Still Stuck in a 9/10 Mentality

Terror suspect Najibullah Zazi has done us all a favor. But is this enough to rouse a nation in permanent snooze-button mode?

The arrest of Zazi, a Colorado-based Afghan who counterterrorism officials believe may have been plotting bomb attacks on New York City mass-transit trains, raised alerts on rail lines across the country.

The bust reminded America that while the annual September 11 memorials are over, the jihadi threat looms. Yet homeland security remains crippled by a 9/10 mentality.

Remember: The New York chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against the New York Police Department a few years ago to try to stop random bag searches. The civil liberties absolutists are against random searches because they constitute "unreasonable" invasions of privacy.

They're against targeted searches because they amount to racial, religious or ethnic "profiling." And they're against across-the-board searches because they lack "individualized suspicion."

The suit against NYPD's random bag-search policy ultimately failed, but litigation both real and threatened continues to tie the hands of homeland security and law enforcement officials. This summer, a judge cleared the way for a lawsuit against federal and Minneapolis airport officers by the infamous "flying imams." They are the six Muslim clerics whose suspicious behavior -- fanning out in the cabin before take-off, refusing to sit in their assigned seats -- led to their removal by a US Airways crew in 2006.

Over at the Justice Department, Attorney General Eric Holder is committed to eliminating racial "disparities" in law enforcement. His anti-profiling allies at the ACLU and something called the "Rights Working Group" want to end Bush administration counterterrorism initiatives, "including FBI surveillance and questioning, special registration programs, border stops, immigration enforcement programs and the creation of 'no fly lists.'"

Previously...

Note: The following post is a quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2222376/posts

Sept. 10 mindset raises U.S. vulnerability to terror [says DeMint]
The Post & Courier, Charleston, SC ^ | 2009-04-04 | U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint
Posted on April 4, 2009 11:24:37 AM PDT by rabscuttle385

One of the greatest threats to the security of the United States is not from a military, but from a psychology of denial. It is the Sept. 10 mentality that minimizes the threat posed by jihadist terrorism and rejects the idea we are even at war at all. According to this thinking, suicide bombers, their leaders and financiers are nothing more than street-corner criminals; a problem for our criminal justice system, not our armed forces.

A quick look at terrorism in the 1990s exposes the inadequacy of the Sept. 10 mindset. In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed. In 1995, a car bomb exploded outside a U.S. government office in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. In 1996, the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia were bombed. In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed. And in 2000, the USS Cole was bombed. After each of these terrorist attacks, all of which took American lives, President Clinton promised criminal investigations. The flaw of this policy proved fatal on September 11, 2001 — prosecuting terrorists after they kill does nothing to thwart future attacks.

After Sept. 11, President George W. Bush changed our policy from one of prosecution to prevention. Rather than wait for terrorists to attack and throw a few of them in jail, President Bush sought to stop the terrorists before they struck. Despite some mistakes of implementation, the success of this policy is indisputable. It has been seven years and five months since the last terrorist attack on American soil, and tens of thousands of terrorists have been killed or captured since we finally began fighting back. Of those, less than one-tenth of one percent have been deemed so dangerous or of such high intelligence value that they have been detained as enemy combatants and shipped to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Despite the success of this program — and with the harrowing events of 9/11 conveniently receding into the distance — President Barack Obama has signed an executive order to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, where 245 of the world’s most dangerous terrorists are being held. Unfortunately, President Obama has offered no clear alternative plan and seems indifferent to the logistical and security concerns surrounding this potentially disastrous policy decision. After all, what are we going to do with those 245 terrorists? Some have already been slated for military tribunals, but tribunals have been temporarily shut down to allow the new administration to study the system. What about the rest? During the campaign, President Obama praised the old policy of trying captured terrorists in civilian court. But what about those detainees whose public trials would expose national security secrets? Will our intelligence community be forced to decide between a conviction in court or keeping a source of information classified so more terrorists can be captured? What about terrorists detained in the future, for instance during his proposed surge of troops into Afghanistan? Where will they be sent?

President Obama has not answered these questions, and with good reason. Several countries have taken detainees from Guantanamo Bay only to release them, allowing them back to the front lines and to once again fight U.S. forces. And if President Obama can’t convince foreign governments to take all of the detainees, the president’s order will force U.S. cities to host them — which could include the Naval Brig in Charleston. A recent Pentagon report concluded that Guantanamo detainees have been treated humanely. And as commander in chief, Obama has the constitutional authority to order the Navy to make whatever reforms at the facility he deems necessary. But the president’s executive order is a symbolic gesture to his Sept. 10 fringe, and it will put American communities in danger.

To truly secure our nation, President Obama should reverse course and do two things. First, reaffirm the right of our military to detain enemy terrorists. And second, design a commission or national security court system capable of processing current and future terrorist detainees without disclosing intelligence secrets.

The men being held at Guantanamo Bay are there for a reason — their commitment to murdering Americans. That’s why I joined Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma in introducing legislation to prohibit moving any detainees at Guantanamo Bay to the U.S. Without a realistic plan, the president’s policy to “close Gitmo” is much worse than an empty promise — it creates a new and unnecessary danger to the people of the United States of America. It’s not Sept. 10 anymore, and these detainees aren’t just common criminals.

Jim DeMint, a Republican, is the junior U.S. senator from South Carolina.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.