A Quick Correction

In my last post I stated that the San Bernardino attacker, Tashfeen Malik, was not interviewed before being allowed to enter the United States. A good friend of mine (who is in the know) pointed out that this was incorrect, so I did some additional research. Here is what I found.

1.  Malik was attempting to enter the United States on a K-1 "fiancé visa." She did not meet her husband in person before being allowed to enter. The initial reports were that Malik was not interviewed. This report stemmed from statements made to Congress by Leon Rodriguez, the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. According to Mr. Rodriguez: "We only interview people in the K-1 Visa program where there is some issue that needs to be explored." He also reported that Malik's application did not "raise any red flags," so he could not say whether she was interviewed.

2.  Malik was in fact interviewed. The agency official who interviewed Malik followed the standard protocol, including a mandatory interview. Malik was asked a series of questions designed to test whether she actually knew her future husband, or whether her application was a sham. She passed two additional mandatory background checks, as did her future husband.

3.  Malik was not asked about radical social media posts or her Jihadist leanings. There are two reasons for this. First, her application did not raise red flags, so no further inquiry was deemed necessary. Second, social media postings are either "off limits" or "rarely checked" for K-1 applicants, depending on which anonymous administration official is providing the story.

Final Thoughts

There is room for disagreement about whether our immigration system is robust or broken, efficient or inefficient. I am, however, less comforted after doing additional research. Rather than circumventing our immigration system as I originally stated, these terrorists actually followed the procedures to the letter (aside from lying about their intentions). That fact reminds us of the Bush era mantra: "We have to be right 100% of the time. They only have to get lucky once." There is little doubt in my mind that our brave men and women on the front lines, both here and abroad, are doing everything in their power to prevent another attack. There is little doubt in my mind that additional, likely worse attacks, have been thwarted. But, the terrorists got lucky and Americans were attacked. More Americans are likely to be attacked. If we can provide more resources and a better framework for those on the front lines, we will have a better outcome. The future of our nation depends on it.

Closed Schools are Just the Beginning

Merry Christmas. We can all rest easy now. The anonymous email, sent through secure servers in Germany, threatening to blow up schools and assault them with armed men, was a hoax. That silly school superintendent who shut down all the schools in Los Angeles overreacted. Let's move along, there is nothing to see here.

Or maybe is there...

Even a superficial analysis of last week's "hoax" should cause us to be deeply concerned. For starters, if it were not for the L.A. Superintendent closing the schools, we would never have known about the threat. Millions of parents would have sent their children to school unaware that someone was threatening to blow them to bits. Think about that for a second. When someone phones in a bomb threat to a courthouse, it is evacuated. When someone phones in a bomb threat to a school in the ordinary manner, it is evacuated. When someone says "I have a bomb" on an airplane, it is immediately diverted to the nearest airport. When someone says "bomb" in the security line at that same airport, they are tackled, arrested and detained indefinitely. Yet, when someone uses encrypted servers to threaten school children in metropolitan areas, the FBI, DHS and President keep it to themselves. Because, somehow, they were absolutely certain that it was a hoax. It's a good thing they were right. Otherwise, they would have been entirely responsible for the consequences of risking your child's life without your informed consent.

It is absurd. It is the obvious politicization of our safety and the safety of our families. Our government does not want to "cause panic" by keeping us informed. This is obviously because they think we are too childish to handle the truth about bombs, and threats, and encrypted servers and terrorists. Let us revisit the past few years.

Obama withdraws from Iraq and ISIS takes form. It rapidly spreads across the Middle East using organic messaging, social media and violence. At the same time, our borders are wide open as a mass migration from South and Central America overwhelms our border enforcement. We have no idea who came into this country or who continues to come into this country undetected. "Mass shootings," according to the left, have become commonplace. ISIS sleeper cells, communicating with the Islamic State, shoot up Charlie Hebdo in France and then, a year later, assault Paris, killing 150 people. Social media messages from the Islamic State warn that America is the real target and "blood will be spilled." Several weeks later, two Muslim terrorists who conspired to defeat our weak immigration laws, take to the streets with assault weapons, kill 14 people and wound 22. It would have been much worse but for the fact that a SWAT team just happened to be training for such an attack two miles away. We know these Jihadis were trained overseas and were waiting for the right time to strike. They sent 105 encrypted email messages to the Middle East the morning of the attack. In other words, it was planned. 

We are vulnerable and we have been for years. Only a complete idiot would choose to believe that terrorists are not, at this very moment, dreaming up new and horrifying ways to kill our children in schools, night clubs, movie theaters, shopping malls and churches. Only an idiot. The Los Angeles "hoax" has revealed to us exactly how vulnerable and unprepared we really are. The truth is, we have no idea when or where the next attack will come from. We cannot possibly say for sure whether something is a real threat or a hoax, or a serious attempt to probe our readiness. Our readiness is pretty much at level zero. 

More frighting, however, is lesson number two. Our government is still living in denial. It's one thing for our citizens to go about their daily lives with a false sense of security. It's something entirely different for our professionals and leaders to ignore the obvious and deceive our citizens into believing that we are, mostly, safe.

Let's be extra clear about this. We have been at war with Jihadism for the better part of thirty years. That conflict has certainly become more intense over the past few years, but it is not a new conflict and terrorist tactics have not changed. They will hit soft targets. They will target our loved ones because they cannot fight a traditional war. They will use dirty weapons and dirty tactics. They will personalize the fight and try to bring it right to our doorsteps. They have no moral limitations, and they can be fairly characterized as evil. It is also worth keeping in mind that they are extremely violent, having demonstrated a level of brutality not seen since the Middle Ages.

In my last post, I suggested that everyone should arm themselves and prepare for a fight. That's good advice in normal times. But, in these perilous times, where we know our government will conceal threats from us, where we have no idea where or when or what our fight will be, where the consequences of living in denial are so extreme, it is more than just a good idea. It is our patriotic duty.