ISIS comes to London. Are they here as well?

Scotland Yard broke up a group planning to carry out mass beheadings on the streets of London. Should we expect similar threats here in the United States?  Fox News reported on a Daily Telegraph story about an ISIS plot to carry out mass beheadings on the streets of London.

Gretchen Carlson interviewed Con Coughlin, Daily Telegraph Defense Editor. Per Coughlin:

[Scotland Yard] uncovered the first ISIS plot here in the UK, basically British jihadists coming back to London and wanting to carry out a plot and I’m told the plot was to behead people on the streets of London…What I’m told about this plot is this group that had recently come back from Syria was planning to carry out beheadings, I say plural, on the streets of London in the next few days or so and this plot has been disrupted.

Carlson called it “startling” and asked how Scotland Yard broke this up “just in time.”

Before I continue with excerpts of the interview, I would like to interject that there is nothing startling about it. It was predictable. And much as I hate to say it, it is likely just the beginning. Because the West is, and has been weak, as the enemy has grown stronger every day.

In addition, we cannot rely on “just in time” to save ourselves. I applaud all intelligence and law enforcement efforts that intercept plots before innocent people are harmed. But we cannot to depend on this as our primary form of national security. We need an overarching strategy to address Islamic evil.

For starters, we need to stop lying about who the enemy is, what their motives are, and what their goals are. The enemy is telling us all we need to know, as does the Koran. There’s no mystery to solve. The enemy are those who act on the Koran's violent teachings. The goal is world domination. None of this is rocket science.  

The West is so far behind the eight ball. And time is running out to play catch up. Would that anyone was even proposing a way to catch up. Instead, as Coughlin answered Carlson’s question about Scotland Yard’s investigation, it seems intelligence services were “watching the activities of ISIS people on the ground in Syria and Iraq, watching their movements.”

Incredible. We know where the enemy is. And we’re just watching them move about.

I have an idea. How about we kill them?

Carlson also asked how it was possible for the jihadists to get back into the country since the UK banned such re-entry if a person leaves the country to fight with terrorists. According to Coughlin, it seems no one knew what their travel route was.

And that’s not all that’s disappeared through the intelligence cracks.

Megyn Kelly also conducted an interview on this story with Human Rights Attorney Brooke Goldstein. Per Goldstein, there are 500 British citizens who have been fighting for ISIS or other Islamist terror groups and that 250 of them have returned to the United Kingdom.

But the UK police have no idea where they are.

Kelly asked if it could happen here.

Well, I hate to state the obvious, but: Yes. Of course it can happen here.

First of all, we don’t need to wait for Americans fighting for ISIS to return home, though that is obviously an enormous threat. As is the threat of British (or other) citizens who joined terror groups who are now lost to surveillance as they can also fly to the United States to inflict harm.

But a Muslim need not travel overseas to be inspired by terrorists. All he needs to do is go on line, attend a mosque, or read the Koran. Even if a plot to commit mass beheadings in the United States has not been uncovered, we’ve already seen the horror of what can happen when a Muslim in America becomes inspired by ISIS and decides to take action, as occurred in Oklahoma last month.

We’ve also seen this madness unfold in Great Britain when Lee Rigby was butchered in broad daylight. We’ve seen the threat of beheadings in Australia. We’ve seen Americans and British citizens beheaded in the Middle East.

Islamic evil knows no borders. We already have Americans fighting for ISIS and then returning to the United States. Per a recent 60 Minutes report, FBI Director James Comey stated that Americans who travel abroad to fight for ISIS are “entitled” to come back home. He went on to say there are about a dozen Americans who have returned home after fighting with ISIS.

“About a dozen.

Give or take, I guess. No problem if there are a few who may be flying under the radar. We’ve got about a dozen. And the FBI is tracking all of them.

Probably.

Is Comey confident he knows where all of them are?

Sort of.

Because, “I don’t know what I don’t know.”

Wow, it sounds like he’s already getting his talking points ready for future hearings.

And none of this addresses one’s confidence in the FBI’s ability to stay on top of this issue without making a single error or oversight, as well as whether any of us can trust what they’re telling us.

But let me loop back for a moment to Comey’s statement that these jihadists being entitled to come back home by saying this:

No they’re not! From both a legal and a common sense perspective.

Per Legal Match:

Your passport may be revoked, restricted, or limited for the same reasons your passport application can be denied. These reasons include (bolding is mine):

  • You have an outstanding felony arrest warrant.
  • A court order forbids you from leaving the United States.
  • A court order commits you to a mental institution.
  • You have been subpoenaed to appear in the prosecution of a felony.
  • You are a convicted drug trafficker.
  • You are declared legally incompetent.
  • You engage in activities abroad that cause, or are likely to cause, serious damage to United States security or foreign policy.
  • You obtained your passport through fraud.

Per the State Department:

A federal or state law enforcement agency may request the denial of a passport on several regulatory grounds under 22 CFR 51.60. The principal law enforcement reasons for passport denial are a valid unsealed federal warrant of arrest, a federal or state criminal court order, a condition of parole or probation forbidding departure from the United States (or the jurisdiction of the court), or a request for extradition.

So a passport may be denied if the applicant has a criminal record of one kind or another. And yet the FBI is telling us that if someone joins a terror group it’s fine and dandy for them to come back home. They’re entitled. Not to worry. We’ll monitor them.

Oh, ok. Sure.

And what about this? Last year Edward Snowden’s passport was revoked. If we revoked his passport for all the obvious reasons, why can’t we revoke the passports (and I would argue citizenship) of Americans who travel abroad to fight with terrorists and who may then return home?

Meanwhile, on the matter of revocation of citizenship, here’s some information from the State Department web site that cites reasons that would justify revoking a person’s citizenship:

Although a person's enlistment in the armed forces of a foreign country may not constitute a violation of U.S. law, it could subject him or her to the provisions of Section 349(a)(3) of the INA [8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(3)] which provides for loss of U.S. nationality if a U.S national voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. nationality enters or serves in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the United States or serves in the armed forces of any foreign country as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer.

Military service in foreign countries, however, usually does not cause loss of nationality since an intention to relinquish nationality  normally is lacking.  In adjudicating loss of nationality cases, the Department has established an administrative presumption that a person serving in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities against the United States does not have the intention to relinquish nationality.  On the other hand, voluntary service in the armed forces of a state engaged in hostilities against the United States could be viewed as indicative of an intention to relinquish U.S. nationality.

I find the entire premise of this insane. If an American fights with terrorists, in order to revoke their citizenship we must also determine if the little darling wanted to relinquish their US nationality. That’s missing the entire point. Who cares if the jihadist wants to reject their American citizenship? They are now an enemy of the state and it is up to us to determine what to do with them. The jihadist’s desire to retain, or reject, their US citizenship is irrelevant.

A 2-year-old could figure this out. It’s not that hard. And yet those in charge seem determined to thwart our ability to protect and defend ourselves at all cost.

But don’t worry. The State Department does have some areas where the guidelines and language and straight-forward, strong, and clear:

The issue of child support enforcement is a high priority to the United States. At the Department of State we:

  1. Provide information through the Consular Affairs Internet home page;

  2. Deny passport services, except for direct return to the United States, to persons the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support Enforcement (HHS/ACF/OCSE) certifies as $2500 or more in arrears;

  3. Negotiate international child support agreements; and

  4. Facilitate communication among parents, U.S. states, foreign countries, and other U.S. Government agencies on this important subject.

If you owe $2,500 or more in child support, you are not eligible to receive a U.S. passport. 

Whew! That’s good to know. For a minute there I thought we were in trouble. Now all we have to do is hope and pray that the folks joining ISIS and trying to return home are also behind on child support.

Scotland Yard broke up a group planning to carry out mass beheadings on the streets of London. Should we expect similar threats here in the United States?  Fox News reported on a Daily Telegraph story about an ISIS plot to carry out mass beheadings on the streets of London.

Gretchen Carlson interviewed Con Coughlin, Daily Telegraph Defense Editor. Per Coughlin:

[Scotland Yard] uncovered the first ISIS plot here in the UK, basically British jihadists coming back to London and wanting to carry out a plot and I’m told the plot was to behead people on the streets of London…What I’m told about this plot is this group that had recently come back from Syria was planning to carry out beheadings, I say plural, on the streets of London in the next few days or so and this plot has been disrupted.

Carlson called it “startling” and asked how Scotland Yard broke this up “just in time.”

Before I continue with excerpts of the interview, I would like to interject that there is nothing startling about it. It was predictable. And much as I hate to say it, it is likely just the beginning. Because the West is, and has been weak, as the enemy has grown stronger every day.

In addition, we cannot rely on “just in time” to save ourselves. I applaud all intelligence and law enforcement efforts that intercept plots before innocent people are harmed. But we cannot to depend on this as our primary form of national security. We need an overarching strategy to address Islamic evil.

For starters, we need to stop lying about who the enemy is, what their motives are, and what their goals are. The enemy is telling us all we need to know, as does the Koran. There’s no mystery to solve. The enemy are those who act on the Koran's violent teachings. The goal is world domination. None of this is rocket science.  

The West is so far behind the eight ball. And time is running out to play catch up. Would that anyone was even proposing a way to catch up. Instead, as Coughlin answered Carlson’s question about Scotland Yard’s investigation, it seems intelligence services were “watching the activities of ISIS people on the ground in Syria and Iraq, watching their movements.”

Incredible. We know where the enemy is. And we’re just watching them move about.

I have an idea. How about we kill them?

Carlson also asked how it was possible for the jihadists to get back into the country since the UK banned such re-entry if a person leaves the country to fight with terrorists. According to Coughlin, it seems no one knew what their travel route was.

And that’s not all that’s disappeared through the intelligence cracks.

Megyn Kelly also conducted an interview on this story with Human Rights Attorney Brooke Goldstein. Per Goldstein, there are 500 British citizens who have been fighting for ISIS or other Islamist terror groups and that 250 of them have returned to the United Kingdom.

But the UK police have no idea where they are.

Kelly asked if it could happen here.

Well, I hate to state the obvious, but: Yes. Of course it can happen here.

First of all, we don’t need to wait for Americans fighting for ISIS to return home, though that is obviously an enormous threat. As is the threat of British (or other) citizens who joined terror groups who are now lost to surveillance as they can also fly to the United States to inflict harm.

But a Muslim need not travel overseas to be inspired by terrorists. All he needs to do is go on line, attend a mosque, or read the Koran. Even if a plot to commit mass beheadings in the United States has not been uncovered, we’ve already seen the horror of what can happen when a Muslim in America becomes inspired by ISIS and decides to take action, as occurred in Oklahoma last month.

We’ve also seen this madness unfold in Great Britain when Lee Rigby was butchered in broad daylight. We’ve seen the threat of beheadings in Australia. We’ve seen Americans and British citizens beheaded in the Middle East.

Islamic evil knows no borders. We already have Americans fighting for ISIS and then returning to the United States. Per a recent 60 Minutes report, FBI Director James Comey stated that Americans who travel abroad to fight for ISIS are “entitled” to come back home. He went on to say there are about a dozen Americans who have returned home after fighting with ISIS.

“About a dozen.

Give or take, I guess. No problem if there are a few who may be flying under the radar. We’ve got about a dozen. And the FBI is tracking all of them.

Probably.

Is Comey confident he knows where all of them are?

Sort of.

Because, “I don’t know what I don’t know.”

Wow, it sounds like he’s already getting his talking points ready for future hearings.

And none of this addresses one’s confidence in the FBI’s ability to stay on top of this issue without making a single error or oversight, as well as whether any of us can trust what they’re telling us.

But let me loop back for a moment to Comey’s statement that these jihadists being entitled to come back home by saying this:

No they’re not! From both a legal and a common sense perspective.

Per Legal Match:

Your passport may be revoked, restricted, or limited for the same reasons your passport application can be denied. These reasons include (bolding is mine):

  • You have an outstanding felony arrest warrant.
  • A court order forbids you from leaving the United States.
  • A court order commits you to a mental institution.
  • You have been subpoenaed to appear in the prosecution of a felony.
  • You are a convicted drug trafficker.
  • You are declared legally incompetent.
  • You engage in activities abroad that cause, or are likely to cause, serious damage to United States security or foreign policy.
  • You obtained your passport through fraud.

Per the State Department:

A federal or state law enforcement agency may request the denial of a passport on several regulatory grounds under 22 CFR 51.60. The principal law enforcement reasons for passport denial are a valid unsealed federal warrant of arrest, a federal or state criminal court order, a condition of parole or probation forbidding departure from the United States (or the jurisdiction of the court), or a request for extradition.

So a passport may be denied if the applicant has a criminal record of one kind or another. And yet the FBI is telling us that if someone joins a terror group it’s fine and dandy for them to come back home. They’re entitled. Not to worry. We’ll monitor them.

Oh, ok. Sure.

And what about this? Last year Edward Snowden’s passport was revoked. If we revoked his passport for all the obvious reasons, why can’t we revoke the passports (and I would argue citizenship) of Americans who travel abroad to fight with terrorists and who may then return home?

Meanwhile, on the matter of revocation of citizenship, here’s some information from the State Department web site that cites reasons that would justify revoking a person’s citizenship:

Although a person's enlistment in the armed forces of a foreign country may not constitute a violation of U.S. law, it could subject him or her to the provisions of Section 349(a)(3) of the INA [8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(3)] which provides for loss of U.S. nationality if a U.S national voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. nationality enters or serves in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the United States or serves in the armed forces of any foreign country as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer.

Military service in foreign countries, however, usually does not cause loss of nationality since an intention to relinquish nationality  normally is lacking.  In adjudicating loss of nationality cases, the Department has established an administrative presumption that a person serving in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities against the United States does not have the intention to relinquish nationality.  On the other hand, voluntary service in the armed forces of a state engaged in hostilities against the United States could be viewed as indicative of an intention to relinquish U.S. nationality.

I find the entire premise of this insane. If an American fights with terrorists, in order to revoke their citizenship we must also determine if the little darling wanted to relinquish their US nationality. That’s missing the entire point. Who cares if the jihadist wants to reject their American citizenship? They are now an enemy of the state and it is up to us to determine what to do with them. The jihadist’s desire to retain, or reject, their US citizenship is irrelevant.

A 2-year-old could figure this out. It’s not that hard. And yet those in charge seem determined to thwart our ability to protect and defend ourselves at all cost.

But don’t worry. The State Department does have some areas where the guidelines and language and straight-forward, strong, and clear:

The issue of child support enforcement is a high priority to the United States. At the Department of State we:

  1. Provide information through the Consular Affairs Internet home page;

  2. Deny passport services, except for direct return to the United States, to persons the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support Enforcement (HHS/ACF/OCSE) certifies as $2500 or more in arrears;

  3. Negotiate international child support agreements; and

  4. Facilitate communication among parents, U.S. states, foreign countries, and other U.S. Government agencies on this important subject.

If you owe $2,500 or more in child support, you are not eligible to receive a U.S. passport. 

Whew! That’s good to know. For a minute there I thought we were in trouble. Now all we have to do is hope and pray that the folks joining ISIS and trying to return home are also behind on child support.