It's Time To Revisit U.S. Terror PolicyPresident Barack Obama came into office vowing to change the tone on terrorism and swiftly set about transforming the war on terror into a law enforcement exercise that places a greater emphasis on apprehension and prosecution than it does on deterrence. After two recent terrorist attacks on the United States — one successful, one failed — this is a good point at which to stop and examine whether the new strategy is working to keep Americans safe. The attempted Christmas Day bombing of a flight landing in Detroit by an al-Qaida-linked Nigerian suspect raises serious concerns about the nation's ability to deter terrorist attacks. Despite premature declarations from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano that "the system worked," the system failed miserably. Only the good fortune that the terrorist couldn't detonate his bomb kept Northwest Flight 253 from becoming a horrific holiday tragedy. Several issues must be addressed. Chief among them is why Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was allowed to get on a flight to the United States. His name is on a list of possible terrorists, and yet his two-year U.S. tourist visa was never revoked. The State Department shouldn't be giving visas to any of the 550,000 people worldwide identified as terror risks. Some people on that list certainly may be wrongfully named. But it's better to offend an innocent few than to risk allowing a bona-fide terrorist access to the country. Congress should look at sharing responsibility for issuing visas between the State and Homeland Security departments, so that at least one set of eyes looks at visitor requests with the potential for terror in mind. Better airport screening policies and equipment are also in order. If the current practices can't detect the sort of explosive device that Abdulmutallab strapped to his leg, then upgrades are needed and should be put in place as soon as possible. But beyond procedures, Congress should have a vigorous debate about whether the administration's approach to preventing terror is valid. The Obama administration is determined to treat terrorists as criminals.
Similarly, intelligence agencies had information that should have raised suspicions about Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan before he went on his rampage at Fort Hood last month. Were we less free to act in advance under the rules of a criminal investigation than we should have been? What are the links, if any, between the Fort Hood massacre and the botched airliner bombing? Abdulmutallab reportedly was schooled by al-Qaida in Yemen, a country of growing concern. Hasan also had connections to Yemeni al-Qaida members. The U.S. intelligence agencies are moving to get a handle on terror activity there. Should more be done? Congress should fully air these issues and questions. Unfortunately, its ability to do so is limited by a lack of cooperation from the Obama administration. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Holland, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, says that requests for the information needed to hold hearings have been rebuffed. "We need to look at where we've drawn the line on policy and see if it's where it needs to be, or does it need to be moved," Hoekstra says. "The only way policy can be moved is by joint action by Congress and the administration." Obama was heavily motivated in shifting terror policy by a desire to improve the United States' standing in the international community and, in his words, to return the nation to its values. But terrorists shouldn't be allowed to use our values against us. Nor should we make appeasing America's critics a greater priority than keeping our own people safe. We got lucky on Christmas Day. Some would say we got a Christmas miracle. But luck and miracles are no substitute for aggressive deterrence. REPRINTED FROM THE DETROIT NEWS DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM
|
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
