshold)

It is a complete waste of time to count how many times 'children playing with matches' failed to appear in a report on home fires.

And racist.

TinaS: "Word counting is a ... (Below threshold)
Drago:

TinaS: "Word counting is a lazy form of analysis that can easily lead to the wrong conclusion being made."

Actually, I agree with this comment.

Unfortunately, in this case of conservative criticism of obama admin policy it goes beyond the mere "counting" of a word and is more of continuation of 2 clearly understood points:
1) It is islamic supremicists (or extremists, same "diff") that pose the greatest "terrorist" threat to the US

2) All leftists and most liberals refuse to address this fact head on.


For a more poignant example of how "word counting" was employed by political operatives, one need only harken back to the good old '80's where the spread of AIDS was actually blamed on Ronald Reagan because he "took 6 years to actually say "AIDS"."

Though this was such a common accusation againt Reagan at the time, like all such things they go right down the liberal "memory hole", never to be seen again.

With the left, history always started this morning when the left figures out how to contort the language and their previous positions in an attempt to win "today's battle".

tina s "Obama's polic... (Below threshold)
Marc:

tina s "Obama's policy on trying terrorists in civil courts is exactly the same as Bush's. I'm sick and tired of this huge double standard on the part of some conservatives."

Truth be told some of us are damn tired of dolts such as yourself passing off this as some sort of double standard.

Simple question: When was it legal for Bush to place terrorists into the Military Tribunal system?

That should be easy, even for you, to find.

Now, compare that date with when the original shoe bomber was captured and lets us know how it was possible for him to be in any system other than the civil system.

And BTW, you can also track down the "300 terrorists" that have been sent thru the civil courts and convicted.... lotsa luck finding them, 'cause it's patent BS.

P.S. Quit being an obamaBot, it's not becoming.

Or Tina, you can read this ... (Below threshold)
SteveM:

Or Tina, you can read this from today's Washington Post from former AG Michael B. Mukasey:

Contrary to what the White House homeland security adviser and the attorney general have suggested, if not said outright, not only was there no authority or policy in place under the Bush administration requiring that all those detained in the United States be treated as criminal defendants, but relevant authority was and is the opposite. The Supreme Court held in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that "indefinite detention for the purpose of interrogation is not authorized" but also said in the same case that detention for the purpose of neutralizing an unlawful enemy combatant is permissible and that the only right of such a combatant -- even if he is a citizen, and Abdulmutallab is not -- is to challenge his classification as such a combatant in a habeas corpus proceeding. This does not include the right to remain silent or the right to a lawyer, but only such legal assistance as may be necessary to file a habeas corpus petition within a reasonable time. That was the basis for my ruling in Padilla v. Rumsfeld that, as a convenience to the court and not for any constitutionally based reason, he had to consult with a lawyer for the limited purpose of filing a habeas petition, but that interrogation need not stop.

...There was thus no legal or policy compulsion to treat Abdulmutallab as a criminal defendant, at least initially, and every reason to treat him as an intelligence asset to be exploited promptly. The way to do that was not simply to have locally available field agents question him but, rather, to get in the room people who knew about al-Qaeda in Yemen, people who could obtain information, check that information against other available data and perhaps get feedback from others in the field before going back to Abdulmutallab to follow up where necessary, all the while keeping secret the fact of his cooperation. Once his former cohorts know he is providing information, they can act to make that information useless.

Nor is it an answer to say that Abdulmutallab resumed his cooperation even after he was warned of his rights. He did that after five weeks, when his family was flown here from Nigeria. The time was lost, and with it possibly useful information. Disclosing that he had resumed talking only compounded the problem by letting his former cohorts know that they had better cover their tracks.

Or Tina, you can read this ... (Below threshold)
SteveM:

Or Tina, you can read this from today's Washington Post from former AG Michael B. Mukasey:

Contrary to what the White House homeland security adviser and the attorney general have suggested, if not said outright, not only was there no authority or policy in place under the Bush administration requiring that all those detained in the United States be treated as criminal defendants, but relevant authority was and is the opposite. The Supreme Court held in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that "indefinite detention for the purpose of interrogation is not authorized" but also said in the same case that detention for the purpose of neutralizing an unlawful enemy combatant is permissible and that the only right of such a combatant -- even if he is a citizen, and Abdulmutallab is not -- is to challenge his classification as such a combatant in a habeas corpus proceeding. This does not include the right to remain silent or the right to a lawyer, but only such legal assistance as may be necessary to file a habeas corpus petition within a reasonable time. That was the basis for my ruling in Padilla v. Rumsfeld that, as a convenience to the court and not for any constitutionally based reason, he had to consult with a lawyer for the limited purpose of filing a habeas petition, but that interrogation need not stop.

...There was thus no legal or policy compulsion to treat Abdulmutallab as a criminal defendant, at least initially, and every reason to treat him as an intelligence asset to be exploited promptly. The way to do that was not simply to have locally available field agents question him but, rather, to get in the room people who knew about al-Qaeda in Yemen, people who could obtain information, check that information against other available data and perhaps get feedback from others in the field before going back to Abdulmutallab to follow up where necessary, all the while keeping secret the fact of his cooperation. Once his former cohorts know he is providing information, they can act to make that information useless.

Nor is it an answer to say that Abdulmutallab resumed his cooperation even after he was warned of his rights. He did that after five weeks, when his family was flown here from Nigeria. The time was lost, and with it possibly useful information. Disclosing that he had resumed talking only compounded the problem by letting his former cohorts know that they had better cover their tracks.

And BTW, you can also tr... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

And BTW, you can also track down the "300 terrorists" that have been sent thru the civil courts and convicted.... lotsa luck finding them, 'cause it's patent BS.

Marc,

The 300 terrorists figure was first quoted by the Bush administration. I do know some of them were for terrorist related charges. I don't have the link handy, but will provide it for you this evening. Gotta run.

If you're afraid to talk ab... (Below threshold)
kevino:

If you're afraid to talk about your enemy, what motivates them, and what their goals are, you can't be effective. Even if you don't consider Islamic extremists part of the problem, you have to take the Islamic religion into account, or you'll end up making plans that fail.

Case in point: According to the Detroit Free Press and reported on the HuffingtonPost, Muslim-American groups are supporting a "fatwa" [religious ruling] that says that body scanners violate Islamic law concerning modesty. Therefore, the fatwa forbids Muslims from going through the scanners at airports. Therefore, groups are advocating that Muslims do not go through the scanners but instead choose the "pat down" option. If the TSA doesn't follow these issues, it won't be prepared for large numbers of Muslims to demand pat-downs.

Naturally Hussein does not ... (Below threshold)
OLDPUPPYMAX:

Naturally Hussein does not wish to publicly discredit "organizations" much favored by some of his biggest donors! The King of Saudi Arabia would be highly displeased!

tina s "Gotta run."<... (Below threshold)
Marc:

tina s "Gotta run."

Good idea, and normal when an obamaBot is shown to be just that.

We are infiltrated by Islam... (Below threshold)
Maurice:

We are infiltrated by Islamists, we have a POTUS who if not Muslim himself, is advancing the cause of Islam (screw his trying to buddy up to them...this is a sham).

Almost all the terrorism in the world is being committed by Islamists...or call 'em jihadists, whatever, they are all MUSLIM.

This admin is intent on letting America go down the same hellish path that Europe and Great Britain have gone, with Islamists causing terrible political problems, economic woes and violence in Europe (look at the car burnings in France...it keeps happening, just not reported). We are under siege here, also, but our own admin is WILLFULLY ignoring it. This is not by accident. We're so screwed if we don't wake up to the harm this administration is trying to cause us.

3 more years of this shit. I pray we can survive.

We are infiltrated by Is... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

We are infiltrated by Islamists, we have a POTUS who if not Muslim himself, is advancing the cause of Islam (screw his trying to buddy up to them...this is a sham).

Maurice,

Sounds like you hate all Muslims. I hope at least some conservatives are willing to denounce your comment.

Tina,Welcome back.... (Below threshold)
Kenny:

Tina,

Welcome back.

The 300 terrorists figure was first quoted by the Bush administration. I do know some of them were for terrorist related charges. I don't have the link handy, but will provide it for you this evening. Gotta run.
Found that link?
Well, according Dan's own W... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Well, according Dan's own Washington Times link, Obama and Bush are wisely in agreement in not promoting the AlQaeda paradigm of Us v. Islam.

Preznits_2

Couch Taters with Spiderman boys briefs on their heads_0

I'll second that "motion," ... (Below threshold)
Marc:

I'll second that "motion," where's your link tina?

Here the link I promised</p... (Below threshold)
Tina S:
Tina S., you should start b... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Tina S., you should start by quit staring starry eyed at The Won. That 300 terrorists tried in civilian court by the Bush administration is pure bunk. Everyone who is not fixated on their devotion of Obama knows this but you fall for it. I have two examples of Obama's failure on protecting us: Fort Hood and the Panty Bomber. I would say "forgive him for he knows not what he does" but that was my point in you liberals electing him. He does not know what he is doing. Conservatives knew it now, thank God, independents do also.

We are unsafe with this clown in office. True dat. ww

Governments need to be very... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

Governments need to be very careful about singling out particular races or religons as being more prone to violence. Doing so has been known to fan the flames of hatred, resulting in civil rights violations and even crimes against humanity.

It's important to point out that it is a public document the Department of Homeland Security released. I guarantee they have volumes of internal publications that outline the specific dangers related to Islam terrorists.

Tina, Tina, Tina,T... (Below threshold)
Kenny:

Tina, Tina, Tina,

This fails on so many levels.

To start with, you're going to quote the Bush White House? When for 8 years you have not believed anything they said?

Then they only claim 288 terrorist AND TERRORIST-RELATED charges. Not 300 Terrorists!!! Just a little difference.

but the money quote has to be:

As for who comprises the Justice Department's list of "convicted international and domestic terrorists" in U.S. prisons, the Justice Department spokesman wouldn't say
Trust us!!! we have over 300 convicted terrorists in prison, but we're not going to tell you any facts that you could independently verify!!!!

Sounds just like, Trust us!!! Trust Us!!! Obama has saved or created 100 million jobs!!!!

If you're quoting George Bush, you need to drink deeply of the librul kool-aid.

Wild Wilie,You lef... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

Wild Wilie,

You left out another terrorist attack that Obama could have prevented. For years there have been many right-wing Christian extremist terrorist threats against every doctor in the country that performs abortions.

Obama was weak and should have cracked down on all right-wing Christian extremists before one of them shot and killed George Tiller while he attended church services.

My point it that it is wrong to make statements such as this. I apologize to all of those on the right, and all Christians regardless of party affiliation that are understandly offended by what I just said.

A big difference Tina is t... (Below threshold)
914:

A big difference Tina is that Tiller's killer killed a killer, while terrorists kill innocents and indiscriminately.

tina s "Here the lin... (Below threshold)
Marc:

tina s "Here the link I promised"

As others note, how convienent to quote the much hated bush now.

That aside, why did you not note this part of your link:

But despite that previous claim and despite Holder's recent statements regarding "300" convictions, President Obama told CBS this past weekend that the Bush Administration "prosecuted 190 folks in these [civilian] courts, got convictions, and those folks are in maximum security prisons right now."
Given all the various nubers, from all parties, they should be classified as "nebulous," doncha think tina?

Of course you wouldn't not when there's obama to protect.


Kenny,Please do no... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

Kenny,

Please do not read more into what I say. I'm skeptical of all claims made any poltician that can not be substantiated. That is why I made only 2 statements regarding the 300 figure. 18


1. Marc said it was 300 terrorists. I pointed out that some of them were for terrorism related charges.

2. I pointed out that the figure was first quoted by the Bush adminitration.

Given all the various nu... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

Given all the various nubers, from all parties, they should be classified as "nebulous," doncha think tina?

Yes, I agree.

A big difference Tina is... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

A big difference Tina is that Tiller's killer killed a killer, while terrorists kill innocents and indiscriminately.

So if an Islamic terrorist blows himself up in an American millitary base, you would not consider him a terrorist?

It is you oppinion that Tiller is a killer, he did not break any laws.

People that make life threatening phone calls in an attempt to change the behavior of someone are terrorists. They are evoking terror using scare tactics.

This is the only comment I will make on this because were getting off the topic of the thread.

Whats all this fuss about I... (Below threshold)
Emily Litella:

Whats all this fuss about Is Lamb? Is we a lamb or is we a lion? Is they a lamb or is they a lion?

WHO cares?

Never mind.

Why does'nt Obama and His i... (Below threshold)
914:

Why does'nt Obama and His ilk just refer to Islam the way they do terrorist's?

"Religion of Peace Crusader's!"

This is the only comment I ... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

This is the only comment I will make on this because were getting off the topic of the thread.
36. Posted by Tina S

Oh, hell. Don't worry about no stinkin' threads!
It's the Hits that count.
You're doing well against the Wimmen Haterz Klub!

Opposite ex. _Was Booosh a terror-monger for requesting...
"Bring it on!" re: AlQaeda-USA?_

*silence* (dial tone)(swallowed tongues)

See? 0:me, mucho:you

signed, Nostradamus

"Opposite ex. _Was Booos... (Below threshold)
914:

"Opposite ex. _Was Booosh a terror-monger for requesting...
"Bring it on!" re: AlQaeda-USA?_"


No, He was a good Man who love's His Countrie's People and way of life. If Obama ever said the same in response to an 911 like attack I would say "I got Your back".

#39 BryanD WT... (Below threshold)
Tango:

#39 BryanD

WTF did you just say?!?!?! I swear, your posts MUST be in liberal code. Then again, i digress.

"No, He was a good Man who ... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

"No, He was a good Man who love's His Countrie's People and way of life."---914

Bush dared AlQaeda to "bring it on!" while our troops in country were digging for metal plate in scrap yards. Historical fact. Rumsfeld waved his arthritic hands and said (paraphrasing), Too bad, so sad, now what's for lunch?

"If Obama ever said the same in response to an 911 like attack I would say "I got Your back".
40. Posted by 914

Yeah, his "back". W-a-a-a-y back. Like in the third stall of the Mens room at Denny's in Poughkeepsie.

"Yeah, his "back". W-a-a... (Below threshold)
914:

"Yeah, his "back". W-a-a-a-y back. Like in the third stall of the Mens room at Denny's in Poughkeepsie."


Ha ha ha ha ha ha

There is a story by Dan Sim... (Below threshold)

There is a story by Dan Simmons I like to pass around, about this very same issue. It's called "A Message From Dan" and it's about a Time Traveler coming from the future to warn us about the dangers of a Category Error.

The Time Traveler defines it: "Category Error is the term for having stated or defined a problem so poorly that it becomes impossible to solve that problem, through dialectic or any other means."

You can read the story here:
http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message/2006_04.htm

It might help one understand why the War of Terror is so absurd, and why we risk losing this battle because of Political Correctness.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy