Joel Mowbray writes in Frontpage about the DHS policy of "Setting Terrorists Free"
The Department of Homeland Security is releasing drug smugglers and human traffickers, and perhaps even suspected terrorists and violent felons, as a matter of policy — because it doesn’t have the resources to keep them in custody.In a classified memo issued last fall, the DHS laid out “priorities” for handling illegal aliens who’ve been apprehended within the United States.
In a bullet-point list, the October 2004 memo — obtained exclusively by this columnist — separates all captured illegals into four categories: “Mandatory,” “High Priority,” “Medium Priority,” and “Lower Priority.”
Only the worst violent felons (think rapists and murderers), individuals known to be terrorists, and those who have been previously deported are deemed “mandatory” holds. Everyone else can be released if no space is available.
Among illegals not deemed “mandatory” holds:
"Aliens who are subject to an ongoing national security investigation."
Aliens whom we aren't sure are terrorists but who still "raise a national security concern" based on "specific information or intelligence specific to the individual" — in other words, suspected terrorists.
Aliens who "exhibit specific, articulable intelligence-based risk factors for terrorism or national security concern."
Perhaps more disturbing: Buried beneath the four groups listed as “mandatory” and eight as “high priority,” suspected drug smugglers and human traffickers are merely “medium priority.”...
Read it all.
"Aliens who are subject to an ongoing national security investigation."
Forget about more ' investigation"- bring on the firing squads...
No money to spare to properly secure American borders, yet billions can be found for constructing Bush's islamic republic in Iraq?
Which is more vital to American security interests?
Excellent point, Belisarius.
The shortsightedness of the Bush administration in the lax security or indeed total non-securing of its borders, coupled with whatever laws or ordinances allow the profligate building of mosques all over the country, is an open invitation to invasion/takeover of the entire country by muslims (and no, I will not use the pc term 'islamists.) A pincer movement from without. A community-level-embedded movment from within.
It therefore does not matter what efforts Bush expends on moderating islam abroad. The most devout muslims now reside in the West. |They see us as easy prey.
It is no coincidence that there is such a large concentration of muslim settlements along the American/Canadian border, or that the ummah is expending such efforts on converting the Mexicans.
Mosque building has a purpose. The ideal for muslims is to have a mosque every few blocks, ostensibly as places of prayer. But mosques are not holy in our sense. They are also arms-depots, the prayer-niche in Arabic translating as 'place of war', the imam calling to war and receiving his share of the booty, booty being so important to muslims.
Many of the ulema, however, do not yet feel the time is ripe for takeover. Muslims are not yet strong enough; there are not yet enough mosques/arms-depots, for one thing. The ulema therefore condemns the young firebrands, those impetuous young things, who jump the gun and slaughter the likes of Theo Van Gogh and the children in Beslan.
But make no mistake about it, America is, in my humble opinion, very much first in the firing line. In fact I would say it is the first target, before Europe, although Europe is certainly under more 'islamisation pressure' sans doute.
Were muslims to take over in any European country, before America was secured for islam, they would not only have to reckon with retaliation from other European countries (one hopes), but also from America.
On the other hand, if America is the first to be 'opened up' to the freedom of islam, then Europe will follow, as night follows day.
The greatest threat to the takeover of America through dawa, through various kind of intimidation, legal and otherwise, is the 'jumping of the gun' by terrorists.
Terrorism, in the ulema's view, will be more effective when the population is already intimidated, cowed, brainwashed, politically-corrected, in whipping the most recalcitrant into line. Terrorism before the time is ripe is counterproductive, it will only turn people against islam, hence the great efforts, to counter the effects of present terrorism, to teach people the 'real islam'.
I would think the ulema is thanking American security bodies for stopping further atrocities on American soil, because such would be counterproductive for them. Its motto is to hasten slowly. We have to learn to take the long view.
In some ways, I would imagine the ulema is somewhat on the horns of a dilemma: America is armed and Europe is not. To take over Europe first would be to take it over in a day, but America would come to its aid. (Hence the all-too-successful efforts to cause a split in Euro/American friendship.)
Hence the lack of muslim crime and atrocities in America. America is being softened up: build the mosques, get the arms in place, convince everyone they are moderate, and then when the time is deemed to be ripe, open fire on a micro-mosque level, take the casualites. Then, with America subdued, finish off the job in defenceless Europe. Voila.