7 Feb

Senate Fort Hood report whitewashes Obama’s culpability [Reader Post]

                                       

One year ago I noted that: “All three major domestic terror attacks of 2009 were directly enabled by Obama’s reverse-profiling orders, exempting Muslims from scrutiny.”

First was the shooting of two soldiers at a Little Rock Army recruiting office. Shortly after Obama ordered our intelligence agencies to “back off” from investigating black Muslims, a black Muslim who had previously been under surveillance killied one soldier and critically wounded another.

The case of the Christmas 2009 “underwear bomber” indicates that Obama’s “back off” command extended to ALL Muslims. According to one State Department employee, watch-list monitors were: “encouraged to not create the appearance that we are profiling or targeting Muslims.” The employee admitted that this policy was the reason Abdulmutallab was not flagged for scrutiny after the British denied him a visa for trying to attend a phony school in England, proving that State Department personnel understood Obama’s policy as a general order not to investigate Muslims, even when they had cause that had nothing to do with a person being Muslim.

This reverse-discrimination goes beyond counter-terrorism. The recent Civil Rights Commission report on Obama’s DOJ found a systematic refusal to enforce civil rights law against minority perpetrators on behalf of white victims, and Barack “I will stand with the Muslims” Obama has made it perfectly clear that he places Muslims on the favored side of that unequal justice.

The Fort Hood massacre itself also suggests that Obama’s counter-terrorism “back off” command extended to all Muslims. It came out in November 2009 that agents dropped their Nidal Hasan investigation because they deemed his communications with al Qaeda leader Awlaki to be protected speech:

U.S. officials now confirm Hasan sent as many as 20 e-mails to Awlaki. Authorities intercepted the e-mails but later deemed them innocent or protected by the first amendment.

Could such a glaring misapplication of the First Amendment have occurred if agents were not looking for ways to give Muslims special consideration? Not likely.

The Senate’s “Ticking Time Bomb” report fails to mention Obama’s reverse-profiling orders, or the First Amendment excuse for ignoring Hasan’s emails to al Qaeda

The Senate report covers up the Obama administration’s First Amendment excuse by attributing the dropped Hasan-Alwaki ball to confusion of responsibilities between regional and central Joint Terrorism Task Force offices (p. 85):

There was a fundamental disjunction between the San Diego JTTF and the Washington JTTF concerning who was responsible for investigating [REDACTED] communications between Hasan and the Suspected Terrorist. … As a result, the FBI’s inquiry into Hasan was terminated prematurely.

Sorry, but the Obamatons admitted otherwise. The Senate report does do some dancing around the First Amendment issue. Page 57 notes that investigations are required to be protective of First Amendment rights:

Also as discussed in the Guide, investigations or assessments are precluded appropriately – “based solely on the exercise of First Amendment protected activities or on the race, ethnicity, national origin or religion of the subject.

But there is no discussion about what this means and how it might apply to Hasan. To consist with what the First Amendment actually requires, the stated rule should be understood to mean that investigations must be based on concerns that go beyond what trouble someone might cause by exercising his right to free speech. Thus the question for agents should have been whether, in listening to Hasan, they found reason to worry that he would go beyond saying nasty things and start doing nasty things.

The answer to that question was a glaring “yes.” Page 31 of the Senate report lists some of Hasan’s worrisome conduct:

• Giving a class presentation perceived as so supportive of violent Islamist extremist conflict against the United States that it was almost immediately stopped by an instructor after classmates erupted in opposition to Hasan’s views.

• Justifying suicide bombings in class at least twice, according to the accounts of classmates.

• Suggesting in writing in his proposals for presentations that some actions of Osama bin Laden may be justified.

• Telling several classmates that his religion took precedence over the U.S. Constitution he swore a military oath to support and defend.

• Stating three times in writing that Muslim-Americans in the military could be prone to fratricide.

Hasan was not hiding the fact that he was likely to go beyond just saying nasty things, but the Senate report can’t be bothered to clarify what the First Amendment actually requires.

The conclusion of the report includes another brush with the First Amendment issue, finding on p. 87 that:

JTTF personnel never cited any legal restrictions as the reason that
Hasan’s communications were not shared with DoD counter intelligence officials.

But this finding is about the sharing of information. It is not about the failure of the Joint Terrorism Task Forces to keep investigating Hasan on their own. Thus it does not cover the question of whether First Amendment concerns were the reason the JTTFs gave Hasan’s emails to Awlaki a pass, as unnamed Obama administration “officials” claimed. In short, the Senate report does consider whether legal restrictions came into play, but it ignores the one such restriction that was front page news!

Given the direct evidence that the First Amendment WAS misapplied, this should have been a key subject for Senate review. Was it ignored despite the strong evidence of why the egregious misapplication occurred: that Obama had issued sweeping orders NOT to investigate Muslims? Or was it ignored because of the strong evidence that Obama is to blame?

The report notes the obvious: that “political correctness” is out of control in the Department of Defense (p. 31), but it completely ignores all that we know about WHY the politically correct thing at this point in time is to give even the most dangerous Muslim’s a pass. It ignores the clear evidence that failure to investigate Muslims is a top-down policy directive from President Obama himself.

That is a dangerous whitewash, which is about what we should expect from a bi-partisan effort. Republicans should know by now: if we want to get to the truth of anything, we can’t rely at any point on Democrats.

This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Fanatical Islam, Homegrown Jihadi, Islam, Law Enforcement, political correctness, Politics, War On Terror. Bookmark the permalink. Monday, February 7th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
| 967 views

9 Responses to Senate Fort Hood report whitewashes Obama’s culpability [Reader Post]

  1. FAITH7 says: 1

    The start of EVIL is here. If Americans particularly our GOVERMENT and POLICY MAKERS and LAW MAKERS don’t act in a more determined offensive fashion, more Evil will infiltrate into this country.

    Our policy makers and Law makers need to get their ‘liberal heads’ out of the middle east sand!

    What make this situation even worse? Look how long it has taken anyone in our Government to plug up the dam hole along our US Mexico Border. AND there needs to be more scrutiny / Security along the Canadian Border!! Arrrgggg!!

    While our eyes are fixed on the Mexico / US Border… Evil will be slipping through the Canadian Border!!

    Evil is on its way… thanks to Liberals.

    ReplyReply
  2. anticsrocks says: 2

    As usual, the Utopian world view shared by all Liberals does nothing more than bring misery and woe. His asinine policy of reverse racism that doesn’t allow thorough screening of Muslims is directly responsible for the deaths it has created.

    ReplyReply
  3. cali says: 3

    The questions remain – how many Hassans are therewithin our Armed Forces? As long as Obama is in office, they will go on against their oath they swore to uphold our Constitution.
    It is clear that Obama immediately stopped tracking not only muslims, but especially ‘black’ muslims, reversing all terror related policies of the Bush admin.

    ReplyReply
  4. Pingback: 51% of American think hussein doesn't get reelected - VolNation

  5. retire05 says: 4

    Alec, it goes much, much deeper than you described.

    The investigation into Nidal Hassan was dropped in April/May of 2009, just shortly after Obama had taken office. And let us not forget who is Attorney General. Eric Holder’s own law firm represents Gitmo detainees, and they (his law firm) were the ones who negotiated the release of the Ughers from Gitmo. Of course, Holder’s [former] law firm [one I am sure he will return to] represents these terrorists pro bono. Their expenses are paid by the American taxpayer.

    Now we are watching Egypt in chaos. And our national policy has been so vacillating that you never know which side Obama is on today. But remember this; in January, 2010 the ban preventing Tariq Ramadam from entering our nation was lifted by the Obama administration. Ramadam is the head of Muslim Brotherhood/Europe, and is the grandson of Hassan al Banna who founded the Muslim Brotherhood. President Bush had denied Ramadam entry based on his radical views and the fact that Ramadam has contributed to a Swiss group that funded terrorism. Crowley decided that the simple act of contributing to a terrorist group was not sufficient reason to block Ramadam from entering the U.S.

    The report that you discussed is nothing but a CYA for the Obama administration. Those orders come from the top when national security is at risk, and to think that it was some lackey who made the decision to drop the investigation into Hassan is as crazy as thinking it was some lackey in DoJ that decided to let the already convicted New Black Panthers walk.

    We are in deep trouble, my friend. I hope we can keep our fat out of the fire until Obama can be replaced, but with each passing day I become a little less secure in that hope.

    ReplyReply
  6. L. E. Liesner says: 5

    If you were expecting a honest forthright report, the Senate run by Harry Reid is not the place you will get it. These liberals are not only covering up for Obama and his administration, they have to cover up their own complicity in it too. The liberals have been coddling the terrorist for years and nobody has done anything about it, or will do anything about it. Our borders are a joke and the Department of Homeland Security is nothing but a bureaucratic comedy trying to act like the Keystone Kops. All this has to be swept under the rug. The truth shall not prevail in this political setting.

    ReplyReply
  7. Johan says: 6

    Alec, your “back off” link doesn’t say who gave the order. In fact it states “At this point, it is unclear to us if that guidance was given by the White House or the Department of Justice, or if it was promulgated by the agencies themselves, anticipating the wishes of President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder. ”

    There have also been long running investigations of black muslims. We have seen the arrests.

    If you truly believe the things you write in your articles, why misrepresent the facts? Can you please be more honest with your readers?

    ReplyReply
  8. Nan G says: 7

    @Johan:
    the last arrest I’ve seen of a Black Muslim (Nation of Islam) was Malcom X’s daughter (she might not be a Black Muslim.
    She was just arrested in Feb 2011 in North Carolina, facing extradition to NYState.
    Her crimes?
    Grand larceny, forgery and identity theft.
    After going on his Hajj to Mecca, her dad, Malcom X left the Nation of Islam because it was racist.
    He died, assassinated by NOI shooters, a Sunni Muslim.
    This story about his daughter is found in the British press.
    Our press has it, as well.

    ReplyReply
  9. Alec Rawls says: 8

    Johan wants to make a distinction between Obama ordering our intelligence agencies to back off from investigating black Muslims or some Obama lieutenant ordering it in anticipation of Obama’s wishes. Really? Obama is not responsible for complete turn-arounds in policy that happen in his administration?

    If anything, the latter “in anticipation of Obama’s wishes” possibility is worse, because it means Obama gave even broader indications that he wanted hands off of blacks and Muslims. How else could Holder et al issue such a radical order even without explicit direction?

    The anonymous “back off” report was backed up by the details of the Little Rock assassination, where it is known that the black Muslim who shot the Army officers had previously under investigation, and that the investigation had stopped not long after the reported order would have been given (just as in the Fort Hood case).

    Johan’s counter-evidence: that Obama’s orders did not succeed in stopping ALL of our law enforcement and intelligence agents from doing their jobs. SOME of them are still willing to investigate and arrest black Muslims.

    For omitting these ridiculous distinctions, I am somehow being dishonest. Ankle biter.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>