Barry Rubin, terrorism expert and author of thirteen books on the Middle East mess, lays out the clear case over at PJ Media, that to uncover jihadi threats the NSA has to target the bad guys. It is not helpful to flood themselves with records of 3 billion phone calls a day, trampling on our Constitution in the process. Our problem isn't lack of information; it is the political willingness to follow up on leads. We enable Muslim Brotherhood and other jihadis to dictate the training of our military, FBI, Homeland security and State Department policy, which leads us to a paralysis of politically correct thinking that leads directly to loss of American lives.
This must read article has a number of hair raising examples I was not familiar with before.
Isn't it absurd that the United States - which can't finish a simple border fence to keep out potential terrorists; can't stop a would-be terrorist in the U.S. Army who gives a PowerPoint presentation on why he is about to shoot people (Major Nidal Hasan); can't follow up on Russian intelligence warnings about Chechen terrorist contacts (the Boston bombing); or a dozen similar incidents - must now collect every telephone call in the country?
Isn't it absurd that under this system, a photo-shop clerk has to stop an attack on Fort Dix by overcoming his fear of appearing "racist" to report a cell of terrorists?
That it was left to brave passengers to jump a would-be "underpants bomber" from Nigeria, because his own father's warning that he was a terrorist was insufficient?
Isn't it absurd that terrorists and terrorist supporters visit the White House, hang out with the FBI, and advise the U.S. government on counter-terrorist policy, even while - as CAIR does - advising Muslims not to cooperate with law enforcement? And that they are admiringly quoted in the media?
Meanwhile, a documented, detailed revelation of this behavior in MERIA Journal by Patrick Poole - "Blind to Terror: The U.S. Government's Disastrous Muslim Outreach Efforts and the Impact on U.S. Middle East Policy" - a report which rationally should bring down the government, does not get covered by a single mass media outlet?
Imagine this scene:
"Sir, we have a telephone call about a potential terrorist attack!"
"Not now, Smithers, I'm giving a tour of our facility to some supporters of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood."
How about the time when the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem had a (previously jailed) Hamas agent working in their motor pool with direct access to the vehicles and itineraries of all visiting U.S. dignitaries and senior officials?
Rubin's article concludes:
Compared to the time Obama came to office, the Islamists who support violence against America now rule Egypt, Tunisia, the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, and perhaps soon Syria. Offenses have been stepped up in Somalia and Yemen; are being maintained in Iraq; and still rule over Syria and Iran. In Turkey, an Islamist terror-supporting regime has been embraced by Obama.
This represents a massive retreat, even if it is a largely unnoticed one.
So the problem of growing government spying is three-fold.
- It is against the American system and reduces liberty.
- It is a misapplication of resources. Money is being spent and liberty sacrificed for no real gain.
- Since government decision-making and policy about international terrorism is terrible, the threat is increasing.
If you don't get value or enhanced security while freedom is being reduced and the enemy is getting stronger, $1 trillion certainly isn't a bargain.