Homeland Security

Napolitano needs to go

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano needs to go. Immediately. For the safety and security of the nation. It's not personal, it's just that, well, Americans would prefer not to risk getting blown to smithereens just to spare President Obama the "embarrassment" of having to fire one of his Cabinet members and to spare Napolitano some hurt feelings. Especially after both urged Americans to give them the benefit of the doubt after the Fort Hood massacre.
Unlike the economy's ups and downs, a terrorist attack or attempted attack cannot be spun by the spinmeisters. At least not successfully and certainly not with any moral fiber. It is what it is. And the failure of Obama to keep the nation safe after former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney managed to do so after 9/11 is, interestingly, talked about very little in the mainstream media. I guess they are too busy wiping all of that egg off their faces.


Napolitano, a crisis waiting to happen

Anyone who has an elementary understanding of crisis management, from all that has been learned through the mindless catastrophes of major corporations and governments, would expect Janet Napolitano, U.S. secretary of homeland security, to eagerly express her deep sorrow for the mismanagement of the failed terrorist attempt of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.
However, the American people couldn’t have possibly prepared themselves for Napolitano outrageously claiming the system, designed to keep the citizens of America safe from the barbaric attacks of fundamentalist savages, worked in this situation. She has really spit on the intelligence of the American people with this one.


An insufficient response

The Obama administration's response to a foiled terrorist incident that could have taken hundreds of lives is laughable. It took a day for Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to take back her statement — echoed by White House spokesman Robert Gibbs on Sunday shows — that the system worked. It "worked" when a passenger had to subdue a terrorist and put out a fire intended to kill everyone aboard because our "system" had allowed Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to board a one-way plane without luggage, bound for the United States with his intact U.S.-issued visa, despite his father warning authorities that his son had been radicalized and posed a potential danger.


Under cover at the White House

At a more innocent time in Washington — the LBJ era — someone with the same name as mine attended a presidential bill signing, one I had been invited to, though my invitation went to him. As the present media and government rend their garments over how an uninvited couple got into a hot-ticket White House dinner for the prime minister of India, recalling my earlier experience reminds how times have changed in our age of national-security anxiety.


Moral misbehavior and the ticking bomb

The discussions about the responsibility of high-ranking federal officials in the Defense Department, CIA and Vice President’s Office, and the lawyers who advised them about the legality of torture, seem to be going nowhere. How we define torture and when it is permissible seem more appropriate questions for philosophers than politicians. Reading the lawyers’ analyses about whether throwing someone against a wall or how long it is OK to pour water down someone’s throat makes for some weird jurisprudence. Behind the torture question is the provocative “ticking bomb” rationale.


The absurdity of trying 9/11 terrorists in New York City

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who blithely admits to planning the Sept. 11 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people in downtown New York, deserves to be put to death. Less clear is Attorney General Eric Holder’s statement last week that New York City was the best venue to pursue the case against them.

This is plainly absurd. Holding the trial in New York puts a big bull’s-eye on the downtown area. It is common sense that holding the trial in the twice-attacked lower Manhattan community makes it more likely New York will be attacked again. Moreover, the cost of providing security for the trial could easily exceed $100 million for a city that is already embroiled in a fiscal crisis.


Jihadist in our midst

In all likelihood, the tragedy at Fort Hood would have been avoided if political correctness hadn’t led military and government officials to turn a blind eye to clear signs that Maj. Hasan had become an Islamist extremist.

Even now, after the full extent of this tragedy has sunk in, Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey has warned the public not to make any connections between Maj. Hasan and Muslims. “As great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty, as well," said Gen. Casey.

It is true that this tragedy should not become an excuse to nurture irrational fear and loathing of Muslims. But we cannot become so neutered by political correctness that we ignore the facts. Maj. Hasan’s killing spree was the most deadly act of terrorism on American soil since Sept. 11, 2001.


New York trials: Smart or dumb (or not sure)?

There is no question that the decision to try the five terrorists (excuse me, alleged terrorists) in New York City has produced a heated and important debate. Everyone and their brother is weighing in on this one.

 The questions raised are almost as interesting as the answers: Is this better or worse for the U.S. and the world than a military trial? Is this, as many believe, a slam-dunk case, with the death penalty the result? Does a trial at the “scene of the crime,” on U.S. soil, result in a “Nuremberg” effect? Do these five become martyrs, or does this show the world the horrendous acts of extremists, pushing Muslims away from violence and terrorism? What happens if they were to get off on some sort of “technicality”? Does a trial in New York invite another terrorist attack, or would a military tribunal at Gitmo be more likely to produce such an attack? Is this a potential political disaster for President Barack Obama and the Democrats, or will this further Obama’s efforts to truly get a handle on the problem of international terrorism?


'One-way ticket to meet Allah'

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is now conscious and being nursed back to health by hospital staff, just days after he opened fire at the Fort Hood Readiness Center, massacring 13 servicemen and -women and injuring 30.

It is inconceivable to me that we are actually helping this man live. Hasan worshipped at the same Virginia mosque that two Sept. 11 hijackers attended in 2001 — a time when radical imam Anwar al Awlaki preached there. Awaki, who now lives in Yemen and who preaches global jihad against the U.S., praised Hasan’s atrocious slaughter of U.S. servicemen as “the Right Thing" and called Hasan a "hero."


FBI asleep at the switch — again

On Tuesday, President Obama gave a very moving eulogy to the 13 Americans shot and killed last week at Fort Hood. But the more we learn about the killer, the more we have to wonder whether this was a mass murder that could have been avoided.

Maj. Nidal Hasan didn’t just crack suddenly and pick up a gun. He had methodically planned to kill — a lot of soldiers. He brought his own handguns onto the base in order to do so. And, almost as if he wanted to be stopped, he let drop several warnings ahead of time.